Handbook of Classical Sanskrit Rhetoric /118

62
 
A Handbook of Classicalv. mālā-upamā: Girdle Sanskrit Rhetoric
 
v. mālā-upamā: Girdle Simile
 
imile
w. prativastu-upamā: Typical Simile
 

x. tulyayoga-upamā: Equal Simile

y. hetu-upamăā: Causal Simile.
 

 
Rudraţṭa mentions three principal divisions:

a) vākya-upamā: Simile in sentence,
 
b) ś
b) samāsa-upamā: Simile in compound words,

c) pratyaya-upamā: Simile with suffix-base.
 

 
Ruyyaka's division is based on three main principles:

a) Mutual relationship (anugāmitā),
 

b) Reflexion-and-counter-reflexion (bimba-pratibimṃba-pratibiṃba-bhāva),
 

c) Object-and-counter-object (vastu-prativastu-bhāva).

 
Bhoja gives twofold divisions:
 

a) Verbal (vacyā) and
 
ācyā) and
b) Implied (pratīyamānā).
 
S
 
Śobhākara refers to two principle varieties based on the posi-

tive and negative aspects of the objects of comparison.
 

 
Upamā is based on both similitude and non-similitude while

Vyatireka (Contrast) is based on mutual difference and Rūpaka on mutual

identity. Therefore, Appayya remarks that similitude (as we find it

expressed in poetic symbol or literary image) is rhetorically threefold:
 

a) resemblance (sādṛśya) based on the predominance of

mutual difference,
 
b)
 
resemblance based on non-difference and
 

b) resemblance based on non-difference and
c) resemblance based on both mutual agreement as well as

disagreement.
 

 
The figures like Diīpaka (Illumination), Tulyayogitā (Equal pair-

ing), Drstaṛṣṭānta (Exemplification), Prativastuūpamā (Typical Comparison),

Sahokti (Connected Description) and Vyatireka (Contrast) belong to the

first category.
 

 
Vidyānātha says that resemblance must be conforming to the
literary practice of the particular time and place and never dis-

literary practice of the particular time and place and never dis-
agreeable or unfavourable in any way. Thus all kinds of defective
 
Digitized by Google
 
Original from
 
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN