203. ABHINAVAGUPTA'S THEORY OF MEANING 227

ABHINAVAGUPTA'S THEORY OF MEANING 227

theory. But the opponents of the first class maintain that the beauty of a literary piece consists in the beauty of words as sounds, and of images, simple or complex, that they arouse in the hearer's mind. Beauty of both, the word and the meaning, is due to the qualities (Guna) and the embel- lishments (Alankara) of words and meanings. They, therefore, maintain that there is no source of literary beauty other than those recognised by them. The opponents, who hold this view, represent the first subdivision of the first class. 2. Others among them, however, hold that they have said the last thing on the sources of literary beauty and that what they have not included in the list of such sources does not at all add any beauty to literary work. They represent the second subdivision. 3. Still others maintain that if there be something, which is not included in their list of the sources of literary beauty, it will fall under something or the other in their list. Even if there be some difference from what has been menti- oned by them, that is bound to be as insignificant as the difference between one kind of metaphor and another. Therefore, there is no justification for mentioning it as an independent source under a different name. They represent the third subdivision. Thus there are five views against the theory of the suggested meaning.

THE ARGUMENTS OF THE OPPONENTS OF THE THEORY OF DHVANI. A literary work is distinguished from a scientific by its beauty. Dhvani, therefore, in order to justify its accep- tance, must be proved to contribute to the literary beauty in some way or another. But we find that it is not admitted to add to the literary beauty. For, the generally accepted