The Sāhityakaṇṭakoddhāra /34

साहित्यकण्टकोद्धारः
 
इति (तथा ) सौदामिनी"[^23] लसति किं जलदे प्रयाते
 
[^24]
 
अस्तंगते"[^25] शशिनि तिष्ठति चन्द्रिका किम् । (पूर्वपीठि-५३)
 

 
इति च [^25¨a]चौर पञ्चाशति बिल्हणः ।
 

 
राजन् विभान्ति भवतश्चरितानि [^25 ]तानि
 

इन्दोर्द्युतितिं दधति यानि रसातलेऽन्तः

धीदोर्बले अतितते उचितानुवृत्ती
 

आतन्वती विजयसंपदमेत्य भातः ॥
 

 
इति काव्यप्रकाशे ( सप्तमोल्लासे उद्धृतम्) ।
 

 
हे [^2 6a]रोहिणि त्वमसि शीलवतीषु धन्या

एनं निवारय पतितिं सखि दुविनीतम् ।
 

 
[^23]. This is the 53rd verse in the same pūrvapitīṭhikā, 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 astamṃgate, 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.
 
ṇa.
[^25-aa]. Our author does not use the word Caurapañcāśikā. He uses the word

Caurapañcasśat, and sometimes Caurapañcasatiya.
 
śatīya.
[^26]. This verse is cited in the Kaāvyaprakāśa as an illustration for the two

types of visandhi-doşṣa, of which one is
 

(I) the aicchikasandhyabhāva based on the dictum vākye tu sā (samṃhita)

vivakşaṣām apekṣate; and the other
 

(II) pragrṛhyādihetukasandhyabhāva, depending upon the rules IduĪdūdeddvi-
vacanam
vacanaṃ pragtṛhyam (1.1.11) and Plutapragrṛhyā aci nityam (6.1.125).
 

 
In the first case the non-application of a sandhi even once (sakrṛd 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 (asakrṛt) simply

because it is permitted by express grammatical rules, is also counted to be a

fault. Both these points were first noted by Dandṇḍin thus :
 
na samhitam
na saṃhitāṃ vivakṣāmity asandhanam padeşīty asandhānaṃ padeṣu yat,
 
tad_visandhi
tad visandhīti vikhyātamṃ, na pragrṛhyādihetukam. (Kāvyādarśa III.159)

In IV.27 of his Kavyalamāvyālaṃkaāra Bhäāmaha gives an example of the second

type alone, without defining the doşṣa, and he does not illustrate the first type.

Perhaps aicchikasandhyabhāva was not considered to be a dosṣa by him. Later

writers followed Dandṇḍin. Mammațṭa also says:
 
samhitam
saṃhitāṃ na karomiīti svecchayā sakrd api dosah.
 
ṛd api doṣaḥ.
pragrhyaṛhyādihetukatve tov asakyt.
 
ṛt.
(p. 333, Jhalakiīkar edn., 1965)

[^26-aa]. This verse (he rohinṇi etc.) is also quoted in the Durghatavrtti under
 
ṭavṛtti under
2.4.34, and this was probably the source for Bhattṭṭoji.