2023-04-10 05:19:45 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
साहित्य कण्टकोद्धारः
इति प्रयोगः । अत्र विवाहशब्दात् 128ठन्नि प्रत्यये वृद्धौ सत्यां टिड्ढाणञ्
(४-१-१५) इत्यादिसूत्रेण डीपि वैवाहिकी इति स्यात् । बहुवचने च वैवाहिक्य
इति भवितव्यम् । तत् कथं वैवाहिकाः इति प्रयोगः इति चेत् --सत्यम् ।
प्रमाद एवायमिति बहवः । अथ वा विवाहशब्दात् संबन्धार्थे अणि डीपि वैवाही
इति स्त्रियां रूपम् । ततः स्वार्थे कनि (न सामिवचने (५-४-५) इति प्रतिषेधेन
ज्ञापिते) केऽण: (७-४-१३) इतिसूत्रेण ईकारस्य ह्रस्वे टाबन्तं रूपं ( पुत्रिका
कुमारिका इतिवत् वैवाहिका इति) कथंचित् साधनीयमित्येके ।
ननु
निजामयोध्यामपि पावनीमयं
भवन्मयो 29 ध्यायति नावनीपतिः ॥ (नैषधे १२ - ५ )
33
इति श्रीहर्षप्रयोगः कथम् । अन भवत्या विकार इति विग्रहे मयद् प्रत्यये
( मयट् वा एतयोरित्यादिसूत्रेण --४-१-१४३) कथं 130 पुंवद्भावः । तस्य ठक्-
छसोश्चेति वात्तिकरीत्या भावत्काः भवदीयाः इत्यत्रैव संभवात् ।
131,
अन्यत्न
128. MSS. read : kani here. This should be due to mistake of some
scribe or other. Later the word kani in this context occurs in the text. But
in vaivähika the suffix should be thañ. So I surmised thañi. Mallinātha in
his commentary on the Kumāra-VII.2, explaining vaivāhika says: vivāhah
prayojanam eşām iti vaivāhikāni. Prayojanam ( 5.1.109) iti thañ. On prayojana of
the rule 5.1.109, Bhattoji says : prayojanam = phalam, kāraņam ca.
129. See also Naişadha III.113 (bhavadviyoga), IV.121 (bhavadvidhā) VIII.73
(bhavadakşivāsī). See also the Kādambari :
atimahat khalu bhavaddarśanat prabhṛti me kut ühalam asmin
(p. 291 ; N.S.P. 1948).
130. There seems to have been some difficulty in having a correct interpret-
ation of the rule regarding the pumvadbhāva (i.e. retaining the masculine stem,
though the person referred to may be a female in a given context, as is clear
from the vigrahaväkya). Some earlier writers quoted the following rule:
sarvanämnaḥ samāse purvam pumvat,
and noted it to be a värttika. But there is no vārttika like this traceable. It was
to the credit of Bhattoji, it seems, who pointed out the inexistence of such a
värttika, and made clear that it was an Işți of Patañjali in the form of sarvanamno
vrttimätre pumvadbhavaḥ.
See his S.K. under Thakchasoś ca (on 6.3.35, – Tasilādişu etc.) and the
P.M. in this context. The Işti: sarvanāmno vṛttimätre pumvadbhavaḥ is found
in the Mahābhāsya under 2.2.26, and under 5.3.28. See also Note 132.
131. The pūrvapakşa raised here is owing to the ignorance of the Isti, and
consequently is based on the view that pumvadbhāva is not possible in all the
cases, but possible only in bhavatka and bhavadiya (the cases of thak and chas
suffixes). See the Venīsamhāra V.9 (bhavatisutakşayakarah), and the Sākuntala :
after V.24 (atrabhavatipratyayāt). See also Jagaddhara on Venisamhāra V.9.
इति प्रयोगः । अत्र विवाहशब्दात् 128ठन्नि प्रत्यये वृद्धौ सत्यां टिड्ढाणञ्
(४-१-१५) इत्यादिसूत्रेण डीपि वैवाहिकी इति स्यात् । बहुवचने च वैवाहिक्य
इति भवितव्यम् । तत् कथं वैवाहिकाः इति प्रयोगः इति चेत् --सत्यम् ।
प्रमाद एवायमिति बहवः । अथ वा विवाहशब्दात् संबन्धार्थे अणि डीपि वैवाही
इति स्त्रियां रूपम् । ततः स्वार्थे कनि (न सामिवचने (५-४-५) इति प्रतिषेधेन
ज्ञापिते) केऽण: (७-४-१३) इतिसूत्रेण ईकारस्य ह्रस्वे टाबन्तं रूपं ( पुत्रिका
कुमारिका इतिवत् वैवाहिका इति) कथंचित् साधनीयमित्येके ।
ननु
निजामयोध्यामपि पावनीमयं
भवन्मयो 29 ध्यायति नावनीपतिः ॥ (नैषधे १२ - ५ )
33
इति श्रीहर्षप्रयोगः कथम् । अन भवत्या विकार इति विग्रहे मयद् प्रत्यये
( मयट् वा एतयोरित्यादिसूत्रेण --४-१-१४३) कथं 130 पुंवद्भावः । तस्य ठक्-
छसोश्चेति वात्तिकरीत्या भावत्काः भवदीयाः इत्यत्रैव संभवात् ।
131,
अन्यत्न
128. MSS. read : kani here. This should be due to mistake of some
scribe or other. Later the word kani in this context occurs in the text. But
in vaivähika the suffix should be thañ. So I surmised thañi. Mallinātha in
his commentary on the Kumāra-VII.2, explaining vaivāhika says: vivāhah
prayojanam eşām iti vaivāhikāni. Prayojanam ( 5.1.109) iti thañ. On prayojana of
the rule 5.1.109, Bhattoji says : prayojanam = phalam, kāraņam ca.
129. See also Naişadha III.113 (bhavadviyoga), IV.121 (bhavadvidhā) VIII.73
(bhavadakşivāsī). See also the Kādambari :
atimahat khalu bhavaddarśanat prabhṛti me kut ühalam asmin
(p. 291 ; N.S.P. 1948).
130. There seems to have been some difficulty in having a correct interpret-
ation of the rule regarding the pumvadbhāva (i.e. retaining the masculine stem,
though the person referred to may be a female in a given context, as is clear
from the vigrahaväkya). Some earlier writers quoted the following rule:
sarvanämnaḥ samāse purvam pumvat,
and noted it to be a värttika. But there is no vārttika like this traceable. It was
to the credit of Bhattoji, it seems, who pointed out the inexistence of such a
värttika, and made clear that it was an Işți of Patañjali in the form of sarvanamno
vrttimätre pumvadbhavaḥ.
See his S.K. under Thakchasoś ca (on 6.3.35, – Tasilādişu etc.) and the
P.M. in this context. The Işti: sarvanāmno vṛttimätre pumvadbhavaḥ is found
in the Mahābhāsya under 2.2.26, and under 5.3.28. See also Note 132.
131. The pūrvapakşa raised here is owing to the ignorance of the Isti, and
consequently is based on the view that pumvadbhāva is not possible in all the
cases, but possible only in bhavatka and bhavadiya (the cases of thak and chas
suffixes). See the Venīsamhāra V.9 (bhavatisutakşayakarah), and the Sākuntala :
after V.24 (atrabhavatipratyayāt). See also Jagaddhara on Venisamhāra V.9.