A History of Sanskrit Literature c25.s2.1

c25.s2.1

In Daṇḍin we come, as usual in Indian scientific literature, to an authority who used freely many predecessors whose works are lost, and who, therefore, presents us with a fully developed and elaborate doctrine. Daṇḍin was doubtless the author of the *Daçakumāracarita* and his relation to Bhāmaha has been keenly discussed.² The difficulty of decision rests on the fact that both authors can be made out to be attacking each other's views, but that there is nothing whatever strictly to prove that they are not dealing with views expressed by some predecessor of the other, as we know for certain in the case of Bhāmaha that he used³ Medhāvin, who must have expressed opinions similar to those assailed by Daṇḍin. It is, however, on the whole, probable that Bhāmaha knew Daṇḍin, while Daṇḍin did not use him, and with this agrees the generally less refined views of Daṇḍin as in his enumeration of thirty-two kinds of simile, which Bhāmaha reduces to four. Daṇḍin's rejection of the difference between Kathā and Ākhyāyikā seems thoroughly sound, while Bhāmaha's defence seems specially directed against Daṇḍin. It is striking also that Daṇḍin never notices one of the many verses adduced by Bhāmaha to expound his views. The matter is not, indeed, of the highest importance, for it is not supposed in any case that Daṇḍin lived long after Bhāmaha, who certainly used the works of Uddyotakara (*c.* 650) and probably knew the *Nyāsa* of Jinendrabuddhi (*c.* 700). On the whole, having regard to the facts regarding the *Daçakumāracarita*, which suggests that it precedes Subandhu and Bāṇa, we may place Daṇḍin some generations before Bhāmaha.