2023-02-15 09:58:52 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
xiv
A Handbook of Classical Sanskrit Rhetoric
b) based on contradiction of cause-and-effect (such as vib
hāvanā and atiśayokti),
c) based on mixed contradiction (such as asangati,
vișama, vicitra and vyāghāṭa),
d) based on reciprocal contradiction due to mutual rela-
tion,
e) based on mutual contradiction (such as anyonya);
-
5. figures based on the artistic device of logical relationship -
a) based on pure logic (such as parisamkhyā and vikalpa),
b) based on artistic logic (such as samuccaya and samadhi),
c) based on common-sense logic (such as atadguṇa,
pratyanika, pratīka, mīlita and tadguṇa);
6. figures of sense based on artistic refinement of extra-ordi-
nary or suggestive meaning -
a) based purely on suggestion (such as vyājokti, vakrokti
and svabhāvokti),
b)
based on extra-ordinary but clear sense (such as
bhāvika),
c) based on the merit of suggestive meaning (such as
udātta);
7. figures based on meaning expressing psychological reactions
through different kinds of sentiments and feelings like love,
pathos, valour, joy, hatred etc. (such as rasavat, preyas, urjasvi,
samāhita, bhāvodaya, bhāvasandhi, bhāva-śavalatā);
8. mixed figures based on sound and sense dependently or
independently (ie samkara and samsṛṣṭi)
a) figures of sound mixed together,
b) figures of sense mixed together,
c) figures of sound and sense mixed together.
But Rudrata, in his Kāvyālamkāra, classifies the figures of sense
in his own novel method. He analyses them in the following four
broad groups:
1. figures based on objective relation (sahokti, samuccaya,
jāti, yathāsamkhya, anumāna, bhāva, paryāya, viṣama, any-
Original from
Digitized by Google
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
A Handbook of Classical Sanskrit Rhetoric
b) based on contradiction of cause-and-effect (such as vib
hāvanā and atiśayokti),
c) based on mixed contradiction (such as asangati,
vișama, vicitra and vyāghāṭa),
d) based on reciprocal contradiction due to mutual rela-
tion,
e) based on mutual contradiction (such as anyonya);
-
5. figures based on the artistic device of logical relationship -
a) based on pure logic (such as parisamkhyā and vikalpa),
b) based on artistic logic (such as samuccaya and samadhi),
c) based on common-sense logic (such as atadguṇa,
pratyanika, pratīka, mīlita and tadguṇa);
6. figures of sense based on artistic refinement of extra-ordi-
nary or suggestive meaning -
a) based purely on suggestion (such as vyājokti, vakrokti
and svabhāvokti),
b)
based on extra-ordinary but clear sense (such as
bhāvika),
c) based on the merit of suggestive meaning (such as
udātta);
7. figures based on meaning expressing psychological reactions
through different kinds of sentiments and feelings like love,
pathos, valour, joy, hatred etc. (such as rasavat, preyas, urjasvi,
samāhita, bhāvodaya, bhāvasandhi, bhāva-śavalatā);
8. mixed figures based on sound and sense dependently or
independently (ie samkara and samsṛṣṭi)
a) figures of sound mixed together,
b) figures of sense mixed together,
c) figures of sound and sense mixed together.
But Rudrata, in his Kāvyālamkāra, classifies the figures of sense
in his own novel method. He analyses them in the following four
broad groups:
1. figures based on objective relation (sahokti, samuccaya,
jāti, yathāsamkhya, anumāna, bhāva, paryāya, viṣama, any-
Original from
Digitized by Google
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN