297. MAHIMA BHAȚȚA'S CRITICISM OF DHVANI 329

MAHIMA BHAȚȚA'S CRITICISM OF DHVANI 329

therefore, is based on the authority of earlier poeticians like Bhatta Udbhața. And they admit the poetic figures to belong to words and meanings and not to 'Abhidha'. For, Abhidha, according to them, is either a power of word that is inferred from the fact that word gives rise to the consciousness of meaning; or it is a power of uttering word. And poetic figure is not a variety of it. On the contrary, poetic figure is a charm of a peculiar type, techni- cally called . Vaicitrya', which shines in the consciousness of the Connoisseur. Hence the poetic figures belong to words and meanings and not to Abhidha. And the distinction of poetic literature from the philosophic lies, not in the peculiarity of Abhidha but in that of words and meanings. Therefore, when Ananda Vardhana says where words and meanings are suggestive,' the suggestivity of the poetic figures, which belongs to them is necessarily implied and, therefore, need not be separately mentioned.1 And the view that there is a logical fallacy in the assertion that in the poetic figures Dipaka etc. the conven- tional does not primarily suggest other poetic figures such as Upama etc., namely, that Atatparatva is a reason which has no being, is due to the misunderstanding of the position of the Dhvanivadin. For, he maintains the subordi- nate position to be of three types, as has already been pointed out. And his assertion of Atatparatva of the conventional meaning implies that the suggested meaning does not predominate and is based on the fact that in this case the suggested Upama does help in lending charm to the conventional meaning, which presents the poetic figure Dīpaka. HIS CONCEPTION OF INCONGRUITY ( ANAUCITYA ) Mahima Bhatta deals with the incongruities in the 1. V. V. V. 18 -- 9. 42