279. 310 CHAPTER V TAHA MIIHAM

310 CHAPTER V TAHA MIIHAM

Nor can it be said by the Dhvanivadin in his defence that his definition of Abhivyakti applies to Rasadhvani, wherein the experience of the situation etc. is simultaneous with that of the basic mental state; firstly because in that case the definition would not apply to Vastudhvani and Alankāradhvani inasmuch as in these two cases admittedly there is temporal sequence in the consciousness of the suggested from the directly presented; and secondly because even in the case of Rasa the simultaneous apprehe- nsion of the situation etc. and the basic mental state is logically impossible1. (It may be pointed out here that the Dhvanivadin admits the importance of the knowledge of invariable conco- mitance of the two but asserts that it is not operative but potential in so far as it is in the form of residual trace). Mahima Bhatta points out that the illuminator is of two types. (I) It is as if it were an attribute of that which it illumines (Upadhirupah) so that the illumined can be perceived only as enveloped in the illuminator, e.g. a jar can be perceived only as enveloped in the light. (II) It is independent (Svatantrah) in so far as it does not serve as a mere attribute of the illumined. The illumined is appre- hended not simultaneously with the illnminator but in succession therefrom. Such an illuminator is nothing but sign (Linga) or reason (Hetu) : and what is known from it is nothing but inferred. Now the Dhvanivadin cannot hold that his conception of the illuminator in the context of the theory of suggested meaning is that of the first type; because that would imply that, according to him, poetry is only that composition which arouses its meaning directly through convention". 1. V. V. 79. 2. V. V. V. 80,