Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c81.s1.46

v2.c81.s1.46

But Daṇḍin does not enter into the question first raised by Bharata as to whether the *doṣas* in Poetics are positive entities or mere negations of *guṇas*. Bharata holds that *guṇas* signify nothing more than the negative condition of *doṣābhāva*, so that *doṣas* are, in his opinion, positive entities, from which the *guṇas* are known by implication. It is clear from Daṇḍin’s treatment, however, that he mentions in ch. iv the external faults apparently as positive entities, after the manner of Bhāmaha; while the essential faults are taken as negations of some of the *guṇas* of the *vaidarbha mārga* and consequently as positive characteristics of the *gauḍa mārga*. He attempts to avoid the controversy by making use of the distinction of the two opposite types of diction, making the so-called *guṇas* the characteristics of the *vaidarbha* type and some of the so called doṣas the characteristics of the gauḍa type. Vāmana, on the other hand, in conformity to his clear-cut theory of rīti, goes directly against the opinion of Bharata and expressly makes the guṇas positive entities, defining the doṣas as opposites of guṇas and as known from the latter by implication (guṇa-viparyātmano doṣāḥ, arthatas tad-avayamaḥ). But he adds that the doṣas should be dealt with separately for the sake of clear understanding. He therefore divides the doṣas into four classes (i) defects of words (pada-doṣas) (ii) defects of the meaning of the words (padārtha-doṣas) (iii) defects of sentences (vākya-doṣas) (iv) defects of the meaning of sentences (vākyārtha-doṣas)¹⁸