Kavyalankarasarasamgraha 7.57

7.57

nanu "kopādekatarāghātanipatanmattadantinaḥ /
harerhariṇayuddheṣu kiyānvyākṣepavistaraḥ"ityevamādāvapi aprastutapraśaṃsāyāmiṣṭārthapratibimbanidarśanaṃ vidyate /
tathāhi---atra rāmadevasya mārīcavadhe vyāpāro nirāyāso hariṇahananodyogikasarikiśorapratibimbitatvena nidarśitaḥ /
ato 'trāpi dṛṣṭāntatāprasaṅgaḥ /
naitat /
yata etadarthameva vispaṣṭagrahaṇamupāttam /
atra hi pratibambādeva bimbasyonnayanādvispaṣṭarūpatayā iṣṭasyārthasya pratibimbanidarśanaṃ nāsti /
yatra tu iṣṭamarthaṃ svakaṇṭhenopādāya tasya pratibimbamupadarśyate tatra dṛṣṭāntatvam /
ato nātavyāptiḥ /
upamādāvapyetvaṃvidhasya rūpasya saṃbhava iti tannirākaraṇārthamuktam---yathevādipadaiḥ śūnyamiti /
ādigrahaṇenātra sādhāraṇadharmasyāpi parigrahaḥ /
tasyodāharaṇam----

Objection: In passages like: “When Hari drops a rutting elephant with a single blow in anger, / how much hesitation is there in battles with deer?”, even in indirect commendation there is an exhibition of the reflection of an intended matter. / For instance, here Lord Rāma's effortless action in slaying Mārīca is exhibited as reflected in the lion cub embarking upon killing deer. / Hence, the contingency arises of being an exemplar here as well. / [Reply:] This is not so; / because the word ‘distinct’ was adopted for this very reason. / For here, since the original is inferred only from the reflection, there is no exhibition of a reflection of the intended matter in a distinct manner. / But where the intended matter is grasped by its own explicit mention and its reflection is exhibited, there exemplar-hood exists. / Hence there is no overextension. / Since such a form is possible even in simile and the like, to refute that it is said: “devoid of words such as ‘like’”. / By the mention of ‘and the like’ (ādi), common property is also comprehended here. / Its example: