2023-03-30 13:57:20 by ramamurthys
This page has been fully proofread once and needs a second look.
Niścaya is different from Bhrāntimān and Apahnuti. 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
Apahnuti, while in Niścaya the subject in hand is firmly established.
One variety of Sandeha (Doubt) called Niścayānta 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 idaṃ na sarojaṃ 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
<headword>पर्याय</headword>
पर्यायः Paryāyaḥ : 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 sequence 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
Rudraṭa and then accepted by almost all rhetoricians. The figure of
the upameya is denied, but in Niścaya there is no such denial. The
subject of discussion (ie the prakṛta or upameya) is concealed in
Apahnuti, while in Niścaya the subject in hand is firmly established.
One variety of Sandeha (Doubt) called Niścayānta 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 idaṃ na sarojaṃ 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
<headword>पर्याय</headword>
पर्यायः Paryāyaḥ : 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 sequence 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
Rudraṭa and then accepted by almost all rhetoricians. The figure of