291. MAHIMA BHATȚA'S CRITICISM OF DHVNAI 323

MAHIMA BHATȚA'S CRITICISM OF DHVNAI 323

the Vakyapadīyam "Pratyayairanupākhyeyaih" in his mind, as pointed by Abhinava in his Locana1. Mahima Bhatta criticises this by making a counter- assertion that not only there is succession in the conscious- ness of words and their primary meanings and that of the suggested meaning, but also in the consciousness of the sound of the last letter, affected by the residual traces of those of the preceding ones, and that of Sabda-sphota. For, in the latter case also the relation of the two is that of the illuminator and the illumined, which is based on the causal relation.ª For, the light is the means whereby the object is made to shine: and the end succeeds the means. This view seems to be supported by the text, because Bhartrhari uses the word standing for the illuminator in the instrumental case and definitely uses the word 'praaksite'. Mahima Bhatta, therefore, asserts that it is Wrong to call poetic composition 'Dhvani'; because the simultaneity in the experience of the suggestive and the suggested, on the basis of which the poetic compositions are intended to be called Dhvani Kāvyas, is not possible. Nor is it possible in the case of the analogy of Dhvani and Sphota. Further, the accepted general definition of Kāvya is that it has Rasa as its soul : accordingly there is no justification to speak of the particularity of Kāvya (Kāvyaviseșa). Therefore8 to call the poetic composition (Kavya) by the word Dhvani, is nothing more than calling the same thing by another name. But it may be pointed out here that the Karika, quoted above, admits of an interpretation, which seems to support the view of Mahima Bhatta, only if it is taken out of the 1. Dh. L. 47. 2. V. V. 57. 3. V. V. 101 .