281. 312 TARO 1O CHAPTER V

312 TARO 1O CHAPTER V

instance of rainbow; because it is not-being. If both the ideas of 'being' and 'not-being' were eliminated, it would be a definition of inference only. That is just what the critics of the theory want.

Further, the attribute of the illuminable, viz, 'being or not-being' is not logical : because it leaves nothing, to which the definition cannot apply. Furthermore, if that suggestive poetry alone be said to be Dhvani Kāvya, where- in the conventional meaning alone is suggestive, the defini- tion would not apply to those poems wherein the suggested meaning itself becomes suggetive of another1.

DHVANIVĀDIN'S POSITION EXPLAINED.

Very often Mahima Bhatța attributes a view to Ānan- da Vardhana, though the latter does not hold it, and then criticises such a view at length. The definition of Abhiv- yakti, as has been stated by him and attributed to the Dhvanivadin, is a typical instance of this tendency. For, although Mahima Bhatta talks in detail of the six types of Abhivyakti; (five types being related to what has being and one type being related to what has no being but simply appears) yet, as has been pointed out by Ruyyaka, Dhvani- vādin accepted it to be of only one type such as is related to what has being2 and is based on the analogy of a lamp and a jar. And it is well recognised that an analogy is intro- duced to refer to just a particular point of similarily. Thus, the point that is tried to be explained by the Dhvanivadin by means of the analogy, under discussion, is that the ex- perience of the suggested is never without that of the sugges- tive8. Hence the entire criticism of Mahima Bhatta in the context of the attributed definition of Abhivyakti is baseless. 1. V. V. 82. 2. V. V. V. 76-7 3. V. V. V. 58-9 and 81.