2023-03-29 18:10:12 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
143
defined above; who indeed would deprive the scientist of the use of
such convenient explanatory devices as "sodium reacts like potassium
in many compounds". Perhaps it is for this reason that Bhāmaha,
the earliest writer we know about, avers that no figure can be really
poetic unless it also has a touch of exaggeration, or atiśayókti
(B 2.81, 85), associated with it (repeated by Daṇḍin 2.220). Bhāmaha,
Udbhata, and Mammața all emphasize in defining upama that the
things compared must in fact be substantially different contrary
by reason of place, time, or mode of action', as Bhāmaha says.
Mammaţa boldly defines simile as 'similarity in difference' (sādhar-
myam bhede). But the other writers, though they consider only
similes which by any standard would be considered poetic, do not
appear to have been aware of the problem of over-extension, or "end",
as it were. Dandin says only that upamā is sādṛśyam (*similitude").
The problem is perhaps more academic than real, since the non-
poetic similes are just those where the expressive potential of
simile is least well exploited, that is, where so little difference is
understood between the terms that comparison itself is almost otiose.
It might almost be said: "give a simile something to do, and it will
be poetic". The comparison of sodium and potassium is not un-
poetic because of the subject matter, but just because, for all practical
purposes, the two things are in fact indistinguishable, are like
Tweedledum and Tweedledee (note that the last simile is highly
poetic).
GLOSSARY
Simile is limited on the one side by the indistinguishability or
literal replacability of its terms, but it also has the same limit on the
other side, for beyond simile lies the realm of metaphor (rūpaka),
where, despite differences great enough to permit scope to simile,
the terms of comparison are identified with each other-said in such
a way that sameness alone is suggested and not similarity-as in
the phrase "realm of metaphor." The mode or the modal reality
of the comparison changes, but the terms of its description do not;
in rūpaka, for instance, the object of comparison (upamāna) is
"projected onto" (meta-phor) or, as we say, identified with the subject
of comparison (upameya): not "her face is like the moon" but "her
face is the moon" (the moon of her face delights the evening crowd).
The common property is usually not expressed, since the aim of
metaphor is to suppress all difference; the comparative particle of
course is necessarily absent (but cf. utprekṣā, where it reappears in
a new sense).
defined above; who indeed would deprive the scientist of the use of
such convenient explanatory devices as "sodium reacts like potassium
in many compounds". Perhaps it is for this reason that Bhāmaha,
the earliest writer we know about, avers that no figure can be really
poetic unless it also has a touch of exaggeration, or atiśayókti
(B 2.81, 85), associated with it (repeated by Daṇḍin 2.220). Bhāmaha,
Udbhata, and Mammața all emphasize in defining upama that the
things compared must in fact be substantially different contrary
by reason of place, time, or mode of action', as Bhāmaha says.
Mammaţa boldly defines simile as 'similarity in difference' (sādhar-
myam bhede). But the other writers, though they consider only
similes which by any standard would be considered poetic, do not
appear to have been aware of the problem of over-extension, or "end",
as it were. Dandin says only that upamā is sādṛśyam (*similitude").
The problem is perhaps more academic than real, since the non-
poetic similes are just those where the expressive potential of
simile is least well exploited, that is, where so little difference is
understood between the terms that comparison itself is almost otiose.
It might almost be said: "give a simile something to do, and it will
be poetic". The comparison of sodium and potassium is not un-
poetic because of the subject matter, but just because, for all practical
purposes, the two things are in fact indistinguishable, are like
Tweedledum and Tweedledee (note that the last simile is highly
poetic).
GLOSSARY
Simile is limited on the one side by the indistinguishability or
literal replacability of its terms, but it also has the same limit on the
other side, for beyond simile lies the realm of metaphor (rūpaka),
where, despite differences great enough to permit scope to simile,
the terms of comparison are identified with each other-said in such
a way that sameness alone is suggested and not similarity-as in
the phrase "realm of metaphor." The mode or the modal reality
of the comparison changes, but the terms of its description do not;
in rūpaka, for instance, the object of comparison (upamāna) is
"projected onto" (meta-phor) or, as we say, identified with the subject
of comparison (upameya): not "her face is like the moon" but "her
face is the moon" (the moon of her face delights the evening crowd).
The common property is usually not expressed, since the aim of
metaphor is to suppress all difference; the comparative particle of
course is necessarily absent (but cf. utprekṣā, where it reappears in
a new sense).