2023-03-29 18:09:43 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
54
say, than it does to sūkṣma, for both rūpaka and vyatireka are subsumed
under the classification simile). At all points of the system, however,
cross fertilization is possible. Dipaka, which begins its career as a sa-
bdālamkāra, more and more falls under the sway of the most characteristic
arthālamkāra-simile-not because the form is redefined, but because
the context of application becomes more and more specialized; the figure
is used to imply similitudes.
INTRODUCTION
The classification suggested by Ruyyaka (the most extensive and detailed
one supplied by the tradition) is based in part on other considerations
(on the reference of the figure: division of logical figures into worldly,
verbal, and ratiocinative), but often coincides with our own, focussing on
the logical basis of similitude (emphasizing the distinctiveness, the identity
or the relative difference of the compared terms),137 We will follow
Ruyyaka or Rudrața whenever possible, but will often suggest new
orderings.
The figure is the form and is represented in the definition; it is distin-
guished from its exemplification, which, as we have seen, involves other
non-poetic factors and is illimitable. Yet one example is necessary for
each definition a characteristic example which will demonstrate in
concrete form the point made by the definition. Figurative poetics is not
a study of examples, a posteriori: one example per definition is generally
sufficient. It is in fact an a priori science, which treats its exemplification
more as a justification and, of course, as a means of conveying an idea.
The example shows the characteristic misuse of the logical or other form,
but also that the form is correctly apprehended despite the misuse. The
definition states only the form and the conditions of the misrepresentation
involved.
When this position is understood, the question of exhaustiveness still
remains, though somewhat mitigated: Are all the expressions which are in
principle poetic defined here? Since each figure has a place in a
nexus of possibilities, it would be difficult to be completely exhaustive;
the system is one which contains many more theoretical figures than actual
ones. But the principles and criteria of definition are exhaustive; their
possible combinations and permutations are difficult to encompass.
Still, each new figure can easily be placed in the system of definition.
Rarely indeed is there any suggestion of a novel principle of definition, 188
187 Ruyyaka, Alamkārasarvasva (Kāvyamālā, 35), pp. 181, 187, 206; p. 31.
138 The figure arthāpatti may be one such; a mode of valid knowledge in the mimāmsā
philosophy, but rejected by most other systems; in effect, reasoning a fortiori. First
defined as a poetic figure by Ruyyaka, Alamkārasarvasva, p. 196.
say, than it does to sūkṣma, for both rūpaka and vyatireka are subsumed
under the classification simile). At all points of the system, however,
cross fertilization is possible. Dipaka, which begins its career as a sa-
bdālamkāra, more and more falls under the sway of the most characteristic
arthālamkāra-simile-not because the form is redefined, but because
the context of application becomes more and more specialized; the figure
is used to imply similitudes.
INTRODUCTION
The classification suggested by Ruyyaka (the most extensive and detailed
one supplied by the tradition) is based in part on other considerations
(on the reference of the figure: division of logical figures into worldly,
verbal, and ratiocinative), but often coincides with our own, focussing on
the logical basis of similitude (emphasizing the distinctiveness, the identity
or the relative difference of the compared terms),137 We will follow
Ruyyaka or Rudrața whenever possible, but will often suggest new
orderings.
The figure is the form and is represented in the definition; it is distin-
guished from its exemplification, which, as we have seen, involves other
non-poetic factors and is illimitable. Yet one example is necessary for
each definition a characteristic example which will demonstrate in
concrete form the point made by the definition. Figurative poetics is not
a study of examples, a posteriori: one example per definition is generally
sufficient. It is in fact an a priori science, which treats its exemplification
more as a justification and, of course, as a means of conveying an idea.
The example shows the characteristic misuse of the logical or other form,
but also that the form is correctly apprehended despite the misuse. The
definition states only the form and the conditions of the misrepresentation
involved.
When this position is understood, the question of exhaustiveness still
remains, though somewhat mitigated: Are all the expressions which are in
principle poetic defined here? Since each figure has a place in a
nexus of possibilities, it would be difficult to be completely exhaustive;
the system is one which contains many more theoretical figures than actual
ones. But the principles and criteria of definition are exhaustive; their
possible combinations and permutations are difficult to encompass.
Still, each new figure can easily be placed in the system of definition.
Rarely indeed is there any suggestion of a novel principle of definition, 188
187 Ruyyaka, Alamkārasarvasva (Kāvyamālā, 35), pp. 181, 187, 206; p. 31.
138 The figure arthāpatti may be one such; a mode of valid knowledge in the mimāmsā
philosophy, but rejected by most other systems; in effect, reasoning a fortiori. First
defined as a poetic figure by Ruyyaka, Alamkārasarvasva, p. 196.