282. MAHIMA BHATȚA'S CRITICISM OF DHVANI 313

MAHIMA BHATȚA'S CRITICISM OF DHVANI 313

TEN DEFECTS IN THE DEFINITION OF DHVANI KAVYA.

Ananda Vardhana defined Dhvani, as a poetic compo- sition as follows :-

"Yatrārthah sabdo vā tamarthamupasarjanīkrtasvār- thau. Vyanktah kāvyaviseşah sa Dhvaniriti sūribhih Kathitaḥ". Mahima Bhatta points out ten defects in the definition of Dhvani Kavya, as given by Ananda Vardhana. Accor. ding to him, hardly any word in the definition is correct. They may be enumerated as follows :- (i) The adjunct of the meaning (Artha), namely, which subordinates itself to another, is useless. (ii) Word (Sabda) ought not to be included in the definition.

(iii) The adjunct of 'word', namely, which reduces the 'meaning' to subordinate position is automatically redundant after the inclusion of what it qualifies has been pointed out to be erroneous.

(iv) The masculine gender in 'Tam' is unjustifiable.

(v) Dual in the predicate 'Vyanktah' is wrong. (vi) The use of the conjunction 'Va' is indiscriminate. (vii) The use of the root Vi-anj in the sense intended by the author makes the definition too wide in one respect and too narrow in another. (viii) Through the word 'Dhvani' only another name is given to poetic compositions and, therefore, it is useless. (ix) The assertion of particularity in a poetic composi- tion (Kāvya viśeșa) is baseless. (x) The inclusion of the subject of the predicate 'Kathitah' in the definition is useless.1

1. V. V. 104. 40