365bet娱乐

Virodha is a prevalent figure of sense based on contradiction. 叠丑腻尘补丑补 is the first rhetorician who treats the figure.

His definition of the figure is鈥�

驳耻峁嘺sya v膩办谤颈测腻y膩v膩viruddh膩nya办谤颈测腻bhid膩/
测腻惫颈艣别峁Ｄ乥丑颈诲丑腻苍腻测补 惫颈谤辞诲丑补峁� ta峁� vidurbudh膩岣�//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥�碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补 (of 叠丑腻尘补丑补) 3.25.

鈥擳he expression of a thing different and contradictory to the quality and action of the thing mentioned is called virodha. The purpose of such expression is to establish excellence of the thing mentioned.

鲍诲产丑补峁璦 defines the figure with close proximity to 叠丑腻尘补丑补鈥�

驳耻峁嘺sya v膩办谤颈测腻y膩v膩viruddh膩nya办谤颈测腻vaca岣�/
yadvi艣e峁Ｄ乥hidh膩n膩ya 惫颈谤辞诲丑补峁� ta峁� pracak峁�ate//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补s膩rasa峁僩raha (of Udbha峁���) 5.6.

顿补峁囜笉颈苍 calls the figure 鈥�savirodha鈥� and defines it 补蝉鈥�

viruddh膩n膩峁� pad膩rth膩n膩峁� yatra 蝉补峁僺补谤驳补诲补谤艣补苍补尘/
vi艣e峁�adar艣an膩yaiva sa惫颈谤辞诲丑补岣� sm峁泃o yath膩//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥擪膩vy膩dar艣a (of 顿补峁囜笉颈苍) 2.333.

鈥擶hen contradictory objects are mentioned together in order to emphasise their specialties, the figure is called virodha.

The commentator J墨v膩nanda 痴颈诲测腻蝉腻驳补谤补 has advocated for a ten -fold classification of virodha in his commentary which are based on the four suggestions (蝉补峁僰别迟补) of words (箩腻迟颈, 驳耻峁嘺, 办谤颈测腻 and dravya) recognised by the grammarians^[1] . This ten -fold classification of the figure has been accepted by the majority of Sanskrit rhetoricians like Ruyyaka (Ala峁僰膩rasarvasva p-122.), 惭补尘尘补峁璦 (碍腻惫测补-辫谤补办腻艣补 10.167), Hemacandra (6.12. 惫峁泃迟颈.), 痴颈诲测腻诲丑补谤补 (贰办腻惫补濒墨 8.33-35.), 痴颈诲测腻苍腻迟丑补 (Prat膩parudraya艣obh奴峁�a峁嘺) Chapter-VIII, pp-416-420), 痴颈艣惫补苍腻迟丑补 (厂腻丑颈迟测补-诲补谤辫补峁嘺) 10.67-68.) etc.

Bhoja primarily gives two varieties of the figure鈥�

1. 艣耻诲诲丑补 and
2. grathita.

He also includes 补蝉补峁単补迟颈, 辫谤补迟测补苍墨办补, adhika and 惫颈峁�a尘补 as sub-varieties of the figure^[2] .

Hemacandra includes seven figures in the sphere of virodha鈥�

1. 惫颈产丑腻惫补苍腻,
2. 惫颈艣别峁�o办迟颈,
3. 补蝉补峁僩补迟颈,
4. 惫颈峁�a尘补,
5. adhika,
6. 惫测腻驳丑腻迟补 and
7. atad驳耻峁嘺.

He observes that these minor figures, if treated as independent figures of speech, would lead to an unnecessary infinity of figures^[3] .

搁耻诲谤补峁璦 (碍腻惫测补la峁僰膩ra (of Rudra峁���) 9.31-33.) furnishes thirteen varieties of the figure virodha which come out of two basic varieties鈥�

1. saj膩t墨ya virodha and
2. vij膩t墨ya virodha.

He places the figure in 鈥�补迟颈艣补测补 varga鈥� and defines it quite similarly to that of 顿补峁囜笉颈苍, 鲍诲产丑补峁璦 etc^[4] .

痴腻尘补苍补 puts forth a terse and compact definition of the figure鈥�

惫颈谤耻诲诲丑腻产丑补蝉补迟惫补峁� 惫颈谤辞诲丑补岣�/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补s奴tra惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.3.12.

鈥擜 hint of contradiction forms the figure virodha. In the following 惫峁泃迟颈 he further clarifies鈥�

arthasya viruddhasyev腻产丑腻蝉补tva峁� viruddh腻产丑腻蝉补tva峁� 惫颈谤辞诲丑补岣�/
  鈥敯�腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补s奴tra惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.3.12. 惫峁泃迟颈.

In virodha, the things are apparently contradictory but there is no contradiction between them in reality. According to the 碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻 commentator, the contradiction in virodha is apparent because it does not persist till the complete comprehension of the figure. Careful analysis of meaning discards the contradiction which comes to mind after the first reading^[5] .

Ruyyaka (Ala峁僰膩rasarvasva p-121.) follows 痴腻尘补苍补 in verbatim while defining the figure virodha. He observes that the contradiction in virodha cannot be total or absolute. If the contradiction lasts till the end it gives rise to a poetic fault called 鈥�辫谤补谤奴岣峚鈥� (or 鈥�viruddha鈥�)^[6] .

闯补驳补苍苍腻迟丑补 asserts that virodha is of two kinds鈥�

1. 辫谤补谤奴岣峚 and
2. a辫谤补谤奴岣峚.

If the contradiction which appears on the surface is final or absolute and cannot be reconciled it is called 辫谤补谤奴岣峚. This is a poetic fault or 诲辞峁�a. If the contradiction is resolved in the end, it is called a辫谤补谤奴岣峚 and it constitutes the figure virodha^[7] . The word 鈥�腻产丑腻蝉补鈥� (hint) has been used in the definition of the figure by the majority of the later rhetoricians. Some rhetoricians like 惭补尘尘补峁璦 (碍腻惫测补-辫谤补办腻艣补 (of 惭补尘尘补峁璦) 10.166.), 痴腻驳产丑补峁璦 I (V膩gbha峁�膩la峁僰膩ra 4.121.) and V膩gbha峁��� II (K膩vy膩nu艣膩sana Chapter-III, p-38.) have omitted the word 鈥�腻产丑腻蝉补鈥� in their definitions but they were able to emphasise on the apparent contradiction present in the figure virodha in their own words.

痴腻尘补苍补 illustrates the figure with the following verses鈥�

i) 辫墨迟补峁� p膩namida峁� tvay膩dya dayite 尘补迟迟补峁� 尘补尘别诲补峁� 尘补苍补岣�
patr膩l墨tava ku峁卥umena racit膩rakt膩vaya峁� 尘腻苍颈苍颈/
tva峁� tu峁単astanabh膩ramantharagatirg膩tre峁�u me vepathustvanmadhye
tanut膩mam膩d峁泃iraho m膩rasya citr膩gati岣�//

鈥擮 beloved one! You have drunk the wine today but my mind is intoxicated; you have painted yourself red with saffron but it is I who am reddened with love; your motion is sluggish due to the weight of your breasts but it is my body which is trembling; your waist is slim but it is me who is instable; the way of the Cupid is really strange!

Here there are only hints of contradictions. They are鈥�

1. A person is intoxicated other than the one who drinks wine.
2. The redness appears in a person other than who is painted with saffron.
3. The trembling happens to a person other than the one whose movement is slackened.
4. A person is instable other than the one who is supposed to be so.

鈥擳hese contradictions are only apparent and they can be set aside by careful analysis of the meaning. That is鈥�

1. The intoxication of the speaker is not caused by drinking of wine by the lady but it is due to his excessive feeling of passion towards the lady.
2. The word 鈥�rakta鈥� is paronomastic (艣濒颈峁ａ弓补). It implies redness in case of the lady and attachment in case of the speaker.
3. The trembling of the speaker is not caused by the sluggish movement of the lady but it is caused due to speaker鈥檚 excessive passion.
4. The inability of the speaker is also not due to the slenderness of the lady鈥檚 waist but it is caused by over-whelming emotion.

The 碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻 commentator also shows the apparent contradiction present in the verse 补蝉鈥�

p膩n膩d墨n膩峁� mad膩d墨n膩帽ca vaiyadhikara峁噛膩d 惫颈谤辞诲丑补岣� /
mad膩d墨n膩marth膩ntaratvasv墨k膩re峁嘺 virodhaparih膩ra岣�/
  鈥�碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻, 碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补s奴tra惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.3.12.

ii) s膩b膩l膩vayamapragalbhamanasa岣� s膩srt墨vaya峁� 办腻迟补谤腻岣�
s膩p墨nonnatimatyapayodharayuga峁� dhatte sakhed膩vayam/
s膩kr膩nt膩jaghanasthalena guru峁嚹乬antu峁� na 艣akt膩vaya峁�
诲辞峁�airanyajan膩艣rayairapa峁璦vo 箩腻迟腻岣� sma ityadbhutam//

鈥擲he is young but it is I who am shy in mind; she is a woman but it is I who am afficted; she holds heavy and high breasts but it is I who is fatigued; she is oppressed by her heavy thighs but it is I who am unable to move; it is strange that I am suffering from disabilities that are caused due to the faults of someone else.

This verse is quoted from 础尘补谤耻艣补迟补办补 (Verse-34.). Here, like the previous verse, apparent contradictions are hinted but careful analysis of the meaning reveals that the disabilities of the speaker are not caused due to the defects of another person but are caused by his excessive feeling of passion. Thus the contradictions that appeared previously on the surface are reconciled.

Ruyyaka has taken up this verse as an example of the figure 补蝉补峁僩补迟颈.

He defines the figure 补蝉补峁僩补迟颈 补蝉鈥�

tayostu bhinnade艣atve'蝉补峁僩补迟颈岣�/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥擜la峁僰膩rasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-129.

鈥擨f the cause and its effects are described as existing in two different places the figure is called 补蝉补峁僩补迟颈.

Ruyyaka justifies this verse as an instance of 补蝉补峁僩补迟颈 补蝉鈥�

atra b膩lyanimittamapragalbhavacanatvamanyadanyacca smaranimittakamitya -
苍补测辞谤补产丑别诲腻诲丑测补惫补蝉腻测补岣�/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥擜la峁僰膩rasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-130.

痴颈艣惫补苍腻迟丑补 also furnishes this verse as an example of the figure 补蝉补峁僩补迟颈.

He clarifies that if the cause and effect are described in different places, the figure 补蝉补峁僩补迟颈 is formed whereas if they are placed in the same place the figure is called virodha鈥�

asy膩艣c膩pav膩datv膩dekade艣asthayorvirodhe virodh膩la峁僰膩ra岣�/
  鈥�厂腻丑颈迟测补-诲补谤辫补峁嘺 (of Vis蛠van膩tha) 10.69. 惫峁泃迟颈.

Ancient rhetoricians like 叠丑腻尘补丑补, 鲍诲产丑补峁璦, 痴腻尘补苍补 etc. have all treated virodha as the ultimate figure of contradiction. They did not discriminate between the different types of contradiction of meaning present in poetry and treated all of them under the broad sphere of the figure virodha. Later rhetoricians starting from Mamma峁�膩have mentioned other figures based on different types of contradiction such as 补蝉补峁僩补迟颈, 惫颈峁�a尘补, adhika etc. 惭补尘尘补峁璦 suggests that figures like 补蝉补峁僩补迟颈 etc., though having contradiction as their basic feature, have a distinct charm of their own and thus should be considered as independent figures of speech.

闯补驳补苍苍腻迟丑补 has criticised the traditional ten -fold classification of the figure virodha. He regards this classification as devoid of literary charm. He also rejects the classification of virodha into 艣腻产诲补 (when words like api are used) and 腻谤迟丑补 (when words like api are not used) because even in the 腻谤迟丑补 variety of virodha the meaning of api is suggested.

闯补驳补苍苍腻迟丑补 rather advocates a classification of the figure into:

1. 艣耻诲诲丑补 (not based on 艣濒别峁�a or paronomasia) and
2. 艣濒别峁�am奴la (based on 艣濒别峁�a or paronomasia) varieties^[8] .

Ruyyaka refers to the school of critics led by Udbha峁�膩whi ch considers that if the figure virodha is 艣濒别峁�am奴la or 艣濒别峁�agarbha it should be called 艣濒别峁�a only and not virodha. Another school considers it to be a case of the figure 蝉补峁僰补谤补^[9] .

The various opinions of the Sanskrit rhetoricians about the nature of the figure virodha reveal the basic traits of the figure.

They are as follows鈥�

i) Virodha is a figure based on contradiction.

ii) This contradiction is not real but an apparent one.

iii) The apparent contradiction present in virodha is reconciled in the end.

iv) Majority of the rhetoricians has accepted a ten-fold classification of the figure based on 箩腻迟颈, 驳耻峁嘺, 办谤颈测腻 and dravya. But this classification has been set aside by 闯补驳补苍苍腻迟丑补.

痴腻尘补苍补 is the first rhetorician who furnishes a definition of the figure which goes with its modern concept. He uses the word 鈥�腻产丑腻蝉补鈥� in his definition of virodha which has been used by the majority of the later rhetoricians in their definitions. However, he has not minutely discriminated different types of contradictions and has included all of them under the figure virodha. That is why his illustrations of virodha fall under the illustrations of the figure 补蝉补峁僩补迟颈 of Mamma峁�膩and later rhetoricians.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

sa ca j膩ty膩dibhirj膩teriti 肠补迟耻谤惫颈诲丑补岣�, gu峁嚹乨ibhir驳耻峁嘺syeti 迟谤颈惫颈诲丑补岣�,
办谤颈测腻dravy膩bhy膩峁� 办谤颈测腻y膩iti 诲惫颈惫颈诲丑补岣�, dravyasya dravye峁噀ti ekavidha iti
militv膩da艣avidho bodhyavyamiti /
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥擩墨v膩nanda 痴颈诲测腻蝉腻驳补谤补鈥檚 commentary, K膩vy膩dar艣a (of 顿补峁囜笉颈苍) 2.333.

[2]:

virodhastu padarthanam parasparamasangatih/
asangatih pratyanikamadhikam visamasca sah//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥�厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨-办补峁囜弓丑腻产丑补谤补峁嘺 (of Bhoja) 3.24.

[3]:

eva峁� ca 惫颈产丑腻惫补苍腻vi艣e峁�okty补蝉补峁僩补迟颈vi峁�am膩dhikavy膩gh膩t膩tad驳耻峁嘺岣�
p峁泃hagala峁卥膩ratvena na v膩cy膩岣�/ virodha ev膩ntarbh膩v膩t /
uktavaicitryam膩tr膩dbhede ca lak峁�a峁嘺kara峁噀'la峁卥膩r膩nantyaprasa峁単a岣�/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥擪膩vy膩nu艣膩sana (of Hemacandra) 6.12. 惫峁泃迟颈.

[4]:

yasmin 诲谤补惫测腻诲墨苍腻峁� 辫补谤补蝉辫补谤补峁� 蝉补谤惫补迟丑腻惫颈谤耻诲诲丑腻苍腻尘/
别办补迟谤腻惫补蝉迟丑腻苍补峁� 蝉补尘补办腻濒补峁� bhavati sa 惫颈谤辞诲丑补岣�//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯�腻惫测补la峁僰膩ra (of Rudra峁���) 9.30.

[5]:

prak膩r膩ntare峁嘺 parih膩re satyeva viruddhasy腻谤迟丑补sy膩vabh膩sana峁� virodh膩la峁僰膩ra岣�/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥�碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻, 碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补s奴tra惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.3.12.

[6]:

sa ca 蝉补尘腻诲丑腻苍补峁� vin膩prar奴岣峯诲辞峁�a岣�/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥擜la峁僰膩rasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-122.

[7]:

sa ca prar奴岣峯'辫谤补谤奴岣峚艣ca / praroha艣ca b膩dhabuddhyanabhibhutatvam/ tadvaipar墨tyamapraroha岣�/ tatr膩dyo 诲辞峁�asya 惫颈峁�a测补岣�, dvit墨ya艣c膩la峁僰膩rasya/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥�Rasa-驳补峁単腻诲丑补谤补 (of 闯补驳补苍苍腻迟丑补) Chapter-II, p-427.

[8]:

vastuto j膩ty膩dibhed膩n膩mah峁沝yatv膩cchuddhatva艣濒别峁�am奴latv膩bhy膩峁� dvividho 箩帽别测补岣�/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥擱asa-驳补峁単腻诲丑补谤补 (of 闯补驳补苍苍腻迟丑补) Chapter-II, p-428.

[9]:

艣濒别峁�agarbhatve virodhapratibhotpattiheto岣� 艣濒别峁�a udbha峁�膩n膩m / dar艣an膩ntare tu sa峁僰ar膩la峁僰膩ra岣�/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥擜la峁僰膩rasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-123.