The Sāhityakaṇṭakoddhāra /37

8
 
साहित्यकण्टकोद्धारः
 
निपत्य बिन्दू हृदि कज्जलाविलौ
 

मणीव नीलौ तरलौ विरेजतुः ॥ (नैषधचरिते ६-८५)
 

इति नवमे श्रीहर्षः । अनत्र मणी इवेति पदच्छेदे ईवदूदेदद्विववचनं प्रगृह्यम्

( १-१-११) इति प्रगृह्यसंज्ञा स्यात् । (ततश्च प्लुतप्रगृह्या अचि नित्यम्

(६-१-२५) इति सूत्रविहितेन प्रकृतिभावेन भवितव्यम् ) इति चेत् ।
 

 
अत्र केचित् [^33]मणीवादे नेंति निषेधात् प्रगृह्यसंज्ञा नास्तीत्याहुः । तत् [^34]मुनि-
व
त्रयानुक्तत्वाद् अप्रमाणमिति कैयटहरदत्तादयः । वस्तुतस्तु मणी व इति पदभेदे

इवार्थकेन वशब्देन व्याख्याने न कश्चित् पूर्वपक्षावसरः इति [^35]भाष्यरहस्यज्ञाः ।

तथाच --अमर: [^36 ]--व वा यथा तथेवैवम् साम्ये इति ।
 

 
अत्र केचित् "[^37] वद् वा इति पाठम् ( अमरवाक्ये) इच्छन्ति । तदयुक्तम् ।

नामलिङ्गानुशासने [^38]प्रातिपदिकप्रक्रमे तद्धितस्य वतेः अननुगुणत्वात् । अपत्य-

समूहादि-पर्यायमध्ये अण्[^39]-<flag>फिञ्ञ </flag>- <flag>वुञ्ञदीनामनुक्तेश्च </flag>। तथा च हेमचन्द्रः--

 
[^33]. The Kāsśikāvrṛtti ( on 1.1.11) notes :
 
ivādinām
ivādināṃ pragrhyatve manṛhyatve maṇīvādinām pratişīnāṃ pratiṣedho vaktavyaḥ. maniṇīva, dampatiīva,
rodasiva.
 

rodasīva.
 
Nārāyaṇa, the commentator on the Naișṣadha, quotes this prohibitive

statement from the Käsāśikäā, and explains the usage. Our author is perhaps

referring here to Nārāyaṇa.
 

[^34]. Bhattṭṭoji gives the same line in his Śabdakaustubha, and the Prauḍhamano-
ramā (....apramāṇam iti kaiyaṭādayaḥ). Sabdakaustubha, and the Praudhamano-
ramā (....apramānam iti kaiyatādayah). See the next Note.
 

[^35]. This is a reference to Bhattṭṭoji, See also Notes 99, and 119, and the

text connected therewith. Bhattṭṭoji also quotes the verse sphutṭotpalaābhyam
ām
of the Naişṣadha ( S.K., Vol. I. p. 127).
 

[^36]. This Amara was quoted by Bhattṭṭoji too.
 

[^37]. Kşiṣīrasvāmin in his commentary on the Amara, and (following him

perhaps) Linṅgayasuūri, the author of the Amarapadavivrṛti (also known as

Linṅgābhattiṭṭīyam) have the reading :
 
vad va yatha
vad vā yathā tathā etc.
 

[^38]. Bhattṭṭoji says in his SŚabdakaustubha :
 

yuktaś câāyam eva (va vaā iti) pāṭhaḥ. praātipadikaprakrame taddhitasya vater

ananugunatvāt.
 
ṇatvāt.
[^39]. This is a reference to the Taddhita (secondary ) suffixes prescribed by

the rules such as (1) Sivādibhyo 'nṇ ( 4.1.112); śivasyāpatyamṃ śaivahḥ; (2) Tikādibhyah
ḥ
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,