295. MAHIMA BHATȚA'S CRITICISM OF DHVANI 327

MAHIMA BHATȚA'S CRITICISM OF DHVANI 327

itself is such as the opponent presents it to be, yet it is an undeniable fact that it does occupy a subordinate position to a more pervading Rasa. And Bharata admitted the fact that Rasa also occupies a subordinate position; because his conception of Rasa as persisting and transient is based upon such an admission1.

(X) CRITICISM OF THE USE OF THE SUBJECT OF THE PREDICATE 'KATHITAH.'

The subject of the predicate 'Kathitah' can be either general or particular. In either case it need not be mentioned. For, in the former case, as there can be no predicate without subject, it will be known through impli- cation. In the latter case, the particular subject can be known from the context wherein a particular type of function of word and meaning, which is recognised by & particular set of poeticians, is under discussion. Hence the statement of the subject is redundant2.

THE NECESSITY OF INCLUSION OF ABHIDHA' IN THE DEFINITION. In this context Mahima Bhatta uses the word 'Abbidha' as synonymous with Alankara'. He seems to follow Kuntaka, the author of the Vakroktijīvita. He holds that Alankara is nothing but a peculiar Abhidha (Vicitrai- vābhidha vakroktirityucyate, V. J. 22). In fact he borrows the term 'Bhangibhaniti' from Kuntaka's verse 'Vakro- ktireva Vaidagdhyabhangībhaņitirucyate' (V. J. 22). Thus, taking the word 'Abhidha' to stand for Alan- kara in general, he asserts that just as 'Sabda' and 'Artha' are included in the definition, so Abhidha also ought to be included For, otherwise, in those cases, in which the 1. V. V. V. 103, 2. V, V. 103-4