Handbook of Classical Sanskrit Rhetoric /240

184
 
In Samāsokti, similitude between two becomes prominent by
brevity of expression. Here the relation between the contextual
and the non-contextual is either explicitly stated or implied. In the
first case, statement is based on paronomastic phrases connecting
both of them, but in the second case, either of them becomes
prominent. In Samāsokti, the aprastuta or non-contextual becomes
prominent, but in Aprastuta-praśaṃsā, the real subject-matter
becomes prominent.
 
Kuntaka is not ready to accept Samāsokti as a separate figure of
speech and, therefore, rejects it on the ground that any such
rhetorical statement bears no poetic charm at all. Handbook of Classical Sanskrit Rhetoric
 
In Samāsokti, similitude between two becomes prominent by
brevity of expression. Here the relation between the contextual
and the non-contextual is either explicitly stated or implied. In the
first case, statement is based on paronomastic phrasses connecting
both of them, but in the second case, either of them becomes
prominent. In Samāsokti, the aprastuta or non-contextual becomes
prominent, but in Aprastuta-prașamsă, the real subject-matter
becomes prominent.
 
Kuntaka is not ready to accept Samäsokti as a separate figure of
speech and, therefore, rejects it on the ground that any such
rhetorical statement bears no poetic charm at all. He also says that
e also says that
in all cases of Samāsokti as illustrated by rhetoricians some other fig-

ure (either Ślesṣa (Paronomasia) or Rūpaka (Metaphor) or Aprastuta-
prasam
praśaṃsā (Indirect Reference) lies inherent. Visśvanātha has raised all

the objections given by Kuntaka and strongly rejects Kuntaka's plea

against this alamṃkāra and establishes its position friirmly. He explains

that Samāsokti is recognised in three ways:
 

(i) similarity of action (kriyā),
 

(ii)
 
similarity of gender (iiilinga)
 
similarity of and
(iii) similarity of attributes expressed througender (linga) and
 
similarity of attributes expressed through adjectival

phrases.
 

Again the last variety occurs in three ways:
 

(a) by the use of paronomastic words,
 

(b) by plain (ie non-paronomastic) words and
 

(c) by similitude
 

 
The relation of mutual similitude (as found in the c-type) hap-

pens either through Simile or Metaphor or conjunction of both of

them. In the b-type, there may be partial metaphor.
 

 
Though sometimes based on Rūpaka, Samāsokti fundamentally

differes from it. In Rūpaka, the subject of discussion (ie prastuta)

becomes totally enveloped by the aprastuta or non-contextual while in

Samăāsokti only the behaviour of one is attributed on the other. In

Paronomasia and Implied Simile, resemblance between two similar

objects is either expressed or implied through nominal and adjecti-

val phrases, but in Samäāsokti only adjectival (višśeṣaṇa) pharses are
 
Google
 
Digitized by
 
Original from
 
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
 
rases are