Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
Statement (A) gives the definitions of two major figures of speech.
Statement (R) discusses the ontological status of Alamkaras in the body-soul analogy of poetry.
Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
The assertion (A) is factually correct according to the 'Kavyaprakasha' and 'Sahityadarpana'.
The definition of Upama is: "Sadharmyam upama bhede" (Upama is the similarity between two distinct things).
The definition of Utpreksha is: "Sambhavanam-athotpreksha prakritasya samena yat" (Utpreksha is the poetic supposition of the Upameya as the Upamana).
Thus, Assertion (A) accurately describes the core features of these Alamkaras.
However, the reason (R) is incorrect.
In the standard analogy used by rhetoricians like Mammata and Vishvanatha:
- Gunas (literary excellences) are compared to 'Shauryadivat' (virtues like heroism) because they reside in the soul (Rasa).
- Alamkaras (figures of speech) are compared to 'Haradivat' (external ornaments like necklaces) because they reside in the body (Shabda-Artha).
The specific verse in Sahityadarpana states: "Ye rasasyangino dharmah shaurya-daya ivatmanah... gunah" (The qualities of the primary Rasa like heroism is to the soul are Gunas).
For Alamkaras, it states: "Hara-divad-alankaras-te" (Those like necklaces are Alamkaras).
Since Statement (R) incorrectly attributes the 'Shauryadivat' (virtue) analogy to Alamkaras instead of Gunas, it is false.
Step 4: Final Answer:
Statement (A) is true, but Statement (R) is false. Therefore, Option (C) is the correct choice.