300. MAHIMA BHAȚȚA'S CRITICISM OF DHVANI 333

MAHIMA BHAȚȚA'S CRITICISM OF DHVANI 333

conclusion are apprehended simultaneously and, therefore, there is no apprehenison of the causal relation, though it is admitted to be present there also. But in the case of Vastu and Alankara there is not even the error of simultaneous apprehension of the premises and the conclusion. Therefore, there is not even a shadow of justification to use the word Dhvani in relation to them.1 HIS CRITICISM OF THE DIVISION OF KAVYA INTO DHVANI AND GUŅĪBHŪTAVYAŃGYA. He holds that the distinction, which Ananda draws between one pcem and another on the basis of the predomi- nance of the suggested meaning and the subordination thereof, is unnecessary inasmuch as it does not relate to the professed aim of the work, the presentation of the essential nature of the Kavya; and also because there is no difference in the æsthetic experience of Vastu, Alankāra and Rasadi due to such predominance and subordination3. Some of the types of Dhvani, which Mahima Bhatta re- jects, are (I) Avivakşitavācya (II) Vivakșitānya paravācya8 (III) Arthāntara-Sankramitavācya (IV) Atyantatiraskrtavā- cya4 and (V) Šabdasaktimūlānuraņanavyangya." The space does not permit us to discuss the views of Mahima Bhatta on these and allied topics. His position, in brief, is that the concept of Dhvani is included in that of Aunmiti, as stated by him; that the accepted types of Dhvani, therefore, are nothing more than the types of Anumiti and that all the illustrations of Dhvani admit of explanation as those of Anumiti.

1. V. V. 57. 2. V. V. 136. 3. V. V. 143. 4. V, V. 147. 5. V. V. 446-7