Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c81.s1.47

v2.c81.s1.47

18 Rudraṭa, apparently accepting both guṇas and doṣas as independent entities, enumerates and classifies doṣas on a different principle. Taking śabda and artha as the two elements of poetry, he mentions in two series (1) śabda-doṣas or defects of words (2) artha-doṣas or defects of sense. The first series includes nine faults, viz. (i) pada-doṣas like asamartha, apratīta, visaṃdhi, viparīta-kalpanā, grāmya and deśya (6 kinds) (ii) vākya-doṣas, such as saṃkīrṇa, garbhita, and gatārtha (3 kinds). The second series comprehends (besides four upamā-doṣas) nine faults again, viz.; apahetu, apratīta, nirāgama, bādhayat, asaṃbaddha, grāmya, virasa, tadvat and atimātra. After the advent of the dhvani-theorists, the doṣa (like the guṇa) came to be related to the rasa, the poetic mood in a composition, and began to be defined as that which depreciates or hinders the awakening of rasa. The doctrine of doṣa was taken along with the doctrine of guṇa, of which it formed the counterpart, and was considered from the standpoint of rasa alone. They were no longer absolute entities, but attributes or absence of attributes relative to the development of rasa, and must therefore be Vāmana’s work¹⁹, in comparison with Daṇḍin’s, shows further progress and elaboration of the ideas discussed above. Indeed, what is vague and unsystematic in Daṇḍin appears fully developed and and carefully set forth in Vāmana, who may thus be fittingly regarded as the best representative of the rīti-system. To Vāmana belongs the credit of governed by the theory of aucitya or propriety which these theorists put forward in their treatment of rasa. The doṣas came to be defined generally as rasūpakarṣaka (Viśvanātha): but specific rasa-doṣas also came to be defined and discussed. The question whether the doṣa is nitya or anitya (already raised by Bhāmaha and Rudraṭa) is solved by supposing that a doṣa may sometimes become a guṇa if it helps (and not hinders) the development of the rasa. Mammaṭa and most later theorists accept the distinction of doṣas relating to pada, vākya and artha; but they speak also of rasa-doṣas and alaṃkāra-doṣas. The later opinion regarding the respective character of guṇa and doṣa appears to be that each of them conveys a positive meaning, in spite of the fact that some doṣas approach the condition of guṇābhāvas and some guṇas approach the condition of doṣābhāvas. Even Daṇḍin in ch. iv separately mentions ten doṣas which he does not regard as constituting the opposite of any of his guṇas.