2023-04-26 13:43:32 by ramamurthys
This page has been fully proofread once and needs a second look.
तच्च समासादिवृत्तावेवेति केचित् । वस्तुतस्तु परशब्दस्य [^51]देशान्तरनिष्ठत्व-
मेवार्थः । शत्रुत्वादिकं तु आर्थिकोऽर्थ इति भाप्य रहस्यज्ञाः[^52] ।
अथ कथम्--
लुलितचलितदृग्भिः कोपकोपाञ्चिताभिः
ललितवचनवीचीवल्लिभिर्वल्लयद्भिः[^53] ।
तदपि लिखित[^54] बुद्धो तत्पदासक्तचित्ते
हरि हरि हरिणाक्ष्या वीक्षणे कोऽभ्युपायः ॥
इति सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरणे[^55] ।
[^56]हरि हरि हतादरतया गता सा कुपितेव
(गीतगोविन्दे ३-७-३)
इति गीतगोविन्दे च ।
अन ह्रस्वस्य गुण इति सूत्रेण (७-३-१०८) गुणप्राप्तेः इति चेत् -- अत्र
[^51]. MSS. A, C, E and F read : deśāntaraviṣayatvam evārthaḥ; MSS. B, D,
& G read : deśāntaraniṣṭhatvam eva-, and this one is the recording in the
Prauḍhamanoramā also.
[^52]. This is a reference to Bhaṭṭoji, who has a good discussion in this con-
text in his P.M. (p. 439 ). The arguments are reproduced here.
[^53]. All the MSS. read the verse thus. But the meaning is not clear to
me. Until we get the correct reading of the verse it may be difficult to make
out the meaning. kāmukaiḥ or some other substantive is perhaps to be
supplied, so as to be construed with vallayadbhiḥ.
[^54]. It is not clear whether we should read :
tadabhilikhitabuddhau.
MSS. A & E read: tad api lihitabuddhau.
MSS. B, C, D, & G read vihitabuddhau.
[^55]. All the MSS. note Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa as the source. But I am
unable to trace this verse in that work of Bhoja.
56. (1) The commentary Samjīvanī notes :
hari hari iti mahat kaṣṭam, and hari hari kaṣṭe'dbhute ca iti yādavaḥ.
I do not find this in the Vaijayantīkośa of Yādavaprakāśa available to me.
(2) The commentary Jayanti on the same says :
hari hari iti khede.
(3) The commentary Padadyotanikā says :
hari hari iti khedānukāre. This should be a correct approach. Though
hari hari as such may not be a pure Sanskrit form, this was perhaps imitative
of the expression of the regional language, indicating distress. The efforts
of some to justify this usage according to the rules of Sanskrit grammar by
twisting and elasticising them are unnecessary, and appear to be too pedantic.
मेवार्थः । शत्रुत्वादिकं तु आर्थिकोऽर्थ इति भाप्य रहस्यज्ञाः[^52] ।
अथ कथम्--
लुलितचलितदृग्भिः कोपकोपाञ्चिताभिः
ललितवचनवीचीवल्लिभिर्वल्लयद्भिः[^53] ।
तदपि लिखित[^54] बुद्धो तत्पदासक्तचित्ते
हरि हरि हरिणाक्ष्या वीक्षणे कोऽभ्युपायः ॥
इति सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरणे[^55] ।
[^56]हरि हरि हतादरतया गता सा कुपितेव
(गीतगोविन्दे ३-७-३)
इति गीतगोविन्दे च ।
अन ह्रस्वस्य गुण इति सूत्रेण (७-३-१०८) गुणप्राप्तेः इति चेत् -- अत्र
[^51]. MSS. A, C, E and F read : deśāntaraviṣayatvam evārthaḥ; MSS. B, D,
& G read : deśāntaraniṣṭhatvam eva-, and this one is the recording in the
Prauḍhamanoramā also.
[^52]. This is a reference to Bhaṭṭoji, who has a good discussion in this con-
text in his P.M. (p. 439
[^53]. All the MSS. read the verse thus. But the meaning is not clear to
me. Until we get the correct reading of the verse it may be difficult to make
out the meaning. kāmukaiḥ or some other substantive is perhaps to be
supplied, so as to be construed with vallayadbhiḥ.
[^54]. It is not clear whether we should read :
tadabhilikhitabuddhau.
MSS. A & E read: tad api lihitabuddhau.
MSS. B, C, D, & G read vihitabuddhau.
[^55]. All the MSS. note Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa as the source. But I am
unable to trace this verse in that work of Bhoja.
56. (1) The commentary Samjīvanī notes :
hari hari iti mahat kaṣṭam, and hari hari kaṣṭe'dbhute ca iti yādavaḥ.
I do not find this in the Vaijayantīkośa of Yādavaprakāśa available to me.
(2) The commentary Jayanti on the same says :
hari hari iti khede.
(3) The commentary Padadyotanikā says :
hari hari iti khedānukāre. This should be a correct approach. Though
hari hari as such may not be a pure Sanskrit form, this was perhaps imitative
of the expression of the regional language, indicating distress. The efforts
of some to justify this usage according to the rules of Sanskrit grammar by
twisting and elasticising them are unnecessary, and appear to be too pedantic.