2023-04-10 05:19:37 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
साहित्यकण्टकोद्धारः
इति (तथा ) सौदामिनी" लसति किं जलदे प्रयाते
अस्तंगते" शशिनि तिष्ठति चन्द्रिका किम् । (पूर्वपीठि-५३)
इति च 25¨चौर पञ्चाशति बिल्हणः ।
राजन् विभान्ति भवतश्चरितानि 25 तानि
इन्दोर्द्युति दधति यानि रसातलेऽन्तः
धीदोर्बले अतितते उचितानुवृत्ती
आतन्वती विजयसंपदमेत्य भातः ॥
इति काव्यप्रकाशे ( सप्तमोल्लासे उद्धृतम्) ।
हे 2 रोहिणि त्वमसि शीलवतीषु धन्या
एनं निवारय पति सखि दुविनीतम् ।
23. This is the 53rd verse in the same pūrvapithikā, where the printed edn.
reads bhavati, instead of lasati found in the MSS. of the S.K.U.
24. This verse is also quoted for the same illustration of the violation of
sandhi, which is considered compulsory.
25. The printed edn. here also as in the previous verse (See Note 21)
reads : prayāte hy astamgate, inserting hi in the middle. It appears to be a
device adopted to avoid the difficulty of sandhi. It is not clear what was the
original reading, if it was by Bilhana.
25-a. Our author does not use the word Caurapañcāśikā. He uses the word
Caurapañcasat, and sometimes Caurapañcasatiya.
26. This verse is cited in the Kavyaprakāśa as an illustration for the two
types of visandhi-doşa, of which one is
(I) the aicchikasandhyabhāva based on the dictum vākye tu sā (samhita)
vivakşam apekṣate; and the other
(II) pragrhyādihetukasandhyabhāva, depending upon the rules Idudeddvi-
vacanam pragthyam (1.1.11) and Plutapragrhyā aci nityam (6.1.125).
In the first case the non-application of a sandhi even once (sakrd api)
between words in each half of a verse is considered a fault, according to the
poetic convention though grammatically it is not wrong.
In the second, adopting sandhyabhāva more than once (asakrt) simply
because it is permitted by express grammatical rules, is also counted to be a
fault. Both these points were first noted by Dandin thus :
na samhitam vivakṣāmity asandhanam padeşu yat,
tad_visandhiti vikhyātam, na pragrhyādihetukam. (Kāvyādarśa III.159)
In IV.27 of his Kavyalamkara Bhämaha gives an example of the second
type alone, without defining the doşa, and he does not illustrate the first type.
Perhaps aicchikasandhyabhāva was not considered to be a dosa by him. Later
writers followed Dandin. Mammața also says:
samhitam na karomiti svecchayā sakrd api dosah.
pragrhyadihetukatve to asakyt.
(p. 333, Jhalakikar edn., 1965)
26-a. This verse (he rohini etc.) is also quoted in the Durghatavrtti under
2.4.34, and this was probably the source for Bhattoji.
इति (तथा ) सौदामिनी" लसति किं जलदे प्रयाते
अस्तंगते" शशिनि तिष्ठति चन्द्रिका किम् । (पूर्वपीठि-५३)
इति च 25¨चौर पञ्चाशति बिल्हणः ।
राजन् विभान्ति भवतश्चरितानि 25 तानि
इन्दोर्द्युति दधति यानि रसातलेऽन्तः
धीदोर्बले अतितते उचितानुवृत्ती
आतन्वती विजयसंपदमेत्य भातः ॥
इति काव्यप्रकाशे ( सप्तमोल्लासे उद्धृतम्) ।
हे 2 रोहिणि त्वमसि शीलवतीषु धन्या
एनं निवारय पति सखि दुविनीतम् ।
23. This is the 53rd verse in the same pūrvapithikā, where the printed edn.
reads bhavati, instead of lasati found in the MSS. of the S.K.U.
24. This verse is also quoted for the same illustration of the violation of
sandhi, which is considered compulsory.
25. The printed edn. here also as in the previous verse (See Note 21)
reads : prayāte hy astamgate, inserting hi in the middle. It appears to be a
device adopted to avoid the difficulty of sandhi. It is not clear what was the
original reading, if it was by Bilhana.
25-a. Our author does not use the word Caurapañcāśikā. He uses the word
Caurapañcasat, and sometimes Caurapañcasatiya.
26. This verse is cited in the Kavyaprakāśa as an illustration for the two
types of visandhi-doşa, of which one is
(I) the aicchikasandhyabhāva based on the dictum vākye tu sā (samhita)
vivakşam apekṣate; and the other
(II) pragrhyādihetukasandhyabhāva, depending upon the rules Idudeddvi-
vacanam pragthyam (1.1.11) and Plutapragrhyā aci nityam (6.1.125).
In the first case the non-application of a sandhi even once (sakrd api)
between words in each half of a verse is considered a fault, according to the
poetic convention though grammatically it is not wrong.
In the second, adopting sandhyabhāva more than once (asakrt) simply
because it is permitted by express grammatical rules, is also counted to be a
fault. Both these points were first noted by Dandin thus :
na samhitam vivakṣāmity asandhanam padeşu yat,
tad_visandhiti vikhyātam, na pragrhyādihetukam. (Kāvyādarśa III.159)
In IV.27 of his Kavyalamkara Bhämaha gives an example of the second
type alone, without defining the doşa, and he does not illustrate the first type.
Perhaps aicchikasandhyabhāva was not considered to be a dosa by him. Later
writers followed Dandin. Mammața also says:
samhitam na karomiti svecchayā sakrd api dosah.
pragrhyadihetukatve to asakyt.
(p. 333, Jhalakikar edn., 1965)
26-a. This verse (he rohini etc.) is also quoted in the Durghatavrtti under
2.4.34, and this was probably the source for Bhattoji.