2023-03-29 18:10:47 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
243
the object of comparison of the first metaphor may become the subject
of comparison of the following, and so on, giving a chain of meta-
phors (rašanā); lastly, the object of comparison of one metaphor
may itself imply a second, completely independent, metaphorical
identification which, as it were, grows out of the first (paramparita,
or "continuous" metaphor). Mammața considers this last a separate
type, not a subtype of niravayava rüpaka. Otherwise, his classifica-
tion is a simplified version of Rudraţa's.
GLOSSARY
Dandin, as is his wont, completes the discussion of rūpaka by
considering the implications of other figures for this figure. Among
the rūpakas so qualified are viruddha (the figure virodha), hetu, ślişta
(the figure śleșa), upamā, vyatireka, ākṣepa, and rūpaka itself. This
last is a three-member metaphor differing from the types of complex
and compound metaphors in that the three terms are identified
with each other as such and imply no relation of subordination or
qualification. Further categories proposed by Daṇḍin and illustrat-
ing various principles are (sa)viśeṣaṇa rūpaka, where the metaphors
are grammatically adjectival, that is neither compounded (samasta)
nor predicated (asamasta); samādhana rupaka, where an inconsistency
in the metaphor is alleged and explained; and the curious tattvapa-
hnava or "denial of identity", which at first glance appears to be the
very inverse of rūpaka or "identification". See that term.
The other writers propose classifications which adumbrate those
more fully outlined by Daṇḍin or Rudrata.
The definitions of rūpaka are remarkably uniform, yet some authors
(Dandin, Udbhața, Rudrața) emphasize the negative aspect of
identification and thus relate the figure explicitly to upamă, while
others (Bhāmaha, Vāmana) consider the identification in a positive
way. The rüpaka is, for the former group, a simile with the difference
between the two things suppressed (tirobhūtabheda) and, for the latter
group, is simply an identification (tattva) of the two things.
ayukta, 'unrelated': (1) a type of complex rüpaka in which the objects
of the subsidiary metaphors are not mutually related in terms of
some well-known cliché or image which in fact suggests a contrary;
mixed metaphor. (2) D 2.78. (3) idam ärdrasmitajyotsnam snigdhane-
trôpalam mukham (Dandin; "moonlight" and "day lotus" are not
usually connected in popular usage: "This face is radiant with its
moonlight of tender smiles and the soft day lotus of its eye"). (4)
"'De sun is made of mud from de bottom of de river; / De moon is
made o' fox-fire, as you might disciver'" (Owen Wister; fire and
the object of comparison of the first metaphor may become the subject
of comparison of the following, and so on, giving a chain of meta-
phors (rašanā); lastly, the object of comparison of one metaphor
may itself imply a second, completely independent, metaphorical
identification which, as it were, grows out of the first (paramparita,
or "continuous" metaphor). Mammața considers this last a separate
type, not a subtype of niravayava rüpaka. Otherwise, his classifica-
tion is a simplified version of Rudraţa's.
GLOSSARY
Dandin, as is his wont, completes the discussion of rūpaka by
considering the implications of other figures for this figure. Among
the rūpakas so qualified are viruddha (the figure virodha), hetu, ślişta
(the figure śleșa), upamā, vyatireka, ākṣepa, and rūpaka itself. This
last is a three-member metaphor differing from the types of complex
and compound metaphors in that the three terms are identified
with each other as such and imply no relation of subordination or
qualification. Further categories proposed by Daṇḍin and illustrat-
ing various principles are (sa)viśeṣaṇa rūpaka, where the metaphors
are grammatically adjectival, that is neither compounded (samasta)
nor predicated (asamasta); samādhana rupaka, where an inconsistency
in the metaphor is alleged and explained; and the curious tattvapa-
hnava or "denial of identity", which at first glance appears to be the
very inverse of rūpaka or "identification". See that term.
The other writers propose classifications which adumbrate those
more fully outlined by Daṇḍin or Rudrata.
The definitions of rūpaka are remarkably uniform, yet some authors
(Dandin, Udbhața, Rudrața) emphasize the negative aspect of
identification and thus relate the figure explicitly to upamă, while
others (Bhāmaha, Vāmana) consider the identification in a positive
way. The rüpaka is, for the former group, a simile with the difference
between the two things suppressed (tirobhūtabheda) and, for the latter
group, is simply an identification (tattva) of the two things.
ayukta, 'unrelated': (1) a type of complex rüpaka in which the objects
of the subsidiary metaphors are not mutually related in terms of
some well-known cliché or image which in fact suggests a contrary;
mixed metaphor. (2) D 2.78. (3) idam ärdrasmitajyotsnam snigdhane-
trôpalam mukham (Dandin; "moonlight" and "day lotus" are not
usually connected in popular usage: "This face is radiant with its
moonlight of tender smiles and the soft day lotus of its eye"). (4)
"'De sun is made of mud from de bottom of de river; / De moon is
made o' fox-fire, as you might disciver'" (Owen Wister; fire and