Ānandavardhana’s formulation of dhvani marks a decisive reorientation in Indian poetics by foregrounding the layered nature of poetic meaning. At the most fundamental level, he distinguishes between two kinds of meaning: the literal (vācya) and the suggested (pratīyamāna). The literal meaning is what is directly conveyed through words and is readily accessible to all readers. It may be embellished through established poetic devices such as simile, metaphor, or other figures of speech. Yet, for Ānandavardhana, this level of meaning, however refined, does not exhaust the true potential of poetry. The deeper and more compelling dimension lies in what is suggested rather than stated.
To explain this distinction, he employs a striking and memorable analogy. The suggested meaning, he argues, is like the charm or grace of a woman, which cannot be reduced to her physical features or ornaments. Just as beauty is perceived as something over and above the sum of visible attributes, so too the suggested meaning in poetry exists as an independent aesthetic presence, not confined to the literal structure of words. This analogy captures the essence of dhvani as something subtle, pervasive, and immediately felt, yet not easily reducible to explicit expression.
In order to account for this deeper layer of meaning, Ānandavardhana expands the traditional framework of Indian semantics. Earlier thinkers, particularly grammarians and ritual theorists, had identified two principal modes of meaning: abhidhā, or direct denotation, and lakṣaṇā (also called bhakti), or indirect indication when the primary meaning proves inadequate. Ānandavardhana does not reject these categories but argues that they are insufficient to explain the full richness of poetic expression. He therefore introduces a third and independent semantic power, vyañjanā, or suggestion, which becomes the basis of dhvani. In his model, the literal meaning functions only as a preparatory ground, much like a lamp that illuminates an object. It enables perception, but the true aesthetic experience arises from what is revealed beyond it. The suggested meaning thus emerges not as a by-product but as the central locus of poetic significance.
Ānandavardhana further refines his theory by classifying suggested meaning into three distinct types, each representing a different level of subtlety and aesthetic depth. The first is vastu-dhvani, or the suggestion of an idea or fact. Here, the implied meaning may take the form of a situation, an intention, or a contextual nuance that is not directly articulated. Although relatively straightforward, this form already demonstrates how poetry can communicate more than it explicitly states. The second type is alaṅkāra-dhvani, where the suggested meaning itself assumes the form of a poetic figure. In such cases, the figure is not overtly expressed but is intuitively grasped by the reader, creating a more refined aesthetic effect. The third and most significant type is rasa-dhvani, which involves the suggestion of an emotional state or aesthetic mood. Since rasa cannot be directly communicated through literal language and must be experienced through aesthetic participation, this form of dhvani is regarded as the highest. It is here that poetry achieves its fullest expressive power, moving beyond description into lived emotional resonance.
On the basis of this hierarchy of suggestion, Ānandavardhana also develops a corresponding classification of poetry itself. The highest form is dhvani-kāvya, or poetry in which suggestion is predominant. In such works, both the literal meaning and the verbal expression subordinate themselves to the suggested sense, allowing it to shine forth with clarity and intensity. This is the ideal form of poetry, where the reader is drawn into a deeper realm of experience that cannot be captured by direct statement alone.
A second category is guṇībhūta-vyaṅgya, where suggestion is present but does not dominate. In this type, the literal meaning remains primary, and the suggested sense functions as an embellishment that enhances the overall beauty of the composition. Ānandavardhana is careful not to dismiss this form as inferior. On the contrary, he recognises that many accomplished poets employ this mode effectively, producing works of considerable aesthetic merit. The distinction lies not in quality alone but in the relative prominence of suggestion.
The third category is citra-kāvya, which relies entirely on surface-level features such as phonetic patterns, intricate wordplay, or visual arrangements of language. While such poetry may display technical ingenuity, it lacks the depth of suggested meaning that, for Ānandavardhana, constitutes the true essence of poetic art. As a result, he regards it as an imitation or shadow of genuine poetry rather than its authentic form.
Considered together, these distinctions reveal the full scope of Ānandavardhana’s contribution. He does not merely add another category to existing theories but fundamentally redefines the basis of poetic evaluation. By establishing suggestion as an independent and supreme mode of meaning, he shifts attention from the external structure of poetry to its internal resonance. Ultimately, he opens up a way of understanding literature that is at once subtle, experiential, and deeply attuned to the complexities of human perception. The critic also hints that poetic success may not be achieved by the poet alone; poetry needs the participation of readers (sahrdya) to experience the highest form of dhvani – the rasa dhvani – and penetrate deep beyond the elementary layers of poetry.
Dr Alok Mishra
Professor of English Literature
(Nava Nalanda Mahavihara, Nalanda)
