278. MAHIMA BHATTA'S CRITICISM OF DHVANI 309

MAHIMA BHATTA'S CRITICISM OF DHVANI 309

the residual traces of such an object are revived because of either perception of another object, which is invariably concomitant with that experienced before, or because of hearing a word that stands for it, the object is said to have become manifest, 'Abhivyakta'. Thus, for instance, fire is said to become manifest (Abhivyakta) at the sight of smoke, which is invariably concomitant with it; or the cow and the like are said to become manifest from reflective imitative presentation thereof in the works of pictorial, plastic or poetic art. But the Abhivyakti of that which has no real being is of one type only ; e. g. that of rainbow, because of the rays of the sun. Mahima Bhatta asserts that the term 'Abhivyangya' cannot be used for the suggestible meaning in the first two senses of the word: because that would imply that the suggested meaning is directly perceptible like curd or that it shines directly, simultaneously with the conventional, exactly as does jar with light. But that is impossible. As for the third sense, it is nothing more than' mnference. It is not the sense which is attributed to the word 'Vyakti' by the Dhvanivadins. For, the consci- ousness of the suggested meaning from the conventional is not possible without the consciousness of the relation of inva- riable concomitance of the two. Otherwise the consciousness of the suggested meaning from the apprehension of the conventional should arise in all2 persons irrespective of the fact whether they know the invariable concomitance of the two or not. Further, the consciousness of the suggested meaning is never simultaneous with that of the conventional but always in temporal sequence like that of fire from smoke. Hence the definition of Abhivyakti, as admitted by Anananda Vardhana and his followers, is impossible .

1. V. V. 78,0 2. V .. V. 79.