2023-03-29 18:09:40 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
48
INTRODUCTION
What is implicit in Dandin-that svabhāvokti is a category of figures
which employ conventionality in a sense which can be called vakra-is
explicitly stated by Rudrata; those figures which are considered primarily
to illustrate that special quality of apprehension are grouped under the
term vāstava. Interestingly enough, besides jāti and hetu, Rudrața deals
with sükşma and leśa, as well as a host of figures based on syntactic
patterns lending emphasis, or exemplifying (without hyperbole) various
kinds of suggestion and inference. The ability of the mind to see an
unusual relationship is to Rudrața evidence of poetical intent, even when
there is no explicit comparison or secondary reference. Rudrata with
one stroke encompasses the whole realm of dhvani¹1¹9 in literal speech.
How misleading to consider svabhāvokti and västava merely as literal
expression and thus to conclude that the writers are dealing with a con-
tradiction, viz., literal speech as poetical.
(e) Poetic as an Intellectual Discipline
It is important to recognize that the vakrokti of the early alamkārikas
does not refer to metaphor in the Aristotelian sense. In fact, Vāmana is
the only writer to accord special mention to such a figure. The remaining
writers borrow metaphor from grammar, as an aspect of the theory of
signification,¹⁹0 and go on to situate poetry primarily on the level of
propositions. It is not the usage of individual morphemes that makes
poetry (as one interpretation of the dictum "sabdarthau sahitau kāvyam"
implies). Vakrokti is to be understood as describing the misapplication
of modes of thought and judgement. It is only in this way that we can
distinguish poetical from logical or scientific comprehension. In the
logical upamiti ("comparison'), the formal elements of comparison are
present, as is the understanding of a relation between the subject and a
similar. The proofs for the existence of God are often similes: as a product
requires a maker, so does this world (a product showing intelligence of
design) require a maker.¹1 The form of simile here is not poetic, because
incorrect to think that the term vakrokti denotes an element, while the svabhāvokti
is merely a figure, for it does not appear to be sound that all the figures excepting
svabhāvokti were to Dandin the different forms of vakrokti. There are certainly some
other figures as well which are devoid of the element of vakrokti and where the element
of svabhāvokti is conspicuous by its presence" (pp. 212-213).
119 Scil, which does not contribute to figures based on simile or hyperbole, such as
samäsokti (q.v.).
120 The concept of lakṣaṇā, or secondary denotation, spoken of above.
121
Sāmkhyakārikā 15; Udayanācārya, Nyāyakusumāñjali, 5.1.
INTRODUCTION
What is implicit in Dandin-that svabhāvokti is a category of figures
which employ conventionality in a sense which can be called vakra-is
explicitly stated by Rudrata; those figures which are considered primarily
to illustrate that special quality of apprehension are grouped under the
term vāstava. Interestingly enough, besides jāti and hetu, Rudrața deals
with sükşma and leśa, as well as a host of figures based on syntactic
patterns lending emphasis, or exemplifying (without hyperbole) various
kinds of suggestion and inference. The ability of the mind to see an
unusual relationship is to Rudrața evidence of poetical intent, even when
there is no explicit comparison or secondary reference. Rudrata with
one stroke encompasses the whole realm of dhvani¹1¹9 in literal speech.
How misleading to consider svabhāvokti and västava merely as literal
expression and thus to conclude that the writers are dealing with a con-
tradiction, viz., literal speech as poetical.
(e) Poetic as an Intellectual Discipline
It is important to recognize that the vakrokti of the early alamkārikas
does not refer to metaphor in the Aristotelian sense. In fact, Vāmana is
the only writer to accord special mention to such a figure. The remaining
writers borrow metaphor from grammar, as an aspect of the theory of
signification,¹⁹0 and go on to situate poetry primarily on the level of
propositions. It is not the usage of individual morphemes that makes
poetry (as one interpretation of the dictum "sabdarthau sahitau kāvyam"
implies). Vakrokti is to be understood as describing the misapplication
of modes of thought and judgement. It is only in this way that we can
distinguish poetical from logical or scientific comprehension. In the
logical upamiti ("comparison'), the formal elements of comparison are
present, as is the understanding of a relation between the subject and a
similar. The proofs for the existence of God are often similes: as a product
requires a maker, so does this world (a product showing intelligence of
design) require a maker.¹1 The form of simile here is not poetic, because
incorrect to think that the term vakrokti denotes an element, while the svabhāvokti
is merely a figure, for it does not appear to be sound that all the figures excepting
svabhāvokti were to Dandin the different forms of vakrokti. There are certainly some
other figures as well which are devoid of the element of vakrokti and where the element
of svabhāvokti is conspicuous by its presence" (pp. 212-213).
119 Scil, which does not contribute to figures based on simile or hyperbole, such as
samäsokti (q.v.).
120 The concept of lakṣaṇā, or secondary denotation, spoken of above.
121
Sāmkhyakārikā 15; Udayanācārya, Nyāyakusumāñjali, 5.1.