296. 328 CHAPTER V

328 CHAPTER V

poetic figures such as Upama etc. are brought to conscious- ness by the poetic figure 'Dipaka', will have to be excluded from the sphere of application of the definition of Dhvani and, therefore, the definition would become too narrow. If it be said by the supporters of the definition that such cases are excluded by Dhvanikara himself from the sphere of application of the definition. For, he himself says that though in some instances one poetic figure may be brought to consciousness by another, yet if the conventional meaning is not primarily intended to suggest the suggesti- ble, such instances are not the instances of Dhvani. Mahima Bhatta replies as follows :-

Such an assertion has the logical fallacy in so far as it is based on reason that does not exist. For, the instances, under discussion, are tried to be excluded from the sphere of application of the definition of Dhvani on the ground that the conventional meaning does not primarily suggest the suggestible. But this ground has no existence ; because the figures of speech such as Dīpaka etc. are accepted to be expressions of a peculiar type (Bhangibhaniti), just for the reason that they mainly bring Upama etc. to conscious- ness. And because the poetic figure, that is brought to consciousness by another, possesses exceptional charm, and a composition is called Dhvani because it possesses such a charm, the exclusion of Dipaka etc. from the sphere of application of the definition of Dhvani is unjustifiable1.

DHVANIVĀDIN'S POSITION EXPLAINED.

Kuntaka, whom Mahima Bhatta follows in his concept- ion of Alankara as an expression of a peculiar type, (Bhangibhaniti), came very much later than Ananda Vard- hana. Ananda Vardhana's conception of the poetic figures, 1. V. V. V. 18-20.