2023-03-29 18:10:14 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
146
GLOSSARY
The contextual point of view loses ground after Dandin; only the
Agni Purāṇa is fully committed to it. Vāmana allows the three-
fold distinction "stuti [for prašamsā] nindā tattvākhyāna", presumably
more on the authority of Bharata than Dandin, but at the same time,
he suggests another distinction which soon becomes dominant, and
which is clearly based on the method of Bhāmaha. This distinction
is the first which clearly sets forth the four elements of simile as
criteria. A simile in which all four elements are explicit is called
pūrṇa, or 'complete"; if one or more of the elements is implicit only,
the simile is called lupta, or 'deficient'. Bhamaha's samāsôpamā
would be an example of a lupta upamā, since neither the tertium
nor the particle are expressed. Udbhata, who follows Bhamaha in
most matters, here adapts the pūrṇa-lupta distinction to his predeces-
sor's three types and comes up with fourteen varieties of simile.
Calling lupta samkṣepa, or 'ellipsis', Udbhața defines four varieties
depending on which element or elements are not expressed (tertium,
particle, both, both plus subject). (See sāmyavācaka, tadvāci-
samkşepa.) Mammața takes up this problem again and goes to
absurd lengths to illustrate certain possible ellipses (cf. upameyadyo-
takalupta). These types usually amount to Bhāmaha's samāsôpamā,
but some involve other principles.
Udbhata also improves upon Bhamaha's category vati, where,
it will be remembered, the object of comparison was bound by a
comparative suffix -vat. Admitting this type, Udbhata then finds
certain other morphological contexts where the object of comparison
in some form or other appears in bound form with verb-, adverb-,
or adjective-forming suffixes. The Sanskrit language, in fact, allows
any noun to be made into a verb having the sense of "behaves like X"
(see ācāra); likewise an adverbial accusative in -am, always distin-
guished from the accusative case, may express the idea of similitude
when suffixed to the object of comparison (see namul). Lastly, other
taddhita suffixes than -vat are comparative in meaning (-kalpa, g.v.).
Rudrata in a way represents a summation of the structural
tradition. He allows the same three types as Bhāmaha and Udbhața,
calling them väkyôpamā (not the same as Daṇḍin's vākyârthôpama)
for Bhamaha's yathêvaśabdopamā, as opposed to samāsôpamā,
which name Rudrața keeps, and pratyaya, or suffixed similes, by
which term Rudrața apparently intends all those formed by suffixa-
tion as described by Udbhata. In reference to samāsa upamā, it
might be remarked that the compound so formed is a bahuvrihi, or
GLOSSARY
The contextual point of view loses ground after Dandin; only the
Agni Purāṇa is fully committed to it. Vāmana allows the three-
fold distinction "stuti [for prašamsā] nindā tattvākhyāna", presumably
more on the authority of Bharata than Dandin, but at the same time,
he suggests another distinction which soon becomes dominant, and
which is clearly based on the method of Bhāmaha. This distinction
is the first which clearly sets forth the four elements of simile as
criteria. A simile in which all four elements are explicit is called
pūrṇa, or 'complete"; if one or more of the elements is implicit only,
the simile is called lupta, or 'deficient'. Bhamaha's samāsôpamā
would be an example of a lupta upamā, since neither the tertium
nor the particle are expressed. Udbhata, who follows Bhamaha in
most matters, here adapts the pūrṇa-lupta distinction to his predeces-
sor's three types and comes up with fourteen varieties of simile.
Calling lupta samkṣepa, or 'ellipsis', Udbhața defines four varieties
depending on which element or elements are not expressed (tertium,
particle, both, both plus subject). (See sāmyavācaka, tadvāci-
samkşepa.) Mammața takes up this problem again and goes to
absurd lengths to illustrate certain possible ellipses (cf. upameyadyo-
takalupta). These types usually amount to Bhāmaha's samāsôpamā,
but some involve other principles.
Udbhata also improves upon Bhamaha's category vati, where,
it will be remembered, the object of comparison was bound by a
comparative suffix -vat. Admitting this type, Udbhata then finds
certain other morphological contexts where the object of comparison
in some form or other appears in bound form with verb-, adverb-,
or adjective-forming suffixes. The Sanskrit language, in fact, allows
any noun to be made into a verb having the sense of "behaves like X"
(see ācāra); likewise an adverbial accusative in -am, always distin-
guished from the accusative case, may express the idea of similitude
when suffixed to the object of comparison (see namul). Lastly, other
taddhita suffixes than -vat are comparative in meaning (-kalpa, g.v.).
Rudrata in a way represents a summation of the structural
tradition. He allows the same three types as Bhāmaha and Udbhața,
calling them väkyôpamā (not the same as Daṇḍin's vākyârthôpama)
for Bhamaha's yathêvaśabdopamā, as opposed to samāsôpamā,
which name Rudrața keeps, and pratyaya, or suffixed similes, by
which term Rudrața apparently intends all those formed by suffixa-
tion as described by Udbhata. In reference to samāsa upamā, it
might be remarked that the compound so formed is a bahuvrihi, or