293. MAHIMA BHATȚA'S CRITICISM OF DHVANI 325

MAHIMA BHATȚA'S CRITICISM OF DHVANI 325

According to the view "Rasa is the soul of poetry", no composition, which does not present Rasa, can be spoken of as Kavya. Therefore, a composition, however well may it be polished with the qualities of sound and meaning and however well may it be decked with the ornaments of figurative words and meanings, cannot be called Kavya unless it presents Rasa. Therefore1, a composition, which suggests Vastu or Alankāra, is not Kāvya in the primary sense of the word. Hence it is absurd to talk of particula- rity in relation to it.

(III) Nor can the particularity be ascribed to Kāvya on the ground that in it a Rasa is suggested by a suggested situation or a suggested figure of speech. For, they are merely causes of the manifestation or coming into consciousness of Rasa. And it is illogical to ascribe particularity on the basis of the cause of manifestation (Abhiv yaktihetu)as much as it is to ascribe particularity to the genius 'gau' on the basis of the calf of variegated colour3.

(IV) And if the particularity be ascribed to Kāvya on the basis of the cause of manifestation of Rasa, it will mean that that poetic composition alone, in which a figure of speech or a situation or both are suggestive, can be called Kavya and not that which presents Rasa independently of the said causes. Thus the definition of Dhvani will become too narrow.Further, it will apply to Prahelika3, in which the situation alone is suggested. Thus the definition would become too wide also. Hence the word Dhvani, should be used for all Kavyas in general and not for any particular type of Kavya. And Samāsokti and similar other figurative presentations also should not be excluded from the sphere of Dhvani. For, they also present Rasa. Further, the

1. V.V. 98. 2. V.V. 99. 3. V.V. 100.