Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c83.37

v2.c83.37

The second view that Indication is the *lakṣaṇa* or the constant differentiating characteristic of Suggestion is shewn by the Dhvanikāra to be vitiated by the logical fallacies of too wide (*ativyāpti*) or too narrow definition (*avyāpti*). This is more or less a scholastic objection, and is based on the characteristic notion of Suggestion defined by its champions; for both Ānandavardhana and his commentator shew that Indication sometimes covers a much wider, sometimes a much more limited field than Suggestion. The *vyañjanā*, for instance, is not accepted when the *prayojana* of the Indication is not charming; on the other hand, in cases of *vivakṣitānyapara-vācya* dhvani, there is scope for Indication, for the Suggestion here is expressly based on Indication. The third view, that Indication may be an occasional distinguishing mark (*upalakṣaṇa*) of Suggestion is not denied by the Dhvanikāra, for Suggestion may sometimes rest ultimately on Indication, e. g. those cases which are admitted by *dhvani*-theorists as based on *lakṣaṇā* (*lakṣaṇā-mūla dhvani*); but this does not prove the opponent's position that Indication is identical with Suggestion.