287. 318 IMAVHG 80 CHAPTER V IE AMIHAM

318 IMAVHG 80 CHAPTER V IE AMIHAM

will be the possibility of its subordinating the conventional meaning; the use of the adjunct would be a mere repetition of what is known from the fact that the conventional meaning and the word are used for arousing the suggested. Nor can it be said that the adjuncts clarify what is known through implication, because such a clarification also is a type of repetition1. Thus, according to Mahima Bhatta there can be no suggested meaning, which springs from a power of word, be- cause word has no other power than that of arousing the conventional meaning. Therefore, there is no causal relation between word and suggested meaning. Hence to talk of Śabdasaktyudbhava Dhvani and to illustrate it by such verse as 'Suvarņapuspam' is to commit the logical fallacy of talking of the causal relation between the two where it does not exist.

(Asiddhasādhyasādhanadharmānugam)2.

DHVANIVĀDIN'S POSITION EXPLAINED Dhvanivadin admits more than one power of word to arouse different types of meaning. Therefore, according to him, there are cases in which the conventional meaning, that is aroused by a word, is subordinate to the suggested, which also is aroused by the same. Hence the adjunct is not useless8. (III) THE CRITICISM OF THE ADJUNCT OF 'SABDA' (GUŅĪKRTĀRTHA) According to Mahima Bhatta, 'word' has only one power, the conventional. Therefore, the explanation that has been given by Abhinava i. e. the word, that subordinates 1. V. V. 17. 2. V. V. 17 .83, V. V. V. 18