2023-02-15 09:59:23 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
Militam : Reconciliation
The figures like Milita, Sämänya and Tadguṇna bear one com-
mon feature ie non-perception of the difference between the two
objects or their qualities. Therefore, the question arises whether
such figures should be brought under one figure. Bhoja remarks
that Pihita, Apihita, Tadguṇa and Atadguṇa should be included in
Milita. But Jagannātha observes that each of these has its own basic
identity and creates its own shade of beauty. So he remarks if these
figures are broadly identified as identical then there would be no
difference among Rupaka, Pariņāma and Atisayokti, or between
Prativastupamā and Nidarśanā. Ruyyaka says that Sāmānya is not
identical with Milita since in the former the qualities of both are
concealed while in the latter the qualities of the less prominent are
concealed through supersession.
Milita is also different from Rūpaka and Bhrāntimān. In Rūpaka,
there is total identity between similar objects, but in Milita, no such
identification is witnessed. In Bhräntimän, one object is mistakenly
identified as another on account of close similarity between them,
but in Militā no such mistake crops up.
eg 1. raso nālkṣi lākṣāyāś caraṇe sahajārune.
रसो नालक्षि लाक्षायाश् चरणे सहजारुणे ।
The colour of lac-dye could not be known,
As her feet, by nature, were crimson.
Definitions
तन्मीलितमिति यस्मिन्समानचिह्वेन हर्षकोपादि ।
अपरेण तिरस्क्रियते नित्येनागन्तुकेनापि ॥ रु. का. ६.१०६
वस्त्वन्तरतिरस्कारो वस्तुना मीलितं स्मृतम् । स. ३.४०
समेन लक्ष्मणा वस्तु वस्तुना यन्त्रिगूह्यते ।
निजोनागन्तुना वापि तन्मीलितमिति स्मृतम् ॥ का. प्र. १०.१६७
127
वस्तुना वस्त्वन्तरनिगूहनं मीलितम् । अ. स. ७१
मीलितं बहुसादृश्योद्भेद एव न लक्ष्यते । च. ५.३४
स्वाभाविकमागन्तुकमथवा वस्त्वन्तरं तिरोधत्ते ।
यस्मिन् किञ्चन वस्तु ज्ञेयं तन्मीलितं द्विविधम् ॥ ए. ८.६३
व्याजोक्त्युत्तरं किंचित्साम्यान्मीलनमुच्यते ।
Digitized by Google
Original from
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
The figures like Milita, Sämänya and Tadguṇna bear one com-
mon feature ie non-perception of the difference between the two
objects or their qualities. Therefore, the question arises whether
such figures should be brought under one figure. Bhoja remarks
that Pihita, Apihita, Tadguṇa and Atadguṇa should be included in
Milita. But Jagannātha observes that each of these has its own basic
identity and creates its own shade of beauty. So he remarks if these
figures are broadly identified as identical then there would be no
difference among Rupaka, Pariņāma and Atisayokti, or between
Prativastupamā and Nidarśanā. Ruyyaka says that Sāmānya is not
identical with Milita since in the former the qualities of both are
concealed while in the latter the qualities of the less prominent are
concealed through supersession.
Milita is also different from Rūpaka and Bhrāntimān. In Rūpaka,
there is total identity between similar objects, but in Milita, no such
identification is witnessed. In Bhräntimän, one object is mistakenly
identified as another on account of close similarity between them,
but in Militā no such mistake crops up.
eg 1. raso nālkṣi lākṣāyāś caraṇe sahajārune.
रसो नालक्षि लाक्षायाश् चरणे सहजारुणे ।
The colour of lac-dye could not be known,
As her feet, by nature, were crimson.
Definitions
तन्मीलितमिति यस्मिन्समानचिह्वेन हर्षकोपादि ।
अपरेण तिरस्क्रियते नित्येनागन्तुकेनापि ॥ रु. का. ६.१०६
वस्त्वन्तरतिरस्कारो वस्तुना मीलितं स्मृतम् । स. ३.४०
समेन लक्ष्मणा वस्तु वस्तुना यन्त्रिगूह्यते ।
निजोनागन्तुना वापि तन्मीलितमिति स्मृतम् ॥ का. प्र. १०.१६७
127
वस्तुना वस्त्वन्तरनिगूहनं मीलितम् । अ. स. ७१
मीलितं बहुसादृश्योद्भेद एव न लक्ष्यते । च. ५.३४
स्वाभाविकमागन्तुकमथवा वस्त्वन्तरं तिरोधत्ते ।
यस्मिन् किञ्चन वस्तु ज्ञेयं तन्मीलितं द्विविधम् ॥ ए. ८.६३
व्याजोक्त्युत्तरं किंचित्साम्यान्मीलनमुच्यते ।
Digitized by Google
Original from
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN