Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c84.53

v2.c84.53

It is noteworthy that Mahimabhatta relies (p. 26) also upon the arguments of those objectors of the *dhvani*-theory who think that *dhvani* is identical with *bhakti*¹⁹; but he opposes alike the views of those Mīmāṃsakas who believe in the single pervasive power of the expressed sense²⁰, as well as the view of the Vakroktijīvita-kāra. His objection to the latter system is naturally based on his own idea of the importance of *rasa* and unimportance of *dhvani*. In his opinion, any deviation from common usage involving charmingness of expression, such as Kuntala upholds, may take either of two forms, viz., (1) it may resolve itself more or less into a theory of propriety (*aucitya*)²¹, or (2) it 'may mean the manifestation of an implied sense other than the expressed sense. If the first alternative is meant, it is superfluous to one who admits *rasa* in poetry, as no theory of *rasa* can dispense with a theory of propriety or suitability with regard to the adjustment of its factors²². To admit the other alternative is to bring in the idea of *dhvani* in a more or less disguised form.