2023-04-10 05:19:37 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
8
साहित्यकण्टकोद्धारः
निपत्य बिन्दू हृदि कज्जलाविलौ
मणीव नीलौ तरलौ विरेजतुः ॥ (नैषधचरिते ६-८५)
इति नवमे श्रीहर्षः । अन मणी इवेति पदच्छेदे ईवदेदद्विववचनं प्रगृह्यम्
( १-१-११) इति प्रगृह्यसंज्ञा स्यात् । (ततश्च प्लुतप्रगृह्या अचि नित्यम्
(६-१-२५) इति सूत्रविहितेन प्रकृतिभावेन भवितव्यम् ) इति चेत् ।
अत्र केचित् मणीवादे नेंति निषेधात् प्रगृह्यसंज्ञा नास्तीत्याहुः । तत् मुनि-
वयानुक्तत्वाद् अप्रमाणमिति कैयटहरदत्तादयः । वस्तुतस्तु मणी व इति पदभेदे
इवार्थकेन वशब्देन व्याख्याने न कश्चित् पूर्वपक्षावसरः इति भाष्यरहस्यज्ञाः ।
तथाच --अमर: 36 --व वा यथा तथेवैवम् साम्ये इति ।
अत्र केचित् " वद् वा इति पाठम् ( अमरवाक्ये) इच्छन्ति । तदयुक्तम् ।
नामलिङ्गानुशासने प्रातिपदिकप्रक्रमे तद्धितस्य वतेः अननुगुणत्वात् । अपत्य-
समूहादि-पर्यायमध्ये अण्-फिञ्ञ - वुञ्ञदीनामनुक्तेश्च । तथा च हेमचन्द्रः--
33. The Kāsikāvrtti ( on 1.1.11) notes :
ivādinām pragrhyatve manīvādinām pratişedho vaktavyaḥ. maniva, dampativa,
rodasiva.
Nārāyaṇa, the commentator on the Naișadha, quotes this prohibitive
statement from the Käsikä, and explains the usage. Our author is perhaps
referring here to Nārāyaṇa.
34. Bhattoji gives thesame line in his Sabdakaustubha, and the Praudhamano-
ramā (....apramānam iti kaiyatādayah). See the next Note.
35. This is a reference to Bhattoji, See also Notes 99, and 119, and the
text connected therewith. Bhattoji also quotes the verse sphutotpalabhyam
of the Naişadha ( S.K., Vol. I. p. 127).
36. This Amara was quoted by Bhattoji too.
37. Kşirasvāmin in his commentary on the Amara, and (following him
perhaps) Lingayasuri, the author of the Amarapadavivrti (also known as
Lingābhattiyam) have the reading :
vad va yatha tathā etc.
38. Bhattoji says in his Sabdakaustubha :
yuktaś câyam eva (va va iti) pāṭhaḥ. pratipadikaprakrame taddhitasya vater
ananugunatvāt.
39. This is a reference to the Taddhita (secondary ) suffixes prescribed by
the rules such as (1) Sivādibhyo 'n ( 4.1.112); śivasyāpatyam śaivah; (2) Tikādibhyah
phifi (4.1.154); tikasyāpatyam taikāyanih; (3) Tasya samūhah etc.; gotra...
manuşyājād vufi (4.2.37 & 39 ) ; manusyānām samūhah mānusyakam etc.
This reason is not found in the S. K., but was noted by Bhattoji's son
Bhänoji in his commentary Sudha on the Amara. This is a good point utilized
by our author from the Sudha, though the name is not mentioned. This
reason lends further support to the argument that rejects the reading vad, vā
etc. in the Amara. Vat is a Taddhita suffix, which by itself cannot be used as
an independent expression like yathā, tathā. The reading of vat, therefore,
साहित्यकण्टकोद्धारः
निपत्य बिन्दू हृदि कज्जलाविलौ
मणीव नीलौ तरलौ विरेजतुः ॥ (नैषधचरिते ६-८५)
इति नवमे श्रीहर्षः । अन मणी इवेति पदच्छेदे ईवदेदद्विववचनं प्रगृह्यम्
( १-१-११) इति प्रगृह्यसंज्ञा स्यात् । (ततश्च प्लुतप्रगृह्या अचि नित्यम्
(६-१-२५) इति सूत्रविहितेन प्रकृतिभावेन भवितव्यम् ) इति चेत् ।
अत्र केचित् मणीवादे नेंति निषेधात् प्रगृह्यसंज्ञा नास्तीत्याहुः । तत् मुनि-
वयानुक्तत्वाद् अप्रमाणमिति कैयटहरदत्तादयः । वस्तुतस्तु मणी व इति पदभेदे
इवार्थकेन वशब्देन व्याख्याने न कश्चित् पूर्वपक्षावसरः इति भाष्यरहस्यज्ञाः ।
तथाच --अमर: 36 --व वा यथा तथेवैवम् साम्ये इति ।
अत्र केचित् " वद् वा इति पाठम् ( अमरवाक्ये) इच्छन्ति । तदयुक्तम् ।
नामलिङ्गानुशासने प्रातिपदिकप्रक्रमे तद्धितस्य वतेः अननुगुणत्वात् । अपत्य-
समूहादि-पर्यायमध्ये अण्-फिञ्ञ - वुञ्ञदीनामनुक्तेश्च । तथा च हेमचन्द्रः--
33. The Kāsikāvrtti ( on 1.1.11) notes :
ivādinām pragrhyatve manīvādinām pratişedho vaktavyaḥ. maniva, dampativa,
rodasiva.
Nārāyaṇa, the commentator on the Naișadha, quotes this prohibitive
statement from the Käsikä, and explains the usage. Our author is perhaps
referring here to Nārāyaṇa.
34. Bhattoji gives thesame line in his Sabdakaustubha, and the Praudhamano-
ramā (....apramānam iti kaiyatādayah). See the next Note.
35. This is a reference to Bhattoji, See also Notes 99, and 119, and the
text connected therewith. Bhattoji also quotes the verse sphutotpalabhyam
of the Naişadha ( S.K., Vol. I. p. 127).
36. This Amara was quoted by Bhattoji too.
37. Kşirasvāmin in his commentary on the Amara, and (following him
perhaps) Lingayasuri, the author of the Amarapadavivrti (also known as
Lingābhattiyam) have the reading :
vad va yatha tathā etc.
38. Bhattoji says in his Sabdakaustubha :
yuktaś câyam eva (va va iti) pāṭhaḥ. pratipadikaprakrame taddhitasya vater
ananugunatvāt.
39. This is a reference to the Taddhita (secondary ) suffixes prescribed by
the rules such as (1) Sivādibhyo 'n ( 4.1.112); śivasyāpatyam śaivah; (2) Tikādibhyah
phifi (4.1.154); tikasyāpatyam taikāyanih; (3) Tasya samūhah etc.; gotra...
manuşyājād vufi (4.2.37 & 39 ) ; manusyānām samūhah mānusyakam etc.
This reason is not found in the S. K., but was noted by Bhattoji's son
Bhänoji in his commentary Sudha on the Amara. This is a good point utilized
by our author from the Sudha, though the name is not mentioned. This
reason lends further support to the argument that rejects the reading vad, vā
etc. in the Amara. Vat is a Taddhita suffix, which by itself cannot be used as
an independent expression like yathā, tathā. The reading of vat, therefore,