________________
indulge in hairsplitting discussions and unnecessary devisions of Upamā but attempted only those broad divisions such as Pūrnā and Luptă with their limited varieties. Mammața, on the other hand, divides and sub-divides Upamā. However, Hemachandra explains typical varieties with significant examples both in the text as well as in the Viveka commentary (pp. 341-347).
According to Hemachandra, Utpreksā is fancying some unreal or imaginary characteristic in a thing which is the subject matter. These characteristics may be Guņa or Kriyā; but at times an absence of these may be conceived or the qualities of another thing may be conceived to be our own. The Guņotprekşā is instanced in verse 531 which describes Lord Mahāvira's noble qualities. These qualities may also be fancied to be absent. Similarly Kriyā may be present or absent. Aesthetic Criterion of Utpreksā
Unlike Mammața, Hemachandra does not mention any varieties of Utprekşā, since, in his view, they do not add much to the beauty of the figure in poetry. Mammața's Utprekşā is based on identity, not difference. But Hemachandra's instances (VV. 532 and 533) show that he recognizes both identity and difference. He also observes, and rightly, that even when Tadyogotpreksana is admitted, we should always remember that it should be favourable to the Rasa and that any fancy should be extra-mundane or extra-ordinary and striking; for mere drab fancy does not amount to any poetic beauty. Thus the fancy should be transcendent at all times (Viveka p. 348). By the by, just as there is Dharmyutprekşā (Mukham candram manye), so also there is Dharmotprekşā i.e., of identity and difference (Bheda-abheda).
in Rūpaka (VI. 5) two separate things are identified with each other. Etymologically Rūpaka brings about identity (Ekarūpatāṁ nayati). The idea of Sādrsya or similarity is stressed here. Again when both Upameya and Upamāna are
396
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
