Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c12.10

v1.c12.10

³ It is supposed by Kielhorn (with whom Peterson in his pref. to *Daśakumāra* agrees) that Daṇḍin ii 51, in which some of the *upamā-doṣas* are justified, is directed against Vāmana IV. 2. 8f, implying thereby that Daṇḍin is later than Vāmana. But if we take the texts of Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin and Vāmana together on this point, we can only make out the following facts. Bhāmaha, in accordance with the opinion of Medhāvin, brings forward (ii 39-40) seven *upamā-doṣas*, viz., deficiency (*hīnatva*), impossibility (*asambhava*) disparity of gender (*liṅga-bheda*), disparity of number (*vacana-bheda*), contrariety (*viparyaya*), excess (*adhikatva*) and non-similitude (*asādṛśya*). Daṇḍin, tacitly assuming these, only remarks about two pairs of them (viz., disparity of gender and number, excess and deficiency) that they do not necessarily disturb comparison if they do not wound the cultivated sensibility. In this he is substantially following Bhāmaha who says generally that the *upameya* cannot in every respect be similar to the *upamāna* (ii 43), a dictum which is implicitly accepted by most later writers, who define *upamā* as *bhedābheda-pradhāne upamā*. Therefore, deficiency etc. become faults