2023-04-10 05:19:40 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
14
साहित्यकण्टकोद्धारः
अथ कथम् --
वयं कलादा इव दुविदग्धं त्वद्गौरिमस्पधि दहेम हेम ।
प्रसूननाराचशरासनेन सहैकवंशप्रभवभ्रु बभ्रु ॥ (नैषधे ८-६९)
इति श्रीहर्षः । तथा
यदि तु तव समागमे तथैव प्रसरति सुश्रु ततः कृती भवेयम् ॥
इति विक्रमोर्वशीये (३-२२) कालिदासश्च ।
सुभ्रु इत्यत्र नेयङवङस्थानावस्त्री (१-४-४) इति सूत्रेण "नदीसंज्ञानिषेधात्
अम्बार्थनद्योर्हस्वः (७-३-१०७) इति सूत्रेण ( नदीसंज्ञकस्य विहितः) ह्रस्वः
कथम् इति चेत् --सत्यम् । प्रमाद एवायमिति प्रामाणिकाः । सामान्ये नपुंसकम्
इति वा कथंचित् " समाधेयमित्यपरे ।
अथ कथम्--
अखिलमिदममुष्य गौरीगुरोस्त्रिभुवनमपि नैति मन्ये तुलाम् ।
अधिवसति सदा यदेनं जनैरविदितविभवो 3 भवानीपतिः ॥
(किरातार्जुनीये ५- २१ )
61. In the rule Aci śnudhātubhruvām etc. (6.4.77) the word bhrü is noted
as eligible for wan (i.e. uwanyogya). So the forms are bhruvan etc. Conse-
quently the prohibition of Nadisamjña recorded in the rule neyaňuvansthanav
astri (1.4.4) holds good in the case of bhrū. As a result the shortening of
in vocative singular is a violation of the recorded prohibition. The form
should have been he subhrüh (and not subhru) is the essence of the question.
For the answer see next Note.
62. The answer is furnished by depending upon the difference of opinion
about the applicability of the prohibition. This naturally involves twisting
and a far-fetched interpretation of rules.
First it was started by Vāmana (see his K.A.S.V. on V.2.48), and it was
followed by the author of the Jayamangalā on Bhatti kāvya (VI.11), Malli-
nātha on Bhatti and Kumārasambhava (V.43), and the anonymous author
of the Mukhabhūşana (p. 39; Adyar Library Pamphlet Series 41; 1973 ).
By applying the feminine suffix un to the word (though the stem is ending
in long i already), and thus by treating bhrū to be different from the original
bhrū (that was without ün) they explain that the rule Aci snu-etc. (6.4.71)
is not applicable here (perhaps by the paribhasa lakṣaṇapratipadoktayoḥ prati-
padoktasya grahanam). As a result, the subhrü being not waisthāna, the prohibi-
tion (1.4.4) is avoided. Thus becoming nadisamjñaka, the shortening rule
Ambārthanadyoh etc. (7.3.107) reigns supreme. Hence the form subhru in
vocative singular. For further details, see Kāmadhenu on K.A.S.V. (V.
2.48), and Jayamangalā and Mallinātha referred to above. This far fetched
interpretation is not echoed by Bhattoji and some others. Our author
simply seems to follow Bhattoji. See his S.K., P.M. (p. 552 ) and Tattvabodhini
after the rule 4.1.5.
63. See also (1) Murāri IV. 23, (2) the verse na trastam etc. in Act II.28 of the
Mahāviracarita, (3) the Mālatimādhava after verse IX.3, and the Kādambari
p. 295 (Mathurānātha śastri edn. N.S.P.).
साहित्यकण्टकोद्धारः
अथ कथम् --
वयं कलादा इव दुविदग्धं त्वद्गौरिमस्पधि दहेम हेम ।
प्रसूननाराचशरासनेन सहैकवंशप्रभवभ्रु बभ्रु ॥ (नैषधे ८-६९)
इति श्रीहर्षः । तथा
यदि तु तव समागमे तथैव प्रसरति सुश्रु ततः कृती भवेयम् ॥
इति विक्रमोर्वशीये (३-२२) कालिदासश्च ।
सुभ्रु इत्यत्र नेयङवङस्थानावस्त्री (१-४-४) इति सूत्रेण "नदीसंज्ञानिषेधात्
अम्बार्थनद्योर्हस्वः (७-३-१०७) इति सूत्रेण ( नदीसंज्ञकस्य विहितः) ह्रस्वः
कथम् इति चेत् --सत्यम् । प्रमाद एवायमिति प्रामाणिकाः । सामान्ये नपुंसकम्
इति वा कथंचित् " समाधेयमित्यपरे ।
अथ कथम्--
अखिलमिदममुष्य गौरीगुरोस्त्रिभुवनमपि नैति मन्ये तुलाम् ।
अधिवसति सदा यदेनं जनैरविदितविभवो 3 भवानीपतिः ॥
(किरातार्जुनीये ५- २१ )
61. In the rule Aci śnudhātubhruvām etc. (6.4.77) the word bhrü is noted
as eligible for wan (i.e. uwanyogya). So the forms are bhruvan etc. Conse-
quently the prohibition of Nadisamjña recorded in the rule neyaňuvansthanav
astri (1.4.4) holds good in the case of bhrū. As a result the shortening of
in vocative singular is a violation of the recorded prohibition. The form
should have been he subhrüh (and not subhru) is the essence of the question.
For the answer see next Note.
62. The answer is furnished by depending upon the difference of opinion
about the applicability of the prohibition. This naturally involves twisting
and a far-fetched interpretation of rules.
First it was started by Vāmana (see his K.A.S.V. on V.2.48), and it was
followed by the author of the Jayamangalā on Bhatti kāvya (VI.11), Malli-
nātha on Bhatti and Kumārasambhava (V.43), and the anonymous author
of the Mukhabhūşana (p. 39; Adyar Library Pamphlet Series 41; 1973 ).
By applying the feminine suffix un to the word (though the stem is ending
in long i already), and thus by treating bhrū to be different from the original
bhrū (that was without ün) they explain that the rule Aci snu-etc. (6.4.71)
is not applicable here (perhaps by the paribhasa lakṣaṇapratipadoktayoḥ prati-
padoktasya grahanam). As a result, the subhrü being not waisthāna, the prohibi-
tion (1.4.4) is avoided. Thus becoming nadisamjñaka, the shortening rule
Ambārthanadyoh etc. (7.3.107) reigns supreme. Hence the form subhru in
vocative singular. For further details, see Kāmadhenu on K.A.S.V. (V.
2.48), and Jayamangalā and Mallinātha referred to above. This far fetched
interpretation is not echoed by Bhattoji and some others. Our author
simply seems to follow Bhattoji. See his S.K., P.M. (p. 552 ) and Tattvabodhini
after the rule 4.1.5.
63. See also (1) Murāri IV. 23, (2) the verse na trastam etc. in Act II.28 of the
Mahāviracarita, (3) the Mālatimādhava after verse IX.3, and the Kādambari
p. 295 (Mathurānātha śastri edn. N.S.P.).