________________
Prakrit Verses in Sanskrit Works on Poetics
577
• 51. This gathā is already dealt with; vide ŚP S.No. (1323.285) and SK S.No.
(278.396) supra. Sobhākara cites this gāthā as an example of the figure Hetu. In the course of his discussion of the figure Kāvyalinga, Vimarsinīkāra cites this gātha. A careful glance at the whole discussion would show that Jayaratha does not admit Kävyalinga as a separate, independent figure but includes it under the figure Anumāna.
52. Sobhākara cites this gāthā as an example of the figure Samādhi. Jayaratha in
the course of his commentary on the figure Samuccaya reproduces it and asserts that it is a case of the figure Samuccaya itself. " MIRET ---" — FRUIT
MERU T --- 315 CET 7 HIT:1 Ç. 203.
53. This gātha is already dealt with; vide KP S.No. (60.434) supra. Like Mammata
Ruyyaka too cites it as an example of the figure Pratīpa (I) (The Converse) : When things that are well-known as standards of comparison are themselves turned into objects of comparison, it is termed Pratīpa.
* 54. Sobhākara cites this gathă as an example of the figure Pratīpa (A'Ratnakara,
p. 30, v. no. 101). Jayaratha disagrees with him. As the two kinds of Pratīpa are based on. aupamya (resemblance, similarity), the găthă under consideration, cannot be said to be an example of Pratīpa : Tahir RUT नैतदलङ्कारद्वयं भवतीत्यवगन्तव्यम् । तेन "णिद्द चिअ ---" - इत्यत्रापि प्रतीपालङ्कारत्वं न वाच्यम् । अत्र हि देवतान्तराणां तथा सामर्थ्यादर्शनात् तदाक्षेपेण स्वप्नकाले प्रियोपलब्धिदायिन्या निद्राया विरहिणीकर्तृकं वास्तवमेव वन्द्यत्वम् । वस्तु च नालङ्कार इति निर्विवाद:। पृ. - २०८.
55. This găthă is already dealt with; vide KP S.No. (62.434) supra. Both Mammata
and Ruyyaka cite it as an example of the figure Atadguņa (Non-Borrower).
56. Visvanātha reads the latter part of the first half as 'pos ng pun juml' (Pas
JETETA JUG 1), and in the second half : Pes gausi un 37 (Par gulai at
19:11) Like Mammaţa, Ruyyaka, Viśvanātha, etc. cite this gātha as an example of the figure Uttara (Reply).
