Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v2.c81.s1.72

v2.c81.s1.72

Hemacandra and Māṇikyacandra in their review of this doctrine cite the opinion of an authority²⁴, called Maṅgala who, we are told agrees with Bharata in his definition of *ojas* and maintains with Vāmana that Daṇḍin is not right in emphasising it in the *gauḍī rīti*, inasmuch as it is common to all *rītis*. The only other reference to this writer is made by Rājaśekhara, who cites some opinions of this writer agreeing substantially with those of Vāmana, and quotes at p.14 a dictum from Maṅgala which occurs in a slightly different form in Vāmana I. 2. 1. From these citations by Rājaśekhara it appears that Maṅgala, if he is not earlier in date than Vāmana, belongs most probably to the same school of opinion. There can hardly be any doubt that the system existed even before Vāmana gave a definite form to it; and Vāmana's systematic formulation certainly obtained for it a large number of adherents and followers, so that important later authors like Rājaśekhara, Hemacandra and Jayaratha cite with respect the opinions of the Vāmanīyas, just in the same way as they cite the Audbhaṭas, the followers of Vāmana's contemporary and rival Udbhaṭa.