276. MAHIMA BHATȚA'S CRITICISM OF DHVANI 307

MAHIMA BHATȚA'S CRITICISM OF DHVANI 307

(b) HIS CRITICISM OF THE TATPARYASAKTI OF WORDS.

Those who admit the Tatparyasakti of words assert that the meaning of the words of a sentence is all that which is intended to be communicated through them by the speaker. Accordingly they main- tain that when such a statement as "Eat poison, but do not eat at his house" is understood to mean, not enjoining eating of poison but simply warning the man against eating at a certain person's house; the meaning "Eating at his house is worse than eating poison" is not got through the conventional power of words; because conven- tion does not associate such a meaning with the words used in the sentence. But it cannot be denied that the meaning, such as has been stated above, is got through them. This needs an explanation. The Tatparyasaktivadins, therefore, admit the Tatparyasakti of words as distinct from the Abhidha to explain the rise of such meaning. Mahima Bhatta admits only one power of word, namely, the conventional. He, therefore, criticises the Tätparyavādin as follows :- In the case of the instance, cited above, the meaning "Eating at his house is worse than eating poison" is got through inference from the situation, in which the statement is addressed by a particular speaker to a particular hearer ; the situation, which is clearly pictured up in the minds of both1.

(c). HIS CRITICISM OF ABHIVYAKTI. The Dhvanivadins have accepted a distinct meaning, which they call Dhvani, primarily because they hold that the process, through which this meaning arises, is different from that which is involved in the rise of other meanings.

1. V. V. 121-2.