2023-04-26 10:50:18 by ramamurthys
This page has been fully proofread once and needs a second look.
जालान्तरेण मम वासगृहं प्रविश्य
श्रोणीतटं स्पृशति किं कुलधर्म एषः ॥
इति शब्दकौस्तुभे (चौखम्बा-मुद्रिते--१९३३ संवत्सरे-३१ पुढे) ।
[^27]वरं पितुः परीक्षेत मातुः कन्यां परीक्षयेत् ।
तृणाद् भूमिं परीक्षेत आचारेण कुलं यथा ॥ इति नीतिशास्त्रे ।
अत्र [^28]इको यणचीत्यादिसूत्रेण सन्धिप्राप्तिरिति चेत् ।
सत्यम् । प्रमादा एवैते इति जीर्णा:णाः[^29] । [^30]नवीनास्तु
[^27]. MS. E reads: varaṃ 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 Bhaṭṭoji's Siddhāntakaumudī,
where Iko yaṇ aci (6.1.77) is the first rule in the Sandhi-prakaraṇa, whereas in
the Aṣṭādhyāyī order Che ca (6.1.73) comes earlier. Our author seems to have
great regards for Bhaṭṭoji. See Notes 35 and 99. In the example tāni+
indoḥ (quoted in the context) the rule Akaḥ savarṇe dīrghaḥ (6.1.101) is
applicable.
[^29]. Jīrṇāḥ perhaps refers to Daṇḍin with whom Vāmana, Mammaṭa
and others agreed in the matter of the visandhi-doṣa.
Vāmana notes Nityā saṃhitā ekapadavat pādeṣv ardhāntavarjam (K.A.S.;
V.I.2). As remarked in Note 26, Aicchikasandhyabhāva was not approved by
Daṇḍin in metrical lines. This is what is mentioned by Vāmana as nityā
saṃhitā pādeṣu etc. Majority of writers like Bhoja, Mammaṭa, Vidyānātha
and a host of others record this poetic convention with their approval.
[^30]. It is not clear who are meant by navīnās tu. As pointed out in Note
26, aicchikasandhyabhāva was not considered to be a doṣa by Bhāmaha. There
was probably a view among the writers on Sanskrit poetics, which did not
regard saṃhitā as compulsory (nityā) 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 vivakṣā of a poet. In the verses of well-known
poets, we come across cases of absence of sandhi. See for instance,
soḍhuṃ na tatpūrvam avarṇam īśe
ālānikaṃ sthāṇum iva dvipendraḥ.
(Raghu. XIV.38)
This one was cited in the Mukhabhūṣana too (p.1). Those who held the
sandhyabhāva to be correct do not seem to be in majority. The view of
Daṇḍin seems to have gained the majority of followers. After Daṇḍin as
there was no recorded evidence of the sandhyabhāva-sādhutvavāda, the view
which was supposed to have been accepted silently by Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin's
view of the asādhutva of the sandhyabhāva probably came down as "the old view".
It seems, therefore, that the adherents of this view were referred to as jīrṇāḥ.
The other view, though probably was originally an earlier view, was
thought to be later view, because of the lack of recorded statement. The
followers of this view seem to be noted, therefore, as navīnās tu. In fact
Māṇikyacandra (1160 A.D.) in his Saṃketa on the K.P., commenting on the
verse rājan vibhānti etc. says thus :
श्रोणीतटं स्पृशति किं कुलधर्म एषः ॥
इति शब्दकौस्तुभे (चौखम्बा-मुद्रिते--१९३३ संवत्सरे-३१ पुढे) ।
[^27]वरं पितुः परीक्षेत मातुः कन्यां परीक्षयेत् ।
तृणाद् भूमिं परीक्षेत आचारेण कुलं यथा ॥ इति नीतिशास्त्रे ।
अत्र [^28]इको यणचीत्यादिसूत्रेण सन्धिप्राप्तिरिति चेत् ।
सत्यम् । प्रमादा एवैते इति जीर्
[^27]. MS. E reads: varaṃ 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 Bhaṭṭoji's Siddhāntakaumudī,
where Iko yaṇ aci (6.1.77) is the first rule in the Sandhi-prakaraṇa, whereas in
the Aṣṭādhyāyī order Che ca (6.1.73) comes earlier. Our author seems to have
great regards for Bhaṭṭoji. See Notes 35 and 99. In the example tāni+
indoḥ (quoted in the context) the rule Akaḥ savarṇe dīrghaḥ (6.1.101) is
applicable.
[^29]. Jīrṇāḥ perhaps refers to Daṇḍin with whom Vāmana, Mammaṭa
and others agreed in the matter of the visandhi-doṣa.
Vāmana notes Nityā saṃhitā ekapadavat pādeṣv ardhāntavarjam (K.A.S.;
V.I.2). As remarked in Note 26, Aicchikasandhyabhāva was not approved by
Daṇḍin in metrical lines. This is what is mentioned by Vāmana as nityā
saṃhitā pādeṣu etc. Majority of writers like Bhoja, Mammaṭa, Vidyānātha
and a host of others record this poetic convention with their approval.
[^30]. It is not clear who are meant by navīnās tu. As pointed out in Note
26, aicchikasandhyabhāva was not considered to be a doṣa by Bhāmaha. There
was probably a view among the writers on Sanskrit poetics, which did not
regard saṃhitā as compulsory (nityā) 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 vivakṣā of a poet. In the verses of well-known
poets, we come across cases of absence of sandhi. See for instance,
soḍhuṃ na tatpūrvam avarṇam īśe
ālānikaṃ sthāṇum iva dvipendraḥ.
(Raghu. XIV.38)
This one was cited in the Mukhabhūṣana too (p.1). Those who held the
sandhyabhāva to be correct do not seem to be in majority. The view of
Daṇḍin seems to have gained the majority of followers. After Daṇḍin as
there was no recorded evidence of the sandhyabhāva-sādhutvavāda, the view
which was supposed to have been accepted silently by Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin's
view of the asādhutva of the sandhyabhāva probably came down as "the old view".
It seems, therefore, that the adherents of this view were referred to as jīrṇāḥ.
The other view, though probably was originally an earlier view, was
thought to be later view, because of the lack of recorded statement. The
followers of this view seem to be noted, therefore, as navīnās tu. In fact
Māṇikyacandra (1160 A.D.) in his Saṃketa on the K.P., commenting on the
verse rājan vibhānti etc. says thus :