299. MAHIMA BHATTA'S CRITICISM OF DHVANI 331

MAHIMA BHATTA'S CRITICISM OF DHVANI 331

expression. Thus, if a particular action has been referred to by a particular root in a composition, the congruity of symmettical expression requires that the same root should be employed if the same action is again to be referred to, e. g. if the root 'Bhas' has been used in a sentence to express the act of speaking, the same root and no other, such as 'Lap', should be used if the same act is to be referred to again. The want or lack of symmetry in the use of expression is like a pit and as such causes unpleasant feeling in the hearer and stands in the way of æsthetic experience1. To use the symmetrical expressions is not to commit the fault of repetition. For, the spheres of the two are different. It is of many types.

(III) Kramabheda consists in the use of a pronoun, without first stating the antecedent, for which it may be thought to stand ; e. g. in 'Tirthe tadiye' the word 'tadīye' is intended to stand for 'Ganga' though the word has not come before.

(IV) Paunaruktya consists in the repetition of the same idea in the same words over and over again. It may be pointed out here that, according to Mahima Bhatta, if there be only a verbal repetition without there being the repetition of the idea, it is no defect. This defect had been recognised by Akșapāda in his famous aphorism, quoted by Ruyyaka :

'Sabdarthayoh punarvacanam punaruktam anyatrān. uvādāt'.

(V) Vacyāvacana consists in not referring to a thing in the manner in which it ought to be referred to. For instance, in the famous verse in the Vikramorvasīya of

1. V. V. 244,

332 CHAPTER V Kālidāsa "Navajaladharah sannaddhoyam na drpta niśā- carah", the absence of reference to lightning by the word "this' (Idam), after referring to other things, doubt about which is removed, by 'Idam'1, is a defect which is technically called Vacyāvacana'. Such defects in composition as are pointed out by Mahima Bhatta, are found, according to the illustrations given by him, even in the immortal writings of Kalidasa. Such defects, therefore, cannot be seriously counted as such. Mahima's cleverness lies in suggesting the amendments. HIS CRITICISISM OF KUNTAKA'S THEORY OF VAKROKTI The meaning of Vakrokti, on analysis, is discovered to be either congruity (Aucitya) or Dhvani. In the former case it ought not be mentioned separately. For, it is implied in the definition of 'Kavya itself. In the latter case, being identical2 with Dhvani, it is included in 'Anumiti' which is the main point which Mahima Bhatta tries to establish in his work. HIS CRITICISM AND REJECTION OF SOME OF THE TYPES OF DHVANI. Mahima Bhatța discussses the classification of Dhvani at a great length. Some of the types of Dhvani he accepts:3 others he rejects. He asserts that there are defects in the definitions of the sub.divisions of Dhvani but does not count them.4 HIS CRITICISM OF VASTU AND ALAŃKĀRA DHVANI. The use of the word Dhvani, in the case of Rasa, is based upon the error that in this case the premises and the 1. V. V 332. 2. V. V. 127. 3. V. V. 429. 4. V. V. 104.