The Sāhityakaṇṭakoddhāra /43

14
 
साहित्यकण्टकोद्धारः
 
अथ कथम् --
 

वयं कलादा इव दुर्विदग्धं त्वद्गौरिमस्पर्धि दहेम हेम ।

प्रसूननाराचशरासनेन सहैकवंशप्रभवभ्रु बभ्रु ॥ (नैषधे ८-६९)
६)
इति श्रीहर्षः । तथा
 

 
यदि तु तव समागमे तथैव प्रसरति सुश्भ्रु ततः कृती भवेयम् ॥

इति विक्रमोर्वशीये (३-२२) कालिदासश्च ।
 

 
सुभ्रु इत्यत्र नेयङवङस्थानावस्त्री (१-४-४) इति सूत्रेण "[^61]नदीसंज्ञानिषेधात्

अम्बार्थनद्योर्हह्रस्वः (७-३-१०७) इति सूत्रेण ( नदीसंज्ञकस्य विहितः) ह्रस्वः

कथम् इति चेत् --सत्यम् । प्रमाद एवायमिति प्रामाणिकाः । सामान्ये नपुंसकम्

इति वा कथंचित् "[^62] समाधेयमित्यपरे ।
 

अथ कथम्--

अखिलमिदममुष्य गौरीगुरोस्त्रिभुवनमपि नैति मन्ये तुलाम् ।

अधिवसति सदा यदेनं जनैरविदितविभवो [^63 ]भवानीपतिः ॥
 

(किरातार्जुनीये ५- २१ )
 

 
[^61]. In the rule Aci śnudhātubhruvām etc. (6.4.77) the word bhrü is noted
ū is noted
as eligible for wan (i.e. uwanuvaṅ (i.e. uvaṅyogya). So the forms are bhruvanu etc. Conse-

quently the prohibition of Nadisamṃjñaā recorded in the rule neyaňṅuvansthanaṅsthānāv
astri
astrī (1.4.4) holds good in the case of bhrū. As a result the shortening of
ū
in vocative singular is a violation of the recorded prohibition. The form

should have been he subhrühūḥ (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 Jayamanṅgalā on Bhatti ṭṭi-kāvya (VI.11), Malli-

nātha on Bhattṭṭi and Kumārasamṃbhava (V.43), and the anonymous author

of the Mukhabhūşanṣaṇa (p. 39; Adyar Library Pamphlet Series 41; 1973 ).
 

 
By applying the feminine suffix unūṅ to the word (though the stem is ending

in long iū already), and thus by treating bhrū to be different from the original

bhrū (that was without ünūṅ) they explain that the rule Aci sśnu-etc. (6.4.71)

is not applicable here (perhaps by the paribhasaāṣā lakṣaṇapratipadoktayoḥ prati-

padoktasya grahanṇam). As a result, the subhrüū being not waiuvaṅsthāna, the prohibi-

tion (1.4.4) is avoided. Thus becoming nadisamṃjñaka, the shortening rule

Ambārthanadyohḥ 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 Jayamanṅgalā and Mallinātha referred to above. This far fetched

interpretation is not echoed by Bhattṭṭoji and some others. Our author

simply seems to follow Bhattṭṭoji. See his S.K., P.M. (p. 552 ) and Tattvabodhini
ī
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

Mahāviīracarita, (3) the Mālatiīmādhava after verse IX.3, and the Kādambari
ī
p. 295 (Mathurānātha śastri edn. N.S.P.).