Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c85.45

v2.c85.45

Ruyyaka’s work is also important for its acute analysis of the scope and nature of individual poetic figures, of which nearly eighty independent varieties are dealt with. At first sight one would be inclined to classify him as belonging to the Alaṃkāra school. There is no doubt that Ruyyaka was a great admirer of Udbhaṭa, on whose work his father Tilaka (as Jayaratha informs us) wrote a *viveka* or *vicāra*. Ruyyaka himself tells us (and he is borne out by Jayaratha and Samudrabandha) ¹³ that he is a follower of the views of the "ancients" (e. g. *cirantana-matānusṛtiḥ*, p. 205), by which he means apparently the older Alaṃkāra school of Bhāmaha and Udbhaṭa ; but, of course, he corrects, modifies or expands older authoritative opinions in the light of the progressive study of the subject. Ruyyaka's development of Udbhaṭa's idea of *śleṣa* may be taken as a typical instance. The controversy regarding the divisions of *śleṣa* and its relation to other figures in cases of combination, started, as Ruyyaka himself as well as his commentators point out, from Udbhaṭa's time. Ruyyaka accepts the division of this figure into *śabda-śleṣa* and *artha-śleṣa* (adding *ubhaya-śleṣa*), and holds that the principle of this distinction consists in the dictum *yo'laṃkāro yadāśritaḥ sa tadalaṃkāraḥ*. He rejects Mammaṭa's view that the distinction is based on the ground that the *śabda-śleṣa* is incapable of enduring a change of synonym (*parivṛtti-saha*), while the *artha-śleṣa* is capable of doing so ; for Mammaṭa holds that it is not *āśrayāśrayi-bhāva* (mutual dependence or inherence) but *anvaya* (connexion) and *vyatireka* (contrast) which must be taken as the test for determining whether a figure is of *śabda* or of *artha*. According to Ruyyaka, however, a *śabda-śleṣa* occurs when the expression, being differently split up, yields two different meanings. Here the words are really different, as is indicated by a difference of accent as well as by the effort required in pronouncing them. They present the appearance of sameness or coalescence (*śleṣa*), just in the same way as the lacqured wood appears to be one single object, though really lac is put on the wood. The *artha-śleṣa* occurs where the expression is the same and has the same accent and effort, but possesses two meanings, just as two fruits hang down from a single stem. The *ubhaya-śleṣa* is the case where both these circumstances exist¹⁴. Regarding the implication of *śleṣa* in other poetic figures, the question has been raised whether it should be regarded (i) as stronger than and thus dispelling the notion of the accompanying figure, (ii) as being equally powerful and therefore entering into combination with them, or (ii) as being weaker and therefore not prominent where other figures occur¹⁵. Udbhaṭa takes the first position, and thinks that where the *śleṣa* is present (e. g. along with *upamā*) there is only the appearance (*pratibhā*) of the other figure, the real figure being in such a case the *śleṣa* (and not *upamā*). Ruyyaka demurs to this view, and agrees with Mammaṭa in pointing out that in such cases of conflict the possession of common attributes (*sādharmya*) inherent in *upamā* is alone sufficient to constitute the latter figure; for the unqualified definition of *sādharmya* as community of attributes or circumstances is not exclusive of the verbal sameness conveyed by the accompanying *śleṣa*. The *upamā*, therefore, is predominant and the subordinate *śleṣa* only helps it; for in such cases, the common property is not arrived at without the *śleṣa*, and without the common property there can be no *upamā*. If the two figures are thus found together, one helping the other, we have *saṃkīrnatva* of *śleṣa* and *upamā*.