Dandin makes a passing reference to the purpose of poetry. He casually mentions delight and fame as gains of poetry to the poet and describes maha kavya as a poetic composition that delights the world, implying thereby that the esthetic pleasure belongs to the reader also. Dandinalso refers to the attainment of the fruit of the four objects of life (chaturanga) when he describes a maha kavya as possessed of the goal of the four objects. Dandin also deals incidentally, with the sources of poetry or equipment of a poet, which, according to him, are (i) poetic imagination (Pratibha), (ii) pure and vast learning (Nirmala bahusruia) and (iii) assiduous application (ananda abhiyoga).
Dandin is perhaps the first known writer who gives us a definition of Kavya. He defines kavya, or rather metaphorically its body, as a series of words characterized by agreeable sense. In this definition, he puts greater stress on the words which, when possessed of the intended sense, constitute the body of the kavya. Dandinclassifies kavya, based on various factors, into numerous varieties of poetic composition. Based on form, he divides it into prose, verse, and Misra, or a mixture of the two forms. The metrical variety has been divided into two classes, vrtta, and jati, according to the meters employed are regulated by syllables or moras (matra) respectively, while structurally it is sub-divided into muktaka (a single verse), kulaks (a group of five verses), Kosa (unconnected verses) and samghata (a short poem with a story). These forms are said to be included the main variety namely, the maha kavya.
The prose form has been normally divided into akhyayika and Katha, though Dandin knows Its other numerous species as well. Dandin however, does not admit the rigid distinction made between the two varieties which, according to him, form one class under two different designations. He emphatically refutes the theory of distinction. The Misa or a mixed variety of kavya includes drama (nataka) etc. for the elaborate treatment of which Dandin refers his readers to other specialized works.
The medium of expression forms the basis of another classification that divides kavya into four sets, namely, Sanskrit, Prakrit, Apabhramsa, and Misra. Of Prakrit, Dandinnotices various forms, viz. Maharashtra, Sauraseru, Gaudi, and Lati as also Paisa (referred to as bhutabhasa), the first of which is typified as the best. He divides the Prakrit vocables into tad bhava (loan words assuming a different form), tatsama (those in identical form), and in (local word). By Apabhramsa, Dandin means the language of the Abhiras and others in Kavy as distinguished from the scientific writings where it is the name given to all languages other than Sanskrit.
Dandin occupies a prominent place in the development of the Marga theory. According to Dandin, the path of speech is multifold, since every poet possesses a distinct way of expressing a thing. It is difficult to draw a clear line of distinction between the various paths or dictions which differ from poet to poet, the mutual difference among them being too subtle to be defined. The two marches, viz, the Vaidarbha and the Gauda, are however clearly distinguishable, the points of difference in them being easily discernible.
Although Dandin considers the Gauda marga to be a diction of second degree, he accords it due to recognition as a literary path. His predilection for the Vaidarbha diction is more than evident. He regards the marga as a standard diction that favours the classical and the refined manner of expression. The marga, according to him, insists on tenderness, compactness, and force, in the arrangement of words and on evenness of diction, and about sense, it demands limpidity and explicitness as also sublimity and spontaneity of emotions and ornateness in expression, and above all, emphasizes sweetness both of word and sense. The Gauda mirage, on the other hand, prefers fertility and harshness, and alliteration, and allows therefore laxity and unevenness of diction to creep in.
Dandin considers the gunas to be the basic elements of poetic diction. He accepts ten gunas viz., Slesa (compactness), Prasada (lucidity), Samata (evenness), Madhurya (sweetness), Sukumarald (softness), Arthavyakti, udarata, Ojas, Kanti, and Samadhi.
Dandin does not define dosa perhaps due to its being too clear a concept to explain. According to him, anything that is employed improperly or indecently and, for that reason, perturbs the mind of a man of taste constitutes a defect. Dandin has dealt with the ten dosas viz., Apartha, Vyartha, Ekartha, Sarhsaya, Apakrama, sabdahina, yatibhrasta, Bhinnaorita, Visarhdhika, Desakalakalalokanyayagamavirodhi. Besides the traditional dosas which may be termed external ones, Dandin has indirectly referred to some dosas in the first chapter of his Kavyadarsa as negative forms of the gunas excepting udaratva, ojas, and samadhi the opposites of which have not been alluded to by him. The dosas referred to are Sithila (looseness), Vyutpanna, Visama, Gramua, Dipta or Nisihura, Neyatva, and Atyukti. Besides the positive and negative dosas, Dandin refers to the flaws of a simile which he regards as defects only it they perturb the mind of a reader. In case, however, they do not wound the cultivated sensibility, they cease to be dosas. Since Dandin a great advocate of the alamkara theory, considers the generic concept of alamkara to be the principal element of poetic embellishment, he defines it as the characteristic attributes which produce charm in poetry and incorporates, in its vast scope, besides the specific alarnkaras, the excellences, the various forms of dramatic joints and manners and the laksanas. A striking feature of Dandin's conception of alamkaras is that he stamps the gunas as special alamkaras which constitute the essential elements of particular poetic dictions and form the basis of their classification, while the poetic figures are termed by him as the alamkaras which are common to all the dictions or, in other words, which characterize all poetic compositions.
Great credit goes to the writer for giving the concept a lucid and bright exposition by defining, as precisely as possible, the scope of various poetic figures along with their varieties, and his claim in this respect is justified to a considerable extent. The elaborate treatment he has given to the concept implies that he regarded the alamkaras as the principal elements of poetry. He deals with the following alamkaras. Svabhavokti, Upamii, Rupaka, Dipika, Aksepa, Arthantaranyasa, Vyatireka, Vibhavana, Samasokti, Atisayokti, Utpreksa, Hetu, Suksma, Lesa, Yathasarhkhya, Preyas, Rasavat, Urjasvin, Samahiia, Paryayokta, Udiitta, Apahnuti, Slista, Visesokti, Tulyayogita, Virodha, Aprastutaprasamsa, Vyajastute, Nidarsanii, Sahokti Parivrtti, Asis, Bhavika, Yamaka, citrab and' has.
Dandin recognizes the importance of rasa in poetry or in a maha kavya which, according to him, should be abounding in sentiments and emotions, He enumerates and illustrates the traditionally recognized eight rasas. Dandin implies the idea of propriety in various spheres of his concepts and gives a general form of doctrine in the making. The principle of propriety is at work when he puts special stress on the proper employment of words and condemns a speech improperly formed. Thus we see that Dandin made a rich contribution to the study of poetics by giving scientific interpretation and analysis to the concepts that he inherited from earlier traditions making his assessment of them and presenting at places his ideas, in a precise manner and in the most convincing way.
