288. MAHIMA BHAȚȚA'S CRITICISM OF DHVANI 319

MAHIMA BHAȚȚA'S CRITICISM OF DHVANI 319

the conventional meaning to the suggested, is absurd. Mahima Bhatța accordingly holds that the use of the adjunct brings to the definition the logical fallacy of the 'impossible' (Asambhava). Further, even if for the sake of argument the view of the Dhvanivadin, that word has more power than one, be accepted, the adjunct will still remain useless. For, what is said about the 'meaning' through its adjunct can be understood to hold good of the word also through implication1.

(IV) CRITICISM OF THE MASCULINE GENDER IN THE PRONOUN 'TAM'

A pronoun, as a rule, is used in the same gender as that of its antecedent. But in the verse under discussion there is no antecedent to which it refers. And if we take the context into consideration we find that the antecedent is in the neuter, e. g. 'Sarasvatī svadu tadarthavastu'. Mahima Bhatta, therefore, suggests that the antecedent should be put in the masculine e. g. 'Sarasvatī svādutamam tamartham' and the masculine in the Kārika may be retained3.

Here it may be observed in the defence of Dhvanikāra that he has used two expressions for the suggested meaning, 'vastu' and 'artha'. In the preceding verse he has used the masculine 'Sorthah' and following that he uses 'Tamar- tham' in the subsequent verse, which defines Dhvani.

. (V) CRITICISM OF THE DUAL IN 'VYANKTAH' If in the verse, which defines Dhvani, the word 'Va' be admitted to have the sense of 'option' then the dual number

1. V. V.90 2. V. V, 91

320 CHAPTER V in the predicate is indefensible. But the use of the dual has been defended by Abhinava in his Locana, Mahima Bhatta refers to this defence, but dismisses it with the convenient and very frequently used expression, 'erroneous1' (Bhramamūlam). (VI) CRITICISM OF THE USE OF 'VĀ' In regard to the use of 'Va' in the verse that defines Dhvani, Mahima Bhatța raises the question "Does the word 'Va' mean 'option' or 'conjunction' ?" It cannot mean the former. For, it has already been established that word has only conventional power and not the suggestive. And even if for the sake of argument it be admitted that it has suggestive power also, the dual in the predicate 'Vyanktah' is indefensible, because with the subjects, which are connected by 'Va' in the sense of option, only singular is used, e. g. Śiraḥ Śvā kāko vā Drupadatanayo vā parimrset. It cannot mean the latter (conjunction) also; because in that case all those instances in which the suggested meaning arises either through word alone or meaning alone, shall have to be excluded from the sphere of Dhvani, which is very unwelcome to the Dhvanivādin 2. (VII) HIS CRITICISM OF THE SUGGESTIVE POWER OF WORD INDICATED BY .Vi-ANJ' IN THE DEFINITION The words have no power other than that of arousing the meanings which are associated with them by the convention. They, therefore, cannot arouse the suggested meaning. It cannot be established with reason that the 1, V. V. 90-1 2. V. V. 89-90,