289. MIHIMA BHATȚA'S CRITICISM OF DHVANI 321

MIHIMA BHATȚA'S CRITICISM OF DHVANI 321

words have the power, technically called Vyanjakattva; nor can we establish any other relation between the word and the suggested meaning to account for its rise from the word. And if meanings other than the conventional be supposed to be aroused by words without any fixed relation between them, it would be impossible to fix the limit of meaning; because there will be nothing to restrict. Nor can it be said that the relation between words and meanings (basic emotions) is natural, just as between a song of a particular type (geya) and an emotion. For1, in that case, there will arise the possibility of the æsthetic experience in all, whether they know or do not know the meanings. Nor can it be said that the suggested meanings also are associated with the words through convention. For, the rise of the suggested meaning depends upon the conditions such as time, space, and the character and the mood of the speaker etc. which are not fixed and cannot be fixed by convention, and therefore, cannot be exhaustively stated2. We learn from experience that the same word, because of different conditions, gives rise to different meanings, e.g. the word Rama in (i) Rāmosmi Sarvam sahe and (ii) Rāmeņa priyajīvitena. The conditional nature of the suggested meaning is accepted by Ananda also. Hence it has to be admitted that it is the conventional meaning and not the word, which, because of the presence of certain conditions, gives rise to the suggested meaning. It is, therefore, wrong3 or useless to use Vi-anj as the predicate of Sabda in the definition of Dhvani.

But it may be objected here that if the words have no power, technically called 'Vyanjakatva' how can we talk 1. V.V. 127-8 2. V. V. 128. 3. V. V. 129. 41