Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c81.s1.44

v2.c81.s1.44

It will be convenient to examine here briefly the doctrine of *doṣa*, which forms a counterpart of the doctrine of *guṇa* enunciated by the Rīti school. Daṇḍin mentions, after Bharata, ten flaws or *doṣas* of literary composition (ch. iii 125f, or ch. iv Madras ed.), but he defines them differently in most cases. They are in name and substance identical with Bhāmaha's first list of *doṣas* noted above¹⁷, with the only exception of the eleventh fault of defective logic, which is recognised by Bhāmaha but vigorously rejected by Daṇḍin as a fault difficult to judge and unprofitable to discuss. But even with reference to this fault, Daṇḍin agrees with Bhāmaha in the enumeration of its six subdivisions. With regard to Bhāmaha's second list of faults, which concern the inner essence of poetry, they would correspond in general to the *doṣas* (or rather the opposites of *guṇas*) which Daṇḍin mentions as being absent in the *vaidarbha mārga* and as characterising the opposite *gauḍa mārga*. We have noted that some of these are expressly named by Daṇḍin. They are (i) the opposite of *śleṣa*, called *śithila* (ii) the opposite of *prasāda*, called *vyutpanna* (iii) the opposite of *samatā*, called *vaiṣamya* (iv) the opposite of *suku-māratā*, called *dīpta* (v) the opposite of *kānti*, called *atyukti* (vi) the opposite of *artha-vyakti*, called *neyatva* (vii) the opposite of *mādhurya* (unnamed). These form seven faults as against ten of Bhāmaha, but Daṇḍin speaks of the excellences *udāratva*, *samādhi* (and probably *ojas*) as having no opposites (or corresponding faults), inasmuch as they are common to both the *mārgas*.