2023-03-29 18:11:07 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
306
GLOSSARY
sence of the antidote). (5) If the pun depends on no determinable
formal equivocation, but only on a legitimate duplicity of meaning
assignable to the word (lexical item, etymon) itself, we have artha
śleşa (q.v.). For a full discussion of this difference, see artha śleşa.
Mammaţa takes the distinction sabda/artha śleșa from Udbhata
and then finds that Rudrata's eight grammatical categories of śleșa
can be taken as subdivisions of sabda śleşa. Thus do systems grow.
He treats sabda śleșa in ullāsa 9 (kārikā 119) and artha śleșa in
10 (kārikā 147).
sahôkti, 'expression of concomitance': (1) sahôkti alamkāra accompanied
by śleşa. (2) B 3.17 (18). (3) (4) (5) See guņa śleșa.
hetu, 'cause': (1) a type of paronomasia in which the double-entendre
accompanies hetu alamkāra. (2) B 3.17 (20). (3) (4) (5) See nāma
śleşa.
samsaya
samśaya (I) 'doubt': (1) same as samdeha. (2) R 8.59, 61. (5) See
samdeha.
samsaya (II): (1) a figure in which two similar but discriminable things
are said to be subject to a doubt concerning their respective nature
or mode of action. (2) R 8.65 (66). (3) gamanam adhitam hamsais
tvattah subhage tvayā nu hamsebhyah । kim śaśinaḥ pratibimbam
vadanam te kim mukhasya śaśī (Rudraţa; in the first half śloka, the
mode of cause and effect is suspended: who taught whom? In the
last half, the question is: the beauty of which term is the model
for that of the other? "Did the swans teach you how to walk, O
lovely, or did you teach the swans? Is your face modeled on the
moon, or the moon on your face?"). (4) "Such was the mutual
love and reciprocal respect that this worthy man had to his flock,
and his flock to him, that it was hard to judge whether he delighted
more in having such a people, or they in having such a pastor"
(Carl Sandburg). (5) This figure differs from the ordinary samdeha
only in that it is not qua comparability that the two similar things
are doubted. Here they are confused through some other aspect of
their relation (which is, of course, many sided), as, for example,
cause-effect (which is cause and which effect?), if they happen to be
related as to cause and effect (either in fact or in the poet's imagina-
tion). For other exaggerations of nature and mode of action, cf.
adhika and visama. The present type differs from them inasmuch
as it is expressed by means of a doubt, not declaratively.
GLOSSARY
sence of the antidote). (5) If the pun depends on no determinable
formal equivocation, but only on a legitimate duplicity of meaning
assignable to the word (lexical item, etymon) itself, we have artha
śleşa (q.v.). For a full discussion of this difference, see artha śleşa.
Mammaţa takes the distinction sabda/artha śleșa from Udbhata
and then finds that Rudrata's eight grammatical categories of śleșa
can be taken as subdivisions of sabda śleşa. Thus do systems grow.
He treats sabda śleșa in ullāsa 9 (kārikā 119) and artha śleșa in
10 (kārikā 147).
sahôkti, 'expression of concomitance': (1) sahôkti alamkāra accompanied
by śleşa. (2) B 3.17 (18). (3) (4) (5) See guņa śleșa.
hetu, 'cause': (1) a type of paronomasia in which the double-entendre
accompanies hetu alamkāra. (2) B 3.17 (20). (3) (4) (5) See nāma
śleşa.
samsaya
samśaya (I) 'doubt': (1) same as samdeha. (2) R 8.59, 61. (5) See
samdeha.
samsaya (II): (1) a figure in which two similar but discriminable things
are said to be subject to a doubt concerning their respective nature
or mode of action. (2) R 8.65 (66). (3) gamanam adhitam hamsais
tvattah subhage tvayā nu hamsebhyah । kim śaśinaḥ pratibimbam
vadanam te kim mukhasya śaśī (Rudraţa; in the first half śloka, the
mode of cause and effect is suspended: who taught whom? In the
last half, the question is: the beauty of which term is the model
for that of the other? "Did the swans teach you how to walk, O
lovely, or did you teach the swans? Is your face modeled on the
moon, or the moon on your face?"). (4) "Such was the mutual
love and reciprocal respect that this worthy man had to his flock,
and his flock to him, that it was hard to judge whether he delighted
more in having such a people, or they in having such a pastor"
(Carl Sandburg). (5) This figure differs from the ordinary samdeha
only in that it is not qua comparability that the two similar things
are doubted. Here they are confused through some other aspect of
their relation (which is, of course, many sided), as, for example,
cause-effect (which is cause and which effect?), if they happen to be
related as to cause and effect (either in fact or in the poet's imagina-
tion). For other exaggerations of nature and mode of action, cf.
adhika and visama. The present type differs from them inasmuch
as it is expressed by means of a doubt, not declaratively.