2023-03-29 18:11:08 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
309
anugrahyânugrahaka, 'related as facilitated and facilitating': (1) same as
añgâñgi samsṛṣți. (2) U 5.13.
avyaktâmśa, 'whose parts are not manifest': (1) a type of complex
alamkāra (samkara) in which the component figures are so expressed
as to make impossible a decision as to the location of each in the
phrase. (2) R 10.25 (28-29). (3) alokanam bhavatyā jananayanâ-
nandanêndukarajālam (Rudraţa; in this case, the commentator
asserts that the compound can be taken in one way as an upamā,
in another as a rūpaka: "Your glance is a net of moonbeams, delight-
ing the eyes of men"). (4) "Even when the President, the Rev. Dr.
Willoughby Quarles ... than whom no man had written more about
the necessity of baptism by immersion, in fact in every way a
thoroughly than-whom figure ..." (Sinclair Lewis; the last phrase
can be taken as an arthântaranyāsa or a rūpaka). (5) As a karma-
dharaya ("jananayanânandana evêndukarajalam"), the figure in the
Sanskrit example is a rūpaka; as a locative tatpuruşa ("jananayanâ-
nandana indukarajālam"), the attributive relation to the subject aloka-
nam can, it is said, be interpreted as a simile lacking the comparative
particle (iva). It may be said that this latter interpretation seems to
be at variance with Rudrata's own treatment of both simile and
metaphor. "Indukarajalam" by itself would not be an upamā, since
the upamāna follows the upameya (R 8.21); neither would the predi-
cative assertion "alokanam indukarajalam", since this is the
clearest type of aka (metaphor) definable in Rudrata's system
(8.38-39). This difficulty does, however, parallel Bhāmaha's appar-
ently inconsistent definition of the figure upamārupaka, where the
example of the upamā is just such a rūpaka. It may be that the formal
discriminations were not rigorously applied to those cases where,
despite the predicative identification of upameya and upamāna,
the idea of comparison was judged to be uppermost in the mind of
the poet. If this irregularity is allowed, the example then indeed.
illustrates the definition of avyaktâmśa, for both interpretations are
valid (neither can be refuted), and both apply to exactly the same
word sequence. In the English example, if the phrase "than-whom
figure" is taken as a predicate to Dr. Quarles, we have a rūpaka;
however, the phrase can also be taken as a general summary of the
preceding descriptive passage (arthântaranyāsa). Compare ekaša-
bdâbhidhāna, where the two figures only overlap; here they coalesce
entirely. This type is the same as the samdeha of Udbhata and the
aniścaya of Mammaţa. Rudrața gives another example which the
GLOSSARY
anugrahyânugrahaka, 'related as facilitated and facilitating': (1) same as
añgâñgi samsṛṣți. (2) U 5.13.
avyaktâmśa, 'whose parts are not manifest': (1) a type of complex
alamkāra (samkara) in which the component figures are so expressed
as to make impossible a decision as to the location of each in the
phrase. (2) R 10.25 (28-29). (3) alokanam bhavatyā jananayanâ-
nandanêndukarajālam (Rudraţa; in this case, the commentator
asserts that the compound can be taken in one way as an upamā,
in another as a rūpaka: "Your glance is a net of moonbeams, delight-
ing the eyes of men"). (4) "Even when the President, the Rev. Dr.
Willoughby Quarles ... than whom no man had written more about
the necessity of baptism by immersion, in fact in every way a
thoroughly than-whom figure ..." (Sinclair Lewis; the last phrase
can be taken as an arthântaranyāsa or a rūpaka). (5) As a karma-
dharaya ("jananayanânandana evêndukarajalam"), the figure in the
Sanskrit example is a rūpaka; as a locative tatpuruşa ("jananayanâ-
nandana indukarajālam"), the attributive relation to the subject aloka-
nam can, it is said, be interpreted as a simile lacking the comparative
particle (iva). It may be said that this latter interpretation seems to
be at variance with Rudrata's own treatment of both simile and
metaphor. "Indukarajalam" by itself would not be an upamā, since
the upamāna follows the upameya (R 8.21); neither would the predi-
cative assertion "alokanam indukarajalam", since this is the
clearest type of aka (metaphor) definable in Rudrata's system
(8.38-39). This difficulty does, however, parallel Bhāmaha's appar-
ently inconsistent definition of the figure upamārupaka, where the
example of the upamā is just such a rūpaka. It may be that the formal
discriminations were not rigorously applied to those cases where,
despite the predicative identification of upameya and upamāna,
the idea of comparison was judged to be uppermost in the mind of
the poet. If this irregularity is allowed, the example then indeed.
illustrates the definition of avyaktâmśa, for both interpretations are
valid (neither can be refuted), and both apply to exactly the same
word sequence. In the English example, if the phrase "than-whom
figure" is taken as a predicate to Dr. Quarles, we have a rūpaka;
however, the phrase can also be taken as a general summary of the
preceding descriptive passage (arthântaranyāsa). Compare ekaša-
bdâbhidhāna, where the two figures only overlap; here they coalesce
entirely. This type is the same as the samdeha of Udbhata and the
aniścaya of Mammaţa. Rudrața gives another example which the
GLOSSARY