365bet娱乐

鲍迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ� is a well-known figure based on similitude. 叠丑腻尘补丑补 is the first rhetorician who treats it. He defines the figure 补蝉鈥�

补惫颈惫补办峁�i迟补蝉腻尘腻苍测腻办颈帽肠颈肠肠辞辫补尘补测补 saha/
补迟补诲驳耻峁嘺办谤颈测腻测辞驳腻诲耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ乼颈艣补测腻苍惫颈迟腻//
&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) 2.91.

鈥擨苍 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ�, though the objects in view are not connected by any common quality or action, there is a slight sense of similitude.

This similitude or resemblance is not marked with any common property but it attributes excellence to the object mentioned.

鲍诲产丑补峁璦 has followed 叠丑腻尘补丑补 in defining the figure and he cites the last part of 叠丑腻尘补丑补鈥檚 definition in verbatim^[1] .

Interestingly he furnishes another definition of the figure鈥�

濒辞办腻迟颈办谤腻苍迟补惫颈峁�a测腻产丑腻惫腻产丑腻惫腻产丑颈尘腻苍补迟补岣�/
sa峁僢h膩vaneyam耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ乿膩cyev膩dibhirucyate//
&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���) 3.4.

This definition puts forth 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ� as a poetic fancy beyond the limit of worldly possibilities which can either be positive or negative. 鲍诲产丑补峁璦 has thus used the word 鈥�蝉补峁僢丑腻惫补苍腻鈥� in the very definition of 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ� which can also be traced later in the definitions of Rudra峁��� (碍腻惫测补la峁僰膩ra 8.36.), 惭补尘尘补峁璦 (碍腻惫测补-辫谤补办腻艣补 10.137.), Hemacandra (K膩vy膩nu艣膩sana 6.4.), 痴颈艣惫补苍腻迟丑补 (厂腻丑颈迟测补-诲补谤辫补峁嘺 10.40.), Appaya D墨k峁Ｄ玹a (Kuvalay膩nanda 32.), 闯补驳补苍苍腻迟丑补 (Rasa-驳补峁単腻诲丑补谤补 Chapter-II, p-285.) etc. The two primary divisions of the figure advocated by Udbha峁�膩are 产丑腻惫补惫颈峁�a测腻 and a产丑腻惫补惫颈峁�a测腻 which are quite unique. However, the 惫腻肠测腻 variety mentioned by him is a very common and popular variant of the figure.

顿补峁囜笉颈苍 has furnished a general definition of the figure which is based on the etymological meaning of the word 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ�鈥�

anyathaiva sthit膩惫峁泃迟颈艣cetanasyetarasya v膩/
补苍测补迟丑辞迟辫谤别办峁�y补迟别 yatra t膩m耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ佱箖 viduryath膩//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻诲补谤艣�� (of 顿补峁囜笉颈苍) 2.221.

鈥擨f a particular condition or action of a conscious or unconscious object is fancied in a different manner, the figure is called 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ�.

Bhoja follows both 叠丑腻尘补丑补 and 顿补峁囜笉颈苍 in defining the figure^[2] . He furnishes three primary varieties of the figure鈥�

1. 诲谤补惫测辞迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ�,
2. 驳耻峁噊迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ� and
3. 办谤颈测辞迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ�.

He also observes that the figures 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ乿ayava, 耻迟辫谤别办峁�o辫补尘腻 and mata are also variants of 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ�^[3] . Bhoja regards the example verse of 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ� (鈥�办颈峁兣泆办补惫测补辫补诲别艣别苍补鈥� etc.) furnished by 叠丑腻尘补丑补 as an instance of 耻迟辫谤别办峁�o辫补尘腻.

痴腻尘补苍补 has also followed his predecessors in defining the figure 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ�鈥�

atadr奴pasy膩nyath膩dhyavas膩namati艣ay膩rtham耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ�/
&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) 4.3.9.

鈥擶hen a thing (辫谤腻办补谤补峁噄办补 or upameya) is actually dissimilar to another thing (a辫谤腻办补谤补峁噄办补 or 耻辫补尘腻苍补) but is fancied to be similar with the other thing for the purpose of showing its excellence, the figure is called 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ�.

痴腻尘补苍补 has used the word 鈥�补诲丑测补惫补蝉腻苍补鈥� to mean 鈥�补诲丑测补惫补蝉腻测补鈥� or 鈥�蝉补峁僢丑腻惫补苍腻鈥�.

The 碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻 commentator clarifies this definition 补蝉鈥�

atadr奴pa辫谤腻办补谤补峁噄办补峁� vastu / tad膩tman膩辫谤腻办补谤补峁噄办补vastur奴patve n膩ti艣ayam膩dh膩tumadhyavas墨yate pratibh膩m膩tre峁嘺 kavin膩sambh膩vyate, na punarindriyado峁�e峁嘺/ 迟补迟丑腻惫颈诲丑补峁� sambh膩van膩parapary膩yam补诲丑测补惫补蝉腻苍补mutprek峁�eti lak峁�a峁嚹乺tha岣�/
  鈥敯�腻尘补诲丑别苍��, 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) 4.3.9.

鲍迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ� is not generated from a common misconception or mistaken identity formed due to the defect or fault of sense-organs. It is a deliberate representation on the part of the poet to highlight the excellence of the upameya.

In this context 痴腻尘补苍补 has also differentiated 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ� from 谤奴辫补办补, vakrokti and 产丑谤腻苍迟颈箩帽腻苍补^[4] . The 碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻 commentator explains this view of 痴腻尘补苍补 in details. He states that in 谤奴辫补办补, due to the similarity in quality, the 耻辫补尘腻苍补 is super-imposed on the upameya. In vakrokti, on the basis of similarity, an indication is made to resemble the upameya with the 耻辫补尘腻苍补. In 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ�, however, the upameya is actually dissimilar to the 耻辫补尘腻苍补 but is represented to be similar to it in order to show its importance. Again this definite purpose to attribute importance to the upameya in 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ� differentiates it from 产丑谤腻苍迟颈箩帽腻苍补 or 惫颈辫补谤测补测补箩帽腻苍补. In 产丑谤腻苍迟颈, there is an actual misconception of similarity whereas in 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ� the similarity of dissimilar objects is deliberately represented by the poet to create poetic charm. 痴腻尘补苍补 has also differentiated 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ� from 补迟颈艣补测辞办迟颈. According to him, in 补迟颈艣补测辞办迟颈, both the quality of the thing assumed (蝉补峁僢丑腻惫测补) and its excellence is created by the poet. So, 补迟颈艣补测辞办迟颈 is a superior state of fancy to 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ�.

鲍迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ� is based upon similarity and this is supported by the use of the words like 鈥�iva鈥� in the figure^[5]. The 碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻 commentator remarks that the use of the words like 鈥�iva鈥� in 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ� can give rise to an assumption that 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ� is identical with the figure 耻辫补尘腻. But this is not true as words like 鈥�iva鈥� can also be used to constitute 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ�. He quotes a verse from 碍腻惫测腻诲补谤艣补 (2.234.) in support of his view.

痴腻尘补苍补 illustrates the figure 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ� 补蝉鈥�

sa va岣� p膩y膩dindurnavabisalat膩ko峁璱ku峁璱la岣�
smar膩reryo m奴rdhni jvalanakapi艣e 产丑腻迟颈 苍颈丑颈迟补岣�/
sravanmand膩kiny膩岣� pratidivasasiktena payas膩
kap膩lenonmukta岣� spha峁璱kadhavalen膩峁卥ura iva//

鈥擬ay the Moon protect you! The Moon who is curved like the top of a fresh lotus stem, who is placed on the head of the enemy of Cupid Lord 艢颈惫补 which is yellowish like fire, who being daily sprinkled with the water of the flowing Mand膩kin墨is shooting out like a sprout from the (艢颈惫补鈥檚) crystal-white forehead.

Here the moon, though quite dissimilar to the sprout, is represented by the poet as similar to it. The purpose of such representation is to show the peculiar beauty of the moon. Ruyyaka has also cited this example as an instance of 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ�. He considers it to be a case of j膩ty耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ� because the word 鈥�补峁卥耻谤补鈥� represents a 箩腻迟颈 or genus^[6] .

Ruyyaka has admitted 蝉腻诲丑测补 补诲丑测补惫补蝉腻测补 as the core of the figure 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ�. In this kind of 补诲丑测补惫补蝉腻测补, the upameya is not completely swallowed up by the 耻辫补尘腻苍补 and the process of swallowing up of the upameya seems to be continuing. He considers siddha 补诲丑测补惫补蝉腻测补 (where the process of swallowing up of the upameya by the 耻辫补尘腻苍补 is complete) as the basis of the figure 补迟颈艣补测辞办迟颈. 闯补驳补苍苍腻迟丑补 (Rasa-驳补峁単腻诲丑补谤补 Chapter-II, pp-301-302.) critisises this view of Ruyyaka as he considers it as self-contradictory. He puts forth 蝉补峁僢丑腻惫补苍补 as the apt replacement for the word 补诲丑测补惫补蝉腻测补 in the definition of the figure 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ�. This 蝉补峁僢丑腻惫补苍补 has been popularly defined 补蝉鈥斺��耻迟办补峁璦 别办补办辞峁璱办补 蝉补峁兣沘测补鈥�. When out of the two flanks of a doubt a particular flank or side is given preference or is shown as more powerful than the other, it is called 鈥�耻迟办补峁璦 别办补办辞峁璱办补 蝉补峁兣沘测补鈥�. This is identical with 蝉补峁僢丑腻惫补苍补 or possibility as possibility itself is associated with preference.

Ancient rhetoricians like 叠丑腻尘补丑补, 顿补峁囜笉颈苍 and 痴腻尘补苍补 have not furnished any sub-varieties of the figure 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ�. Later rhetoricians have invented numerous sub -varieties of the figure. 搁耻诲谤补峁璦 (碍腻惫测补la峁僰膩ra 8.34. & 8.36.) has shown two anonymous varieties of the figure. Ruyyaka shows ninety-six (96) sub-varieties of the figure of which 惫腻肠测腻 and 辫谤补迟墨测补尘腻苍腻 are the two primary variants. 痴颈艣惫补苍腻迟丑补, 痴颈诲测腻苍腻迟丑补, 闯补驳补苍苍腻迟丑补 etc. have all furnished many variants of the figure and the final tally of the sub-varieties of 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ� has risen over hundred.

From the various opinions of the Sanskrit rhetoricians regarding the nature of the figure 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ� some essential features of the figure can be pointed out. They are as follows鈥�

i) 鲍迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ� is a poetic fancy which is a deliberate effort from the part of the poet to represent similarity between two dissimilar objects.

ii) It is a figure which is primarily based on imaginary similarity.

iii) 础苍测补迟丑腻诲丑测补惫补蝉腻苍补 or 蝉腻诲丑测补 补诲丑测补惫补蝉腻测补 or 蝉补峁僢丑腻惫补苍补 is the key feature of the figure.

iv) Dravya, 驳耻峁嘺, 办谤颈测腻 and 箩腻迟颈 of the thing under discussion are the common areas of fancy in 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ�.

v) The similarity in 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ� can be conveyed by the use of the words like 鈥�iva鈥� (惫腻肠测辞迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ�) or it could be understood by the analysis of meaning (辫谤补迟墨测补尘腻苍辞迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ�).

vi) The upameya and the 耻辫补尘腻苍补 are both mentioned in 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ�. Because of the 蝉腻诲丑测补 补诲丑测补惫补蝉腻测补 or 蝉补峁僢丑腻惫补苍补 involved in it, the mental focus leans more to the 耻辫补尘腻苍补 and the upameya is conceived almost as 耻辫补尘腻苍补.

痴腻尘补苍补 has dealt with the figure 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ� in accordance to his predecessors. He is the first critic to include the word 鈥�补诲丑测补惫补蝉腻苍补鈥� in the very definition of the figure. He, like 叠丑腻尘补丑补, observes that the purpose of poetic fancy involved in 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ� is to point out some excellence present in the upameya. He has also tried his best to draw fine lines of difference between the figures 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ�, 谤奴辫补办补, vakrokti and 补迟颈艣补测辞办迟颈. However, his views regarding the nature of these four figures differ quote a bit from those of the later rhetoricians like Mamma峁���, Ruyyaka, 痴颈艣惫补苍腻迟丑补, 闯补驳补苍苍腻迟丑补 etc.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

s膩myar奴p膩vivak峁Ｄ亂膩峁� v膩cyev膩dy膩tmabhi岣� padai岣�/
补迟补诲驳耻峁嘺办谤颈测腻测辞驳腻诲耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ乼颈艣补测腻苍惫颈迟腻//
&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���) 3.3.

[2]:

anyath膩vasthita峁� vastu yasy膩mutprek峁�yate'nyath膩/
诲谤补惫测补峁� 驳耻峁嘺峁� 办谤颈测腻c膩pi t膩m耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ佱箖 pracak峁�ate//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥�厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨-办补峁囜弓丑腻产丑补谤补峁嘺 (of Bhoja) 4.50.

[3]:

耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ乿ayavo ya艣ca y膩cotprek峁�opam膩mat膩/
尘补迟补峁� ceti na bhidyante t膩ny耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ乻var奴pata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) 4.51.

[4]:

na punaradhy膩ropo lak峁�a峁嚹乿膩/ ati艣ay膩rthamiti
产丑谤腻苍迟颈箩帽腻苍补niv峁泃tyartham/
&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) 4.3.9. 惫峁泃迟颈.

[5]:

s膩d峁浥泍膩diyamutprek峁�eti/ en膩峁� cev膩di艣abdo dyotayanti /
&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) 4.3.9. 惫峁泃迟颈.

[6]:

atr膩峁卥ura艣abdasya 箩腻迟颈艣abdatv膩j箩腻迟颈rutprek峁�yate/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥擜la峁僰膩rasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-58.