365bet娱乐

痴腻尘补苍补 has defined and illustrated twenty-nine 补谤迟丑腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉. He deals with the 鈥榤other鈥� figure 耻辫补尘腻 in the second chapter of the 腻濒补峁僰腻谤颈办补 补诲丑颈办补谤补峁嘺. We come across the word 耻辫补尘腻 as early as the age of the 峁欢惫别诲补^[1]. 驰腻蝉办补, the author of Nirukta, has pointed out that some of the 苍颈辫腻迟补蝉 like iva, na, 测补迟丑腻, vat etc. are used in the sense of 耻辫补尘腻 in the 峁欢惫别诲补^[2] .

He furnishes five varieties of 耻辫补尘腻 with illustrations鈥�

1. 办补谤尘辞辫补尘腻,
2. 产丑奴迟辞辫补尘腻,
3. 谤奴辫辞辫补尘腻,
4. 蝉颈诲诲丑辞辫补尘腻 and
5. 濒耻辫迟辞辫补尘腻 or 补谤迟丑辞辫补尘腻.

However, the word 耻辫补尘腻 itself has several meanings other than similarity in the Vedic literature. Apart from the Vedas, words like upamita and 耻辫补尘腻na can be traced in the famous 础峁ａ弓腻诲丑测腻测墨 of 笔腻峁噄苍颈^[3] . The prominence of 耻辫补尘腻 as an individual figure of speech based on similarity is, however, established by the Sanskrit rhetoricians. 鲍辫补尘腻 holds the prime position among the figures of sense and is recognized by all Sanskrit rhetoricians.

鲍辫补尘腻 is one of the four ancient figures admitted by Bharata in his 狈腻峁瓂补艣腻蝉迟谤补. He defines the figure 补蝉鈥�

yatki帽cit 办腻惫测补bandhesu s膩d峁浥泍enopam墨yate/
耻辫补尘腻n膩ma vij帽ey膩gu峁嚹乲峁泃isam膩艣ray膩//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敱纺遽弓y补艣腻蝉迟谤补 (of Bharata) 17.82.

鈥擶hen in a poetical composition, a comparison is made on the basis of similarity relating to quality and form, it is called 耻辫补尘腻.

Bharata states that the comparison in 耻辫补尘腻 can be made by comparing one with one or many, or of many with one or of many with many^[4] . He also furnishes five varieties of the figure based on 辫谤补艣补峁僺腻 (praise), 苍颈苍诲腻 (censure), 办补濒辫颈迟腻 (imagination), 蝉补诲峁浥浤� (uniqueness or comparison to itself) and ki帽cit 蝉补诲峁浥浤� (partial similarity)^[5] .

叠丑腻尘补丑补 defines the figure 补蝉鈥�

viruddheno辫补尘腻nena de艣ak膩lakriy膩dibhi岣�/
upameyasya yat 蝉腻尘测补峁� gu峁嘺le艣ena so辫补尘腻//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥�碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补 (of 叠丑腻尘补丑补) 2.30.

鈥擶hen the upameya which is different from 耻辫补尘腻na in terms of place, time or action is shown as similar to it on account of a small resemblance, the figure is called 耻辫补尘腻.

叠丑腻尘补丑补 suggests two varieties of the figure鈥攐ne where the word 测补迟丑腻 or iva is used to express the resemblance between the upameya and the 耻辫补尘腻na and another where these words are not used and the resemblance is hidden in a compound word (碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补 (of 叠丑腻尘补丑补) 2.31-32.). These two varieties can be identified with the popular divisions of the figure 辫奴谤峁噊辫补尘腻 and 濒耻辫迟辞辫补尘腻 respectively.

顿补峁囜笉颈苍 has defined 耻辫补尘腻 in close accordance to the 狈腻峁瓂补艣腻蝉迟谤补鈥�

测补迟丑腻katha帽cit 蝉腻诲峁浥泍补峁� yatrodbh奴ta峁� prat墨yate/
耻辫补尘腻n膩ma s膩迟补蝉测腻岣� prapa帽co'ya峁� nidar艣yate//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥擪膩vy膩dar艣a (of 顿补峁囜笉颈苍) 2.14.

This is one of the most general definitions of the figure. The words 鈥�测补迟丑腻 katha帽cit鈥� and 鈥�蝉腻诲峁浥泍补峁�鈥� are to be found in the definition of 狈腻峁瓂补艣腻蝉迟谤补 also. Though the specific mention of the technical terms upameya and 耻辫补尘腻na do not appear in the definition, the word 鈥�蝉腻诲峁浥泍补峁�鈥� includes in itself any kind of comparison in poetical composition. With this wide and ambiguous view about the figure 耻辫补尘腻 and 蝉腻诲峁浥泍补, 顿补峁囜笉颈苍 mentions more than thirty varieties of the figure. Lot of these varieties of 耻辫补尘腻 have been later on excluded from the sphere of the figure and given separate status as individual figures.

础驳苍颈辫耻谤腻峁嘺鈥� s definition^[6] and treatment of 耻辫补尘腻 has resemblance to that of 顿补峁囜笉颈苍. It also recognises a lot of varieties of the figure admitted by 顿补峁囜笉颈苍.

Ke艣avami艣ra (Ala峁僰膩ra艣ekhara 11.3.) has also put forth ten varieties of the figure which can be related to the varieties furnished by 顿补峁囜笉颈苍. 顿补峁囜笉颈苍鈥檚 classification of the figure is based on the sense of the concerned example verse and has no other technical specification. Later Sanskrit rhetoricians have, thus, rejected this type of classification of the figure and have indulged into much more technical details while classifying the figure.

痴腻尘补苍补 defines the figure 耻辫补尘腻 补蝉鈥�

耻辫补尘腻nenopameyasya 驳耻峁嘺濒别艣补迟补岣� 蝉腻尘测补m耻辫补尘腻/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.1.

鈥擳丑别 slightest resemblance of qualities between the 耻辫补尘腻na and the upameya constitutes the 耻辫补尘腻.

痴腻尘补苍补 then furnishes in detail the meanings of the terms 耻辫补尘腻na and upameya and also throws light on their relation in respect of the figure 耻辫补尘腻 in his 惫峁泃迟颈.

He elongates the two terms 耻辫补尘腻na and upameya in respect of their etymological set-up鈥�

upam墨yate 蝉腻诲峁浥泍补m膩n墨yate yenotk峁涐梗峁璦gu峁噀n膩nyat tad耻辫补尘腻nam /
yadupam墨yate ny奴nagu峁嘺峁� tadupameyam/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.1. (惫峁泃迟颈).

鈥擳丑别 耻辫补尘腻na is an object having superior qualities with which the similarity of another object (upameya) is shown.

The upameya is the object with which the 耻辫补尘腻na is compared. It has inferior qualities to that of the 耻辫补尘腻na. The similarity between 耻辫补尘腻na and upameya is pointed out in the figure 耻辫补尘腻. The similarity is based on the qualities, even sight, between the two objects.

The 碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻 commentator explains the term 鈥�驳耻峁嘺濒别艣补迟补岣�鈥� in the definition 补蝉鈥�

gu峁嚹伋鼙璨钩灸錸opameyayorutk峁涐梗峁璦dharm膩岣�/ te峁Ｄ佱箖 le艣ata ekade艣ata岣� / kvacidapi sar惫腻办膩ras膩d峁浥泍膩sambhav膩diti 产丑腻惫补岣�/
  鈥敯�腻尘补诲丑别苍��, 碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.1.

鈥擜ccording to him 驳耻峁嘺蝉 are the best qualities that 耻辫补尘腻na and upameya possess. Even a small part of these 驳耻峁嘺蝉 can lead to a concept of similarity between the two. It is impossible to have absolute similarity between the two objects of comparison.

痴腻尘补苍补 himself has raised an objection regarding the use of the words 耻辫补尘腻na and upameya in his definition of 耻辫补尘腻. These two words are relative terms and thus the mention of any one of them would indicate the other. For example, in the 蝉奴迟谤补 鈥�耻辫补尘颈迟补峁� vy膩ghr膩dibhi岣� s膩m膩ny膩prayoge鈥� (础峁ａ弓腻诲丑测腻测墨 2.1.56 of 笔腻峁噄苍颈), only 鈥�upamita鈥� or upameya has been mentioned and the 耻辫补尘腻na is indicated by it. 痴腻尘补苍补 has composed his work in the 鈥�蝉奴迟谤补-惫峁泃迟颈鈥� style which is preferred by the Grammarians. An essential feature of the grammatical 蝉奴迟谤补s is the precise and terse use of words in them^[7] . So, 痴腻尘补苍补 is keen to just ify the use of both the words 耻辫补尘腻na and upameya in his definition presented in the form of 蝉奴迟谤补. According to him, both these words are mentioned in his definition to point out that only those 耻辫补尘腻nas (and also the upameyas) that are popular and well-known among people are to be regarded as a part of the figure 耻辫补尘腻. Thus the use 鈥�尘耻办丑补峁� kamalamiva鈥� (the face is like the lotus) is to be regarded as an instance of the 耻辫补尘腻 because of its popularity among people. But 鈥�尘耻办丑补峁� kumudamiva鈥� (the face is like the lily) is not to be considered as an instance of the figure because the 耻辫补尘腻na 鈥�kumudam鈥� is not a well-known 耻辫补尘腻na for the upameya 鈥�mukham鈥�^[8] .

Vamana calls this popular upama as 濒补耻办颈办墨耻辫补尘腻鈥�

辫奴谤惫腻迟耻 濒补耻办颈办墨/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.2. 惫峁泃迟颈.

The second type of 耻辫补尘腻 is called 办补濒辫颈迟腻 (imaginary). 痴腻尘补苍补 defines this 耻辫补尘腻 补蝉鈥�

gu峁嘺b膩hulyata艣ca 办补濒辫颈迟腻/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.2.

鈥擶hen the similarity is imagined on the basis of a large number of common qualities it is called 办补濒辫颈迟腻耻辫补尘腻.

It is very much dependent on the imagination of the poet and thus is named 办补濒辫颈迟腻^[9] .

痴腻尘补苍补 again raises an objection regarding 办补濒辫颈迟腻u 辫补尘腻. The 办补濒辫颈迟腻 耻辫补尘腻 is generated from the imagination of the poet and the similarity prescribed there is not well-known and popular among people. So, it is impossible to recognise the 耻辫补尘腻na and the upameya there separately as these are names based upon similarity recognised by the people. The answer to this problem is that in 办补濒辫颈迟腻耻辫补尘腻 the 耻辫补尘腻na and the upameya are recognised by the superiority and the inferiority of the multitude of qualities ascribed to them respectively^[10] . The 耻辫补尘腻na, as stated earlier, should have the excellence of quality and the upameya should be inferior or deficient to it in terms of qualities.

痴腻尘补苍补 illustrates 办补濒辫颈迟腻耻辫补尘腻 in the following four verses鈥�

i) udgarbhah奴峁嘺taru峁嚹玶ama峁噊pamardabhugnonnatistananive艣anibha峁� him膩峁兣沷岣�/
产颈尘产补峁� 办补峁环辞谤补产颈蝉补办腻峁囜笉补办补岣嵞乺补驳补耻谤补颈谤惫颈峁ａ箛辞岣� 辫补诲补峁� prathamamagrakarairvyanakti//

鈥擳丑别 disc of the moon, which is like the breast of the pregnant H奴峁嚹亀oman pressed by her lover during dalliance, brightens up the sky with its rays which are as white as the hard stems of the lotus-plants.

Here the similarity between the breasts of the H奴峁嚹亀oman (耻辫补尘腻na) and the lunar disc (upameya) and that between the moon鈥檚 rays (upameya) and the hard lotus stems (耻辫补尘腻na) are not well-known to the ordinary people.

These similarities are imagined by the poet on the basis of a large number of common qualities present in the two objects compared.

ii) sadhyo mu峁囜笉itamattah奴峁嘺cibukapraspardhi n膩ra峁単akam/

鈥擳丑别 orange resembles the newly shaven chin of the drunk H奴峁嚹�.

Here the similarity between the orange (upameya) and the the chin of the 贬奴峁嘺 (耻辫补尘腻na) is imagined.

iii) abhinava办耻艣补s奴cispardhi kar峁噀 艣颈谤墨峁�am/

鈥擳丑别 艣颈谤墨峁�a flower in her ear is like the fresh shoot of the 办耻艣补-grass.

Here the similarity between the 艣颈谤墨峁�a flower (upameya) and the 办耻艣补-shoot (耻辫补尘腻na) is imagined.

iv) id膩ni峁� plak峁Ｄ乶膩峁� jara峁環adalavi艣le峁�acaturastibh墨n膩m膩baddhasphurita艣ukaca帽cupu峁璦nibham/
迟补迟补岣� 蝉迟谤墨峁嚹佱箖 hanta k峁�amamadharak膩nti峁� tulayitu峁� samant膩nniry膩ti sphu峁璦subhagar膩ga峁� kisalayam//

鈥擜t present the branches of the banyan tree have shed their old leaves and are possessed with new red leaves which resemble the beak of the parrot. One who is capable of comparing them with the beautiful lips of women can be considered as efficient.

Here the similarity between the red leaves of the banyan tree (upameya) and the beak of the parrot (耻辫补尘腻na) is imagined.

痴腻尘补苍补 again shows two more varieties of the figure as pad膩rtha惫峁泃迟颈 and 惫腻办y膩rtha惫峁泃迟颈鈥�

taddvaividhya峁� pada惫腻办y膩rtha惫峁泃迟颈bhed膩t/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.3.

He illustrates these two types of the figure in the following verses鈥�

i) haritatanu峁�u babhrutvagvimukt膩su 测腻蝉腻峁�
办补苍补办补办补峁嘺蝉补诲丑补谤尘腻m膩nmatho romabheda岣�/

鈥擳丑别 women whose bodies freed from the tawny skin are thrilled due to affection causing the hairs of their bodies to stand up which resemble dusts of gold.

Here the similarity is denoted by the word 鈥�办补苍补办补办补峁嘺蝉补诲丑补谤尘腻鈥� and thus it is an example of pad膩rtha惫峁泃迟颈 耻辫补尘腻.

ii) 辫腻峁囜笉测辞' yama峁僺膩rpitalambah膩ra岣� k岣穚t膩峁単ar膩go haricandanena/
膩产丑腻迟颈 b膩l膩taparaktas膩nu岣� sanirjharodg膩ra iv膩drir膩ja岣�//

鈥擳丑颈蝉 笔腻峁囜笉测补 king with the long necklace hanging over his shoulder and with his body covered with fresh sandal -paint resembles the Chief of the Mountains 贬颈尘腻濒补测补蝉 with the springs flowing along its sides and its peaks reddened with the rays of the newly risen sun.

Here the similarity is between the first and the second sentence of the verse which are upameya-惫腻办测补 and 耻辫补尘腻na-惫腻办测补 respectively.

痴腻尘补苍补 furnishes yet another two -fold division of 耻辫补尘腻鈥�

1. 辫奴谤峁噊辫补尘腻 and
2. 濒耻辫迟辞辫补尘腻.^[11]

He defines the first type 补蝉鈥�

gu峁嘺dyotako辫补尘腻nopameya艣abd膩n膩峁� s膩magrye 辫奴谤峁嚹�/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.5.

鈥擨f a comparison contains all the qualities or factors necessary to constitute 耻辫补尘腻, it is called 辫奴谤峁嚹伋鼙璨钩灸�.

The 碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻 commentator clarifies this definition further鈥�

耻辫补尘腻nopameya蝉补尘腻苍补诲丑补谤尘补蝉腻诲峁浥泍补pratip膩dak膩n膩many奴natvena prayoge 辫奴谤峁嚹�/
  鈥敯�腻尘补诲丑别苍��, 碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.5.

鈥擨f a comparison contains 耻辫补尘腻na (the standard of comparison), upameya (the object of comparison), 蝉补尘腻苍补诲丑补谤尘补 (the common property) and 蝉腻诲峁浥泍补pratip膩daka (word denoting similitude) the comparison is called 辫奴谤峁嚹� 耻辫补尘腻.

痴腻尘补苍补 gives an example of this type of 耻辫补尘腻鈥�

kamalamiva 尘耻办丑补峁� manoj帽ametat/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.5. 惫峁泃迟颈.

鈥擳丑别 face is beautiful like a lotus.

Here the lotus is 耻辫补尘腻na, the face is upameya, beauty is 蝉补尘腻苍补诲丑补谤尘补 and 鈥�iva鈥� is 蝉腻诲峁浥泍补pratipadaka艣abda.

The second type of 耻辫补尘腻 is 濒耻辫迟腻 and is defined by 痴腻尘补苍补 补蝉鈥�

lope 濒耻辫迟腻/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.6.

The 碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻 commentator again clarifies鈥�

耻辫补尘腻nopameyagu峁嘺蝉腻诲峁浥泍补pratip膩dak膩n膩峁� madhye ekasya dvayostray膩峁嚹佱箖 v膩lope 濒耻辫迟腻/
  鈥敯�腻尘补诲丑别苍��, 碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.6.

痴腻尘补苍补 illustrates this type of 耻辫补尘腻 with the following examples鈥�

i) The absence of common property鈥�

鈥�艣补艣墨惫补 谤腻箩腻鈥�

鈥擳丑别 king is like the moon.

ii) The absence of word (like iva, 测补迟丑腻 etc.) denoting similitude鈥�

鈥�诲奴谤惫补艣测腻尘别测补尘鈥�

鈥擲he is green like 诲奴谤惫补-grass.

iii) The absence of 蝉腻尘腻苍测补诲丑补谤尘补 and 蝉腻诲峁浥泍补pratip膩daka艣abda鈥�

鈥�艣补艣墨尘耻办丑墨鈥�

鈥擲he is moon-faced.

痴腻尘补苍补 states that the example of the absence of words denoting 耻辫补尘腻na and upameya have been mentioned in the following 补诲丑测腻测补 which discusses the figures based on 耻辫补尘腻^[12] . The 碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻 commentator asserts that the absence of upameya can be observed in the figure 蝉补尘腻蝉辞办迟颈 etc. whereas the absence of 耻辫补尘腻na can be seen in the figure 腻办峁�e辫补^[13] .

痴腻尘补苍补 states that 耻辫补尘腻 is generally employed in praising, condemning and describing the real state of things鈥�

stuti苍颈苍诲腻tatt惫腻办hy膩ne峁�u/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.7.

He illustrates these applications of the figure 补蝉鈥�

i) Praise (stuti)鈥�

鈥�蝉苍颈驳诲丑补峁� bhavatyam峁泃akalpamaho kalatram鈥�

鈥擜 gentle or affectionate wife is like nectar.

ii) Condemnation (苍颈苍诲腻)鈥�

鈥�丑补濒腻丑补濒补峁� vi峁�amiv膩pagu峁嘺峁� tadeva鈥�

鈥擜 wife who is devoid of good qualities is like the poison 鈥�贬补濒腻丑补濒补鈥�.

iii) Describing the real state of things (迟补迟迟惫腻办丑测腻苍补)鈥�

迟腻峁� 谤辞丑颈峁嚹�峁� vij膩n墨hi jyoti峁Ｄ乵atra ma峁囜笉ale/
yastanvi t膩rak膩ny膩sa岣� 艣aka峁� 膩k膩ram膩艣rita岣�//

鈥擜mong the galaxy of stars know that to be the 搁辞丑颈峁嚹� which appears in the shape of a cart.

痴腻尘补苍补 now points out the six defects of 耻辫补尘腻. They are 丑墨苍补迟惫补 (deficiency), adhikatva (excessiveness), 濒颈峁単补产丑别诲补 (disparity of gender), vacanabheda (disparity of number), a蝉腻诲峁浥泍补 (non-similitude) and asambhava (颈尘辫辞蝉蝉颈产颈濒颈迟测)鈥�

丑墨苍补迟惫腻诲丑颈办补迟惫补濒颈峁単补惫补肠补苍补产丑别诲腻蝉腻诲峁浥泍腻蝉补尘产丑补惫腻蝉迟补诲诲辞峁Ｄ佱弗/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.8.

Further explanations and illustrations of these defects of 耻辫补尘腻 are as follows鈥�

i) 贬墨苍补迟惫补鈥擳丑别 defect generated by the inferiority of 耻辫补尘腻na to the upameya in caste, in magnitude and in quality is called 丑墨苍补迟惫补鈥�

j膩tipram膩峁嘺dharmany奴nato辫补尘腻nasya 丑墨苍补迟惫补峁�/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.9.

The examples of the different types of 丑墨苍迟惫补 补谤别鈥�

a) 贬墨苍补迟惫补 in caste鈥�

鈥�ca峁囜笉膩lairiva yu峁�m膩bhi岣� 蝉腻丑补蝉补峁� 辫补谤补尘补峁� 办峁泃补尘鈥�

鈥擳丑颈蝉 act of great daring has been done by you like the 肠补峁囜笉腻濒补蝉.

b) 贬墨苍补迟惫补 in magnitude鈥�

鈥�vahnisphuli峁単a iva bh膩nuraya峁� cak膩sti鈥�

鈥擳丑别 sun is shining like a spark of fire.

c) 贬墨苍补迟惫补 in quality鈥�

sa munirl膩帽chito mau帽jy膩办峁涐梗峁嚹乯颈苍补辫补峁璦峁� vahan/
vyar膩jan苍墨濒补箩墨尘奴迟abh膩g膩艣li峁ａ弓a iv膩峁兣泆m膩n//

鈥擳丑别 sage who was wearing a black antelope鈥檚 skin enclosed by a griddle-string, was shinning like the sun surrounded by dark blue clouds.

痴腻尘补苍补 mentions that in the last example the 耻辫补尘腻na is the sun and the upameya is the sage. But there is no effort of stating an 耻辫补尘腻na (like 迟补岣峣迟 or lightening) for the concerned upameya 鈥�尘补耻帽箩墨鈥� (griddle-string). It is not right to say that the 耻辫补尘腻na here is 鈥�办峁涐梗峁嚹乯颈苍补辫补峁璦鈥� because in that case the mention of 鈥�尘补耻帽箩墨鈥� will be rendered fruitless. Again it will be unjust to say that the mention of 鈥�苍墨濒补箩墨尘奴迟鈥� implies the 鈥�迟补岣峣迟鈥� because there is no such necessary connection between these two.

This idea of 耻辫补尘腻nopameyabh膩va has been further clarified in the next 蝉奴迟谤补鈥�

诲丑补谤尘补测辞谤别办补苍颈谤诲别艣辞' nyasya 蝉补峁僾颈迟 蝉腻丑补肠补谤测腻迟/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.10.

鈥擶hen two objects are concomitant of each other, the mention of one of them implies the other.

An example of this concomitance is as follows鈥�

nirv峁涐梗峁璭'pi bahirdhanena viramantyantarjaradve艣mano
l奴t膩tantutaticchido madhup峁涐梗atpi峁単膩岣� payobindava岣�/
c奴岣嵞乥arbarake nipatya ka峁噄k膩bh膩vena 箩腻迟腻岣� 艣i艣ora峁単膩sph膩lanabhagnanidrag峁沨i峁嚹玞ittav测补迟丑腻d膩yina岣�//

鈥擳hough rain outside has stopped, there is no cessation of the drops of rainwater falling from within the dilapidated house which are, as because they are passing through the spider鈥檚 nets, are yellowish like the drops of honey. These drops are falling upon the curly hair of the child sleeping in the house and are making him throw about his limbs and thus causing great mental agony to the house wife whose sleep is disturbed by this incident.

The yellowness and roundness of the honey-drops are two concomitant qualities. So, the word 鈥�辫颈峁単补鈥� used in the verse to denote yellowness implies the idea of roundness (惫峁泃迟补迟惫补) also^[14] .

The same explanation implies for the instance鈥�

kanakaphalakacaturasra峁� 艣ro峁噄bimbam/

鈥擧er hips are as symmetrical as a sheet of gold.

The concomitance of symmetry and brightness can be seen in the sheet of gold. So, brightness is implied here by the mention of symmetry^[15] .

An objection is raised in this context that if the deficiency of quality is to be regarded as a defect of 耻辫补尘腻na then how the following verse can be flawless鈥�

s奴ry膩峁兣泆samm墨litalocane峁�u d墨ne峁�u padm膩nilanirmade峁�u/
s膩dhvya岣� svagehe峁�viva bhart峁沨墨n膩岣� 办别办腻vine艣u岣� 艣ikhin膩峁� mukhe峁�u//

鈥擳丑别 办别办腻 sound died in the mouths of those peacocks whose eyes were closed due to sun鈥檚 rays and who were in a sorry plight having been rendered joyless due to the wind flowing from among the lotuses. They are like the widow women living in their houses.

Here the upameya looks like having more qualities than the 耻辫补尘腻na^[16] . But 痴腻尘补苍补 refutes this objection by asserting that in this verse only some special features of the upameya have been mentioned without any intension of comparing them with the qualities of the 耻辫补尘腻na. The 蝉补尘腻苍补诲丑补谤尘补 or common property here is dainya or misery^[17] .

So the objection raised before is not tenable.

ii) Adhikatva鈥�Adhikatva is the opposite of 丑墨苍补迟惫补 and is thus explained by the definition of 丑墨苍补迟惫补 颈迟蝉别濒蹿鈥�

ten膩dhikatva峁� vy膩khy膩tam/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.11.

The excess of 耻辫补尘腻na in caste, magnitude and quality is called adhikatva.

The examples of these different types of adhikatva is as follows鈥�

a) Adhikatva in caste鈥�

鈥�vi艣antu vi峁ａ弓aya岣� 艣墨驳丑谤补峁� rudr膩iva mahaujasa岣�鈥�

鈥擫et the workers enter like the mighty Rudras.

b) Adhikatva in magnitude鈥�

p膩t膩lamiva n膩bhiste stanau k峁�itidharopamau/
ve峁嚹玠a峁囜笉a岣� punaraya峁� k膩lind墨p膩tasa峁僴ibha岣�//

鈥擸辞耻谤 naval is (deep) like the nether-world; your breasts are (voluminous) like the mountain and your braided tresses are (curvy or dark) like the fall of the 碍腻濒颈苍诲墨 (驰补尘耻苍腻).

c) Adhikatva in quality鈥�

蝉补谤补艣尘颈 肠补帽肠补濒补峁� 肠补办谤补峁� dadhaddevo vyar膩jata/
sa惫腻岣峚惫腻驳苍颈岣� s膩varta岣� srotas膩miva 苍腻测补办补岣�//

鈥擳丑别 king who is holding the moving discuss of which rays are coming out resembles the ocean with the submarine-fire and whirlpool.

痴腻尘补苍补 says that in the last example t here is a mention of the 鈥�惫腻岣峚惫腻驳苍颈鈥� (submarine-fire) in context of the 耻辫补尘腻na but nothing has been mentioned to resemble it in context of the upameya^[18] .

贬墨苍迟惫补 and adhikatva include in themselves another defect of the 耻辫补尘腻 called viparyaya (contrariety). This defect has been mentioned by 叠丑腻尘补丑补 (碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补 (of 叠丑腻尘补丑补) 2.39-40) as one of the seven 诲辞峁�a蝉 advocated by his predecessor 惭别诲丑腻惫颈苍.

The 碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻 commentator defines this defect 补蝉鈥�

upameyadharmasya 丑墨苍补迟惫补madhikatva帽ca 惫颈辫补谤测补测补岣�/
  鈥�碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻, 碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.11.

鈥擳丑别 deficiency or excessiveness of the qualities of the upameya in respect of the 耻辫补尘腻na is called viparyaya.

It is clear from this definition that this defect of 耻辫补尘腻 is really not a separate defect but rather a variation of the two defects mentioned earlier. This also makes it clear that the defects of 耻辫补尘腻 are only six in number and not more^[19] .

iii) 尝颈峁単补产丑别诲补鈥擳丑别 defect called 濒颈峁単补产丑别诲补 appears when there is contradiction in the gender of the 耻辫补尘腻na and the upameya鈥�

耻辫补尘腻nopameyayorli峁単avyaty膩so 濒颈峁単补产丑别诲补岣�/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.12.

An example of such defect 颈蝉鈥�

鈥�蝉补颈苍测腻苍颈 nadya iva jagmuranarg膩lani /鈥�

鈥擳丑别 armies went along like a river.

Here the 耻辫补尘腻na 鈥�苍补诲测补岣�鈥� is feminine and while the upameya 鈥�蝉补颈苍测腻苍颈鈥� is neuter. The 碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻 commentator gives another example鈥�

鈥�ga峁単膩prav膩ha iva tasya nirargal膩惫腻办 /鈥�

鈥擧is words are unimpeded like the flow of the Ganges.

Here the 耻辫补尘腻na 鈥�驳补峁単腻辫谤补惫腻丑补岣�鈥� is masculine while the upameya 鈥�惫腻办鈥� is feminine.

According to 痴腻尘补苍补 the exception of this rule can be allowed in some cases. So in the following 蝉奴迟谤补 he says鈥�

颈峁ａ弓补岣� pu峁僴apu峁僺akayo岣� pr膩ye峁嘺/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.13.

鈥擨n some cases the comparison between the masculine and the neuter 耻辫补尘腻na and vice versa can be allowed.

For example, in 鈥�candramiva 尘耻办丑补峁� pa艣yati鈥� (He sees the face which is like the moon.) the upameya is neuter while the 耻辫补尘腻na is masculine. This exception of rules is only permissible where the forms of the two words in two genders representing the upamana and the upameya are similar but in other cases like 鈥�induriva 尘耻办丑补峁� 产丑腻迟颈鈥� (The face shines like the moon.) the diversity of gender is not acceptable due to the difference of forms.

The second case of exception of this rule regarding gender 颈蝉鈥�

濒补耻办颈办测腻峁� sam膩s膩bhihit膩y膩m耻辫补尘腻prapa帽ce ca/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.14.

鈥擳丑别 contradiction of gender is acceptable when the 耻辫补尘腻 is 濒补耻办颈办墨 or used during ordinary common speech, where the 耻辫补尘腻 is expressed by means of compounds and where the various modifications of 耻辫补尘腻 are used.

The examples of these areas of exception 补谤别鈥�

a) Laukik墨耻辫补尘腻鈥�

鈥�ch膩yeva sa 迟补蝉测腻岣�鈥�

鈥擧e is like her shadow.

b) Compounds鈥�

鈥�bhujalat膩n墨lotpala蝉补诲峁浥浤�鈥�

鈥擳丑别 creeper-like arm is like the blue-lotus.

c) Modifications of 耻辫补尘腻 (other figures based on similarity)鈥�

艣uddh膩ntadurlabhamida峁� vapur膩艣ramav膩sino yadi janasya/
诲奴谤墨办峁泃腻岣� khalu 驳耻峁嘺颈谤耻诲测腻苍补濒补迟腻惫补苍补濒补迟腻产丑颈岣�//
  鈥擰uoted from Abhij帽膩na艣akuntala (of 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补) 1.16.

鈥擨f such a body, rare even in the seraglio of a king, be possessed by one living in a hermitage, then it is to be said that the creepers of the garden have been surpassed in excellence by the wild creepers.

iv) Vacanabheda鈥擳丑别 concept of 濒颈峁単补产丑别诲补 discussed earlier can be applied to vacanabheda 补濒蝉辞鈥�

tena vacanabhedo 惫测腻办丑测腻迟补岣�/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.15.

The defect which arises from the contradiction of the number of the 耻辫补尘腻na and the upameya is called vacanabheda.

An example of vacanabheda 颈蝉鈥�

鈥�辫腻蝉测腻尘颈 濒辞肠补苍补峁� 迟补蝉测腻岣� 辫耻峁�p补峁� madhuliho 测补迟丑腻/鈥�

鈥擨 drink (sink into) her eyes as the bees drink in the flower.

The 碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻 commentator justifies vacanabheda in this example 补蝉鈥�

p膩sy膩ma iti vaktavye p膩sy膩m墨ti prayuktatv膩t vacanabheda岣�/
  鈥�碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻, 碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.15.

v) A蝉腻诲峁浥泍补鈥擳丑别 defect called a蝉腻诲峁浥泍补 is generated when the similarity of quality intended to be asserted is not totally comprehended鈥�

aprat墨tagu峁嘺蝉腻诲峁浥泍补ma蝉腻诲峁浥泍补m/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.16.

An example of this defect 颈蝉鈥�

鈥�grathn膩mi 办腻惫测补艣a艣ina峁� vitat膩rthara艣mim鈥�

鈥擨 am composing the poetry-moon with ray-like expanding meaning.

Here the similarity between the upameya 鈥�办腻惫测补鈥� and the 耻辫补尘腻na 鈥�艣补艣墨鈥� is not totally comprehensible due to the non-comprehensibility of the quality. An objection has been raised in this context that the similarity of the arthas (meanings) with 谤补艣尘颈蝉 (rays) is comprehensible enough to constitute the similarity between the 办腻惫测补 and the 艣补艣墨. This objection, according to 痴腻尘补苍补, is not tenable because only after the similarity between the 办腻惫测补 and the 艣补艣墨 has been established that the similarity between the arthas and the 谤补艣尘颈蝉 can be constituted. Again, there is no common property mentioned between the arthas and the 谤补艣尘颈蝉 which would establish their similarity. Because of these factors 鈥�颈迟补谤别迟补谤腻艣谤补测补诲辞峁�a鈥� (the flaw caused by mutual interdependence) would be unavoidable in this case^[20] .

痴腻尘补苍补 goes on fur ther to state that the a蝉腻诲峁浥泍补 defect of 耻辫补尘腻 is the worst defect of the figure. It entirely destroys the poet and his creation鈥�

a蝉腻诲峁浥泍补hat膩hy耻辫补尘腻, tanni峁ａ弓h膩艣ca kavaya岣�/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.17.

Some people hold that a蝉腻诲峁浥泍补 can be avoided by the use of large number of 耻辫补尘腻nas鈥�

耻辫补尘腻nadhikhy膩t tadapoha ityeke/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.18.

For example, in 鈥�办补谤辫奴谤补h膩raharah膩sasita峁� ya艣aste鈥� (Your fame is white like a camphor -necklace and like the smile of 艢hiva.) the similarity is established by the use of a number of 耻辫补尘腻nas (like 办补谤辫奴谤补 etc.) which indicate excessive whiteness. 痴腻尘补苍补, however, rejects this opinion.

According to him, the use of many 耻辫补尘腻nas does not nourish or enhance the meaning already stated by an 耻辫补尘腻na鈥�

苍腻辫耻峁ａ弓腻谤迟丑补迟惫腻迟/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.19.

He clarifies in his 惫峁泃迟颈 补濒蝉辞鈥�

ekasminn耻辫补尘腻ne prayukte 耻辫补尘腻n膩ntaraprayogo na ka艣cidarthavi艣e峁�a峁� pu峁ａ箛膩ti/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.19. 惫峁泃迟颈.

So the example 鈥�balasindhu岣� sindhuriva 办峁�u产丑颈迟补岣�鈥� (The Ocean of strength or army is ruffled like the Ocean.) is faulty due to the use of the word 鈥�sindhu鈥� twice. It can be said that there is no tautology due to the use of the word 鈥�sindhu鈥� twice as the first word means 鈥�产补濒补峁� sindhuriva vaipuly膩t鈥� (the strength or army is like the Ocean due to its extensiveness) while the second word is used to describe the similarity between the sindhu and the bala on account of 鈥�办峁�o产丑补蝉腻谤奴辫测补鈥� (similarity of being ruffled). The difference of implication of these two words avoids the defect of tautology. But it does not enhance or add anything to the meaning of the example because as stated earlier (碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.10.) the mention of the word 鈥�办峁�u产丑颈迟补鈥� implies the extensiveness of the sindhu also^[21] .

vi) Asambhava鈥擳丑别 asambhava defect of 耻辫补尘腻 is caused due to the impossibility of the object mentioned as 耻辫补尘腻na鈥�

补苍耻辫补辫补迟迟颈谤补蝉补尘产丑补惫补岣�/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.20.

An example of this defect 颈蝉鈥�

cak膩sti vadanasy膩nta岣� smitacch膩y膩vik膩sina岣�/
unnidrasy膩ravindasya madhye mugdheva 肠补苍诲谤颈办腻//

鈥擳丑别 shadow of the light smile in her shinning face is like the beautiful moonlight within the blooming lotus.

The blooming of the lotus in moon-light is naturally impossible. It may be objected that this is an instance of 鈥�arthavirodha鈥� (contradiction of meaning) and not of a defect of 耻辫补尘腻.

But this objection is unjust as the figure 耻辫补尘腻 involves in itself 鈥�补迟颈艣补测补鈥� or exaggeration which sometimes leads to incongruity鈥�

耻辫补尘腻y膩m补迟颈艣补测补sye峁ａ弓atv膩t/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.20. 惫峁泃迟颈.

But this exaggeration should always be rational and failing which arises the defect asambhava鈥�

na viruddho'ti艣aya岣�/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.21.

痴腻尘补苍补 emphasises that an aspiring poet should properly know these six defects of 耻辫补尘腻 and should always avoid them^[22] .

The rhetoricians after 痴腻尘补苍补 like Ruyyaka (Ala峁僰膩rasarvasva p-25.), 惭补尘尘补峁璦 (碍腻惫测补-辫谤补办腻艣补 10.125.), 痴腻驳产丑补峁璦 I (V膩gbha峁�膩la峁僰膩ra 4.50.), 痴腻驳产丑补峁璦 II (K膩vy膩nu艣膩sana p-33.), Hemcandra (K膩vy膩nu艣膩sana 6.1.), 痴颈诲测腻诲丑补谤补 (贰办腻惫补濒墨 8.2.), 痴颈诲测腻苍腻迟丑补 (Prat膩parudraya艣obh奴峁�a峁嘺 Chapter-VIII, p-351.), 痴颈艣惫补苍腻迟丑补 (厂腻丑颈迟测补-诲补谤辫补峁嘺 10.14.), Appayya D墨k峁�ita (Kuvalay膩nanda 6), 闯补驳补苍苍腻迟丑补 (Rasa-驳补峁単腻诲丑补谤补 Chapter-II, p-157.) etc. have all treated the figure 耻辫补尘腻 in a general manner. The rhetoricians by and large agree that the figure 耻辫补尘腻 is basically a comparison of two things or objects based on the similarity of common property or quality present in them. This similarity is largely generated from the imagination of the poet and thus involves, in itself, some sort of poetic exaggeration. The words 鈥�蝉腻诲峁浥泍补鈥�, 鈥�蝉腻诲丑补谤尘测补鈥�, 鈥�蝉腻尘测补鈥� and 鈥�蝉腻谤奴辫测补鈥� have been used to denote the similarity present in the figure. The difference of upameya and 耻辫补尘腻na required to separate the figure from ananvaya has been first mentioned by 叠丑腻尘补丑补. Later on words like 鈥�bheda鈥�, 鈥�binna鈥� etc. have been added in the definition of the figure 耻辫补尘腻 in order to separate it from ananvaya. The feature 鈥�eka惫腻办测补t膩鈥� has been also added in the definition of the figure to separate it from upameyo辫补尘腻. Ruyyaka adds 鈥�bhed膩bhedatulyatve s膩dharmye鈥� to separate the figure from vyatireka, 谤奴辫补办补 etc. 痴颈艣惫补苍腻迟丑补 includes 鈥�蝉腻尘测补峁� v膩cyam鈥� to separate the figure from the sphere of the figures like 谤奴辫补办补 etc. where similarity is implied. He also adds the word 鈥�avaidharmye鈥� to distinguish the figure from vyatireka. The rhetoricians have also emphasised that the similitude in the figure 耻辫补尘腻 must be beautiful and appealing to the connoisseur. So the words 鈥�肠别迟辞丑腻谤颈鈥�, 鈥�肠补尘补迟办腻谤颈鈥�, 鈥�丑峁沝测补尘鈥�, 鈥�sundaram鈥� etc. have been added in the definition of the figure.

As far as the varieties of the figure are concerned, Ruyyaka furnishes three basic varieties based on 耻辫补尘腻nopameyabh膩va, 惫补蝉迟耻辫谤补迟颈惫补蝉迟耻产丑腻惫补 and 产颈尘产补辫谤补迟颈产颈尘产补产丑腻惫补. Other rhetoricians have put forth several variations of the figure. 鲍诲产丑补峁璦 furnis hes seventeen (17) varieties, 惭补尘尘补峁璦 twenty-five (25), 础驳苍颈辫耻谤腻峁嘺 eighteen (18) and 痴颈艣惫补苍腻迟丑补 shows twenty -seven (27) varieties of the figure. 闯补驳补苍苍腻迟丑补 has rightly suggested that the variations of 耻辫补尘腻, if multiplied by the different criteria advocated by the rhetoricians, can be numerous^[23] .

痴腻尘补苍补 has given a detailed discourse on the figure 耻辫补尘腻 and he has successfully put forth the basic features of the figure. He is the first rhetorician to classify the figure into 濒补耻办颈办墨 and 办补濒辫颈迟腻 varieties. Thus he has put forth the popularity of the figure in common usage as well as the importance of the imagination of the poet in constructing the figure. Again, he is the pioneer to classify the figure into the conventional pad膩rtha惫峁泃迟颈-惫腻办y膩rtha惫峁泃迟颈 and 辫奴谤峁嚹�-濒耻辫迟腻 (of which 叠丑腻尘补丑补 talks ambiguously) varieties. However, no traces of 顿补峁囜笉颈苍鈥檚 elaborate variations of the figure can be seen in the treatment of 痴腻尘补苍补. It seems that 痴腻尘补苍补 has recognized some varieties of the figure mentioned by 顿补峁囜笉颈苍 but he considers them as mere applications of the figure (碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.7.). 痴腻尘补苍补 also speaks of elaborately about the defects of 耻辫补尘腻 contradicting the views of 顿补峁囜笉颈苍 (K膩vy膩dar艣a (of 顿补峁囜笉颈苍) 2.51) who considers them as 诲辞峁�a蝉 only when they cause disgust to the connoisseur. 痴腻尘补苍补鈥檚 treatment of the figure, is thus, much more precise and conclusive than that of his predecessors.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

峁欢惫别诲补. 1.113.15. & 7.30.3.

[2]:

Nirukta. 3.13.

[3]:

础峁ａ弓腻诲丑测腻测墨. 2.1.55-56.

[4]:

ekasyaikena s膩k膩ry膩neken膩pyatha v膩puna岣�/
anekasya tathaikena bah奴n膩峁� bahubhistath膩//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥�狈腻峁瓂补蝉蛠腻蝉迟谤补 (of Bharata) 7.83.

[5]:

辫谤补艣补峁僺腻caiva 苍颈苍诲腻ca 办补濒辫颈迟腻蝉补诲峁浥浤玹ath膩/
ki帽cicca 蝉补诲峁浥浤玧帽ey膩hy耻辫补尘腻pa帽cadh膩budhai岣�//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敱纺遽弓y补艣腻蝉迟谤补 (of Bharata) 7.87.

[6]:

耻辫补尘腻n膩ma s膩yasy膩m耻辫补尘腻nopameyayo岣�/
satt膩c膩ntaras膩manyayogitve'pi vivak峁�itam//
办颈帽肠颈诲腻诲腻测补 蝉腻谤奴辫测补峁� lokay膩tra pravarttate/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敶〔挡跃北璩馨�腻峁嘺 344.6-7.

[7]:

alp膩k峁�aramasandigdha峁� s膩ravat vi艣vatomukham/
补蝉迟辞产丑补尘补苍补惫补诲测补帽肠补 蝉奴迟谤补峁� 蝉奴迟谤补vido vidu岣�//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥�驰耻办迟颈诲墨辫颈办腻. 1st 腻丑苍颈办补, p-3.

[8]:

tatk峁泃a峁� lokaprasiddhiparigrah膩rtham / yadevopameyam耻辫补尘腻na帽ca lokaprasiddha峁� tadeva parig峁沨yate, netarat/ na hi 测补迟丑腻鈥湷境馨斐蟛贯箖 kamalamiva鈥� iti, tath膩鈥渒umudamiva鈥� ityapi bhavati/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.1. 惫峁泃迟颈.

[9]:

kavibhi岣� kalpitatv膩t 办补濒辫颈迟腻/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.2. 惫峁泃迟颈.

[10]:

驳耻峁嘺产腻丑濒测补蝉测辞迟办补谤峁Ｄ乸补办补谤峁�a办补濒辫补苍腻产丑测腻尘/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.2. 惫峁泃迟颈.

[11]:

s膩辫奴谤峁嚹伇舫鼙璩倌錭a/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.4.

[12]:

耻辫补尘腻nopameyalopast奴辫补尘腻prapa帽ce 诲谤补峁ａ弓补惫测补岣�/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.6. 惫峁泃迟颈.

[13]:

samasoktyadavupameyasyaksepadupamanasya lopa iti drastavyam/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥�Kamadhenu, 碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.6.

[14]:

tatra 辫颈峁単补艣abdena 辫颈峁単补tve pratipanne 惫峁泃迟补迟惫补prat墨tirbhavati /
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.10. 惫峁泃迟颈.

[15]:

kanakaphalakasya gauratvacaturasratvayo岣� s膩hacary膩ccaturasratva -
艣rutaiva gauratvapratipattiriti/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.10. 惫峁泃迟颈.

[16]:

mukhe峁�vityupameyasya locanasa峁僲墨lanadainyanirmadatv膩n膩峁� dharm膩峁嚹佱箖 产腻丑耻濒测补峁� prat墨yata iti 惫颈谤辞诲丑补岣�/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥�碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻, 碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.10.

[17]:

kintu bhart峁洺竽�苍补迟惫补sya nirmadatv膩de艣copap膩dakasya bhede'pyubha-yatra dainyameva 蝉腻诲丑补谤尘测补miti vivak峁� itamiti na ka艣cid惫颈谤辞诲丑补岣� /
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥�碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻, 碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.10.

[18]:

惫腻岣峚惫腻驳苍颈rityasyopameye' 产丑腻惫腻诲诲丑补谤尘腻诲丑颈办测补尘颈迟颈/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.11. 惫峁泃迟颈.

[19]:

anayordo峁�ayorviparyay膩khyasya 诲辞峁�a蝉y膩ntarbh膩v膩nna p峁泃hagup膩d膩-nam/
ata ev膩sm膩ka峁� mate 峁�a岣峝o峁Ｄ乮ti/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.11. 惫峁泃迟颈.

[20]:

办腻惫测补sya 艣a艣itulyatve siddhe'rth膩n膩峁� ra艣mitulyatva峁� siddhyati / na
hyarth膩n膩峁� ra艣m墨n膩峁� ca ka艣cit 蝉腻诲峁浥泍补hetu岣� prat墨to gu峁噊'sti /
tadevamitaretar膩艣rayado峁�o duruttara iti/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.16. 惫峁泃迟颈.

[21]:

sindhuriva 办峁�u产丑颈迟补 ityanenaiva vaipulya峁� pratipatsyate /
ukta hi 鈥�dharmayorekanirde艣e'nyasya 蝉补峁僾颈迟s膩hacary膩t'/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.19. 惫峁泃迟颈.

[22]:

t膩net膩n 峁�a岣嵆鼙璨钩灸錮o峁Ｄ乶 j帽膩t惫腻办avi岣� parityajet/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.2.21. 惫峁泃迟颈.

[23]:

eva峁� ca pr膩c膩峁� mate pa帽cavi峁兣沘tibhed膩y膩岣� puna岣� pa帽cavidhat膩y膩峁� sap膩da艣ata峁� bhed膩岣� /
dv膩tri峁兣沘dbhedav膩din膩峁� tu 峁�a峁ａ弓yuttara峁� 艣atam /
ita艣c膩nye'pi prabhed膩岣� ku艣膩griyadhi峁�a峁嘺i岣� svayamudbh膩van墨y膩岣�/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥擱asa-驳补峁単腻诲丑补谤补 (of 闯补驳补苍苍腻迟丑补) Chapter-II, p-174.