2023-03-29 18:09:41 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
50
from that of the poetician.125 Both are approaching usage from the angle
of its expressive technique; both are attempting to understand the tech-
nique as it contributes to a fundamental and correct understanding of the
text. But the text, though true (indeed, eternal), is shot through with
inconsistencies, and expressions which defy reason and immediate
comprehension. The analysis of the text will consist in the exhibition of
those techniques as forms, with notes as to how they are to be understood
(ipso facto, correctly) and how they are to be made to render sense. The
mīmāmsakas and the poeticians differ in several respects, nevertheless:
in terms of the refinement of the technique of interpretation, in terms
of the canonic character of the texts, and in terms of the scope of the
discipline. The mīmāmsakas wish to make consonant a small number of
passages which conflict with a canonical and literal majority, while the
poeticians have separated off a special subject for their unique attention
and are interested only by implication in the origins of their study. It is
enough that poetry is also true and serves some extrinsic purpose.¹
126
INTRODUCTION
(III) THE SYSTEM OF FIGURES
(a) The Question of Infinitude
The figures with their subdivisions found in the pre-dhvani texts constitute
almost all of the figurative inventory. Later writers have added a few
new figures (as arthāpatti),127 but the steady growth in figurative elabora-
tion (a point made very often) is mainly one of appearance-a function of
regrouping, synthesizing divergent accounts, and accepting subdivisions
as independent figures. In late texts, figures based on rasa are elaborated
and illustrate the complicated categories of medieval logic. Yet the main
types and varieties are stated in Dandin, and the fundamental outline
of the subject is achieved in Rudrața. Still, critics from Anandavardhana
to the present have attributed theoretical inadequacy to the study of the
figures, alleging that poetic utterance is an undefinable subject matter:
15 It should be borne in mind that the mimāmsā, although a school of ritual inter-
pretation, is very likely the precursor of all the Indian schools of discursive reasoning:
what was at first textual exegesis became contextual exegesis. The oldest name of
the mimāmsă appears to have been nyaya; the logical framework of the poetic is its
most striking feature. See A. B. Keith, Indian Logic and Atomism, pp. 10-11.
IN An ancillary subject treated in the prolegomena of most early poetic texts: cf.
Dandin, Kävyädarśa, 1.1-10; Mammata, Kavyaprakāša, śloka 2.
See the Appendix for a list of those figures not defined before the medieval
period (post-Mammata).
137
from that of the poetician.125 Both are approaching usage from the angle
of its expressive technique; both are attempting to understand the tech-
nique as it contributes to a fundamental and correct understanding of the
text. But the text, though true (indeed, eternal), is shot through with
inconsistencies, and expressions which defy reason and immediate
comprehension. The analysis of the text will consist in the exhibition of
those techniques as forms, with notes as to how they are to be understood
(ipso facto, correctly) and how they are to be made to render sense. The
mīmāmsakas and the poeticians differ in several respects, nevertheless:
in terms of the refinement of the technique of interpretation, in terms
of the canonic character of the texts, and in terms of the scope of the
discipline. The mīmāmsakas wish to make consonant a small number of
passages which conflict with a canonical and literal majority, while the
poeticians have separated off a special subject for their unique attention
and are interested only by implication in the origins of their study. It is
enough that poetry is also true and serves some extrinsic purpose.¹
126
INTRODUCTION
(III) THE SYSTEM OF FIGURES
(a) The Question of Infinitude
The figures with their subdivisions found in the pre-dhvani texts constitute
almost all of the figurative inventory. Later writers have added a few
new figures (as arthāpatti),127 but the steady growth in figurative elabora-
tion (a point made very often) is mainly one of appearance-a function of
regrouping, synthesizing divergent accounts, and accepting subdivisions
as independent figures. In late texts, figures based on rasa are elaborated
and illustrate the complicated categories of medieval logic. Yet the main
types and varieties are stated in Dandin, and the fundamental outline
of the subject is achieved in Rudrața. Still, critics from Anandavardhana
to the present have attributed theoretical inadequacy to the study of the
figures, alleging that poetic utterance is an undefinable subject matter:
15 It should be borne in mind that the mimāmsā, although a school of ritual inter-
pretation, is very likely the precursor of all the Indian schools of discursive reasoning:
what was at first textual exegesis became contextual exegesis. The oldest name of
the mimāmsă appears to have been nyaya; the logical framework of the poetic is its
most striking feature. See A. B. Keith, Indian Logic and Atomism, pp. 10-11.
IN An ancillary subject treated in the prolegomena of most early poetic texts: cf.
Dandin, Kävyädarśa, 1.1-10; Mammata, Kavyaprakāša, śloka 2.
See the Appendix for a list of those figures not defined before the medieval
period (post-Mammata).
137