________________
OCTOREE, 1894.) THE BHASHA BHUSHANA OF JASWANT SINGH.
275
a substance (dravya), may be fancied, the figare becomes eight-fold. In each of these eight sorts, again, the fancy being (1) Positive, or (2) Negative (bhávábhávábhimanatah), and the Occasion (nimitta) of the fancy being in the shape of (3) a Quality, or (4) an Action, they become thirty-two fold.
Of these, the Expressed (vúchya) sorts are, with the exception of that of substance (dravya) each three-fold, as pertaining to (1) a Nature (svartpa), (2) a Purpose or Effect (phala), and a Cause (hétu).
Of these, the sorts pertaining to a Nature (svarúpa) are again two-fold, according as the Occasion (nimitta) of the Fancy is Mentioned (ukta) or Not Mentioned (anukta).
The divisions of the Understood or Implied (pratiyamáná) poetical fancy, may each pertain to a Purpose or Effect (phala) or to a Cause (hétr).
These, again, are two-fold, according as the subject (prastuta) of the Fancy is Mentioned (ukla) or Not Mentioned.]
It will be seen that the Bhúshá-bhiishana gives a different analysis of the figure: and this latter analysis las been much developed by later authors. All authors agree, in following the Sahitya-durpana by defining the figure as the imagining (sambhávaná or tarka) of one thing (the subject) under the character of another. In its simplest form the following may be taken as an example. It is the first one given above, slightly developed :
Her eyes, large and luscious, captivate the heart as though they were lotuses.
Here the subject of the figure, the eyes, is imagined under the character of the object of the figure, that is to say, lotuses.
The same idea expressed under the form of a simile (upamd) wonld be:Her eyes are large and luscious like lotuses.
This is merely an expression of the resemblance of two things, the eyes and the lotuses, expressed in a single sentence. The resemblance is expressed, not suggested as in the Metaphor. Moreover in the Simile, the two objects are said only to resemble the other, while in the Poetical Fancy one is imagined or fancied to act in the character of the other.
The same idea expressed under the form of a Metaphor would be :Her lotus-eyes are large and luscious.
Here the fancied character of the lotus is superimposed upon the object - the eyes. This differs from the Simile because the resemblance is suggested as an embellishment, and is not expressed by any word such as like,' etc. It also differs from the Poetical Fancy because the subject, i.e., the eye, is not imagined as acting in the character of a lotus, but is imagined to be a lotus.
In a Simile, words expressing resemblance, such as, iva, tulya, jaisé, lau', all meaning 'like,' are either expressed, or understood.
In the Poetical Fancy, words such mano, jáno', 'methinks,' 'as though,' nischayapragatuta, 'of a certainty appears as though,' are expressed or understood.]
[All authors subsequent to the Bhasha-bhúshana agree that the Poetical Fancy is of three kinds according as it depends on a Thing (vastu),' a Cause (hétu) or an Effect or Purpose (phala). That is to say, the subject of the Poetical Fancy is imagined to be another Thing, or it may be imagined to be in such a condition as to be caused by some other fancied circumstance, or it may be imagined to be in such a condition as to have some other fancied circumstance for its Effect.
In the Poetical Fancy depending on a Thing (vastútpréksha), the thing may be either simply a concrete noun substantive, or it may be a quality (adjectival), or it may be an action or condition (verbal).
3 The svarapa (nature) of the Sahitya-darpana.
