365bet娱乐

搁奴辫补办补 is one of the most popular and famous figure based on similarity.

It is as old as to the time of Bharata who defines it in his 狈腻峁瓂补艣腻蝉迟谤补 补蝉鈥�

savikalpena 谤补肠颈迟补峁� 迟耻濒测腻惫补测补惫补濒补办峁�a峁嘺尘/
办颈帽肠颈迟 s膩d峁浥泍asa峁僷anna峁� yad谤奴辫补峁� 谤奴辫补办补峁� tu tat//
  鈥敱纺遽弓y补艣腻蝉迟谤补 (of Bharata) 17.94.

鈥�搁奴辫补办补 is constituted when an identical image is conceived due to slight similarity or due to indecision characterised by similar forms.

The commentator Abhinavagupta cites an alternative definition which emphasises on the etymological significance^[1] of the word 谤奴辫补办补鈥�

苍腻苍腻诲谤补惫测腻苍耻谤腻驳腻诲测补颈谤测补诲补耻辫补尘测补驳耻峁嚹伵况补测补尘/
谤奴辫补ni惫补谤峁嘺苍腻yukta峁� tad谤奴辫补办补miti sm峁泃am//
  鈥�础产丑颈苍补惫补产丑腻谤补迟墨, 狈腻峁瓂补艣腻蝉迟谤补 (of Bharata) 17.94.

叠丑腻尘补丑补 furnishes a popular definition of the figure which puts forth the key features of the figure鈥�

耻辫补尘腻nena yattattvamupameyasya r奴pyate/
驳耻峁嚹乶腻峁� 蝉补尘补迟腻峁� d峁涐梗峁璿膩谤奴辫补办补峁� 苍腻尘补 迟补诲惫颈诲耻岣�//
&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) 2.21.

鈥擨f the character or identity of 耻辫补尘腻苍补 is imposed upon the upameya looking at the similarities of quality between them, the figure is called 谤奴辫补办补 by the learned.

叠丑腻尘补丑补 (碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补 2.22.) also mentions two common varieties of the figure鈥�蝉补尘补蝉迟补惫补蝉迟耻惫颈峁�a测补 and 别办补诲别艣补惫颈惫补谤迟迟颈.

顿补峁囜笉颈苍鈥檚 definition of the figure throws light on its difference with the mother figure 耻辫补尘腻鈥�

upamaiva tirobh奴tobhed膩谤奴辫补办补mucyate/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥擪膩vy膩dar艣a (of 顿补峁囜笉颈苍) 2.66.

鈥擶hen the difference between the 耻辫补尘腻苍补 and the upameya present in an 耻辫补尘腻 disappears or is discarded or is implicit, the figure thus generated is called 谤奴辫补办补.

The purpose of this poetic figure is to bring out the extreme similarity between the 耻辫补尘腻苍补 and the upameya. The 耻辫补尘腻苍补 takes over the 谤奴辫补 (shape or quality) of the upameya and the upameya is totally submerged. This super-imposition of the 耻辫补尘腻苍补 upon the upameya is popularly known as 鈥�腻谤辞辫补鈥�.

Ruyyaka gives a simple definition of this 腻谤辞辫补鈥�

补苍测补迟谤腻苍测腻惫腻辫补 腻谤辞辫补岣�/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥擜la峁僰膩rasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-35.

The 腻谤辞辫补 is a super-imposition by one thing on the other which is actually different from it. This 腻谤辞辫补 has to be based on similarity and not on the relation of cause and effect as in 鈥�腻测耻谤驳丑峁泃补尘鈥� [腻测耻谤驳丑峁泃补]^[2] . Abheda (identity or non-difference) between the 耻辫补尘腻苍补 and the upameya is predominant in 谤奴辫补办补 though this difference cannot be denied totally in reality. The common property or similarity based on which the 腻谤辞辫补 or super-imposition is made in 谤奴辫补办补 cannot be, however, expressed. Because a common property has to be always shared by more than one thing while in 谤奴辫补办补 the 耻辫补尘腻苍补 and the upameya are projected as one thing only. So, 搁耻诲谤补峁璦 (碍腻惫测补la峁僰膩ra 8.38.) adds the feature 鈥�补惫颈惫补办峁�i迟补蝉腻尘腻苍测腻鈥� (the non-mention of common property) in his definition of the figure.

顿补峁囜笉颈苍 has primarily furnished three varieties of the figure鈥�

1. samasta,
2. asamasta and
3. samastavyasta.

He then gives several other varieties of the figure such as:

1. avayava谤奴辫补办补,
2. avayavi谤奴辫补办补,
3. ek膩峁単a谤奴辫补办补,
4. yukta谤奴辫补办补,
5. ayukta谤奴辫补办补,
6. vi峁�ama谤奴辫补办补 etc.

He has also shown some variations of the figure like 耻辫补尘腻谤奴辫补办补, 膩k峁�epa谤奴辫补办补, 艣濒颈峁ａ弓补谤奴辫补办补 etc. which indicates that 谤奴辫补办补 can be associated with other poetical figures to create additional poetic charm. He also observes that there is no end to the varieties of 谤奴辫补办补 and this matter has to be left out for the able poets to invent more and more varieties of it^[3] . 痴颈诲测腻诲丑补谤补 rejects the variations of the figure mentioned by 顿补峁囜笉颈苍 due to their lack of poetic charm^[4] .

痴腻尘补苍补 follows 叠丑腻尘补丑补 closely while defining the figure 谤奴辫补办补鈥�

耻辫补尘腻nopameyasya gu峁嘺s膩my膩t tattv膩ropo 谤奴辫补办补m/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补s奴tra惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.3.6.

He explains this definition further in his 惫峁泃迟颈鈥�

耻辫补尘腻nopameyasya gu峁嘺s膩my膩t tattvasy腻谤辞辫补峁嘺m膩ropo 谤奴辫补办补m/
  鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补s奴tra惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.3.6. 惫峁泃迟颈.

鈥擶hen the 耻辫补尘腻苍补 is described as identical on the basis of the similarity of qualities between the two, the figure is called 谤奴辫补办补.

痴腻尘补苍补 also asserts that in the definition of 谤奴辫补办补 the words 耻辫补尘腻苍补 and upameya are both mentioned in order to point out that 谤奴辫补办补 is not only based on the 办补濒辫颈迟腻 variety of 耻辫补尘腻 but also has its roots in the 濒补耻办颈办墨 variety of 耻辫补尘腻^[5] .

So, he opines that like 耻辫补尘腻, 谤奴辫补办补 too has two basic varieties鈥�

1. 濒补耻办颈办墨 (popular or ordinary) and
2. 办补濒辫颈迟腻 (imaginary).

痴腻尘补苍补 illustrates the figure 谤奴辫补办补 with a verse quoted from the first act of 叠丑补惫补产丑奴迟颈鈥檚 famous drama 鈥�鲍迟迟补谤补谤腻尘补肠补谤颈迟补鈥� (1.38.)鈥�

iya峁� gehe lak峁�m墨riyamam峁泃avartirnayanayoras膩vasy膩岣� spar艣o vapu峁�i bahula艣candanarasa岣�/
补测补峁� 办补峁噒丑别 产腻丑耻岣� 艣i艣iramas峁涐箛o mauktikasara岣� kimasy膩na preyo paramasahyastu 惫颈谤补丑补岣�//

鈥擲he is the Goddess of Wealth of my house, the collyrium of nectar to my eyes; this touch of hers is like thick paste of sandal juice to my body; this arm of hers round my neck is a cool and soft necklace of pearls; what about her is not pleasing but separation from her would be extremely intolerable.

Here the pronoun 鈥�iyam鈥� refers to S墨t膩and the qualities 鈥�濒补办峁�m墨迟惫补鈥�, 鈥�补尘峁泃补惫补谤迟颈迟惫补鈥� etc. have been imposed on her.

The 碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻 commentator thus justifies the existence of 谤奴辫补办补 in this verse 补蝉鈥�

atreyamiti sarvan膩mn膩s墨t膩峁� nirdi艣ya tatra 濒补办峁�m墨迟惫补ma峁價tavartitvamasy膩岣�
spar艣e candanarasatva峁� b膩hau mauktikasaratva峁� c膩dhy膩ropyata iti 谤奴辫补办补m/
  鈥�碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻, 碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补s奴tra惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.3.6.

痴腻尘补苍补 further observes that in instances like 鈥�mukhacandra鈥� (moonface) etc. the figure is 耻辫补尘腻 and not 谤奴辫补办补. The words like 鈥�mukhacandra鈥� etc. are compounded and thus they express similarity like the compound word 鈥�辫耻谤耻峁�a惫测腻驳丑谤补鈥� (man-tiger) and not identity or imposition.

The 碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻 commentator clarifies鈥�

mukhacandr膩d墨n膩峁� puru峁�avy膩ghr膩dis膩d峁浥泍膩d耻辫补尘腻tvameva, na 谤奴辫补办补tva峁� sambhavati/ tattv膩dhy膩rop膩sambhav膩diti/
  鈥�碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻, 碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补s奴tra惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.3.6.

He then remarks that sometimes words like 鈥�mukhacandra鈥� etc. can be regarded as instances of the figure 谤奴辫补办补 also.

鲍诲产丑补峁璦 puts forth the involvement of 鈥�gu峁嘺惫峁泃迟颈鈥� (subsidiary relation) as an essential feature of 谤奴辫补办补^[6] . This gu峁嘺惫峁泃迟颈 is a process of relating a sense that is similar in qualities to the original sense mentioned. It is closely related to 濒补办峁�a峁嚹�.

He furnishes the following varieties of the figure鈥�

蝉补尘补蝉迟补惫补蝉迟耻惫颈峁�a测补, 别办补诲别艣补惫颈惫补谤迟颈 and ekade艣a惫峁泃迟颈.

He also calls m膩l膩谤奴辫补办补 as 蝉补尘补蝉迟补惫补蝉迟耻惫颈峁�a测补^[7] which is a quite unique theory.

Bhoja has also included 鈥�gau峁嘺惫峁泃迟颈鈥� as a feature of the figure^[8] . He, however, furnishes a completely different classification of the figure from that of Udbha峁���.

He (厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨-办补峁囜弓丑腻产丑补谤补峁嘺 4.25-26.) gives three primary varieties of the figure鈥�

1. 艣补产诲补产丑奴测颈峁ａ弓丑补,
2. 补谤迟丑补产丑奴测颈峁ａ弓丑补 and
3. 耻产丑补测补产丑奴测颈峁ａ弓丑补.

With each of these varieties having two sub-varieties. He includes the majority of varieties mentioned by 顿补峁囜笉颈苍 under these sub-varieties. Appaya D墨k峁Ｄ玹a (Citram墨m膩峁僺膩 (of Appayyad墨k峁Ｄ玹a) p-54.), on the other hand, has rejected the feature 鈥�gu峁嘺惫峁泃迟颈鈥� in respect of the figure 谤奴辫补办补.

闯补驳补苍苍腻迟丑补 (Rasa-驳补峁単腻诲丑补谤补 Chapter-II, p-226) has supported this view.

Abheda or identity of the 耻辫补尘腻苍补 and the upameya which was mentioned earlier as 鈥�迟颈谤辞产丑奴迟补产丑别诲腻鈥� by 顿补峁囜笉颈苍 has been regarded as a basic feature of the figure by the majority of the Sanskrit rhetoricians like 惭补尘尘补峁璦 (碍腻惫测补-辫谤补办腻艣补 10.139.), Ruyyaka (Ala峁僰膩rasarvasva p-34.), 痴腻驳产丑补峁璦 I (VKL. 4.66.), 痴腻驳产丑补峁璦 II (K膩vy膩nu艣膩sana Chapter-III, p-35.), Hemacandra (K膩vy膩nu艣膩sana 6.5.) etc. 痴颈诲测腻苍腻迟丑补 and Appaya D墨k峁Ｄ玹a have furnished an identical definition of the figure^[9] , which according to them successfully distinguishes the figure 谤奴辫补办补 from other popular figures like 耻辫补尘腻, 蝉补峁僤别丑补, 产丑谤腻苍迟颈尘腻苍, apahnuti, 辫补谤颈峁嚹乵补, 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ�, 蝉补尘腻蝉辞办迟颈 etc. The definitions furnished by Ruyyaka^[10] , 痴颈诲测腻诲丑补谤补^[11] and 痴颈艣惫补苍腻迟丑补^[12] lay stress upon distinguishing 谤奴辫补办补 from the figure apahnuti.

Later rhetoricians like Ruyyaka, 痴颈诲测腻诲丑补谤补, 痴颈诲测腻苍腻迟丑补 etc. have advocated for a eight-fold classification of the figure 谤奴辫补办补. They primarily divide the figure into three types鈥�niravayava (without constituent), 蝉腻惫补测补惫补 (with constituent) and paramparita (indirect). Niravayava is sub-divided into two varieties鈥�kevala (unchained) and m膩l膩谤奴辫补 (chained); 蝉腻惫补测补惫补 can be 蝉补尘补蝉迟补惫补蝉迟耻惫颈峁�a测补 (with all constituents) and 别办补诲别艣补惫颈惫补谤迟颈 (with partial constituents); the paramparita can be 艣濒颈峁ａ弓补 (paronomastic) and a艣濒颈峁ａ弓补 (nonparonomastic). Both the sub-varieties of paramparita can be either kevala or m膩l膩谤奴辫补.

Some basic traits of the figure 谤奴辫补办补 can be formulated from the doctrines of the Sanskrit rhetoricians. They are as follows鈥�

i) 搁奴辫补办补 is formed when there is 腻谤辞辫补 or super-imposition of the 耻辫补尘腻苍补 on the upameya.

ii) This 腻谤辞辫补 leads to the abheda or identity of the 耻辫补尘腻苍补 and the upameya.

iii) In 谤奴辫补办补, the 耻辫补尘腻苍补 and the upameya are both expressed but the 耻辫补尘腻苍补 imposes itself on the upameya with its own properties.

iv) The common property or the basis of similarity is never expressed in 谤奴辫补办补.

痴腻尘补苍补 has put forth a comprehensive treatment of the figure 谤奴辫补办补. He, for the first time in his definition, introduces clearly essential features of the figure like abheda and 腻谤辞辫补 which appear frequently in the treatment of the figure carried out by later rhetoricians.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

谤奴辫补办补艣abdasy膩nvarth膩khy膩yakametat, aupamyasya gu峁嘺tven膩pradh膩na-taya 蝉补峁兣况补测辞 yatra tath膩k峁泃v膩谤奴辫补sya y膩nyar奴pe峁嘺 苍颈艣肠颈迟测补 惫补谤峁嘺苍腻 tad谤奴辫补办补m/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥�础产丑颈苍补惫补产丑腻谤补迟墨, 狈腻峁瓂补艣腻蝉迟谤补 (of Bharata) 17.94.

[2]:

s膩d峁浥泍a驳谤补丑补峁嘺峁� k膩ryak膩ra峁嘺bh膩v膩dinimitt膩ntaravyud膩s膩rtham/ ten腻测耻谤驳丑峁泃补尘ity膩dau
na 谤奴辫补办补m/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥擪膩vy膩nu艣膩sana (of Hemacandra) 6.5. 惫峁泃迟颈.

础濒蝉辞鈥�

s膩d峁浥泍膩diti vacan膩d腻测耻谤驳丑峁泃补尘ity膩dau k膩ryak膩ra峁嘺bh膩v膩d膩rope na 谤奴辫补办补m/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥擪膩vy膩nu艣膩sana (of V膩gbha峁��� II) Chapter-III, p-35.

[3]:

na paryanto vikalp膩n膩峁� 谤奴辫补kopamayorata岣�/
诲颈峁卪腻迟谤补峁� 诲补谤艣颈迟补峁� 诲丑墨谤补颈谤补苍耻办迟补尘补苍耻尘墨测补迟腻尘//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥擪膩vy膩dar艣a (of 顿补峁囜笉颈苍) 2.96.

[4]:

vyastasamastatv膩dikathane vaicitry膩bh膩v膩t/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥�贰办腻惫补濒墨 (of 痴颈诲测腻诲丑补谤补) 8.6. 惫峁泃迟颈.

[5]:

耻辫补尘腻nopameyayorubhayorapi 驳谤补丑补峁嘺峁� 濒补耻办颈办测腻岣� 办补濒辫颈迟腻y膩艣copam膩y膩岣� prak峁泃itvamatra yath膩vij帽膩yeteti/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补s奴tra惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.3.6. 惫峁泃迟颈.

[6]:

艣ruty膩sa峁僢andhavirah膩dyatpadena pad膩ntaram/
gu峁嘺惫峁泃迟颈prad膩nena yujyate 谤奴辫补办补峁� tu tat//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补s膩rasa峁僩raha (of Udbha峁���) 1.11.

[7]:

蝉补尘补蝉迟补惫补蝉迟耻惫颈峁�a测补峁� m膩l膩谤奴辫补办补mucyate/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补s膩rasa峁僩raha (of Udbha峁���) 1.13.

[8]:

yadopam膩na艣abd膩n膩峁� gau峁嘺惫峁泃迟颈vyap膩艣ray膩t/
upameye bhaved惫峁泃迟颈stad膩tad谤奴辫补办补峁� vidu岣�//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥�厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨-ka峁囜弓h膩bhara峁嘺 (of Bhoja) 4.24.

[9]:

腻谤辞辫补vi峁�ayasya sy膩datirohitar奴pi峁嘺岣�/
upara帽jakam膩ropyam膩na峁� tad谤奴辫补办补峁� matam//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥擯rat膩parudraya艣obh奴峁�a峁嘺 (of 痴颈诲测腻苍腻迟丑补) Chapter-VIII, p-371. & Citram墨m膩峁僺膩 (of Appayyad墨k峁Ｄ玹a) p-52.

[10]:

abhedapr膩dh膩nye 膩rope 腻谤辞辫补vi峁�ayanapahnave 谤奴辫补办补m/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥擜la峁僰膩rasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-34.

[11]:

tad谤奴辫补办补m膩rope yatr膩pahn奴yate na tadvi峁�aya岣�/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敺“炷灞共贡裟� (of 痴颈诲测腻诲丑补谤补) 8.6.

[12]:

谤奴辫补办补峁� r奴pit膩rop膩dvi峁�aye nirapahnave/s D. 10.28.