2023-04-26 05:55:44 by ramamurthys
This page has been fully proofread once and needs a second look.
अथ कथम् --
वयं कलादा इव दुर्विदग्धं त्वद्गौरिमस्पर्धि दहेम हेम ।
प्रसूननाराचशरासनेन सहैकवंशप्रभवभ्रु बभ्रु ॥ (नैषधे ८-६६९९)
इति श्रीहर्षः । तथा
यदि तु तव समागमे तथैव प्रसरति सुभ्रु ततः कृती भवेयम् ॥
इति विक्रमोर्वशीये (३-२२) कालिदासश्च ।
सुभ्रु इत्यत्र नेयङवङस्थानावस्त्री (१-४-४) इति सूत्रेण [^61]नदीसंज्ञानिषेधात्
अम्बार्थनद्योर्ह्रस्वः (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 bhrū is noted
as eligible for uvaṅ (i.e. uvaṅyogya). So the forms are bhruvau etc. Conse-
quently the prohibition of Nadisaṃjñā recorded in the rule neyaṅuvaṅsthānāv
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 subhrūḥ (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 Jayamaṅgalā on Bhaṭṭi-kāvya (VI.11), Malli-
nātha on Bhaṭṭi and Kumārasaṃbhava (V.43), and the anonymous author
of the Mukhabhūṣaṇa (p. 39; Adyar Library Pamphlet Series 41; 1973 ).
By applying the feminine suffix ūṅ to the word (though the stem is ending
in long ū already), and thus by treating bhrū to be different from the original
bhrū (that was without ūṅ) they explain that the rule Aci śnu-etc. (6.4.71)
is not applicable here (perhaps by the paribhāṣā lakṣaṇapratipadoktayoḥ prati-
padoktasya grahaṇam). As a result, the subhrū being not uvaṅsthāna, the prohibi-
tion (1.4.4) is avoided. Thus becoming nadisaṃjñaka, the shortening rule
Ambārthanadyoḥ 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 Jayamaṅgalā and Mallinātha referred to above. This far fetched
interpretation is not echoed by Bhaṭṭoji and some others. Our author
simply seems to follow Bhaṭṭoji. See his S.K., P.M. (p. 552 ) and Tattvabodhinī
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
Mahāvīracarita, (3) the Mālatīmādhava after verse IX.3, and the Kādambarī
p. 295 (Mathurānātha śastri edn. N.S.P.).
वयं कलादा इव दुर्विदग्धं त्वद्गौरिमस्पर्धि दहेम हेम ।
प्रसूननाराचशरासनेन सहैकवंशप्रभवभ्रु बभ्रु ॥ (नैषधे ८-
इति श्रीहर्षः । तथा
यदि तु तव समागमे तथैव प्रसरति सुभ्रु ततः कृती भवेयम् ॥
इति विक्रमोर्वशीये (३-२२) कालिदासश्च ।
सुभ्रु इत्यत्र नेयङवङस्थानावस्त्री (१-४-४) इति सूत्रेण [^61]नदीसंज्ञानिषेधात्
अम्बार्थनद्योर्ह्रस्वः (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 bhrū is noted
as eligible for uvaṅ (i.e. uvaṅyogya). So the forms are bhruvau etc. Conse-
quently the prohibition of Nadisaṃjñā recorded in the rule neyaṅuvaṅsthānāv
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 subhrūḥ (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 Jayamaṅgalā on Bhaṭṭi-kāvya (VI.11), Malli-
nātha on Bhaṭṭi and Kumārasaṃbhava (V.43), and the anonymous author
of the Mukhabhūṣaṇa (p. 39; Adyar Library Pamphlet Series 41; 1973 ).
By applying the feminine suffix ūṅ to the word (though the stem is ending
in long ū already), and thus by treating bhrū to be different from the original
bhrū (that was without ūṅ) they explain that the rule Aci śnu-etc. (6.4.71)
is not applicable here (perhaps by the paribhāṣā lakṣaṇapratipadoktayoḥ prati-
padoktasya grahaṇam). As a result, the subhrū being not uvaṅsthāna, the prohibi-
tion (1.4.4) is avoided. Thus becoming nadisaṃjñaka, the shortening rule
Ambārthanadyoḥ 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 Jayamaṅgalā and Mallinātha referred to above. This far fetched
interpretation is not echoed by Bhaṭṭoji and some others. Our author
simply seems to follow Bhaṭṭoji. See his S.K., P.M. (p. 552 ) and Tattvabodhinī
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
Mahāvīracarita, (3) the Mālatīmādhava after verse IX.3, and the Kādambarī
p. 295 (Mathurānātha śastri edn. N.S.P.).