365bet娱乐

啶�啶ム��,
啶む�嵿さ啶む��-啶�啶距う啶距き啷嵿く啶距�� 啶膏ぎ啶� 啶曕�嵿さ啶距お啶� 啶ㄠぞ啶膏�嵿い啶� 啶氞た啶む�嵿��-啶灌ぐ啶� 啶掂た啶�啷� |
啶︵�囙�� 啶む�嵿さ啶む��-啶膏う啷冟ざ啶� 啶灌ぞ啶班た 啶曕ぅ啶�啷� 啶嗋じ啷嵿い啶距�� 啶溹�椸い啷�-啶む�嵿ぐ啶�啷� 啷�

测补迟丑腻,
tvat-p膩d膩bhy膩峁� sama峁� kv膩pi n膩sti citta-hara峁� vibho |
deva tvat-sad峁浥沘峁� 丑腻谤颈 katham 膩st膩峁� jagat-traye ||

迟惫补迟-辫腻诲腻产丑测腻尘鈥攖o Your feet; samam鈥攕颈尘颈濒补谤; kva api鈥攁苍测飞丑别谤别; na asti鈥攖here is no; citta鈥攖he mind; haram鈥擺a thing] which takes away; vibho鈥擮 You who pervade; deva鈥擮 Lord; 迟惫补迟-蝉补诲峁浥沘尘鈥攕imilar to You (as the upameya); 丑腻谤颈鈥撵补蝉肠颈苍补迟颈苍驳; katham鈥攈辞飞?; 腻蝉迟腻尘鈥攊t could exist; jagat-traye鈥攊n the three worlds.

O Lord, Your feet blow me away like nothing else. In the three worlds, You are beyond compare.

Commentary:

Baladeva Vidy膩bh奴峁�a峁嘺 declines the nominal base tvad-辫腻诲补 (Your feet) in the third case when the genitive case is expected here, by Mamma峁璦鈥檚 rule that the genitive case signifies the upameya (10.3).^[1] As usual, Kavikar峁嘺p奴ra follows Mamma峁璦.^[2] However, Mamma峁璦 himself digresses from the rule (Commentary 10.14). This makes sense when it is obvious what the upameya is or what the 耻辫补尘腻苍补 is. By that rule, seen in the works of Da峁囜笉墨, Rudra峁璦 (Commentary 10.226), and so on, Baladeva Vidy膩bh奴峁�a峁嘺鈥檚 example means: 鈥淣othing blows me away like Your feet.鈥� This expresses the nonmention of an upameya. Mamma峁璦 omitted to created this category.

In grammar, a word connected with tulya and the like takes either the third case or the sixth case,^[3] and no distinction of 鈥�耻辫补尘腻苍补鈥� and 鈥�upameya鈥� is made: 谤腻尘别峁嘺 迟耻濒测补岣� 办峁涐梗峁嘺岣�, r膩masya tulyo v膩 (Hari-苍腻尘腻尘峁泃补-惫测腻办补谤补峁嘺 677 惫峁泃迟颈). Mamma峁璦 complicated the matter. The charm of the complication is apparent when a commentator explains a simile in a compound. For instance, the words 苍腻谤腻测补峁嘺-samo gu峁嘺i岣�, 鈥淗e is similar to N膩r膩ya峁嘺 in terms of qualities鈥� (叠丑腻驳补惫补迟补尘 10.8.19) are analyzed either as n膩r膩ya峁噀na samo gu峁嘺i岣� or as 苍腻谤腻测补峁嘺sya samo gu峁嘺i岣�.^[4] By Mamma峁璦鈥檚 rule, the first interpretation means that N膩r膩ya峁嘺 is the 耻辫补尘腻苍补 and 碍峁涐梗峁嘺 is the upameya, whereas the second interpretation signifies the opposite. A different sense is implied from each analysis, by the well-known fact that an 耻辫补尘腻苍补 is superior to an upameya. However, not all commentators respect Mamma峁璦鈥檚 rule; San膩tana Gosv膩m墨 uses the 产补丑耻惫谤墨丑颈 formula: gu峁嚹乨ibhir n膩r膩ya峁噀na 蝉补尘补岣�. [鈥�] yadv膩 gu峁嚹乨ibhir 苍腻谤腻测补峁嘺 eva samo yasyeti n膩r膩ya峁嚹乨 api m膩h膩tmyam 补诲丑颈办补峁� bodhitam, upam膩n膩d upameyasya ki帽cit s膩d峁浥泍a-m膩tre峁嘺 ny奴nat膩patte岣�, 鈥淚n terms of qualities and so on, He compares to N膩r膩ya峁嘺 (苍腻谤腻测补峁嘺-蝉补尘补岣� = n膩r膩ya峁噀na 蝉补尘补岣�). Alternatively: 鈥淗is like is N膩r膩ya峁嘺鈥� (苍腻谤腻测补峁嘺-蝉补尘补岣� = 苍腻谤腻测补峁嘺岣� eva 蝉补尘补岣� yasya): In this way it is perceived that His glory is even superior to N膩r膩ya峁嘺鈥檚 glory, because an upameya has only some similarity to an 耻辫补尘腻苍补鈥� (叠峁沨补诲-惫补颈峁ａ箛补惫补-迟辞峁�a峁嚹� 10.8.19).

Further, according to Mamma峁璦 the gist of the elision of the 耻辫补尘腻苍补 is not that there is no 耻辫补尘腻苍补. The idea is simply that the 耻辫补尘腻苍补 is not mentioned (补苍耻辫腻诲腻苍补) (10.8).^[5] The purpose of this distinction is to avoid a similarity with an implied ananvaya ornament (self-comparison) (10.27). Thus Baladeva Vidy膩bh奴峁�a峁嘺鈥檚 verse illustrates an ananvaya-dhvani.

This is Mamma峁璦鈥檚 example of an elliptical indirect simile in a sentence characterized by the ellipsis of the standard of comparison (耻辫补尘腻苍补-lupt膩 膩rth墨 蝉补尘腻蝉补-驳腻):

sakala-kara峁嘺-para-vi艣r膩ma-艣r墨-vitara峁嘺峁� na sarasa-办腻惫测补sya |
d峁浥泍ate athav膩 ni艣amyate sad峁浥沘m a峁兣浤佱箖艣a-m膩tre峁嘺 || (Sanskrit rendering)

鈥淚n the matter of effusing a splendor that obliterates the perception of the external world, relishable poetry compares to nothing that has been seen or heard of, even by a fraction of a fraction鈥� (碍腻惫测补-辫谤补办腻艣补, verse 400).

A good movie obliterates the perception of the external world. A movie is an offshoot of dramaturgy, one of the two broad categories of 办腻惫测补 (literature). Still, Govinda 峁琱补办办耻谤补 doubts the validity of Mamma峁璦鈥檚 example. In that line of thought, N膩ge艣a 叠丑补峁�峁�补 says here Mamma峁璦 disregarded his rule; and poetry is meant to be expressed as the 耻辫补尘腻苍补, (standard of comparison), by the model that even if the word 鈥渕oon鈥� in 鈥渕oon-like face鈥� were declined in the sixth case, it would still have the force of an 耻辫补尘腻苍补, since it is well known as such. Thus according to N膩ge艣a 叠丑补峁�峁�补 here Mamma峁璦 should have said that the verse features the ellipsis of an upameya. He says Mamma峁璦 intends to portray poetry as the upameya in order to raise its eminence because by nature the subject of description is an upameya.^[6] 艢谤墨惫补迟蝉补-濒腻帽肠丑补苍补 Bha峁�峁�膩c膩rya says the standard of comparison which was omitted is: Brahman.^[7]

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

鈥�tena 迟耻濒测补峁� mukham鈥� ity-膩d膩v upameye eva 鈥渢at tulyam asya鈥� ity-膩dau copam膩ne eva 鈥渋da峁� ca tac ca tulyam鈥� ity ubhayatr膩pi tuly膩di-艣abd膩n膩峁� vi艣r膩ntir iti (碍腻惫测补-辫谤补办腻艣补 10.87).

[2]:

tena 迟耻濒测补峁� 办谤颈测腻 ced vatir ity anena vihitena vatin膩 c膩rth墨. tatra tena tulyam iti tac-chabda 耻辫补尘腻苍补-辫补谤补岣�. tulya-艣补产诲补 upameya-辫补谤补岣�. tasya tulyam ity atra 惫颈辫补谤测补测补岣�. 耻产丑补测补峁� tulyam ity ubhaya-苍颈峁ａ弓丑补岣�. (础濒补峁卥腻谤补-办补耻蝉迟耻产丑补 8.5)

[3]:

tuly膩rthair atulopam膩bhy膩峁� t峁泃墨y膩nyatarasy膩m (础峁ａ弓腻诲丑测腻测墨 2.3.72).

[4]:

n膩r膩ya峁噀na eva para-vyoma-patin膩 蝉补尘补岣� (Baladeva Vidy膩bh奴峁�a峁嘺鈥檚 痴补颈峁ａ箛补惫腻苍补苍诲颈苍墨 10.8.19); 苍腻谤腻测补峁嘺-samo 苍腻谤腻测补峁嘺sya 蝉补尘补岣� (痴补濒濒补产丑腻肠腻谤测补鈥檚 厂耻产辞诲丑颈苍墨 10.8.19).

[5]:

ata evopam膩n膩nup膩d膩na ity uktam na tv asattva iti, vastv-antarasya vi艣i峁�y膩nup膩d膩nam膩tre峁噊pam膩na-lopa-惫测补惫补丑腻谤补岣�. eten膩nanvayo鈥檛rety ap膩stam. ananvaya upam膩n膩sattvasyaiva vivak峁�itatv膩t (Uddyota on 碍腻惫测补-辫谤补办腻艣补, verse 400).

[6]:

atra vi艣e峁�ata 耻辫补尘腻苍补峁� nop膩ttam. cintyam etat (碍腻惫测补-prad墨pa); cintyam etad iti, tad-产墨箩补峁� tu 办腻惫测补m ev膩tropam膩nam. candrasya sad峁浥沘峁� mukham ity-膩dau candrasyaivopam膩nat膩vagam膩t. eva峁� copameya-lopa iti vaktum ucitam iti. 耻诲诲丑腻谤补蝉 tu 办腻惫测补sya samam ity asya 办腻惫测补-ni峁ａ弓has膩d峁浥泍a-pratiyog墨ty 补谤迟丑补岣�. 办腻惫测补sya var峁嘺n墨yatayotkar峁Ｄ亂opameyasya vivak峁�itatv膩d ity 膩hu岣� (Uddyota).

[7]:

asambhava-vivak峁�ay膩 tad-upam膩n膩nup膩d膩nam. yadv膩 para-brahm膩dikam 耻辫补尘腻苍补峁� nop膩ttam iti (厂腻谤补-产辞诲丑颈苍墨).