2023-03-29 18:11:07 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
GLOSSARY
307
samsrsti
samsrsti, 'combination': (1) a multiple or compound figure. (2) B 3.48-
51, D 2.363 (samkīrṇa, 2.359), V 4.3.30-33, U 6.5, M 207. (3) (4)
See following discussion for examples. (5) The three terms samsrsti,
samkīrṇa, and samkara, used in general to refer to the combination
or compounding of other figures of speech, have such a variety of
particular acceptations in the various authors that it is impossible
to separate them clearly. In general, the phenomenon of the multiple
figure was considered, from Daṇḍin onwards, in two aspects: the
two or more constituent figures could be related somehow, or they
could be purely extrinsic to one another. Only Bhāmaha and Vamana
do not make this distinction in some form; their term samsrșți is
therefore to be taken as referring to the genus of multiple alamkāras.
That they do use the term samsrsti and not one of the other terms,
probably testifies to the originality of this term, the others being
used ad hoc by later writers. Dandin, however, in making the
distinction between related and independent figures in conjunction,
employs the term samkīrṇa in the generic sense of Bhamaha's
samsrsti. The word samsṛșți does appear in Daṇḍin's definition of
samkīrṇa ("nānālamkārasamsṛṣṭiḥ samkīrṇam") and suggests that the
use of samkīrṇa is idiosyncratic and well within the normal variation
of otherwise univocal technical terminology (Dandin, for example,
refers to svabhävôkti as svabhāvâkhyāna (2.4) for metrical reasons).
Within samkīrṇa, Dandin enumerates two types: mutually
related (angângi), and independent (samakakṣatā), depending on
whether or not one figure implies the other in the sense that the other
cannot be grasped as a figure without the first. Udbhața recognizes
this distinction, but applies to it the two terms which up to now
appear to be but mere stylistic variations of one another: samsrsti
(for unrelated figures) and samkara (from the same root -ki as
samkīrṇa; for related figures). Within the latter term, Udbhața finds
four subtypes: Dandin's familiar añgâñgi (renamed anugrahyângu-
grähaka) as well as an ekaśabdâbhidhāna (where the two figures
overlap in the total expression), samdeha (where they coalesce entire-
ly), and a type in which both sabda and artha alamkāras (śabdârtha-
vivarti) are mixed. Mammața repeats the entire discussion of Ud-
bhata except for his omission of the subtype ekaśabdábhidhāna.
Rudraţa, however, introduces the ultimate element of confusion
by using the term samkara in the generic sense, as did Dandin, and
not mentioning samsrsti at all. His two types, vyaktâmśa and avya-
307
samsrsti
samsrsti, 'combination': (1) a multiple or compound figure. (2) B 3.48-
51, D 2.363 (samkīrṇa, 2.359), V 4.3.30-33, U 6.5, M 207. (3) (4)
See following discussion for examples. (5) The three terms samsrsti,
samkīrṇa, and samkara, used in general to refer to the combination
or compounding of other figures of speech, have such a variety of
particular acceptations in the various authors that it is impossible
to separate them clearly. In general, the phenomenon of the multiple
figure was considered, from Daṇḍin onwards, in two aspects: the
two or more constituent figures could be related somehow, or they
could be purely extrinsic to one another. Only Bhāmaha and Vamana
do not make this distinction in some form; their term samsrșți is
therefore to be taken as referring to the genus of multiple alamkāras.
That they do use the term samsrsti and not one of the other terms,
probably testifies to the originality of this term, the others being
used ad hoc by later writers. Dandin, however, in making the
distinction between related and independent figures in conjunction,
employs the term samkīrṇa in the generic sense of Bhamaha's
samsrsti. The word samsṛșți does appear in Daṇḍin's definition of
samkīrṇa ("nānālamkārasamsṛṣṭiḥ samkīrṇam") and suggests that the
use of samkīrṇa is idiosyncratic and well within the normal variation
of otherwise univocal technical terminology (Dandin, for example,
refers to svabhävôkti as svabhāvâkhyāna (2.4) for metrical reasons).
Within samkīrṇa, Dandin enumerates two types: mutually
related (angângi), and independent (samakakṣatā), depending on
whether or not one figure implies the other in the sense that the other
cannot be grasped as a figure without the first. Udbhața recognizes
this distinction, but applies to it the two terms which up to now
appear to be but mere stylistic variations of one another: samsrsti
(for unrelated figures) and samkara (from the same root -ki as
samkīrṇa; for related figures). Within the latter term, Udbhața finds
four subtypes: Dandin's familiar añgâñgi (renamed anugrahyângu-
grähaka) as well as an ekaśabdâbhidhāna (where the two figures
overlap in the total expression), samdeha (where they coalesce entire-
ly), and a type in which both sabda and artha alamkāras (śabdârtha-
vivarti) are mixed. Mammața repeats the entire discussion of Ud-
bhata except for his omission of the subtype ekaśabdábhidhāna.
Rudraţa, however, introduces the ultimate element of confusion
by using the term samkara in the generic sense, as did Dandin, and
not mentioning samsrsti at all. His two types, vyaktâmśa and avya-