263. MAHIMA BHATȚA'S CRITICISM ON DHVANI 293

MAHIMA BHATȚA'S CRITICISM ON DHVANI 293

classes according as they end in the case or the personal terminations (Suptinantam padam 1-4-14.). Yāska1 and Patañjali2 advocate the division into four. Durgacārya refers to the division into six also in his commentary on the Nirukta.3 But Mahima Bhatța divides them into five (I) noun (II) verb (III) upasarga (IV) nipäta and (V) karma- pravacanīya. Although the last three possess the common characteristic of not signifying an accomplished fact', yet, because of their functional difference as well as of the difference of their position in a sentence, they are classified separately. He holds that the nouns are of four types, because the reasons why different nouns are used for different objects are just four. A noun may be used for an object (I) because it stands for the genus under which the object is subsumed (II) because it represents a quality (III) because it denotes a function or (IV) because it signifies a substance. (I) Dittha (II) Śukla (III) Pācaka and (IV) Dandin are respectively the instances of the four types. He differs from the Vaiyakaranas in so far as he holds 'Dandin' to be a 'Dravyasabda'5 but the latter look upon it as 'Guņaśabda'.

HIS REFERENCE TO AND REJECTION OF THE VIEW THAT FUNCTION IS THE BASIS OF THE USE OF A NOUN FOR AN OBJECT.

While discussing the various reasons for the use of nouns for different objects, he cites a view, according to which function6 alone is the basis of the use of nouns for objects. We have briefly stated this view in an earlier section "His reference to the Saiva theory of Abhasavada'. It is elaborated by Mahima Bhatta as follows :- A noun such as 'ghata', signifies a an object, for no

1. N. 8. 2. M. B. 39. 3. N. (Comm) 8. 4. V. V. 37. 5. V. V V, 22. 6. V. V. 23.