2023-02-15 09:59:12 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
Upamā : Simile
similitude are henceforth excluded from poetic simile. Defects of
Upamā recognised in general are as follows:
(a) a difference in number and gender of the upameya and
the upamāna,
(b)
mention of the inferiority of the upameya (ie the object
of comparison),
(c) superiority of the upmāna (ie the standard of compari-
son) and
(d) uncommon or unusual similitude devoid of any kind of
poetic charm
It should be mentioned here that some figures such as
Prativastūpamā, Dīpaka, Ananvaya and others are very close to Upamā.
Some earlier rhetoricians consider these figures as different varieties
of Upamā. But, in course of time, they were gradually recognised as
separate alamkarās and their basic differences from Upamã were also
pinpointed. So we give below the points of their basic difference:
63
In Ananvaya (self Simile), one and the same object is com-
pared to itself but in Simile there are two different objects.
Vyatireka is based on mutual contrast though such contrast brings
the sense of implied or indirect resemblance.
In Upameyopamā, two objects (or the Upameya and the upamāna
are separately stated in two different sentences.
In Utprekṣā, the likeness between two things is purely a poetic
fancy and not based on any factual estimation like that of Upamā.
In Rūpaka, there is absence of mutual difference between the
two (ie the upameya and the upamāna). Rūpaka is compressed or
condensed Simile. Therefore, it is said that an Upamā without like
or as is a Rūpaka. Thus it can be said that -
(a) Upamā is based on both mutual difference and non-dif-
ference (bheda-abheda-pradhāna),
(b)
(c) Rūpaka is based on mutual identity (abheda-pradhāna).
Ruyyaka eulogises Upamā as the basic principle of all rhetorical
language. Vāmana thinks that Upamā is the mother of all orna-
ments and is solicited for all such expressions where the poet wants
Google
Vyatireka is based on mutual difference (bheda-
pradhāna) and
Digitized by
Original from
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
similitude are henceforth excluded from poetic simile. Defects of
Upamā recognised in general are as follows:
(a) a difference in number and gender of the upameya and
the upamāna,
(b)
mention of the inferiority of the upameya (ie the object
of comparison),
(c) superiority of the upmāna (ie the standard of compari-
son) and
(d) uncommon or unusual similitude devoid of any kind of
poetic charm
It should be mentioned here that some figures such as
Prativastūpamā, Dīpaka, Ananvaya and others are very close to Upamā.
Some earlier rhetoricians consider these figures as different varieties
of Upamā. But, in course of time, they were gradually recognised as
separate alamkarās and their basic differences from Upamã were also
pinpointed. So we give below the points of their basic difference:
63
In Ananvaya (self Simile), one and the same object is com-
pared to itself but in Simile there are two different objects.
Vyatireka is based on mutual contrast though such contrast brings
the sense of implied or indirect resemblance.
In Upameyopamā, two objects (or the Upameya and the upamāna
are separately stated in two different sentences.
In Utprekṣā, the likeness between two things is purely a poetic
fancy and not based on any factual estimation like that of Upamā.
In Rūpaka, there is absence of mutual difference between the
two (ie the upameya and the upamāna). Rūpaka is compressed or
condensed Simile. Therefore, it is said that an Upamā without like
or as is a Rūpaka. Thus it can be said that -
(a) Upamā is based on both mutual difference and non-dif-
ference (bheda-abheda-pradhāna),
(b)
(c) Rūpaka is based on mutual identity (abheda-pradhāna).
Ruyyaka eulogises Upamā as the basic principle of all rhetorical
language. Vāmana thinks that Upamā is the mother of all orna-
ments and is solicited for all such expressions where the poet wants
Vyatireka is based on mutual difference (bheda-
pradhāna) and
Digitized by
Original from
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN