Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c12.23

v1.c12.23

The second group of passages, also betraying enough verbal similarity, is more interesting and important; because they certainly express contradictory views of their respective authors, if not actually meant as direct mutual criticism. In two of these passages, Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin are, each in his turn, rejecting an illustration which is adduced by the other, but both citing the illustration in question in exactly identical phraseology. Thus Bhāmaha rejects (ii 87) the figure *hetu*, citing the illustration *gatō'stam arkō bhātīndur yānti vāsāya pakṣiṇaḥ*, characterising it as bad poetry, to which, he says, some writers give the name of *vārttā*. Daṇḍin does not mention *vārttā*, but approvingly cites (ii 244) the same half-verse under the figure *hetu*, pointedly remarking that the illustration under discussion is good. Similarly, the half-verse *himāpahāmitra-dharair* is given as an instance of the fault *avācaka* by Bhāmaha (i 41), but Daṇḍin gives the verse in full in a different context (iii 120) as an example of a variety of *prahelikā*; Bhāmaha apparently condemning it as faulty, while Daṇḍin taking it as a piece of ingenious construction. Taking the examples in their contexts as quoted from a common source, the passages apparently indicate that Daṇḍin is not in agreement with Bhāmaha (who condemns these) but expressly justifies their propriety.