2023-04-10 05:19:38 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
जालान्तरेण मम वासगृहं प्रविश्य
श्रोणीतटं स्पृशति किं कुलधर्म एषः ॥
साहित्यकण्टकोद्धारः
इति शब्दकौस्तुभे (चौखम्बा- मुद्रिते-- १६३३ संवत्सरे-३१ पुढे) ।
2" वरं पितुः परीक्षेत मातुः कन्यां परीक्षयेत् ।
तृणाद् भूमि परीक्षेत आचारेण कुलं यथा ॥ इति नीतिशास्त्रे ।
अत्र 28 इको यणचीत्यादिसूत्रेण सन्धिप्राप्तिरिति चेत् ।
सत्यम् । प्रमादा एवैते इति जीर्णा: । नवीनास्तु
27. MS. E reads: varam pitä parīkṣeta and mātā kanyām etc.
MS. F is not clear.
Others read what is given in the text.
28. The author seems to be having in mind Bhattoji's Siddhantakaumudi,
where Iko yan aci (6.1.77) is the first rule in the Sandhi-prakarana, whereas in
the Aṣṭādhyayi order Che ca (6.1.73) comes earlier. Our author seems to have
great regards for Bhattoji. See Notes 35 and 99. In the example tani+
indoh (quoted in the context) the rule Akaḥ savarne dirghaḥ (6.1.101) is
applicable.
29. Jirnah perhaps refers to Dandin with whom Vamana, Mammaţa
and others agreed in the matter of the visandhi-dosa.
Vamana notes Nitya samhita ekapadavat pădeşv ardhantavarjam (K.A.S.;
V.I.2). As remarked in Note 26, Aicchikasandhyabhāva was not approved by
Dandin in metrical lines. This is what is mentioned by Vamana as nityā
samhită pădeşu etc. Majority of writers like Bhoja, Mammaţa, Vidyānātha
and a host of others record this poetic convention with their approval.
30. It is not clear who are meant by navinās tu. As pointed out in Note
26, aicchikasandhyabhāva was not considered to be a dosa by Bhamaha. There
was probably a view among the writers on Sanskrit poetics, which did not
regard samhita as compulsory (nityä) in metrical lines. These writers per-
haps permitted absence of any sandhi in a verse as in a prose line, and counted
it to be correct according to the vivaksā of a poet. In the verses of well-known
poets, we come across cases of absence of sandhi. See for instance,
sodhum na tatpūrvam avarnam ise
älänikam sthanum iva dvipendraḥ.
(Raghu. XIV.38)
This one was cited in the Mukhabhūşana too (p.1). Those who held the
sandhyabhāva to be correct do not seem to be in majority. The view of
Dandin seems to have gained the majority of followers. After Dandin as
there was no recorded evidence of the sandhyabhava-sadhutvavada, the view
which was supposed to have been accepted silently by Bhamaha, Dandin's
view of the asadhutva of the sandhyabhava probably came down as "the old view".
It seems, therefore, that the adherents of this view were referred to as jirṇāḥ.
The other view, though probably was originally an earlier view, was
thought to be later view, because of the lack of recorded statement.
followers of this view seem to be noted, therefore, as navinās tu.
Manikyacandra (1160 A.D.) in his Samketa on the K.P., commenting on the
verse rajan vibhänti etc. says thus :
The
In fact
श्रोणीतटं स्पृशति किं कुलधर्म एषः ॥
साहित्यकण्टकोद्धारः
इति शब्दकौस्तुभे (चौखम्बा- मुद्रिते-- १६३३ संवत्सरे-३१ पुढे) ।
2" वरं पितुः परीक्षेत मातुः कन्यां परीक्षयेत् ।
तृणाद् भूमि परीक्षेत आचारेण कुलं यथा ॥ इति नीतिशास्त्रे ।
अत्र 28 इको यणचीत्यादिसूत्रेण सन्धिप्राप्तिरिति चेत् ।
सत्यम् । प्रमादा एवैते इति जीर्णा: । नवीनास्तु
27. MS. E reads: varam pitä parīkṣeta and mātā kanyām etc.
MS. F is not clear.
Others read what is given in the text.
28. The author seems to be having in mind Bhattoji's Siddhantakaumudi,
where Iko yan aci (6.1.77) is the first rule in the Sandhi-prakarana, whereas in
the Aṣṭādhyayi order Che ca (6.1.73) comes earlier. Our author seems to have
great regards for Bhattoji. See Notes 35 and 99. In the example tani+
indoh (quoted in the context) the rule Akaḥ savarne dirghaḥ (6.1.101) is
applicable.
29. Jirnah perhaps refers to Dandin with whom Vamana, Mammaţa
and others agreed in the matter of the visandhi-dosa.
Vamana notes Nitya samhita ekapadavat pădeşv ardhantavarjam (K.A.S.;
V.I.2). As remarked in Note 26, Aicchikasandhyabhāva was not approved by
Dandin in metrical lines. This is what is mentioned by Vamana as nityā
samhită pădeşu etc. Majority of writers like Bhoja, Mammaţa, Vidyānātha
and a host of others record this poetic convention with their approval.
30. It is not clear who are meant by navinās tu. As pointed out in Note
26, aicchikasandhyabhāva was not considered to be a dosa by Bhamaha. There
was probably a view among the writers on Sanskrit poetics, which did not
regard samhita as compulsory (nityä) in metrical lines. These writers per-
haps permitted absence of any sandhi in a verse as in a prose line, and counted
it to be correct according to the vivaksā of a poet. In the verses of well-known
poets, we come across cases of absence of sandhi. See for instance,
sodhum na tatpūrvam avarnam ise
älänikam sthanum iva dvipendraḥ.
(Raghu. XIV.38)
This one was cited in the Mukhabhūşana too (p.1). Those who held the
sandhyabhāva to be correct do not seem to be in majority. The view of
Dandin seems to have gained the majority of followers. After Dandin as
there was no recorded evidence of the sandhyabhava-sadhutvavada, the view
which was supposed to have been accepted silently by Bhamaha, Dandin's
view of the asadhutva of the sandhyabhava probably came down as "the old view".
It seems, therefore, that the adherents of this view were referred to as jirṇāḥ.
The other view, though probably was originally an earlier view, was
thought to be later view, because of the lack of recorded statement.
followers of this view seem to be noted, therefore, as navinās tu.
Manikyacandra (1160 A.D.) in his Samketa on the K.P., commenting on the
verse rajan vibhänti etc. says thus :
The
In fact