7: Definition of Śleṣa Alaṃkāra

Śleṣa is a figure of speech which created lot of contradictions of opinion regarding its nature. The basic question is whether to consider it as a śabdālaṃkāra or an arthālaṃkāra or as an ubhayālaṃkāra. There are strong arguments supporting all these three views on the figure.

Bhāmaha is the first rhetorician who treats the figure and his definition indicates that he regards śleṣa or śliṣṭa predominantly as an arthālaṃkāra—

upamānena yattattvaṃ upameyasya sādhyate/
guṇakriyābhyāṃ nāmnāca śliṣṭaṃ tadabhidhīyate//
  —Kāvyālaṃkāra (of Bhāmaha) 3.14.

—When the identity of the upameya with the upamāna is pointed out with the help of an action or an attribute or a name, the figure is called śleṣa or śliṣṭa.

Bhāmaha observes that this definition applies to the figure rūpaka also as simultaneous description of the upameya and the upamāna is required in both the figures^[1] . The only difference between the two figures is that in śleṣa the identity of the upameya with the upamāna is expressed by a paronomastic word.

Daṇḍin considers śleṣa as an arthālaṃkāra and gives a general definition of the figure—

śliṣṭamiṣṭamanekārthamekarūpānvitaṃ vacaḥ/
  —Kāvyādarśa (of Daṇḍin) 2.310.

—Śleṣa or śliṣṭa is created where a group of words have one certain form but convey many meanings.

The two basic varieties of the figure admitted by Daṇḍin are abhinnapada and bhinnapadaprāya.

Bhoja echoes the definition of Daṇḍin^[2] but he furnishes a six-fold classification of the figure—

1. bhinnapada,
2. abhinnapada,
3. bhinnakriyā,
4. abhinnakriyā,
5. bhinnakāraka and
6. abhinnakāraka.

Daṇḍin asserts that śleṣa can constitute the basis of many figures (Kāvyādarśa 2.313.).

According to him, the crooked speech (vakrokti) which is one of the two basic methods of composing literary creation is enhanced by all means through the use of śleṣa—

śleṣaḥ sarvāsu puṣṇāti prāyo vakroktiṣu śriyam/
  —Kāvyādarśa (of Daṇḍin) 2.363.

Udbhaṭa goes on further to state that the figures whi ch are in commixture with śleṣa are to be regarded as varieties of śleṣa and not as separate individual figures^[3] . This theory of Udbhaṭāhas been explained by his commentator Indurāja. Śleṣa or śliṣṭa always co-exists with other figure but those other figures have their own independent scopes. So if śleṣa is not regarded as the dominant figure in a commixture it will lose its scope entirely. Therefore śleṣa should be considered as an ‘apavāda’ rule in grammar. Just like the ‘apavāda’ rule subverts all other accompanying rules, the figure śleṣa overshadows other accompanying figures. Ruyyaka, Viśvanātha, Jagannātha etc. have, however, rejected this view of Udbhaṭā. They argue that śleṣa can have scopes of its own and it does not always need the company of other figures. Again, when śleṣa is found in accompaniment with other figures, the dominance of śleṣa is not a universal rule.

Vāmana also treats the figure śleṣa as an arthālaṃkāra and defines the figure as—

sadharmeṣu tantraprayoge śleṣaḥ/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.7.

In the following vṛtti he further clarifies this definition—

upamānenopameyasya dharmeṣu guṇakriyāśabdarūpeṣu sa tattvāropaḥ /
tantraprayoge tantreṇoccāraṇesati śleṣaḥ/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.7. vṛtti.

—The śleṣa occurs when the upamāna imposes its identity upon the quality, action and name of the upameya by means of ‘tantra’^[4] or coalescence of letter-sounds.

Vāmana illustrates śleṣa with the following verse—

ākṛṣṭā'malamaṇḍalāgrarucayaḥ sannaddhavakṣaḥsthalāḥ
soṣmāṇo vraṇitāvipakṣahṛdayapronmāthinaḥ karkaśāḥ/
udvṛttāguravaśca yasya śaminaḥ śyāmāyamānānanā
yodhāvāravadhūstanāśca na daduḥ kṣobhaṃ sa vo'vyājjinaḥ//

—This verse praises the ‘Jina’ of Jainism as—

“May the calm and collected great Jina bless you, whom neither the fierce warriors nor the breasts of the women succeeded in disturbing.”

Coalescent words like “ākṛṣṭā'malamaṇḍalāgrarucayaḥ”, “sannaddhavakṣaḥsthalāḥ”, “soṣmāṇaḥ”, “vraṇitāḥ” etc. are used here which apply both to the upamāna warriors and to the upameya breasts of women. The Kāmadhenu commentator has explained in details the nature of these coalescent words which are similar in sound but have different meanings (Kāmadhenu, Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.7.). The sense of similarity is very much present here and there is also the imposition of identity of the upamāna on the upameya on the basis of quality and action.

Later rhetoricians like Ruyyaka, Mammaṭa, Viśvanātha etc. have recognised śabdaśleṣa and arthaśleṣa as distinct figures of sound and sense respectively. Mammaṭa clarifies that in śabdaśleṣa the paronomastic word cannot be changed with a synonym while in arthaśleṣa this exchange can be performed successfully. Again, in arthaśleṣa, the use of paronomastic words conveys the sense of similarity between the upamāna and the upameya which is absent in śabdaśleṣa. Śabdaśleṣa occurs when there is coalescence in lettersounds in words with different meanings and arthaśleṣa originates where several meanings can be formed from a single sentence^[5] .

Udbhaṭa (Kāvyālaṃkārasārasaṃgraha 4.9.) also mentions śabdaśliṣṭa and arthaśliṣṭa as divisions of śliṣṭa or śleṣa but he considers them both as arthālaṃkāras. According to him, when two forms of words are exactly alike in accent (svara), effort (prayatna) etc. it is called arthaśliṣṭa and when two forms of words are similar but they differ in accent (svara), effort (prayatna) etc. it is called śabdaśliṣṭa. The criterion of difference between these two varieties is thus ‘ekaprayatnoccāraṇa’ according to Udbhaṭā. Ruyyaka supports this view of Udbhaṭa and asserts that śabdaśleṣa tolerates breaking of words very often and thus it can be ‘sabhaṅga’ but the arthaśleṣa cannot be of ‘sabhaṅga’ type as there is no difference of svara, prayatna etc. to be found there^[6] . He also furnishes a third variety of the figure called ubhayaśleṣa.

Mammaṭa mentions sabhaṅgaśleṣa and abhaṅgaśleṣa as sub-varieties of śabdaśleṣa. He gives eight varieties of sabhaṅgaśleṣa—

1. varṇa,
2. pada,
3. liṅga,
4. bhāṣā,
5. prakṛti,
6. pratyaya,
7. vibhakti and
8. vacana.

Bhoja (Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa 2.69.) has also furnished six varieties of śabdaśleṣa—

1. prakṛti,
2. pratyaya,
3. vibhakti,
4. vacana,
5. pada and
6. bhāṣā.

He includes liṅgaśleṣa as a variety of prakṛtiśleṣa and varṇaśleṣa as a variety of padaśleṣa.

Rudraṭa (Kāvyalaṃkāra (of Rudraṭā) 10.2.) has regarded śleṣa as a basic principle for sub-dividing figures and he includes ten figures under this broad sphere of śleṣa—

1. aviśeṣa,
2. virodha,
3. adhika,
4. vakra,
5. vyāja,
6. ukti,
7. asaṃbhava,
8. avayava,
9. tattva and
10. virodhābhāsa.

From the various opinions of the Sanskrit rhetoricians on the figure śleṣa we can point out some distinct features of the figure. They are as follows—

i) Śleṣa or śliṣṭa is one of the ancient and dominant figures in Sanskrit Poetics. Udbhaṭa consid ers śleṣa as an arthālaṃkāra only. Later rhetoricians like Mammaṭa etc. have considered it as both śabdālaṃkāra and arthālaṃkāra.

ii) Śleṣa involves paronomastic or coalescent words. These words can create charm by conveying their double meanings or they can bring about a sense of comparison between the upamāna and the upameya.

Vāmana’s treatment of the figure śleṣa is quite general in nature. He predominately accepts the figure as an arthālaṃkāra. He points out that in this figure the identity of the upamāna is imposed upon the upameya by means of coalescence of letter-sounds (tantra). Interestingly, this ‘tantra’ has been recognised as a feature of śabdaśleṣa by Bhoja (Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa (of Bhoja) 2.68.). So, the nature of Vāmana’s śleṣa as an arthālaṃkāra seems to be not quite comprehensive. Vāmana’s notion of the figure is perhaps an improvisation upon his predecessor Bhāmaha.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

lakṣaṇaṃ rūpake'pīdaṃ lakṣyate kāmamatra tu/
iṣṭaḥ prayogo yugapadupamānopameyayoḥ//
  —Kāvyālaṃkāra (of Bhāmaha) 3.15.

[2]:

śleṣo'nekārthakathanaṃ padenaikena kathyate/
  —Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa (of Bhoja) 4.85.

[3]:

alaṃkārāntaragatāṃ pratibhāṃ janayat padaiḥ/
dvividhairarthaśabdoktiviśiṣṭaṃ tat pratīyatām//
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasārasaṃgraha (of Udbhaṭā) 4.10.

[4]:

anekopakārakārisakṛduccāraṇaṃ tantram/
  —Kāmadhenu, Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.7.

[5]:

vācyabhedena bhinnāyat yugapadbhāṣaṇaspṛśaḥ/
śliṣyanti sabdāḥ śleṣo'sāvakṣarādibhiraṣṭadhā//
  —Kāvya-prakāśa (of Mammaṭa) 9.119. &

śleṣaḥ sa vākye ekasmin yatrānekārthatābhavet/
  —Kāvya-prakāśa (of Mammaṭa) 10.143.

[6]:

tatrodāttādisvarabhedāt payatnabhedācca śabdānyatve śabdaśleṣaḥ /
yatra prāyeṇa padabhaṅgo bhavati /
arthaśleṣastu yatra svarādibhedo nāsti /
ata eva na tatra sabhaṅgapadatvam/
  —Alaṃkārasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-96.