284. MAHIMA BHAȚȚA'S CRITICISM OF DHVANI 315

MAHIMA BHAȚȚA'S CRITICISM OF DHVANI 315

its charm. Mahima Bhatta asserts that in the so called Guņībhuta vyangya also the suggested meaning has the charm in some instances. Therefore, the adjunct remains useless1.

DHVANIVĀDIN'S POSITION EXPLAINED

A meaning is represented to be 'subordinated', (Apra- dhanikrta) for the following three reasons : (i) because it is a means to arouse another meaning; (ii) because it is less charming than the other (the suggested); (iii) because it does not rest within itself and, therefore, does stand in relation of a helper to the charm of another. Mahima Bhatța's objection is sound in so far as it is based on the first two reasons. But Dhvanikara had the third in his mind. By the adjunct of 'meaning' (Artha) under discussion he wanted to exclude the Gunibhata- vyangya, where the conventional meaning is not subordinate in the sense that it does not stand to another in relation of a helper to its charm. Hence the use of the adjunct is perfectly justifiable2. HIS CRITCISM OF THE WORD 'ARTHA' IN THE DEFINITION OF DHVANI He raises the question "what does the word 'Artha' mean in the verse 'yatrarthah sabdo va' ? Does it mean the conventional meaning only or both the conventional and the suggested ?" He points out the flaws in both the cases as follows :- In the former case the definition would not apply to the well recognised instance 'Evam vādini tatrārșau':

1. V. V. V. 12. 2. V. V.V. 13.