Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c8.s1.6

v1.c8.s1.6

A careful examination of the very few passages apparently referring to this work will shew that the topics dealt with in it centre round the question of *dhvani* in poetry, in correlation with the theory of *rasa* intimately connected therewith. Abhinava, for instance, while discussing the verse *bhama dham-mia vīsattho*, which is given by Ānandavardhana as an instance of suggestion with an expressed injunction implying a prohibition, refutes Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka’s opinion as to this negative implication. In another place, Abhinava criticises the significance attached by Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka to the word *aham* in the verse *attā ettha nimajjai*, which is discussed by Ānandavardhana as an example of suggestion of a contrary kind where the expressed prohibition implies an injunction. It is evident from these references that Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka’s work, like Mahimabhaṭṭa’s, was designed not merely as a refutation of the general theory of *dhvani*, but also as a special attack on Ānandavardhana’s exposition of the same. To take a minute point, the Dhvanikāra in i 13 uses the verb *vyaṅktaḥ* in the dual number with a special object in view, as Ānandavardhana’s (as well as Abhinava’s) explanation rightly indicates. Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka seems to have attacked this use of the dual number, upon which Abhinavagupta remarks: *bhaṭṭa-nāyakena yad dvi-vacanaṃ dūṣitaṃ tad gaja-nimīlikayaiva.*¹