Handbook of Classical Sanskrit Rhetoric /152

96
 
Niścaya is different from Bhrāntimān and A Handbook of Classical Sanskrit Rhetoric
 
pahnuti. In Apahnuti,
the upameya is denied, but in Niscaya is different from Bhräntiman and Apahnutiścaya there is no such denial. In Apahnuti,
the upameya is denied, but in Niścaya there is no such denial. The

subject of discussion (ie the prakṛta or upameya) is concealed in

Apahnnuti, while in Niścaya the subject in hand is firmly established.

One variety of Sandeha (Doubt) called Niscayanta is different from it
ścayānta is different from it
since knowledge of both doubt and ascertainment about the object

rests on the same footing in this particular variety of the figure

Sandeha.
 

 
In Bhrāntimān, the aprakṛta (which is not the subject of discus-

sion ie non-contextual) is mistakenly accepted as the prakṛta (ie the

subject of discussion) and the beauty of poetic fancy lies in the very

nature of such error.
 

 
eg 1. vadanam idamṃ na sarojamṃ nayane nendīvare ete.
 

वदनमिदं न सरोजं नयने नेन्दीवरे एते ।
 

 
This is her face, not a red rose,
 

These are not blue lotuses, but her eyes.
 

 
Here the face and the eyes of the beautiful lady are the subjects

of discussion and these have been explicitly established while the

rose and the lotuses, the standards of comparison have been

directly denied by the negative particle na.
 

 
Definition
 

 
अन्यन्निषिध्य प्रकृतस्थापनं निश्चयः पुनः । सा. १०.३६
 
Digitized by
 
Tafa
 
<headword>पर्याय</headword>
 
पर्यायः Paryāyaḥ : ParyāyaḥSequence : Sequence :
 

 
pari √i (to go) ghañ = paryāya literally means going round, revolv-

ing in order, turning in succession. If the same thing turns out to be

present in one place in regular recurrence one by one, the figure is

called Paryāya. Here the suequence happens in the form of one

assembled in many or many assembled in one in turn. The matter-

of-fact representation of such sequence brings no poetic charm,

and therefore, any such sequence, if based on poetic fancy,

deserves to be called a rhetorical figure. It was first introduced by

Rudratṭa and then accepted by almost all rhetoricians. The figure of
 
Google
 
Original from
 
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN