2023-03-29 18:10:10 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
136
GLOSSARY
subject. Since the relation is inherent and does not involve the
context, Rudrața considers it sambhāvita ('hypothetical'). In the
next variety of utprekṣā, the subject does not possess a plausible
relation to the object.
utprekşā (V): (1) a metaphorical ascription of a property or mode of
behavior justified by an accidental but relevant context. (2) R 9.11
(13). (3) pallavitam candrakarair akhilam nīlâśmakuṭṭimôrvīșu ।
tārāpratimābhir idam puspitam avanīpateḥ saudham (Rudraţa; the
moonbeams make the stucco palace appear as if flowering: "Its
spacious floors set with sapphires, the entire royal palace seemed
covered with buds in the moonlight; its fine stucco walls were forced
into flower by reflections of stars"). (4) "Arthur Donnithorne was ...
stared at, from a dingy olive-green piece of tapestry, by Pharoah's
daughter and her maidens, who ought to have been minding the
infant Moses" (George Eliot; the Pharoah's daughter, being present
only in a piece of tapestry, would not ordinarily be characterized as
"staring" were it not for the handsome young Arthur, who distracts
her). (5) This utprekşă can be seen as one in which the ascription is
more in view of the grammatical direct object of the assertion than
its grammatical subject. (Note that the words subject and object
are not used here as "subject of comparison", etc.) The ascription
could be called "transitive": the moonbeams do not behave as
vivifiers because of some quality which they inherently possess, but
only because of their effect on the stones of the palace; similarly,
the portrait does not "stare" because the artist has woven her that
way, but because of the presence of an object to be stared at, namely
Arthur. It might appear that it was in fact the grammatical object
(jewels, Arthur) in these examples which subtended the ascribed
quality; an interpretation of this sort is lent authority by both ex-
amples being in the passive voice. There are two reasons why this
view can not be accepted: the passives can always be expressed as
actives with no alteration whatever in the argument, and the Sanskrit
authors always speak of the ascribed quality as a kriyā, or simply,
*act.' It is this act which, aside from grammatical expression,
constitutes the basic element of the utprekṣā, and in terms of the act
are defined subject (kartṛ) and object (kāraṇa). It would be perverse
to use these well-known terms in a non-standard sense. The subject
is the only plausible basis for the act, and these two types of ascrip-
tion differ precisely in the reference of that ascription to the third
term (the direct object), or in the ascription's irrelevance to it.
GLOSSARY
subject. Since the relation is inherent and does not involve the
context, Rudrața considers it sambhāvita ('hypothetical'). In the
next variety of utprekṣā, the subject does not possess a plausible
relation to the object.
utprekşā (V): (1) a metaphorical ascription of a property or mode of
behavior justified by an accidental but relevant context. (2) R 9.11
(13). (3) pallavitam candrakarair akhilam nīlâśmakuṭṭimôrvīșu ।
tārāpratimābhir idam puspitam avanīpateḥ saudham (Rudraţa; the
moonbeams make the stucco palace appear as if flowering: "Its
spacious floors set with sapphires, the entire royal palace seemed
covered with buds in the moonlight; its fine stucco walls were forced
into flower by reflections of stars"). (4) "Arthur Donnithorne was ...
stared at, from a dingy olive-green piece of tapestry, by Pharoah's
daughter and her maidens, who ought to have been minding the
infant Moses" (George Eliot; the Pharoah's daughter, being present
only in a piece of tapestry, would not ordinarily be characterized as
"staring" were it not for the handsome young Arthur, who distracts
her). (5) This utprekşă can be seen as one in which the ascription is
more in view of the grammatical direct object of the assertion than
its grammatical subject. (Note that the words subject and object
are not used here as "subject of comparison", etc.) The ascription
could be called "transitive": the moonbeams do not behave as
vivifiers because of some quality which they inherently possess, but
only because of their effect on the stones of the palace; similarly,
the portrait does not "stare" because the artist has woven her that
way, but because of the presence of an object to be stared at, namely
Arthur. It might appear that it was in fact the grammatical object
(jewels, Arthur) in these examples which subtended the ascribed
quality; an interpretation of this sort is lent authority by both ex-
amples being in the passive voice. There are two reasons why this
view can not be accepted: the passives can always be expressed as
actives with no alteration whatever in the argument, and the Sanskrit
authors always speak of the ascribed quality as a kriyā, or simply,
*act.' It is this act which, aside from grammatical expression,
constitutes the basic element of the utprekṣā, and in terms of the act
are defined subject (kartṛ) and object (kāraṇa). It would be perverse
to use these well-known terms in a non-standard sense. The subject
is the only plausible basis for the act, and these two types of ascrip-
tion differ precisely in the reference of that ascription to the third
term (the direct object), or in the ascription's irrelevance to it.