________________
233
Therefore, it is a शब्दालङ्कार.
Similarly in अर्थालङ्कार, we can decide by अन्वयव्यतिरेक.
(P. 402. A. 6. S. :31.
In the following paragraph gives the reason as to why he summarily dismissed some figures that are admitted and given a place to by other rhetoricians: Thus (i) the figure (based on significant adjectives) cannot be admitted as a seperate figure; for it is no merit to use significant adjectives; on the other hand, if one does not use them, his poem will be open to the fault of अपुष्टार्थत्व.
(2) aur is not really a figure of speech; for a sentence is expected to observe the rule of respectivity (a) or proper order. On the other hand if it does not observe this rule, it will be open to the fault of भमप्रक्रम.
( 3 ) विनोक्ति has no particular charm of expression and hence should not be admitted as a figure of speech. ( 4 ) भाविक which consists of visualising in present a thing that is past and is expected to happen in future has got a beauty of its own. Yet its charm is felt and enjoyed more in dramatic compositions that can be acted on the stage. In stray verses this figure does not appear to so much advantage as in dramas. Hence it has no place in figures of speech.
(5) The figure describing the glorious magnificience of men and things is only a part of the figure of अतिशयोक्ति. Or it can be included under the figure जाति.
If however (in its second variety) deals with the wonderful exploits or great deeds of great men, it elevates itself to the level of a (sentiment) a subject of af and as such cannot be admitted in the figures of speech. If it is said that even then the description of great men is subordinate to the statement
30
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
