2023-03-29 18:11:03 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
293
two (hence unpunned) nouns may construct with one verb [abhin-
nakriyā], with two verbs which are different in sense [aviruddhakriyā],
or with two verbs which are contrary in sense [viruddhakarman].
Neither the nouns or the verbs are punned; the puns reside only in
the adjectives pertaining to the nouns. Having thus introduced the
verb into the system, Dandin proceeds to state the possible relations
between the two senses of the pun: they may be entirely different,
but consistent (avirodhin), contradictory (virodhin), they may be two
aspects of the same concept (niyamâkṣeparūpa), or, finally, an aspect
and the concept itself (niyamavat). Dandin is the only writer who
shows metaphysical ability in the organization of his classifications;
this one is extremely interesting in laying bare the generic kinds of
oppositions which any two meanings may have: they will either be
indifferent or generically related; if indifferent, then either compatible
or contradictory, if generic, then either as species or as genus and
species. Needless to say, this categorization was not followed by
later writers, whose interests become more and more formal and
verbal. But it does have an interesting parallel in the ten types of
artha ślesa which Rudrața describes. These, however, relate to the
kinds of situations in which śleșa can be used and suggest a context
similar to that of the dhvani theory, rather than involving the struc-
ture of meaning itself.
Vāmana does not subdivide śleșa. Udbhața is the first to use the
terms sabda and artha śleșa, probably in the sense described above,
but since no explanation is contained in the text, we have only the
opinions of commentators to go on, all of whom were posterior
to the writers (notably Rudrata) who developed sabda and artha
ślesa in great detail. There is always a tendency in such cases to read
back into the text the later opinions.
GLOSSARY
With Rudrata, the idea of double-entendre reaches its apogee.
He recognizes the distinction of ślesa into śabda and artha, but raises
each to the status of an independent subject. Chapter Four of his
work is devoted to the former and Chapter Ten to the latter. More-
over, artha śleşa represents one of the four large categories into which
artha alamkāras are divided, the others being 'descriptive' (vāstava),
*comparative" (aupamya), and hyperbolic' (atisaya). The division
implies that artha śleşa is both comparative and hyperbolic (since
"descriptive" is neither comparative nor hyperbolic) and as such
represents for Rudrața the most poctic as well as the most interesting
case. Such an inference is not entirely without plausibility, inasmuch
two (hence unpunned) nouns may construct with one verb [abhin-
nakriyā], with two verbs which are different in sense [aviruddhakriyā],
or with two verbs which are contrary in sense [viruddhakarman].
Neither the nouns or the verbs are punned; the puns reside only in
the adjectives pertaining to the nouns. Having thus introduced the
verb into the system, Dandin proceeds to state the possible relations
between the two senses of the pun: they may be entirely different,
but consistent (avirodhin), contradictory (virodhin), they may be two
aspects of the same concept (niyamâkṣeparūpa), or, finally, an aspect
and the concept itself (niyamavat). Dandin is the only writer who
shows metaphysical ability in the organization of his classifications;
this one is extremely interesting in laying bare the generic kinds of
oppositions which any two meanings may have: they will either be
indifferent or generically related; if indifferent, then either compatible
or contradictory, if generic, then either as species or as genus and
species. Needless to say, this categorization was not followed by
later writers, whose interests become more and more formal and
verbal. But it does have an interesting parallel in the ten types of
artha ślesa which Rudrața describes. These, however, relate to the
kinds of situations in which śleșa can be used and suggest a context
similar to that of the dhvani theory, rather than involving the struc-
ture of meaning itself.
Vāmana does not subdivide śleșa. Udbhața is the first to use the
terms sabda and artha śleșa, probably in the sense described above,
but since no explanation is contained in the text, we have only the
opinions of commentators to go on, all of whom were posterior
to the writers (notably Rudrata) who developed sabda and artha
ślesa in great detail. There is always a tendency in such cases to read
back into the text the later opinions.
GLOSSARY
With Rudrata, the idea of double-entendre reaches its apogee.
He recognizes the distinction of ślesa into śabda and artha, but raises
each to the status of an independent subject. Chapter Four of his
work is devoted to the former and Chapter Ten to the latter. More-
over, artha śleşa represents one of the four large categories into which
artha alamkāras are divided, the others being 'descriptive' (vāstava),
*comparative" (aupamya), and hyperbolic' (atisaya). The division
implies that artha śleşa is both comparative and hyperbolic (since
"descriptive" is neither comparative nor hyperbolic) and as such
represents for Rudrața the most poctic as well as the most interesting
case. Such an inference is not entirely without plausibility, inasmuch