Doubt Sir, छेकानुप्रास,यमकालङ्कारयॊ: मध्ये भेद: क:,मया तु एकरूपत्वेन दृश्यते?कथं भेद: ज्ञातव्यम्|

[pavan kumar]

RAYAVARAPU PAVAN KUMAR,

RESEARCH SCHOLAR,

DEPT. OF SANSKRIT,

ANDHRA UNIVERSITY,

VISAKHAPATNAM,AP.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

In छेकानुप्रास there is no concern for meaning. In यमक there is concern for meaning too.

 

In छेकानुप्रास what gets repeated is a sequence of consonants. Whether the sounds with such same sequence of meanings are meaningful words or not, even if they are meaningful words whether their meaning is different or not is not is not is not of concern.

 

In यमक the phonemic sequence that gets repeated has to make two different meaningful  expressions with two different meanings. 

 

That is why in some classifications छेकानुप्रास gets categorized under शब्दालंकार only whereas यमक gets categorized under उभयालंकार  

 

 

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Rayavarapu Pavan Kumar]

Thanking you sir

[Nagaraj Paturi]

A correction:

 

It got typed as

 

In छेकानुप्रास what gets repeated is a sequence of consonants. Whether the sounds with such same sequence of meanings are meaningful words or not, even if they are meaningful words whether their meaning is different or not is not is not is not of concern.

 

It was intended to be :

 

In छेकानुप्रास what gets repeated is a sequence of consonants. Whether the sounds with such same sequence of consonants are meaningful words or not, even if they are meaningful words whether their meaning is different or not is not of concern.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[sadasivamurty rani]

Cheka Anuprasa and Yamaka - Both are Sabda Alankaras only. 

The following views popular in Sanskrit poetics can help to understand the difference between these two.

Anuprasa is of three types as Cheka Anurasa, Vritti Anuprasa and Lata Anuprasa.

Of these these three : Cheka Anuprasa is defined as: 

छेका: विदग्धा:- छेकगतो विदग्धाश्रित: अनुप्रास: छेकानुप्रास: - "सोऽनेकस्य सकृत्" - अनेकस्य अर्थात् व्यञ्जनस्य सकृत् - एकवारं सादृश्यम् - छॆकानुप्रास:।

The word छेका: means Scholars or Learned people. As this kind of alliteration is found in the usage of renowned scholars it is called Cheka anuprasa and it is one time repetition (only) of even many consonants. 

Ex. ततोऽरुणपरिस्पन्दमन्दीकृतवपु: शशी।

दध्रे कामपरिक्षामकामिनीगण्डपाण्डुताम्॥ This example is self explanatory.

As the rest of the two Anuprasas are out of the context in this thread no concentration is  paid here to explain them both.

Here the point to be noted is repetition of every consonant for only one time. 

Now about YAMAKAM -

From Bharata to Mammata all the Alankarikas  read this under Sabdalankara varga only. For the appreciation of scholars two definitions of Yamaka by Bharata and Mammata are presented here. 

शब्दाभ्यासस्तु यमकम् पादादिषु विकल्पितम् । - भरतमुनि:।

Abhyasa means reduplication ... Reduplication of the sounds in a foot and so on is YAMAKA. 

अर्थेसत्यर्थभिन्नानाम् सा पुन: श्रुति: यमकम्। - मम्मटाचार्य:।

It is the repetition of similarly sounding words or syllables with difference in meaning is YAMAKA. 

आवृत्तिं वर्णसंघातगोचरां यमकं विदु:। साहित्यदर्पणे

The repetition of syllabic collection is YAMAKA. 

Here are two reasons for counting this in the group of Shabdalankaras:

1. Alankaras are charm enhancers of Poetry.  Here the Charm of the context is enhanced only due to the repetition of sounds in the form of words or syllabic collections. 

2. Though there is a condition of maintaining Difference in Meaning it is just incidental and it doesn't add anything in particular in the process of enhancing the beauty of the context. No special effort is there from the side of the poet to add any beauty through Arthabheda in this Alankara.  Hence this is a Sabdalankara only. 

 Keen study of Bharata's Natyasastra, Visvanatha's Sahityadarpana, Mammata's Kavya Prakasa and other such texts can help to appreciate this topic more. 

Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty

---

From: pavan kumar <pavansa...@gmail.com>
To: "bvpar...@googlegroups.com" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 6 March 2015 7:25 PM
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Doubt Sir, छेकानुप्रास,यमकालङ्कारयॊ: मध्ये भेद: क:,मया तु एकरूपत्वेन दृश्यते?कथं भेद: ज्ञातव्यम्|

[pavan kumar]

धन्यवादा: गुरुभ्य:राणीसदाशिवमूर्ति महाभागेभ्य:,नागराज्  पतूरि  महॊदयेभ्यश्च।

RAYAVARAPU PAVAN KUMAR,

RESEARCH SCHOLAR,

DEPT. OF SANSKRIT,

ANDHRA UNIVERSITY,

VISAKHAPATNAM,AP.

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/8swam3eZju8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Bhinnaarthakatva in Yamaka is not just incidental:

 

tulyaśrutīnāṃ bhinnānām abhidheyaiḥ parasparam /
varṇānāṃ yaḥ punarvādo yamakaṃ tannigadyate // Bhamaha-kavyalaṅkara _2.17 //

 

following is from Mammata's Kavyapraksa:

arthe satyarthabhinnānāṃ varṇānāṃ sā punaḥśrutiḥ /
yamakam

samarasamaraso 'yamityādāvekeṣāmarthavacve, anyeṣāmanarthakatve bhinnārthānāmiti na yujyate vaktum iti, arthe satītyuktam /
seti sarorasa ityādivailakṣaṇyena tenaiva krameṇa sthitā /
(sū- 118)

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Where the classification of Alankaras is into S'abda and Artha alankaras only, the third category of Ubhaya alankaras is not taken into account, Yamaka falls under S'abda alankaras only.

 

When the division of Ubhaya alankaras is recognized, which are the alankaras that fall under this category?

 

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Ganesh R]

Dear Sirs,

I feel that shlESha can be called as the only  ubhayaalaMkaara.

regards

ganesh

[Nityanand Misra]

In the Kāvyaprakāśa, Mammaṭa has stated that Punaruktavadābhāsa is an Ubhayālaṅkāra. This is the extact from the ninth ullāsa (śabdālaṅkāranirṇaya) - 

१२२) पुनरुक्तवदाभासो विभिन्नाकारशब्दगा।

एकार्थतेव भिन्नरूपसार्थकानर्थकशब्दनिष्ठमेकार्थत्वेन मुखे भासनं पुनरुक्तवदाभासः।

स च –

१२३) शब्दस्य सभङ्गाभङ्गरूपकेवलशब्दनिष्ठः।

उदाहरणम् –

अरिवधदेहशरीरः सहसा रथिसूततुरगपादातः।

भाति सदानत्यागः स्थिरतायामवनितलतिलकः ॥ ३८९ ॥

चकासत्यङ्गनारामाः कौतुकानन्दहेतवः।

तस्य राज्ञः सुमनसो विबुधाः पार्श्ववर्तिनः ॥ ३९० ॥

१२४) तथा शब्दार्थयोरयम् ॥ ८६ ॥

उदाहरणम् –

तनुवपुरजघन्योऽसौ करिकुञ्जररुधिररक्तखरनखरः।

तेजोधाम महःपृथुमनसामिन्द्रो हरिर्जिष्णुः ॥ ३९१ ॥

अत्रैक्समिन् पदे परिवर्तिते नालङ्कार इति शब्दाश्रयः

अपरस्मिंस्तु परिवर्तितेऽपि स न हीयते। इत्यर्थनिष्ठ इत्युभयालङ्कारोऽयम्।

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Since the thread was initiated for the distinction between chekanuprasa and yamaka, let me state the following:

 

1. Definitions of both Chekanuprasa and Yamaka have undergone several changes from the early Alankara texts to modern times

 

2. Though chekanuprasa originally had just the repetition of a sequence of consonants as the defining feature, currently, repetition of a sequence of pair of consonants as its characteristic  gained more currency in most of the poetics of Indian languages where this alankaara has been borrowed. This 'pair of consonants' criteria is not a new creation. It has its origin in the old Alankara texts such as that of Ruyyaka themselves.

 

3. Though yamaka originally had just the repetition of a sequence of syllables (combinations of consonants and vowels) as the defining feature, currently the difference in meaning between the two occurrences of the syllabic sequence as its characteristic  gained more currency in most of the poetics of Indian languages where this alankaara has been borrowed. This difference in meaning criteria is not a new creation. It has its origin in the old Alankara texts themselves.

 

 

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[pavan kumar]

Thanking u nityananda misra garu

RAYAVARAPU PAVAN KUMAR,

RESEARCH SCHOLAR,

DEPT. OF SANSKRIT,

ANDHRA UNIVERSITY,

VISAKHAPATNAM,AP.

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/8swam3eZju8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[sadasivamurty rani]

रस - भाव - रीति - गुण - अलङ्कार - शय्या - पाकादिषु काव्यसौन्दर्यसंपादकेष्वंशेषु  गुण - अलङ्कारयो: विषये आलङ्कारिका: प्राय: गुणा: नॄणां शौर्यादय इव काव्यस्य आन्तरिकधर्मा: इति अलङ्कारा: सहजतया काव्येषु विद्यमानाया:  शोभाया: कटक - हार - नूपुरादय इव अतिशयहेतव इति च कथयन्ति। भरतादारभ्य अप्पय्यदीक्षितपण्डितपर्यन्तमपि सर्वे तज्ज्ञा: अलङ्कारेषु विभागद्वयमङ्गीचक्रु:।

शब्दालङ्कारवर्ग: अर्थालङ्कारवर्गश्चेति।

य़त्र शब्दवशात् चारुतातिशय: सम्पाद्यते तत्र शब्दालङ्कारा हेतव इति ग्राह्या:। 

यत्र अर्थवशात् चारुतातिशय: सिद्ध्यति तत्र अर्थालङ्कारा: कारणभूता: इति ग्राह्या:।

अत्र ग्राह्योऽन्योऽपि विषय: वर्तते। यत्र शब्दालङ्कारा: चारुतां सम्पादयन्ति तत्र ते प्रयोगा: अर्थविहीना: इति न सम्भावयेत् परन्तु तत्र यद्यपि ते प्रयोगा: अर्थवन्त: तथापि सान्दर्भिकचारुतातिशयसम्पादने तेषामर्था: परिकरभूता: न भवन्ति इति अवगन्तव्य:। 

तथैव यत्र अर्थालङ्कारा: चारुतातिशयसम्पादनपरा: भवन्ति तत्र शब्दचमत्कृतिविषये कविदृष्टिर्न सरति। 

तत्र शब्दा: अर्थापेक्षया गौणा: भवन्ति। 

एतन्मनसि निधायैव साहित्यलक्षणकारशिरोमणिभूता:  भरत - दण्डी - भामह - मम्मट - विश्वनाथ - विद्यानाथप्रभृतयस्सर्वेऽपि अलङ्कारविभागकरणावसरे अर्थभेदवतोऽपि यमकस्य शब्दालङ्कारवर्गे एव स्थानं पर्यकल्पयऩ् यतस्तत्र चमत्कृत्यतिशयहेतु: शब्दस्य पुनरावृत्तिवशादेव न तु अर्थभेदसन्निवेशवशादिति हेतो:। तत्र अपरमपि कारणम् ज्ञेयमस्ति। यदि तत्रार्थसौन्दर्यस्यप्राधान्यमस्ति तदर्थबोधकशब्दान्तरविनिवेशनॆनापि तत्सौन्दर्यं तथैव तिष्ठेत्। तदानीं शब्दस्य पुनरावृत्ति: कवेरभीष्टविषय एव न भवति। 

अत: अत्र विविधाचार्या: -

१. यमकम् शब्दालङ्कारवर्गे एव स्वीकृतवन्त: इति  

२. यमक - छेकानुप्रासयॊर्विषये भेदं कथं दर्शितवन्त: इति

३. उभयालङ्कारवर्गे प्राधान्येन कमलङ्कारं पर्यगणयन्निति च विषयत्रयम् प्रतिपाद्यते।

१. यमकम् शब्दालङ्कारवर्गे एव स्वीकृतवन्त: इति  

नाट्यशास्त्रम् - भरत: 

उपमारूपकं चैव दीपकं यमकं तथा।

अलङ्कारास्तु विज्ञॆयाश्चत्वारॊ नाटकाश्रया:॥ .१७/४३

यमकमेकमेव भरतेनाङ्गीकृतशब्दालङ्कार:।

यमकलक्षणम् - 

शब्दाभ्यासस्तु यमकं पादादिषु विकल्पितम् ।

पादान्तयमकम् - काञ्चीयमकम् - समुद्गकयमकम् - विक्रान्तयमकम् - चक्रवालयमकम् -

सन्दष्टयमकम् - पदादियमकम् - आम्रेडितयमकम् - चतुर्व्यवसितयमकम् - मालायमकम्॥

दण्डी - 

स्वस्य काव्यादर्शस्य द्वितीयपरिच्छेदे अर्थालङ्करवर्गस्य विस्तरेणाविष्करणं कृत्वा तत्प्रकरणं तत्रैव उपसंहृत्य तृतीयपरिच्छेदारम्भे एव यमकालङ्कारसप्रभेदप्रतिपादनेन शब्दालङ्कार - चित्रालङ्कारविन्यासप्रणालीं स्वीचकार।

तेन यमके ३१५ भेदानां प्रतिपादनमकारि। स: सर्वत्रापि स्वर-व्यञ्जनसमुदायरूपवर्नसंहतॆ: व्यावृत्तिवशादेव चारुतातिशयसिद्धिरिति प्रत्यपादयत्।

भामहेनापि काव्यालङ्काराख्ये स्वीयग्रन्थे आदियमकम् , मध्ययमकम्, अन्तयमकम्, पादाभ्यासयमकम्, (पादाभ्यासयमकावली), समस्तपादयमकमिति यमकभॆदा: पञ्च एव, अन्ये यमकभेदा: सर्वेऽपि एतद्भेदपञ्चके एव अन्तरभवन्तीति च प्रत्यपादि।

मम्मटाचार्य: तद्वद्विद्यानाथपण्डित: अपि छॆकानुप्रास -वृत्त्यनुप्रास - लाटानुप्रास - श्लेष - चित्रालङ्कार - पुनरुक्तवदाभासादिभिस्साकं यमकालङ्कारमपि सप्रभेदं शब्दालङ्कारवर्गे एव प्रदर्शितवन्तौ। 

२. यमक - छेकानुप्रासयॊर्विषये भेदं कथं दर्शितवन्त: इति

अथ इदानीमेतयोर्द्वयॊरलङ्कारयॊर्मध्ये विद्यमान: स्थूलभेद: प्रतिपाद्यते।

छेकानुप्रासे केवलव्यञ्जनस्य व्यञ्जनानां वा सकृत् (एकवारमात्रम्) आवृत्ति: भवति।

यमके स्वर-व्यञ्जनसमुदायस्य पदरूपॆणावृत्ति: भवति। तत् प्रथमपादे वा द्वितीयपादे वा तृतीयपादे वा पादान्ते वाऽपि भवितुमर्हति। 

३. उभयालङ्कारवर्गे प्राधान्येन कमलङ्कारं पर्यगणयन्निति च विषयत्रयम् प्रतिपाद्यते।

श्लेषालङ्कारविषये एव अयं शब्दालङ्कारो वा अर्थालङ्कारो वा उभयालङ्कारो वेति दृढा, दीर्घा चर्चा प्राचलत्। यमकस्य विषये तु कदापि न तथा। 

विषयविस्तृतिभीत्या सत्स्वपि वक्तव्येषु बहुषु विषयेषु विरम्यतेऽत्र।

 

Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty

---

From: pavan kumar <pavansa...@gmail.com>
To: "bvpar...@googlegroups.com" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Tuesday, 10 March 2015 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Doubt Sir, छेकानुप्रास,यमकालङ्कारयॊ: मध्ये भेद: क:,मया तु एकरूपत्वेन दृश्यते?कथं भेद: ज्ञातव्यम्|

[Nagaraj Paturi]

 Though chekanuprasa originally had just the repetition of a sequence of consonants as the defining feature, currently, repetition of a sequence of pair of consonants as its characteristic  gained more currency in most of the poetics of Indian languages where this alankaara has been borrowed. This 'pair of consonants' criteria is not a new creation. It has its origin in the old Alankara texts such as that of Ruyyaka themselves.

 

It was Udbhata not Ruyyaka:

 

chekānuprāsastu dvayordvayoḥ susadṛśoktikṛtau // UKss_1.3 //

dvayordvayorajjhalsamudāyayoḥ suṣṭhu sadṛśe uccāraṇe kriyamāṇe sati chekānuprāso bhavati /
tathāvidhā samudāyāstatrālaṅkāratāṃ pratipadyante /
dvayordvayoriti svārthe 'vadhāryamāṇe anekasminniti dvirvacanaṃ svārthagrahaṇena vīpsāyā nirastatvāt na yāvanto 'tra dvikāḥ saṃbhavanti teṣāṃ sarveṣāmeva susadṛśatvaṃ kāryaṃ, kiṃ tarhi katipayānāmeva /
vīpsā hi sākalye sati bhavati /
sā cātra svārthaśabdena nirastā /
avadhāryamāṇagrahaṇācca dvayordvayorevātra samudāyayoḥ sadṛśatvaṃ, natu trayāṇāṃ trayāṇāmiti draṣṭavyam /
anekasminniti vacanācca asakṛdevaṃvidharūpopanibandhe sati chekānuprāsatā na tu sakṛditi mantavyam /
parasparamekarūpānvitā

rasādyabhivyaktyanuguṇatvena labdhotkarṣā varṇāstatsamudāyā vā śobhātiśayahetutvena kāvye kṣiṣyamāṇā anuprāsaśabdenānvarthenābhidhīyante /
chekaśabdena kulāyābhiratānāṃ pakṣiṇāmabhidhānam /
taduktam---"chekān gṛheṣvabhiratānuśanti mṛgapakṣiṇaḥ"iti /
teṣāṃ ca kulāyābhiratatvādanyena kenacidanāyāsyamānānāmanenānuprāsena sadṛśī madhurā vāguccarati /
ato 'yamanuprāsaśchekairvyapadiśyate chekānuprāsa iti /
athavā chekā vidagdhāḥ /
tadvallabhatvādasya chekānuprāsatā /
tasyodāharaṇam----

sa devo divasānninye tasmiñśailendrakandare /
gariṣṭhagoṣṭhīprathamaiḥ pramathaiḥ paryupāsitaḥ // UKss_1.*2 //


kandaro guhā /
gariṣṭhā gurutamāḥ /
'priyasthira-'(pā.a.6.4.157) itīṣṭhani guruśabdasya garādeśaḥ /
goṣṭhī vidagdhānāmāsanabandhaḥ /
prathamaiḥ pradhānaiḥ /
pramathairgaṇaiḥ /
paryupāsitaḥ sevitaḥ /
atra sadevadivasaśabdau indrakandaraśabdau gariṣṭhagoṣṭhīśabdau prathamapramathaśabdau pariupāsaśabdau ca dvau dvau ajjhalsamudāyau susadṛśāvṛccāritau tena chekānuprāsatā /
kvacittu 'ninye tasmin'ityatra 'ninye 'nyasmin'iti pāṭhaḥ /
tadā caitadapyudāharaṇe 'ntarbhavatīti /

anuprāsaḥ /

 

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

छेकानुप्रासे केवलव्यञ्जनस्य व्यञ्जनानां वा सकृत् (एकवारमात्रम्) आवृत्ति: भवति।

 

------ I think I am beginning to make sense of this एकवारमात्रम् of Prof. Rani. The 'pair', I understand now is not the pair of consonants but two consecutive occurrences of the same sequence of consonants, and एकवारमात्रम् here limits the number of occurrences of the sequence to two.  

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Nagaraj Paturi]

3. Though yamaka originally had just the repetition of a sequence of syllables (combinations of consonants and vowels) as the defining feature, currently the difference in meaning between the two occurrences of the syllabic sequence as its characteristic  gained more currency in most of the poetics of Indian languages where this alankaara has been borrowed. This difference in meaning criteria is not a new creation. It has its origin in the old Alankara texts themselves.

 

मराठी:

यमक: कवितेच्या चरणात ठरावीक ठिकाणी एक किंवा अनेक अक्षरे वेगळ्या अर्थाने आल्यास यमक अलंकार होतो

यमक म्हणजे काय ?एकाहून जास्त अक्षरांची त्याच क्रमाने परंतु भिन्न अर्थांनी आवृत्ती झाली म्हणजे यमक अलंकार होतो

हिंदी:

जब एक शब्द का प्रयोग दो बार होता है और दोनों बार उसके अर्थ अलग-अलग होते हैं तब यमक अलंकार होता है।

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[sadasivamurty rani]

As the root question of the thread is a very simple one I confined my answers to a very basic level. 

It doesn't mean that  the historical development of the Sabdalankaras is ignored by me. 

While answering any question on Alankara Sastra the following scheme always has its live influence in my mind. 

As far as the  'Alankara Texts' are to be considered in their historical order the ideal sequence can be in the following manner:

Bharata (300BC around), Bhamaha (725-750 AD), DAndi (600-680AD), Udbhata (750-850AD), Vamana (800 AD around), Rudrata (of almost same age with Vamana), Anandavardhana (860-890AD), Rajasekhara (in the same period around), Mukula bhatta (925 AD), Bhatta Tauta (950-980 AD), Bhattanayaka (980), Kuntaka (Between 10-11 Centuries AD), Mahimabhatta (1020-1100AD), Bhoja (11 century AD), Kshemendra (990-2066 AD), Mammata (1050-1100AD), Ruyyaka (1135-1150AD), Vagbhata of Vagbhata Alankara (1125-1143AD), Hemachandra (1136-1143AD), Jayadeva (1150-1200AD), Vidyadhara (1285-1325AD), Vidyanatha (14th Century), Vagbhata of Kavyanusasana (14th CenturyAD), Vishvanatha (1300-1380AD), Bhanudatta (1450-1500AD), Rupagosvami (15-16 Centuries), Kesava Mishra (16th CenturyAD), Appayya Dikshita of 15554-1626AD), Jagannatha (1620-1665AD), Kavikarnapura (17th Century AD) and so on. Of course I can extend this list at the latest to our contemporary times.

Among these Alankarikas : Eight Prasthanas or Schools of Aesthetic Excellence or Kavyatma Vadas in other words to say are :

Bharata's Rasa Theory, Bhamaha's Alankara Theory, Dandin's Guna Theory, Vamana's Riti Theory, Anandavardhana's Dhvani Theory, Kuntaka's Vakrokti Theory, Mahimabhatta's Anumana Theory and Kshemendra's Aucitya Theory. These are the most prominent and ruling theories in the Alanakara Sastra.

Some scholars consider 6 schools only ignoring Alankara Theory and Guna Theory of Bhamaha and Dandin. 

The reason for giving prominence for these 8 schools is: 

These eight masters gave KAVYATMA status to these 8 Aspects : RASA, ALANKARA, GUNA, RITI, DHVANI, VAKROKTI, ANUMANA and AUCITYA while the rest of the all other Alankarikas were mere followers or modifiers of the Views of these masters. 

Among the rest of the Alankarikas also the following are Mile Stones: Mammata, Vishvanatha, Vidyanatha, Jayadeva, Appayya Dikshita and Jagannatha. 

Undoubtedly the texts of Ruyyaka and Vagbhata have a classical status in the order,  in the general historical development of any concept the masters mentioned other than these two are given more preference in the tradition. 

As far as the present context is concerned I would like to add a few lines:

 My view while telling "the one time repetition of any  consonants as the definition of Cheka Anuprasa" doesn't mean the AVYAVAHITA repetition of those consonants. In that repetition of such consonants they can be in the association of any vowels. To say in more clear terms the consonantal element of such repetition is fixed and the vowel elements of such units of repetition are variable.

Hence it was opined by the Acharyas "Vyanjananam Sakrd Aavrttih Chekanuprasah".  The same was just translated by me.  

Here I further extend my exercise to explain a bit more about the nature of Sabda Alankaras: 

Jati, Gati, Riti, Vrtti, Chaaya, Mudra, Ukti, Yukti, Bhaniti, Guphana, Shayya, Pathiti, 

Yamaka, Slesha, Anuprasa, Citra, Vakovakya, Prahelika, Gudha, Prasnottara, Adhyeya, Shravya, Prekshya and Abhiniti are some popular Shabda Alankaras accepted by the times of Bhoja. Of course Acharyas like Mammata and Vishvanatha did not accept all these but a few. 

While calling them SABDA ALANKARAS it doesn't  mean  that they  have no semantic value. They are not meaningless repetitions. As in Yamakalankara there can be variation in meaning in the repetition. But the cheif beautifying factor is the repetition of the word and not the variation of the meaning. It is less important in beautifying the occasion. 

Let us examine the following  examples:

विष्णु: सृजति भूतानि विष्णु: संहरति प्रजा:।

विष्णु: प्रसूते त्रैलोक्यं विष्णुर्लोकाधिदैवतम् ॥ - पादादियमकम्।

Here the word Vishnu is repeated but with no extra-added meaning.

यस्य यस्य रमणस्य मे गुणा:

येन येन वसगां करोति माम्।

येन येन हि समेति दर्शनं 

तेन तेन वशगां करोति माम्॥ - संदष्टयमकम्।

Here also the repetition of the words have no special semantic charms. This is the instance of Yamaka.  

गेहे गेहे जङ्गमा हेमवल्ली 

वल्ल्यां वल्ल्यां पार्वणश्चन्द्रबिम्ब:।

बिम्बे बिम्बे कोकिलानां विराव:

रावे रावे जायते पञ्चबाण:॥ (मुक्तपदग्रस्तम्) 

Here the repetition of words गेहे गेहे. वल्ल्यां वल्ल्यां, बिम्बे बिम्बे, रावे रावे - are repeated to cover with emphasis every house, every creeper, every bimba and every sound.. Further it is JAHALLAKSHANA MULA DHVANI with Abheda Rupaka force ALSO IS THERE. Here the word VALLI is not mere creeper. It is जङ्गमा हेमवल्ली - A living creeper (A beautiful woman).  So in every creeper there is पार्वणश्चन्द्रबिम्ब: (The full moon disc lie Face). In every Bimba (In every face) कोकिलानां विराव: - The sweet notes of a Cukoo Bird.(Such sweet speech of the women).  These charms are generated not merely by the repetition of words but by other facts such as Jahallakshana Mula Dhvani's presence and that of Abheda Rupaka force. 

शारदा शारदाम्भोजवदना वदनाम्बुजे।

सर्वदा सर्वदाऽस्माकं सन्निधि: सन्निधिं क्रियात्॥ (श्लेषालंकार:)

शारदाम्भोजवदना सर्वदा (सर्वं ददाति इति सर्वदा) सन्निधि: (सद्रूपज्ञानस्य निधि:) शारदा (सरस्वती) अस्माकं वदनाम्बुजे सर्वदा (सदा) सन्निधिं क्रियात् ।

Here also we have the repetition of words. But this is not an instance of YAMAMKA. This is an instance of Slesha. (Abhanga Slesha).

रविकिरणानुगृहीतानि कमलानि कमलानि। 

नयने तस्यैव नयने ते।

(अर्थान्तरसंक्रमितवाच्यध्वनि:)

Here there is astriking difference in the second repetition of कमलानि and नयने with a  deviation from their denotative meaning with full force of suggestion. Hence this is given as an illustration of Arthantara Sankramita vAcyadhvani.  

Ruyyaka gave this sloka as an example for Lata anuprasa. But the critics like Abhinavagutpa denied. 

Hence to conclude:

1. Every repetition of words does not constitute YAMAKA. 

2. YAMAKA is mostly fanciful verbal repetition with less importance to the meaning in adding charms to the context. 

I have a grand collection of examples from GERMAN and ENGLISH languages also for CHEKA ANUPRASA, VRTTI ANUPRASA,  YAMAKA, PUN and other Sabdalankaras and also of ARTHALANAKRAS. 

But since it is out of context to speak all of them keeping in view the necessity of the root question I did not venture to do so.

Warm Regards,

 

Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty

---

From: Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 13 March 2015 12:30 AM

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Let us conclude as follows:

 

1. How to distinguish between Chekanupraasa and Yamaka: Prof. Rani disagreed with Nagaraj's suggestion that Chekanupraasa is the repetition of a sequence of consonants and Yamaka is the repetition of  phonemic sequence with a difference in meaning and said that according to ancient alankara texts, Chekanupraasa is the repetition of a sequence of consonants only once and Yamaka is the repetition of sequence of syllables (consonant-vowel combinations) without any concern for meaning. -

 

2. Nagaraj agreed with Prof. Rani and tried to explain his position by saying that difference in meaning in the repeated phonemic sequence in Yamaka as point of distinction was not his invention but was in line with the currently prevalent idea in different books dealing with Yamaka in various Indian languages. He also said that such difference in meaning in the repeated phonemic sequence in Yamaka was very much there in some of the ancient alankara texts themselves.

 

3. Nagaraj agrees that the contemporary books dealing with Yamaka in various Indian languages might have wrongly stereotyped a certain strand of yamaka as all of yamaka.

 

4. In fact to realize that yamaka with a difference in meaning is only one of many kinds of Yamaka is useful for understanding various available lakshyas in Sanskrit and other Indian languages. Many lakshyas which would have been left out without any name based on the idea that yamaka with a difference in  meaning is the only kind of Yamaka would now get classified as one of many different Yamakas.      

[sadasivamurty rani]

I request Prof. Nagaraj garu to permit for slightly revising the conclusions drawn by Prof. Nagaraj garu.

1. It is not the disagreement between Rani Sadasiva Murty and Prof. Nagaraj garu. It is just the presentation of the prevalent differences regarding Chekanuprasa and Yamaka. The postings of Sadasiva Murty in this thread may once again be read from this point of view. No where Sadasiva Murty owns any of the statements. It is an effort to substantiate the concept with the available material in  the ALANKARA TEXTS.

2. Regarding the YAMAKA - 

What Prof. Nagaraj ascribes a statement to be that of SADASIVA MURTY is:

Yamaka is the repetition of sequence of syllables (consonant-vowel combinations) without any concern for meaning.

 The Statement of Sadasiva Murty regarding YAMAKA is: 

" In Yamakalankara there can be variation in meaning in the repetition. But the cheif beautifying factor is the repetition of the word and not the variation of the meaning. It (the meaning) is less important in beautifying the occasion." 

3. The Conclusions of Sadasiva Murty in his mail of this thread on 14-03-2015  is not the conclusions of this thread. I too hope that the conclusions of Prof. Nagaraj garu are also not the conclusions of this thread.  

Sadasiva Murty has much to say in this connection about :

1. The Nature of Sabda Alankaras

2. All the Types of Anuprasas and the place of Cheka Anuprasa 

3. How faithful are Indian Languages in following the Alankara system of Sanskrit 

and other matters. Certainly these shall be added very soon. 

But a request is that Sadasiva Murty has to attend 5 seminars during the coming two weeks. i.e. from 17-03-2015 to 28-03-2015. Hence he may be excused for taking a pause in participating in the future discussions of this thread. 

Warm regards, 

Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty

---

From: Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, 15 March 2015 12:33 AM

[Hnbhat B.R.]

I think the question was the difference of छेकानुप्रास and यमक, than the total history of Alankarashastra in regard to these two (this is available in the Prabha commentary on Dandin, provided by Vamana Jhalkikar) and the detailed varieties of यमक provided by Bharata in his Natyashastra, and later rhetoricians of Alankara School. Hence this thread overgrown of its initial intention and it may be wise to wind up than continue listing the difference of opinions between the two members who are very informative and thought provoking. Sorry for my comments. It is not made with any ill feeling. The original question is a matter for 5 marks in the examinations and which need a reply of a paragraph, which the questioner intended to get an answer from the group.

Thanks for both the scholars sharing their expertise in 
Alankarashastra.

[dhaval patel]

Just sharing what alaGkAramaNihAra has to say in regards to ChekAnuprAsa.

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Dr. Dhaval Patel, I.A.S

District Development Officer, Rajkot

www.sanskritworld.in

[sadasivamurty rani]

Dear Shri HNBhat Ji,

Thanks for your kind gesture to smoothen the situation. I too have high regard for Prof. Nagaraj garu. Not only in this thread but also in all other threads the participation of Prof. Nagaraj Garu is very much scholarly and highly authentic. 

 My intention in stretching this thread to this extent also is not to confront the professor. It has been an effort only to find out (not even to fix) the possible boundaries of the matter in discussion.

Yes. I won't any more extend this thread further.    

Warm Regards,  

Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty

---

From: Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 15 March 2015 8:17 AM

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Doubt Sir, छेकानुप्रास,यमकालङ्कारयॊ: मध्ये भेद: क:,मया तु एकरूपत्वेन दृश्यते?कथं भेद: ज्ञातव्यम्|

I think the question was the difference of छेकानुप्रास and यमक, than the total history of Alankarashastra in regard to these two (this is available in the Prabha commentary on Dandin, provided by Vamana Jhalkikar) and the detailed varieties of यमक provided by Bharata in his Natyashastra, and later rhetoricians of Alankara School. Hence this thread overgrown of its initial intention and it may be wise to wind up than continue listing the difference of opinions between the two members who are very informative and thought provoking. Sorry for my comments. It is not made with any ill feeling. The original question is a matter for 5 marks in the examinations and which need a reply of a paragraph, which the questioner intended to get an answer from the group.

Thanks for both the scholars sharing their expertise in 
Alankarashastra.