Kavyanushasana Critical Study

SR No.: 001713
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: A N Upadhye
Publisher: A N Upadhye
Publication Year: 1987
Total Pages: 558
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Literature, & Kavya
File Size: 10 MB

Page 417

The last śabdālamkāra in Hemachandra's list of six word-figures is Punaruktābhāsa. It occurs when two words, exactly similar in form but only apparently similar in meaning, come together. These two words appearing like synonyms have, in fact, entirely different meanings. In the instance cited (1.501 ) from the Devisataka of Anandavardhana, the words Bhāsi and Virājase, Dvisām and Ariņām, Senām and Vāhinim, Udakam and Payaḥ, apparently mean the same thing but in reality mean entirely different things. Mammața defines it (IX 86 ) as semblance of repetition which involves oneness and sameness in diverse forms. The golss states that the appearance, on the face of it, of one and the same meaning in words of diverse forms, with or without meaning, is Punaruktavadābhāsa. It subsists in a word and also in both the word and sense. Udbhața's Punaruktābhāsa
Udbhata begins his work (KASS) with the discussion of the figure Punaruktavadābhāsa or Punaraktābhāsa and he is believed to be the first author to treat this figure which is both a Sabdalamkāra and an Arthālaskāra. The test that is applied in distinguishing a Śabdālaskāra from an Arthālaskāra is its Parivșttisahatva or Parivịttyasahatva. If an Alamkāra is solely dependent on the form of words so that the Alamkāra is lost if the words are substituted by other synonymous words, then the Alamkāra is a Sabdalāmkāra and when such substitution of synonyms does not destroy the Alamkāra, then it is an Arthālaikära. Mammata gives this test in K.P. IX and X. Mammața, therefore, considers Punaraktavadābhāsa both a Sabdālamkāra and Ubhayalamkāra. As Sabdālaṁkara it is either Sabhangaśabdanistha or Abhangaśabdanistha. In Vidyadhara's Ekāvali, this figure is called Arthalāmkāra, like in Ruyyaka's work, because the sense is repeated, as it were. And though it is an Arthālamkāra it is treated at the head of Śabdālaṁkāras because the author wants to show that the opposite of the poetic defect Prarūdha, which arises only when there is repetition of sense, is an ornament.
392