________________
APRIL 1910.]
The first of these three must have been invented by the author. But, though meaningless, the explanation assigned to it by him is practically the same as that of the other two.
273.
॥
{ 808. स्वजातिर्दुरतिक्रमा ।।
328.
24. The भ्रमन्याय does duty for the three. 325.
389. वैशेष्यासु तादः ॥
"
The former of these is Brahmasutra 2, 4, 23, in explaining which Saikaracharya says, "विशेषस्य भावी वैष्यं भूयस्त्वमिति यावत्- '
(842. प्रचालनाद्धि पंकस्य, &० ॥ पंकमालन म्यायः ॥
348
{
365. बहूनामनुग्रहो न्याय्यः ॥ 567. बहूनामनुरोधी न्याय्यः ॥
414 & 415. घटीयन्त्रन्यायः ॥ 726. घटीयन्वस्थिनघटभ्रमणम्यायः ॥ 727. आरघट्टघटी भ्रान्तिन्यायः ॥
BOOK NOTICE.
*418. तत्स्थानापत्रस्तत्कार्यं लभते || 615. अतिदेशम्यायः ॥
The three are explained in the same way. The last, taken from Mahābhārya, 1, 1, 56 (viirt. 1) has two mistakes!
426. न चान्यार्थ प्रकृतमन्यार्थं भवति ॥
445. अभ्यन्तरे हि समुदायेऽवयवः ॥
458. मनिप्रदीपप्रभान्यायः ॥ 981. संवादिभ्रमन्यायः ॥
For the connection between these two, see Part ii of my Laukikanyāyāñjali (second edition) nnder मणिप्रभामणिमतिन्याय.
5474. कान्तारोतरणाय सार्थः ॥
514. गोश्रृंगग्राहिकान्यायः ॥ 1748. श्रृंगमाहिकान्यायः ॥
{813. यत्मायः भूयत इतिवन्याचा गवगम्यते ।।
These are regarded by the author as too clear to need elucidation; but I doubt if even Sarasvati herself could get much meaning out of them.
893 यौ यस्य प्रसंगे लभतेऽसौ तत्कृतानि कार्यानि || |The nyáya of which they are a perversion is
quoted correctly by Raghunāthavarma (on p. 60 of the Benares edition of his smaller work) and agrees with the first line of the following verse in Bhāmati, 1, 1, 4 :- “ यन्माये श्रूयते यच तताद्गव गम्पते ॥ . भाकपाये भुतमिदमतो भाकं प्रतीयते " || In the preface to the first edition of my Second Handful of Popular Maxime, I gave a short description of Raghunatha's two treatises, and stated that "the general plan in both is, first a disquisition on the tenets of some school of philosophy, in which a great many maxims are incorporated, and then a recapitulation of the latter alone, numbered consecutively." When thus repeated it is often in a shortened form. It was so in this case, the nylya being quoted on page 100 as “ यन्माये श्रूयत इति. " It is not unreasonable to suppose that this, though marred by the Pandit, was the source of his 812. That he has been a borrower on a large scale is undeniable. In itself that is no orime, for all of us make use of good material when we come upon it; but to do so without acknowledgment, is, in my opinion, at any rate, most reprehensible. And this is what Pandit Thakur Datta has done. All but 38 of the 404 nyayas contained in the Laukikanyaya sangraha are reproduced in his pages, in much
The latter is invariably the form in which the nyaya is quoted.
1808. सूचमुपायः ॥ {603. was vertat, &c. 1
The author quotes the following verse under 658, and tells us that it was addressed by the monkey to the caṭaka in the well-known story in Paññcatantra :-“ सूचीमुखि दुराचारे रण्डे पण्डितमानिनि । असमर्थो गृहारंभ समर्थो गृहभंजने " || This is by no means borne out by the Bombay edition, where verse i. 392 stands thus:- सूचीमुखि दुराचारे रे हे पण्डितादिनि । नाशंकसे प्रजस्यन्ती तरिकमेनां व हम्म्यहम् ॥
46
{
711. अनन्यलभ्यः शाखार्थः ॥ 712. अनम्यलभ्यः शब्दार्थः ॥
127
1777 भूतं भग्याय कल्पते ।। 1804 भूतं भग्याय दिनश्यते !
We get no explanation of the former, but are told that the latter is taken from the Mimāysanyāyāprakāta. It is found on page 16 of Prof. Ganginath Jha's edition, but the verb is neither कल्पते nor दिदृश्यते, but उपदिश्यते. So, too, on pp. 577 and 427 of Tattoadpana (Benares Sanskrit Series). What explanation can be. given of दिदृश्यते? It beats me altogether.
