262. MAHIMA BHATTA'S CHITICISM OF DHVANI 291

MAHIMA BHATTA'S CHITICISM OF DHVANI 291

based on an ancient tradition. He traces the tradition back to Panini. He refers to a work, covering one lakh of Granthas, written by Vyadi, to expound the system of Panini1. This work, however, was lost due to the neglect of'it by the students of Grammar, because of its big size. Patañjali, therefore, in order that the tradition of 'Vyakarana Smrti' may not be broken, wrote his Mahabhasya, which closely followed the work of Vyadi. The followers of Patañjali, however, lost touch with it. The Mahābhāsya, therefore, remained only in a book in South India. Thus again the tradition of the system of Grammar was lost.j Sometime later a Brahamarakșasa brought the original Vyākaraņāgama, written by Rāvana, from a place in Trilinga in the mountain Trikūța, to Candrācārya and Vasurata, who, after properly understanding it, expounded it in many ways to his pupils. Vasuräta, the teacher of Bhartrhari, wrote a digest of the said Vyakaraņāgama. Bhartrhari's Vakyapadīyam is based on the same. I consists of three chapters (1) Brahmakāņda (II) Vākyakāņda and (III) Padakāņda. The study of Grammar, both as a science and as a system of philosophy, was very popular in Kashmir from a very early time. Kalhaņa in his Rājatarangiņī (I, 176) says that the study of the Mahabhasya was popularised in Kashmir by Abhimanyu (Circa 336 B. C.) Puņyarāja in his commentary refers to the digest of the second chapter of the Vākyapadīyam, written by Rājānaka Śūravarman". Somananda criticises Bhartrhari in his Siva Drsți. Ānanda Vardhana was inspired in his conception of Dhvani by the Sphotavada of the Philosophy of Grammar. Works of Abhinavagupta and Mahima Bhatta are full of quotations from the Vakyapadīyam. 1. V. P. 283. 2. V. P. Comm., 291.

292 IKAVRG 1CHAPTER V Thus, it was because of the thorough familiarity of the Kashmir thinkers with the philosophy of grammar that the theory of Meaning developed in its various aspects primarily in their hands. MAHIMA'S APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM OF MEANING. He approches the problem of Meaning very much like Bhartrhari, with whom he is thoroughly familiar. Bhartrhari divided abda broadly into two (1) Pada (word with a case or a personal termination) and (II) Vākya (Sentence), as is clearly indicated by his two chapters (I) Padakaņda and (II) Vākyakāņda. Mahima Bhatța accepts this division and quotes Bhartrhari in support of his conception of Vakya1. He follows Bhartrhari in the division of the meaning into two types, but with slight modification. Bhartrhari divided the meaning into two (I) Primary (Mukhya) and (II) Secondary (Gauņa). Mahima Bhatța substitutes 'Gauna' by 'Anumeya2, which has wider implication so as to include the meaning which is ordinarily called 'Secondary'. Bhartrhari did not recognise the Vyangya 'the suggestible' as a separate type of meaning : and Mahima Bhatta not only does not recognise it but has also devoted one third of his work to refute the view of Ananda Vardhana, who asserted the independent being of Dhvani. He asserts that the meaning of a word is always primary : because it has no parts which can be split up into the premises and the conclusion. But the meaning of a sentence is both, primary and inferable8. HIS DIVISION OF WORDS. From a very early time words have been classified differently. Thus, some divided them into two and others into four, five or six classes. Pāņini divided them into two 1. V. V. 38. 2. V. V., 39. 3. V. V. V., 40.