1875.] G. E. Fryer— Pali Studies.— No. 1. 09 



2. Simile (upamd) is resemblance between the subject of comparison 

 and the comparison adduced ; this may be conveyed either (a) by a word, 

 (b) by the sense, or (c) by the sense of a sentence, v. 177 ; or by the use of 

 a compound word, as ' candlmdnano\ v. 178 ; or a verbal affix, as ' ava' 

 in ' vadanam. paiikajdyate ', v. 179 ; or by the use of words implying com- 

 parison as wa, tulyct, and the like, v. 180-185. 



(a.) Similes formed by words implying comparison are the 



1. Correct {dhammopamd), v. 187. 



2. Defective (dhammahino), ] 



3. Reversed (viparito), ( 



4. Reciprocal (aiinamanno) , v. 189. 



5. Marvellous (abbhuto), v. 190. 



6. Ecaiivocal (sileso), v. 191. 



7. Spreading (santdno), v. 192. 



8. Disparaging (jiindo), v. 198. 



9. Prohibitive {patisedlio), v. 19 i. 



10. Uncommon (asddhdrano), v. 195. 



11. False (abJmto), v. 190. 



(b.) In the following similes, the idea of similarity is conveyed by a 

 word's meaning, without the employment of a compound, verbal affix, or 

 word implying comparison, v. 199. They are the 



1. Obvious (sarupopamd) , v. 198. 



2. Ideal (pariJcappo), v. 199, 



3. Doubtful (samsayo), v. 200. 



4. Typically comparative (pativatthii), v. 201. 



(c.) The third form of simile is expressed by setting the sense of one 

 sentence in comparison with that of another, v. 203 ; and this may be done, 

 either with, or without, employing words implying comparison, vv. 

 201, 205. 



Sometimes the following kinds of similes are deemed incongruous — ■ 



1. Comparison between objects of different genders 

 (bhinnalingo) and of different numbers (vijdtivacano), v. 207. 



2. The defective simile (Juno), v. 207. 



3. The exaggerated (adhiJco), 



v 208 



4. The irrelevant (apntliattlid), ' 



5. The contingent (cqjeklchini), ) ^oq 



6. The imperfect (Jchcnidito), ) 

 Sometimes the above are not deemed incongruous, vv. 211 and 212. 



3. Metaphor (rupaham). This figure indicates the resemblance be- 

 tween the subject of comparison and the comparison adduced, but, unlike 

 the simile, without employing words implying comparison. It has two 

 divisions, namely : — 



M 



