280. MAHIMA BHAȚȚA'S CRITICISM OF DHVANI 311

MAHIMA BHAȚȚA'S CRITICISM OF DHVANI 311

Such an admission would defeat the very purpose, for which the conception of illuminator (Prakāśaka) is introduced in the theory of the suggested meaning. For, that would exclude all the compositions with the suggested meaning from the sphere of poetry. And the other type of the illuminator is nothing but a sign (Linga). Therefore, the Dhvanivadin's definition1 of Abhivyakti as 'Prakāsakena sahaikavişayatāpattiḥ' is untena- ble. Further, Ananda Vardhana himself does not admit the figuring in consciousness of the primary meaning simultane- ously with the suggested in all types of Dhvani; because he himself says :- "Nahi vibhāvānubhāvavyabhicāriņa eva Rasah etc.2" Now in order to get out of the defect of impossi- bility in the definitioa, if the advocate of Dhvani were to eliminate the idea3 of simultaneous apprehension of the illuminator and the illumined (Prakaśaka and Prakasya) from the definition of Dhvani, the definition would apply to inference also; because in the case of inference of fire from smoke there is the apprehension of fire through smoke, which occupies a subordinate position to fire, inas- much as the former is only a means of knowing the latter.

But if it were said that the application of the defini- tion to inference will be prevented by the idea of not- being (Asat) as an attribute of the suggested, because the fire is not a not-being, the definition would not apply to the analogical instance of lamp and jar. And if in order to keep the definition applicable to the instance, just men- tioned, he were to eliminate the idea of not-being (Asat) from the definition, the definition would not apply to the

1. V. V, 80. 2. V. V. 80. 3, V. V. 81.