249. VYAKTIVIVEKA 249

VYAKTIVIVEKA 249

theory. The धन्यालोक anticipates the theory and tries to meet it (vide pp. 251-254) 'अस्त्यभिसन्धानावसरे व्य्जकत्वं शब्दानां गमकत्वं तञ्च लिशस्वमतश्व्यक्थप्रतीतिर्लिक्विप्रतीतिरेवेति लिकलिदविमाव एव तेषां व्यक्यव्यम्जक- भावो नापर: कश्षित 1 ... न पुनरयं परमार्थो यद् व्यन्जकत्वं लिऋत्वमेव सर्वत्र व्यकष्य- प्रतीतिश्च लिभ्िप्रतोतिरेवेति l ... काव्यविषये च व्यक्थप्रतीतीनां सत्यासत्यनिरुपयस्या प्रयोजकत्वमेवेति तत्र प्रमाणान्तरव्यापारपरीक्षोपहासायैव संपदते। तस्माल्लितिप्रती- तिरेव सर्वंत्र व्यञ्थप्रतीतिरिति न शक्यते वक्तुम्.' The ग्यक्तिविवेक elaborates the arguments of those who relied upon भक्ति (गुयवृत्ति i. e. उपचार and लक्षणा) and regarded a्यब्जकत्व as identical with it (vide sवo pp. 59, 67 तस्मादन्यो ध्वनिरन्या च गुणवृत्तिः). शङ्कुक also was अनुमितिवादिन् acc. to मल्लिनाथ's तरल pp. 85, 191-197. The view of महिममट्ट is severely criticized by the अलं. स. (pp. 15-16), the एकावली and other later writers.1 The एकावली says: 'यत्पुनरनुमानतो नातिरिच्यते ध्वनिरित्याचष्ट महिमभटृस्तदपि पलालायमानम् (i. e. निःसारम्)। अनुमानस्य चाङं व्याप्ति:' and then it is established that there can be no invariable concomitance between शब्दारथौं, साधन or हेतु and ध्वनि (साध्य). The व्यक्तिविवेक is divided into three विमशs. महिम० states his प्रतिशा in the first verse 'अनुमानान्तर्भावं सर्वस्यव ध्वनेः प्रकाशयितुम्। व्यक्तिविवेकं कुरुते प्रषम्य महिमा परां वाचम् ।।'. In the first विमर्श he starts by quoting the definition of ध्वनि (यत्रार्थः शब्दो वा' ध्वनिकारिका I. 13), finds several faults with it and says that the definition, if properly considered, applies to अनुमान. The first objection is that the qualification उपसजनीकृतात्मत्व should not have been mentioned in connection with the word अर्थ. The second objection is that the word शब्द should not occur in the लक्षय, as a शब्द has no व्यापार except अभिषा. Then he finds fault with the word वा. Hequarrels with the word विशेष in काव्यविशेष, as according to ध्वनिकार himself, all काव्य must have रस as its soul (ध्व. p.31). He says that सूरिभि: (रब०. I. 13) in the definition is unnecessary. In all he finds ten faults 'अर्थस्यवि शिष्टत्वं शब्द: सविशेषणस्तदः पुंस्त्वम्। द्विवचनवाशब्दौ च व्यक्ति्ध्वनिनाम काव्यवैशिष्टयम।। वचनं च कथनकतेः कथिता ध्वनिलद्मणीति दश दोषा; 1' (pp. 21-22). His

1. The early commentators such as माणिक्यचन्द्र and सोमेशर do not expressly refer the passage in the काव्यप्रकाश V (beginning with ननु वाच्यादसम्बद्धं तावन्न प्रतीयते pp. 252-254 of वामनाचार्य's ed.) to महिमभक्; but गोविन्दठककुर and other comparatively later ones do- so). Therefore it is somewhat doubtful whether the Kavya- prakāśa is actually criticizing the Vyaktiviveka.