2023-02-15 09:59:11 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
Upamă: Simile
to the upamāna (ie the standard of comparison) or reversely the
upamāna is less qualified than the upameya. So Bhāmaha says that
poetic similitude between two things is based on gunaleśa (ie inferi-
ority of one and superiority of the other). In his aphorism on the
form of nominal compounds between an adjective and a noun,
Pāṇini refers to the words of common standard of comparison with
objects like tiger, lion, bull etc.
57
Sanskrit rhetoricians have unanimously recognised Upamā as
the most powerful rhetorical device of language and given it the
supreme position among the figures of thought. The Natyaśāstra of
Bharata, the oldest extant work on Indian dramaturgy, records
only four alamkāras and upamā tops the list. While commenting on
Bharata's theory Abhinavagupa, the famous commentator and
critic of Sanskrit literature, opines that the variety of the figures of
thought is nothing but different shades of Simile. Keśavamiśra, in
his Alamkāra-sekhara quotes Rajasekhara who, according to him,
eulogises Upamā as the guiding principle of the poets as well as the
finest of all the figures of language. In Citra-mīṇānsā, Appayya
compares Upamā to an expert dancing girl captivating the hearts of
all by attractive expressions.
Resemblance (ie sādṛśya of sādharmya), according to Sanskrit
logicians, is a kind of relation existing between two or more things
and based on common attributes like jāti (genus), guna (attribute)
or kriya (action). The older logicians maintain that this sādṛśya is a
separate entity (padārtha) while the later ones include it under the
seven universal categories. Each and every comparison may be
called an upama in general, but undoubtedly not a rhetorical sim-
ile. Any kind of figurative similitude should be artistically designed
and poetically beautiful. Logical or factual likeness based on exis-
tentiality (ie sattva), cognizableness (ie jñejatva) and logical asser-
tion (ie prameyatva) bears no poetic charm whatsoever.
In Upamā, similitude between the objects can be expressed in
language in different linguistic patterns in the form of indeclin-
ables, nominal or adjective phrases, verbs, suffixes etc. A list of
such words or endings is given below:
words or phrases: iva (like), vā (or), yathā (as if), tulya (equal),
Google
Digitized by
Original from
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
to the upamāna (ie the standard of comparison) or reversely the
upamāna is less qualified than the upameya. So Bhāmaha says that
poetic similitude between two things is based on gunaleśa (ie inferi-
ority of one and superiority of the other). In his aphorism on the
form of nominal compounds between an adjective and a noun,
Pāṇini refers to the words of common standard of comparison with
objects like tiger, lion, bull etc.
57
Sanskrit rhetoricians have unanimously recognised Upamā as
the most powerful rhetorical device of language and given it the
supreme position among the figures of thought. The Natyaśāstra of
Bharata, the oldest extant work on Indian dramaturgy, records
only four alamkāras and upamā tops the list. While commenting on
Bharata's theory Abhinavagupa, the famous commentator and
critic of Sanskrit literature, opines that the variety of the figures of
thought is nothing but different shades of Simile. Keśavamiśra, in
his Alamkāra-sekhara quotes Rajasekhara who, according to him,
eulogises Upamā as the guiding principle of the poets as well as the
finest of all the figures of language. In Citra-mīṇānsā, Appayya
compares Upamā to an expert dancing girl captivating the hearts of
all by attractive expressions.
Resemblance (ie sādṛśya of sādharmya), according to Sanskrit
logicians, is a kind of relation existing between two or more things
and based on common attributes like jāti (genus), guna (attribute)
or kriya (action). The older logicians maintain that this sādṛśya is a
separate entity (padārtha) while the later ones include it under the
seven universal categories. Each and every comparison may be
called an upama in general, but undoubtedly not a rhetorical sim-
ile. Any kind of figurative similitude should be artistically designed
and poetically beautiful. Logical or factual likeness based on exis-
tentiality (ie sattva), cognizableness (ie jñejatva) and logical asser-
tion (ie prameyatva) bears no poetic charm whatsoever.
In Upamā, similitude between the objects can be expressed in
language in different linguistic patterns in the form of indeclin-
ables, nominal or adjective phrases, verbs, suffixes etc. A list of
such words or endings is given below:
words or phrases: iva (like), vā (or), yathā (as if), tulya (equal),
Digitized by
Original from
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN