2023-04-26 11:12:20 by ramamurthys
This page has been fully proofread once and needs a second look.
इति प्रयोगः । अत्र विवाहशब्दात् [^128]ठञि 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:णः (७-४-१३) इतिसूत्रेण ईकारस्य ह्रस्वे टाबन्तं रूपं ( पुत्रिका
कुमारिका इतिवत् वैवाहिका इति) कथंचित् साधनीयमित्येके ।
ननु
निजामयोध्यामपि पावनीमयं
भवन्मयो[^129] ध्यायति नावनीपतिः ॥ (नैषधे १२-५)
इति श्रीहर्षप्रयोगः कथम् । अत्र भवत्या विकार इति विग्रहे मयट् प्रत्यये
(मयट् वा एतयोरित्यादिसूत्रेण--४-१-१४३) कथं [^130]पुंवद्भावः । तस्य ठक्-
छसोश्चेति वार्त्तिकरीत्या 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 vaivāhika the suffix should be ṭhañ. So I surmised ṭhañi. Mallinātha in
his commentary on the Kumāra-VII.2, explaining vaivāhika says: vivāhaḥ
prayojanam eṣām iti vaivāhikāni. Prayojanam ( 5.1.109) iti ṭhañ. On prayojana of
the rule 5.1.109, Bhaṭṭoji says : prayojanam = phalam, kāraṇam ca.
[^129]. See also Naiṣadha III.113 (bhavadviyoga), IV.121 (bhavadvidhā) VIII.73
(bhavadakṣivāsī). See also the Kādambarī :
atimahat khalu bhavaddarśanāt prabhṛti me kutūhalam 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 puṃvadbhāva (i.e. retaining the masculine stem,
though the person referred to may be a female in a given context, as is clear
from the vigrahavākya). Some earlier writers quoted the following rule:
sarvanāmnaḥ samāse pūrvaṃ puṃvat,
and noted it to be a vārttika. But there is no vārttika like this traceable. It was
to the credit of Bhaṭṭoji, it seems, who pointed out the inexistence of such a
vārttika, and made clear that it was an Iṣṭi of Patañjali in the form of sarvanāmno
vṛttimātre puṃvadbhāvaḥ.
See his S.K. under Ṭhakchasoś ca (on 6.3.35, – Tasilādiṣu etc.) and the
P.M. in this context. The Iṣṭi : sarvanāmno vṛttimātre puṃvadbhāvaḥ is found
in the Mahābhāṣya under 2.2.26, and under 5.3.28. See also Note 132.
[^131]. The pūrvapakṣa raised here is owing to the ignorance of the Iṣṭi, and
consequently is based on the view that puṃvadbhāva is not possible in all the
cases, but possible only in bhāvatka and bhavadīya (the cases of ṭhak and chas
suffixes). See the Veṇīsaṃhāra V.9 (bhavatīsutakṣayakaraḥ), and the Sākuntala :
after V.24 (atrabhavatīpratyayāt). See also Jagaddhara on Veṇīsaṃhāra V.9.
(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) केऽ
कुमारिका इतिवत् वैवाहिका इति) कथंचित् साधनीयमित्येके ।
ननु
निजामयोध्यामपि पावनीमयं
भवन्मयो[^129] ध्यायति नावनीपतिः ॥ (नैषधे १२-५)
इति श्रीहर्षप्रयोगः कथम् । अत्र भवत्या विकार इति विग्रहे मयट् प्रत्यये
(मयट् वा एतयोरित्यादिसूत्रेण--४-१-१४३) कथं [^130]पुंवद्भावः । तस्य ठक्-
छसोश्चेति वार्त्तिकरीत्या 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 vaivāhika the suffix should be ṭhañ. So I surmised ṭhañi. Mallinātha in
his commentary on the Kumāra-VII.2, explaining vaivāhika says: vivāhaḥ
prayojanam eṣām iti vaivāhikāni. Prayojanam ( 5.1.109) iti ṭhañ. On prayojana of
the rule 5.1.109, Bhaṭṭoji says : prayojanam = phalam, kāraṇam ca.
[^129]. See also Naiṣadha III.113 (bhavadviyoga), IV.121 (bhavadvidhā) VIII.73
(bhavadakṣivāsī). See also the Kādambarī :
atimahat khalu bhavaddarśanāt prabhṛti me kutūhalam 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 puṃvadbhāva (i.e. retaining the masculine stem,
though the person referred to may be a female in a given context, as is clear
from the vigrahavākya). Some earlier writers quoted the following rule:
sarvanāmnaḥ samāse pūrvaṃ puṃvat,
and noted it to be a vārttika. But there is no vārttika like this traceable. It was
to the credit of Bhaṭṭoji, it seems, who pointed out the inexistence of such a
vārttika, and made clear that it was an Iṣṭi of Patañjali in the form of sarvanāmno
vṛttimātre puṃvadbhāvaḥ.
See his S.K. under Ṭhakchasoś ca (on 6.3.35, – Tasilādiṣu etc.) and the
P.M. in this context. The Iṣṭi : sarvanāmno vṛttimātre puṃvadbhāvaḥ is found
in the Mahābhāṣya under 2.2.26, and under 5.3.28. See also Note 132.
[^131]. The pūrvapakṣa raised here is owing to the ignorance of the Iṣṭi, and
consequently is based on the view that puṃvadbhāva is not possible in all the
cases, but possible only in bhāvatka and bhavadīya (the cases of ṭhak and chas
suffixes). See the Veṇīsaṃhāra V.9 (bhavatīsutakṣayakaraḥ), and the Sākuntala :
after V.24 (atrabhavatīpratyayāt). See also Jagaddhara on Veṇīsaṃhāra V.9.