@article{oai:nagoya.repo.nii.ac.jp:02001042,
 author = {塩田, 宝澍 and SHIOTA, Hoju},
 journal = {名古屋大学人文学フォーラム, Humanities Forum, Nagoya University},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {The Indian science of rhetoric (alaṅkāra) systematizes figures of speech. While a large number of classical works on Sanskrit rhetoric have been handed down to us, Pāli rhetoric has only one extant treatise: the Subodhālaṅkāra written by Saṅgharakkhita. This work is regarded as important even in today’s Buddhist communities—Sinhalese and Burmese monks are reported to be still studying it. However, despite decades of focused scholarly attention, it still n eeds to be studied further in depth. This paper has the following two purposes. First, it aims to investigate the relationship between the Pāli canon (nikāyas) and example sentences used in the Subodhālaṅkāra and consider how the science of rhetoric in Pāli was related to the Pāli canon. Second, it attempts to elucidate the framework of the semantic figures of speech (atthālaṅkāra) in the Subodhālaṅkāra, and how that framework differs from those of Daṇḍin’s Kāvyādarśa and Bhāmaha’s Kāvyālaṅkāra. The Subodhālaṅkāra v. 166 shows an example of the straightforward description (svabhāvavutti), which relates to the scene of the Buddha’s birth. It is unlikely that the illustration is taken from the Pāli canon, but a commentary to the verse quotes from it. This is one of the instances that show the strong relationship between the Subodhālaṅkāra and the Pali canon. The framework of the semantic figures of speech is different among the three. The Subodhālaṅkāra has 36 types of figures of speech, the Kāvyādarśa has 35, and the Kāvyālaṅkāra has 32. A comparison of these sets of figures of speech allows us to state that the framework of the semantic figures of speech in the Subodhālaṅkāra is more similar to that in the Kāvyādarśa than that in the Kāvyālaṅkāra. Focusing to the straightforward description, there is a difference among the three. The Subodhālaṅkāra first classifies the semantic figures of speech into the straightforward and the oblique descriptions (vaṅkavutti) and then classifies all semantic figures of speech but the straightforward description as the oblique descriptions. The Kāvyādarśa treats the straightforward description as one of the 35 semantic figures of speech, but the Kāvyālaṅkāra does not acknowledge it to be a figure of speech. Therefore, it is possible that the Subodhālaṅkāra did not accept the framework of the Kāvyādarśa as it is but arranged it to build its o wn framework.},
 pages = {267--280},
 title = {パーリ修辞学書Subodhālaṅkāra における〈自然的表現〉 : パーリ経典との関連と〈意味の修辞〉における位置付けを中心に},
 volume = {4},
 year = {2021}
}