2023-03-29 18:10:03 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
117
the human race" (E. M. Forster; an apparent encomium of genius,
but in reality a remark directed against mankind as such). (5) This
type of aprastutapraśamsā is just the opposite of vyājastuti. For
Dandin, the figure has little to do with samāsôkti; he is the only
writer who treats both fig for whom this is true (see samāsôkti).
GLOSSARY
abhivyakti
abhivyakti, 'manifestation': (1) intimation. (2) AP 345.7-18. (5) This
figure may represent a stage in the prehistory of the dhvani theory.
It is described by the author of the Agni Purāņa as twofold: śruti and
dhvani, and the former is then described in terms quite similar to the
classical analysis of the kinds of meaning (mukhyā, lākṣaṇikī, and
gauni). The category dhvani (also called ākṣepa), which may and
should be the gauni of the preceding triad (cf. Dhvanyaloka, chap.
1), is then subdivided into five common alamkāras: ākṣepa, aprast-
utastotra, samāsôkti, apahnuti, and paryäyôkta. In addition, the
term abhivyakti has become a standard gloss for dhvani in the later
writings. Abhinavagupta asserts that the nispatti of Bharata's
rasasūtra means abhivyakti (quoted in Kävyapradipa). According to
S. K. De, the Agni Purāņa may have been contemporary with the
author of the kārikās of the Dhvanyaloka. The matter is made
hypothetical by the terseness of the Agni Purana, which offers no
examples for any of the figures defined.
artha
artha, 'sense': (1) a cover term for those figures whose poetic effect was
thought to depend on the meaning of the expression rather than on
verbal patterns or devices. (2) B 1.16, V 1.1.1, D 3.186, U 5.12,
AP 344.1, R 7.9, M chap. 10. (5) Although the arthâlamkāra are
on the whole formally defined, the nature of the form differs from
that of the more obvious sabdâlamkāra. These latter figures repose
upon non-referential criteria, such as morpheme type (see śleșa)
and metre (see yamaka). The former involve characteristics attribut-
able to the subjects of the utterance or to the relation between the
subject and a descriptive phrase, such as comparability (simile),
exaggeration (hyperbole), non-literalness, or combinations of these.
The basic distinction is that between grammatical form and inten-
tional reference, but the formal aspect of both should not be under-
estimated (see upamā, vyatireka, śleşa).
the human race" (E. M. Forster; an apparent encomium of genius,
but in reality a remark directed against mankind as such). (5) This
type of aprastutapraśamsā is just the opposite of vyājastuti. For
Dandin, the figure has little to do with samāsôkti; he is the only
writer who treats both fig for whom this is true (see samāsôkti).
GLOSSARY
abhivyakti
abhivyakti, 'manifestation': (1) intimation. (2) AP 345.7-18. (5) This
figure may represent a stage in the prehistory of the dhvani theory.
It is described by the author of the Agni Purāņa as twofold: śruti and
dhvani, and the former is then described in terms quite similar to the
classical analysis of the kinds of meaning (mukhyā, lākṣaṇikī, and
gauni). The category dhvani (also called ākṣepa), which may and
should be the gauni of the preceding triad (cf. Dhvanyaloka, chap.
1), is then subdivided into five common alamkāras: ākṣepa, aprast-
utastotra, samāsôkti, apahnuti, and paryäyôkta. In addition, the
term abhivyakti has become a standard gloss for dhvani in the later
writings. Abhinavagupta asserts that the nispatti of Bharata's
rasasūtra means abhivyakti (quoted in Kävyapradipa). According to
S. K. De, the Agni Purāņa may have been contemporary with the
author of the kārikās of the Dhvanyaloka. The matter is made
hypothetical by the terseness of the Agni Purana, which offers no
examples for any of the figures defined.
artha
artha, 'sense': (1) a cover term for those figures whose poetic effect was
thought to depend on the meaning of the expression rather than on
verbal patterns or devices. (2) B 1.16, V 1.1.1, D 3.186, U 5.12,
AP 344.1, R 7.9, M chap. 10. (5) Although the arthâlamkāra are
on the whole formally defined, the nature of the form differs from
that of the more obvious sabdâlamkāra. These latter figures repose
upon non-referential criteria, such as morpheme type (see śleșa)
and metre (see yamaka). The former involve characteristics attribut-
able to the subjects of the utterance or to the relation between the
subject and a descriptive phrase, such as comparability (simile),
exaggeration (hyperbole), non-literalness, or combinations of these.
The basic distinction is that between grammatical form and inten-
tional reference, but the formal aspect of both should not be under-
estimated (see upamā, vyatireka, śleşa).