A matchless match - a case of an exchange on a shared ground: Kumārila and ananvayālaṃkāra

Around the 6th-7th century CE, Kumārila-bhaṭṭa a representative of the exegetical tradition of Mīmāṃsā, discussed the classification of the various layers of the Vedas (a matter of importance to the Vedic exegesis) in his Tantravārttika, an extensive commentary on the first three adhyāyas of the Mīmāṃsāsūtras of Jaimini (ca. 4th-2nd century BCE?) and the Bhāṣya thereon of Śabara (ca. 5th century CE). Besides injunctions, Mīmāṃsā specialists distinguished exhortative passages (arthavādas), ritual formulas (mantras), and names of rituals (nāmadheyas) in the Vedas. A discussion around the latter category prompted Kumārila’s short analysis of the cognitive and hermeneutical function of similarity (sādṛśya), in which he quoted a verse allegedly sourced from the Rāmāyaṇa: rāmarāvaṇayor yuddham… . Some century later, the same quotation resurfaced in Vāmana’s Kāvyālaṃkāra, in the discussion of similarity (or, in this case, incomparability, ananvaya) as a literary trope. The earlier alaṃkāra theoreticians had not used the example, even though they had had their view on the use of ananvaya, while the later Mīmāṃsā authors would replace the rāmarāvaṇayor… illustration with other examples under the nāmadheya rubric, only taking over the technical term ananvaya itself a couple of centuries later. In the article, I outline the history and usage of both the alleged Rāmāyaṇa quote and ananvaya, whereby I highlight some moments of the exchange of ideas between the Mīmāṃsā and alaṃkāra traditions, while emphasising their respective contexts and needs for such appropriations.