2023-02-15 09:59:04 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
Apahnutiḥ: Concealment
object of description appears, as if, unreal. Apahnuti is mainly
twofold:
(i) attribution through concealment and
(ii) concealment through attribution
Concealment comes after or before the upamana (the object of
comparison) is established and such concealment is made in order
to give prominence to the object of comparison, which is closely
similar to the object compared to it.
Another variety of this figure is also recognised in such cases
where something secret (ie not to be revealed explicitly) is
expressed in a different way through paronomasia (śleșa) or
extended denotation (lakṣaṇā) or suggestion (dhvani).
Apahnuti is different from Aksepa (Paraleipsis), Sandeha
(Doubt) or Rūpaka (Metaphor). In Akṣepa, the object in hand is
simply concealed; in Sandeha, there is simply doubt but no ascer-
tainment. In Apahnuti, we see denial of what the thing really is as
well as ascertainment of what it really is not. In Rūpaka, there is total
superimposition and no scope of concealment.
Appayya says that some forms of Apahnuti, according to
Udbhata and others, should be treated as Vyājokti. In Apanhuti, the
two objects (ie the prākaraṇika and the aprākaraṇika or the contex-
tual and the non-contextual) are generally taken as conspicuously
similar; but Daṇḍin thinks that similarity might not be very close
and explains it as something established by anything else. Therefore,
Bhoja makes twofold division of Apanhuti:
(i)
one based on similitude and
(ii) other based on non-similitude.
Hemacandra acknowledges several varieties of it:
(i) pure concealment (śuddha)
(ii) partial concealment (paryasta)
(iii) false concealment (bhränta)
(iv)
eg 1.
23
artistic or deceilful concealment (kaitava)
nāyam śudāngśuḥ kim tarhi?
sudhāngśuḥ preyasi-mukham.
Google
Digitized by
Original from
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
object of description appears, as if, unreal. Apahnuti is mainly
twofold:
(i) attribution through concealment and
(ii) concealment through attribution
Concealment comes after or before the upamana (the object of
comparison) is established and such concealment is made in order
to give prominence to the object of comparison, which is closely
similar to the object compared to it.
Another variety of this figure is also recognised in such cases
where something secret (ie not to be revealed explicitly) is
expressed in a different way through paronomasia (śleșa) or
extended denotation (lakṣaṇā) or suggestion (dhvani).
Apahnuti is different from Aksepa (Paraleipsis), Sandeha
(Doubt) or Rūpaka (Metaphor). In Akṣepa, the object in hand is
simply concealed; in Sandeha, there is simply doubt but no ascer-
tainment. In Apahnuti, we see denial of what the thing really is as
well as ascertainment of what it really is not. In Rūpaka, there is total
superimposition and no scope of concealment.
Appayya says that some forms of Apahnuti, according to
Udbhata and others, should be treated as Vyājokti. In Apanhuti, the
two objects (ie the prākaraṇika and the aprākaraṇika or the contex-
tual and the non-contextual) are generally taken as conspicuously
similar; but Daṇḍin thinks that similarity might not be very close
and explains it as something established by anything else. Therefore,
Bhoja makes twofold division of Apanhuti:
(i)
one based on similitude and
(ii) other based on non-similitude.
Hemacandra acknowledges several varieties of it:
(i) pure concealment (śuddha)
(ii) partial concealment (paryasta)
(iii) false concealment (bhränta)
(iv)
eg 1.
23
artistic or deceilful concealment (kaitava)
nāyam śudāngśuḥ kim tarhi?
sudhāngśuḥ preyasi-mukham.
Digitized by
Original from
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN