292. 324 CHAPTER V

324 CHAPTER V

context. We should, however, not forget the fact that there were different views about the relation of Dhvani and Sphota, to which Bhartrhari himself refers, e.g. "Sphotarūpa- vibhāgena Dhvanergrahanamişyate Kaiscit". From this it is clear that there was a difference of opinion among Sphotav- adins themselves as regards the simultaneousness or succe- ssion in the apprehension of Dhvani and Sphota, on the analogy of which the theory of Dhvani is based. Mahima Bhatta followed the school, which held that the two are apprehended in succession.

(IX) HIS CRITICISM OF ANANDA VARDHANA'S CONCEPTION OF THE PARTICULAR KĀVYA. (KĀVYAVISEȘA) He holds that Ananda Vardhana's view that Dhvani is a particular Kavya is untenable. For, according to the conception of Kavya, as has been presented in the preceding section, no composition can be called a Kavya unless it [presents Rasa and we cannot ascribe particularity to Kāvya because of particularity of the same (Rasa).

(1) We cannot say that particularity belongs to a · Kāvya because it presents a particular Rasa1. For, in that case the definition of Dhvani, would become too narrow so that it will apply to those compositions only, which present a particular Rasa or Rasas and would not apply to any composition, presenting any other Rasa. (II) Nor can it be said that particularity of a poetic composition is constituted by the fact that it suggests Rasa and, therefore, is distinct from those which suggest either a situation (Vibhava) or a figure of speech (Alankāra). For, the suggested meaning is of three types, Vastu, Alankāra and Rasadi. The reason may be, elaborated as follows :- To .. 1. V.V. 97. NE .V ..