Sahitya-kaumudi by Baladeva Vidyabhushana
by Gaurapada Dāsa | 2015 | 234,703 words
Baladeva Vidyabhusana’s Sahitya-kaumudi covers all aspects of poetical theory except the topic of dramaturgy. All the definitions of poetical concepts are taken from Mammata’s Kavya-prakasha, the most authoritative work on Sanskrit poetical rhetoric. Baladeva Vidyabhushana added the eleventh chapter, where he expounds additional ornaments from Visv...
Text 10.223 [Pratīpa]
55. Pratīpa
आक्षेप उपमानस्य प्रतीपम् उपमेयता ।
तस्यैव यदि वा कल्प्या तिरस्कार-निबन्धनम् ॥ १०.१३३ ॥
ākṣepa upamānasya pratīpam upameyatā |
tasyaiva yadi vā kalpyā tiraskāra-nibandhanam ||10.133||
ākṣepaḥ—the disparagement; upamānasya—of the object of comparison (the standard of comparison); pratīpam—the ornament called pratīpa; upameyatā—[the upamāna’s] being the upameya; tasya eva—of that same one (the upamāna’s) (a well-known upamāna); yadi—if; vā—or; kalpyā—is imagined; tiraskāra—of a rebuke (of the upamāna[1]); nibandhanam—the literary construction (or the foundation).
Pratīpa (inverted comparison) has two varieties: (1) For exalting the upameya (the subject of the comparison), the upamāna (the standard of comparison) is portrayed as contemptible in terms of being useless, and (2) A well-known upamāna is imagined to be the upameya in order to deride that well-known upamāna.
yady upameya-stutaye kaimarthyenopamānam ākṣipyate yadi vopamānasyaivopameyatā tat-tiraskārāyopakalpyate tadā dvi-vidhaṃ pratīpam. (See above.)
Commentary:
The first variety of pratīpa resembles vyatireka (contrast), which consists in the superiority of the upameya over the upamāna (10.103). However, in pratīpa the upamāna is indirectly belittled. A simple example of the first pratīpa is: “If her face is seen, a lotus loses its charm.” However, the following wording is a vyatireka (contrast): “Her face puts a lotus to shame,” because the upamāna, a lotus, is directly belittled by the upameya, the face.
The second pratīpa is an inverted well-known simile. A simple example is: “It should not be said that he is cunning like a fox. Rather, a fox is cunning like him.” P.V. Kāṇe explains: “It is a general rule that the upamāna is superior in excellence, while the upameya is inferior. But sometimes a well-known upamāna is turned into an upameya to convey the idea that it is really inferior to what is generally regarded as the upameya.”[2] Paṇḍita-rāja Jagannātha specifies that when the upamāna is turned into the upameya, the thing which was the upameya is turned into the upamāna. There is no third party involved.[3]
Footnotes and references:
[2]:
Kane, P.V. (1995), The Sāhitya-darpaṇa, p. 293.