2023-03-29 18:10:48 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
250
GLOSSARY
identified with a bow; this, in itself, is unclear until the bow is said to
belong to the love-hunter: she is the love-hunter's bow: "This lovely
maiden conquers all-she is a lotus pond of all the arts, a river of
beauty, a crescent moon on the lake of earthly joys, the bow of the
love-hunter"). (4) "Our caresses, our tender words, our still rapture
under the influence of autumn sunsets, or pillared vistas, or calm
majestic statues, or Beethoven symphonies, all bring with them the
consciousness that they are mere waves and ripples in an unfathom-
able ocean of love and beauty" (George Eliot). (5) The term param-
parita is defined with differing emphases by the two authors who use
it: Rudraţa draws attention to the formal peculiarity of the com-
pound word which expresses the metaphor; namely, that it contains
one subject but two objects of comparison (love, subject; hunter,
object; bow, object), this second object referring to a second subject
which is outside the compound: the girl. This verbalistic account
seems to avoid the main point, which is the relation of inclusion or
extension obtaining between the object of the principal metaphor and
the second metaphor (bow? which bow? love-hunter's bow). Mam-
mata, with uncharacteristic insight, fixes upon this conceptual rela-
tionship and expresses it as that of condition and conditioned (only
by knowing that the bow is that of the love-hunter does it make
sense to equate it with the girl.)
Paramparita is classified as a type of niravayava rūpaka, a non-
complex metaphor without subordinate metaphorical identifications;
that is, the relation of subordination discussed above does not involve
the relation of a whole to its parts, which is what is intended by the
term "complex". Cf. sâvayava, niravayava. Analytically, paramparita
is the inverse of avayava, for the metaphor that in avayava would be
the whole (love-hunter) is here the subordinate (at least grammatic-
ally), and the part (girl-bow) is the principal. But this is not the point
at issue, for the form of paramparita is not merely the inverse of the
form of sâvayava (where the principal, neatly spelled out, is accom-
panied by metaphorically identified aspects, neatly spelled out and
inserted at appropriate places in the larger idea: an architectonic of
metaphor); rather, in paramparita the subordinate metaphor (which
is the principal of savayava in meaning) is both a grammatical and
conceptual element of an aspect (the object) of the principal meta-
phor. Instead of being founded upon a part, it is a part: it is inte-
grated in what is analytically its own consequence.
Paramparita is apparently identical with the upamārūpaka alam-
GLOSSARY
identified with a bow; this, in itself, is unclear until the bow is said to
belong to the love-hunter: she is the love-hunter's bow: "This lovely
maiden conquers all-she is a lotus pond of all the arts, a river of
beauty, a crescent moon on the lake of earthly joys, the bow of the
love-hunter"). (4) "Our caresses, our tender words, our still rapture
under the influence of autumn sunsets, or pillared vistas, or calm
majestic statues, or Beethoven symphonies, all bring with them the
consciousness that they are mere waves and ripples in an unfathom-
able ocean of love and beauty" (George Eliot). (5) The term param-
parita is defined with differing emphases by the two authors who use
it: Rudraţa draws attention to the formal peculiarity of the com-
pound word which expresses the metaphor; namely, that it contains
one subject but two objects of comparison (love, subject; hunter,
object; bow, object), this second object referring to a second subject
which is outside the compound: the girl. This verbalistic account
seems to avoid the main point, which is the relation of inclusion or
extension obtaining between the object of the principal metaphor and
the second metaphor (bow? which bow? love-hunter's bow). Mam-
mata, with uncharacteristic insight, fixes upon this conceptual rela-
tionship and expresses it as that of condition and conditioned (only
by knowing that the bow is that of the love-hunter does it make
sense to equate it with the girl.)
Paramparita is classified as a type of niravayava rūpaka, a non-
complex metaphor without subordinate metaphorical identifications;
that is, the relation of subordination discussed above does not involve
the relation of a whole to its parts, which is what is intended by the
term "complex". Cf. sâvayava, niravayava. Analytically, paramparita
is the inverse of avayava, for the metaphor that in avayava would be
the whole (love-hunter) is here the subordinate (at least grammatic-
ally), and the part (girl-bow) is the principal. But this is not the point
at issue, for the form of paramparita is not merely the inverse of the
form of sâvayava (where the principal, neatly spelled out, is accom-
panied by metaphorically identified aspects, neatly spelled out and
inserted at appropriate places in the larger idea: an architectonic of
metaphor); rather, in paramparita the subordinate metaphor (which
is the principal of savayava in meaning) is both a grammatical and
conceptual element of an aspect (the object) of the principal meta-
phor. Instead of being founded upon a part, it is a part: it is inte-
grated in what is analytically its own consequence.
Paramparita is apparently identical with the upamārūpaka alam-