2023-04-28 15:27:26 by ramamurthys
This page has been fully proofread once and needs a second look.
निपत्य बिन्दू हृदि कज्जलाविलौ
मणीव नीलौ तरलौ विरेजतुः ॥ (नैषधचरिते ९-८५)
इति नवमे श्रीहर्षः । अत्र मणी इवेति पदच्छेदे ईदूदेदद्विववचनं 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-
त्रयानुक्तत्वाद् अप्रमाणमिति कैयटहरदत्तादयः । वस्तुतस्तु मणी व इति पदभेदे
इवार्थकेन वशब्देन व्याख्याने न कश्चित् पूर्वपक्षावसरः इति [^35]भाष्यरहस्यज्ञाः ।
तथाच --अमरः [^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 Kāśikāvṛtti (on 1.1.11) notes :
ivādināṃ pragṛhyatve maṇīvādīnāṃ pratiṣedho vaktavyaḥ. maṇīva, dampatīva,
rodasīva.
Nārāyaṇa, the commentator on the Naiṣadha, quotes this prohibitive
statement from the Kāśikā, and explains the usage. Our author is perhaps
referring here to Nārāyaṇa.
[^34]. Bhaṭṭoji gives the same line in his Śabdakaustubha, and the Prauḍhamano-
ramā (....apramāṇam iti kaiyaṭādayaḥ). See the next Note.
[^35]. This is a reference to Bhaṭṭoji, See also Notes 99, and 119, and the
text connected therewith. Bhaṭṭoji also quotes the verse sphuṭotpalābhyām
of the Naiṣadha (S.K., Vol. I. p. 127).
[^36]. This Amara was quoted by Bhaṭṭoji too.
[^37]. Kṣīrasvāmin in his commentary on the Amara, and (following him
perhaps) Liṅgayasūri, the author of the Amarapadavivṛti (also known as
Liṅgābhaṭṭīyam) have the reading :
vad vā yathā tathā etc.
[^38]. Bhaṭṭoji says in his Śabdakaustubha :
yuktaś cāyam eva (va vā iti) pāṭhaḥ. prātipadikaprakrame taddhitasya vater
ananuguṇatvāt.
[^39]. This is a reference to the Taddhita (secondary) suffixes prescribed by
the rules such as (1) Sivādibhyo'ṇ (4.1.112); śivasyāpatyaṃ śaivaḥ; (2) Tikādibhyaḥ
phiñ (4.1.154); tikasyāpatyaṃ taikāyaniḥ; (3) Tasya samūhaḥ etc.; gotra...
manuṣyājād vuñ (4.2.37 & 39) ; manuṣyāṇāṃ samūhaḥ mānuṣyakam etc.
This reason is not found in the Ś. K., but was noted by Bhaṭṭoji's son
Bhānoji in his commentary Sudhā on the Amara. This is a good point utilized
by our author from the Sudhā, 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,
मणीव नीलौ तरलौ विरेजतुः ॥ (नैषधचरिते ९-८५)
इति नवमे श्रीहर्षः । अत्र मणी इवेति पदच्छेदे ईदूदेदद्विववचनं 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-
त्रयानुक्तत्वाद् अप्रमाणमिति कैयटहरदत्तादयः । वस्तुतस्तु मणी व इति पदभेदे
इवार्थकेन वशब्देन व्याख्याने न कश्चित् पूर्वपक्षावसरः इति [^35]भाष्यरहस्यज्ञाः ।
तथाच --अमरः [^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]-
[^33]. The Kāśikāvṛtti (on 1.1.11) notes :
ivādināṃ pragṛhyatve maṇīvādīnāṃ pratiṣedho vaktavyaḥ. maṇīva, dampatīva,
rodasīva.
Nārāyaṇa, the commentator on the Naiṣadha, quotes this prohibitive
statement from the Kāśikā, and explains the usage. Our author is perhaps
referring here to Nārāyaṇa.
[^34]. Bhaṭṭoji gives the same line in his Śabdakaustubha, and the Prauḍhamano-
ramā (....apramāṇam iti kaiyaṭādayaḥ). See the next Note.
[^35]. This is a reference to Bhaṭṭoji, See also Notes 99, and 119, and the
text connected therewith. Bhaṭṭoji also quotes the verse sphuṭotpalābhyām
of the Naiṣadha (S.K., Vol. I. p. 127).
[^36]. This Amara was quoted by Bhaṭṭoji too.
[^37]. Kṣīrasvāmin in his commentary on the Amara, and (following him
perhaps) Liṅgayasūri, the author of the Amarapadavivṛti (also known as
Liṅgābhaṭṭīyam) have the reading :
vad vā yathā tathā etc.
[^38]. Bhaṭṭoji says in his Śabdakaustubha :
yuktaś cāyam eva (va vā iti) pāṭhaḥ. prātipadikaprakrame taddhitasya vater
ananuguṇatvāt.
[^39]. This is a reference to the Taddhita (secondary) suffixes prescribed by
the rules such as (1) Sivādibhyo'ṇ (4.1.112); śivasyāpatyaṃ śaivaḥ; (2) Tikādibhyaḥ
phiñ (4.1.154); tikasyāpatyaṃ taikāyaniḥ; (3) Tasya samūhaḥ etc.; gotra...
manuṣyājād vuñ (4.2.37 & 39) ; manuṣyāṇāṃ samūhaḥ mānuṣyakam etc.
This reason is not found in the Ś. K., but was noted by Bhaṭṭoji's son
Bhānoji in his commentary Sudhā on the Amara. This is a good point utilized
by our author from the Sudhā, 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,