294. 326 CHAPTER V

326 CHAPTER V

suggested meaning should be admitted to be of two types only, (I) Vastu and (II) Alankāra; because Rasa belongs to a different category from the other two. Rasa is the general concept of Kāvya, but Vastu and Alankāra are the particulars, which are subsumed under it. Hence the former ought not to be classed with the latter. (V) Nor can the particularity be ascribed to a poetic composition on the ground that it presents Rasa primarily1. For, Rasa cannot be spoken of as subordinate to or a constituent of any thing else. For the five reasons stated above, Kävya in general ought to be maintained to be referr- ed to by the word Dhvani but not any particular Kavya, because we cannot ascribe particularity to Kāvya.

DHVANIVĀDIN'S POSITION EXPLAINED. A definition is always given on the basis of well recognised illustrations of it. And we find two well recognised types of Kāvya: (I) the principal and (II) the subordinate. The principal is that in which the suggested meaning predominates. And the subordinate is that in which the suggested meaning occupies a subordinate position, as for instance in the case of Gunībhutavyangya etc. Both of them have to be accepted to be Kāvyas, because they have been recognised as such from time immemorial. Hence Dhvanivadin talks of Kāvyaviseșa, in order that Gunībhūtavyangya etc, may not be called Dhvanikāvya. The existence of Kavya, with the suggested meaning occupying a subordinate position to the primary, cannot be denied; because we do find Kavyas, in which Rasa is either not very clearly presented or does not occupy the predominant position. It cannot be said that because Rasa is essentially that wherein the mind finds rest, therefore, it cannot be spoken of as subordinate. For, though Rasa in 1. V, V. 101.