Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c84.8

v2.c84.8

But it must not be supposed that the theory of *dhvani* or the system could obtain universal acceptance without some vigorous opposition. Before we take up the post-dhvani followers of Ānandavardhana, it will be necessary to consider here some of the reactionary writers who either follow and develop other traditions of thought, or who refuse to acknowledge the new theory. Adherents of other schools, such as Pratīhārendurāja (pp. 79f) who commented on Udbhaṭa, or Gopendra Tippa Bhūpāla (p. 72) who commented on Vāmana, carry on the older tradition and do not fail to criticise the new theory. Says Mukula, Pratīhārendurāja’s *guru*: *lakṣaṇā-mārgavagāhitatvaṃ tu dhvaneḥ saḥṛdayair nūtanatayópavarṇitasya vidyata iti....etac ca vidvadbhiḥ kuśāgrīyayā buddhyā* nirūpaṇīyam, na tu jhagityévásūyitavyam ity alam atiprasaṅgena (p. 21). But more hostile opposition or attack came from some really thoughtful writers who urged new systems, or new explanations of the *dhvani*-theory in terms of old ideas. Most of these theorists lived near enough in time to Abhinavagupta; and coming later than the authors of the *Dhvanyāloka*, they accept or show themselves cognisant of the general concept of *dhvani*, but attempt to formulate other explanations of it. All of them, however, agree that the *vyañjanā* *vṛtti* need not be postulated or proved for explaining the suggested sense of poetry, and conservatively maintain that the suggested sense can be reached from the expressed sense by some of the recognised means or processes of knowledge (e.g. *anumāna*). None of these writers, therefore, is what the Dhvanikāra would call an *abhāva-vādin*, i.e., none of them would deny the existence of *dhvani*, but they would try to explain it in terms of already recognised concepts or processes. These theorists are Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka who probably preceded Abhinavagupta, Kuntala who was probably the latter's contemporary, and Mahimabhaṭṭa who was either a younger contemporary or lived immediately after Abhinavagupta. It will also be convenient to take up in this connexion the school of opinion represented by the writer on Poetics in the *Agni-purāṇa* and by Bhoja, which stands in many respects apart from the Kashmiri school of Ānandavardhana and which appears to have been entirely untouched by the implications of the *dhvani*-theory.