Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c79.33

v2.c79.33

20 Abhinava takes it in the sense of description of matters which should not be described in words (*śabdenāvarṇanīyam api varṇitam*), and rejects the sense of *aprakṛta-varṇanam*. We are, however, inclined to prefer the sense of *digression* rejected by Abhinava. The defect *vācyūvacana*, mentioned by Mahimabhatta (p. 100), would possibly be this *doṣa* of Bharata. This seems to be the fault in Māgha i 43. Abhinava regards the *sva-śabda-vācyatā-doṣa* of *rasa* and *bhāva* as included in Bharata's *arthāntara doṣa*, although it is not clear whether Bharata himself regarded this *sva-śabda-vācyatā* to be a *doṣa* at all.