The Sāhityakaṇṭakoddhāra /35

जालान्तरेण मम वासगृहं प्रविश्य

श्रोणीतटं स्पृशति किं कुलधर्म एषः ॥
 
साहित्यकण्टकोद्धारः
 

 
इति शब्दकौस्तुभे (चौखम्बा- मुद्रिते-- १६३३ संवत्सरे-३१ पुढे) ।
 

 
[^2" 7]वरं पितुः परीक्षेत मातुः कन्यां परीक्षयेत् ।

तृणाद् भूमिमिं परीक्षेत आचारेण कुलं यथा ॥ इति नीतिशास्त्रे ।

 
अत्र [^28 ]इको यणचीत्यादिसूत्रेण सन्धिप्राप्तिरिति चेत् ।

सत्यम् । प्रमादा एवैते इति जीर्णा:[^29] । [^30]नवीनास्तु
 

 
[^27]. MS. E reads: varam pitäṃ pitā 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 Bhattṭṭoji's Siddhaāntakaumudiī,

where Iko yanṇ aci (6.1.77) is the first rule in the Sandhi-prakaranṇa, whereas in

the Aṣṭādhyayiāyī order Che ca (6.1.73) comes earlier. Our author seems to have

great regards for Bhattṭṭoji. See Notes 35 and 99. In the example taāni+
indoh
indoḥ (quoted in the context) the rule Akaḥ savarne diṇe dīrghaḥ (6.1.101) is
applicable.
 

applicable.
[^29]. Jirnahīrṇāḥ perhaps refers to Dandṇḍin with whom Vaāmana, Mammaţa
ṭa
and others agreed in the matter of the visandhi-dosa.
 
ṣa.
 
Vaāmana notes Nitya samhitaā saṃhitā ekapadavat pădeşv ardhaādeṣv ardhāntavarjam (K.A.S.;

V.I.2). As remarked in Note 26, Aicchikasandhyabhāva was not approved by

Dandinṇḍin in metrical lines. This is what is mentioned by Vamana as nityā
samhită pădeşāmana as nityā
saṃhitā pādeṣu etc. Majority of writers like Bhoja, Mammaţṭa, Vidyānātha
and a host of others record this poetic convention with their approval.
 

and a host of others record this poetic convention with their approval.
[^30]. It is not clear who are meant by naviīnās tu. As pointed out in Note

26, aicchikasandhyabhāva was not considered to be a dosṣa by Bhaāmaha. There

was probably a view among the writers on Sanskrit poetics, which did not

regard samhitaṃhitā as compulsory (nityäā) 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 vivaksṣā of a poet. In the verses of well-known

poets, we come across cases of absence of sandhi. See for instance,
 
sod
soḍhumṃ na tatpūrvam avarnam ise
äläṇam īśe
ālānikam sthanṃ sthāṇum 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