________________
Vol. XXI, No. 3
109
it and in apahnuti it is canceled by denieal. In vyājokti the speaker's intention is practical to keep the listener in the dark where as in apahnuti it is poetical to bring the sădssya. 13 VII. Conclusion :
On the basis of what we have discussed in the above pages, we may draw the following conclusions. 1. apahnuti was recognised as a figure by Bhāmaha for the first time. According to some it is introduced by Dandin or Bhațţi even in agnipurāņa, the apahnuti alapkāra is mentioned. 2. Originally it was looked upon as "sādrśyālaskāraḥ”, a figure based on similarity; by Bhãmaha, Daņdio, widened its scone to conclude all cases of nişedha and aropa in respective of sāļrśya. 3. Udbhațţa, Vāmana, Rudrața, Mammața etc. took this figure to be based on similarity following Bbamaha. 4. Ruyyaka, Viswanātha, Appaya Dikşita have followed Daņçin and have accepted a broader view of this figure alike Daņdin. 5. It is different from rûpaka because in rûpaka there is no nişedha. Here aropa is there. 6. It is different from vyājokti because in vyājokti the speaker is practical and in apahouti it is poetical. Further in vyājokti, the things are concealed by the speaker keeping silence over it where as in apahnuti it is actually denied.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
