________________
234
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[OCTOBEE, 1912.
-
tried to verify the reference in question, and I am indebted to the learned Sastri A. Anantacharya for an extract, which shows that there is no reference to far in it." It is obvious that Mr. Trivedi understands Bhamaha to say that the Nyasakara jastifies the compouud वृत्रहन्ता. That this is not the correct interpretation of Bhâmaha's words, I shall try to show. I shall give below Bhamaha's verses, together with the passage containing the Nydsakára's jnd paka, as the extract supplied to Mr. Trivedi from Mysore is most corrupt.
शिष्टप्रयोगमात्रेण बासकारमतेन वा। तृचा समस्तषष्ठीकंन कथंचिदाहरेत् ।। सूत्रज्ञापकमात्रेण वृत्रहन्ता यथोदितः। भकेन च न कुर्वीत वृत्ति तहमको यथा ॥
___Bhamaha VI, 36 and 37. The Nydsakdra-mata, or the doctrine propounded by the Nydrakdra, by deducing & anar from Påņizi's sutra [11, 2, 15], alluded to by Bhamaha, is as follows:
अथ किमर्थं तृचः सानुबन्धस्योचारणम् । तृनो निवृस्वर्थम् । नेतास्ति । तद्योगे न लोकाव्ययेत्यादिना षष्ठीप्रतिषेधात् । एवं तहतदेव ज्ञापकं भवति तयोगेपि कचितू षष्ठी भवतीति । तेन भीष्मः कुरूणां भयशोकहन्तेस्येवमादि सिद्धं भवति ।
Kasikd-vivarana-panjikd or Nydsa. The substance of this passage is thus given by Saranadeva, who wrote in Saka 1095:
कथं भीष्मः कुरूणां भयशोकहते (न्ते )ति । उच्यते । तृनन्तमेतत् । न च न लोकाम्बयनिष्ठेति (2.3.69) षष्ठीनिषेधः। यतस्तृजकाभ्यामि (2.2.15) त्यत्र तृचः सानुबन्धकस्योपादानं तृनो निवृस्यर्थ ज्ञापयति तृनो योगे चित् षष्ठीति न्यास:
Durghatavritti, p. 37. For a detailed explanation of the Nydsakdra's passage, I refer the reader to my papers on Bhậmaha's attacks on Jinendrabuddhi. It will be sofficient for my present purpose to point out that in the verses cited above Bhamaha condemns all genitive compounds like वृत्रहन्ता and तद्रमक as ungrammatical, and says that such compounds should never be employed by young authors aspiring to literary eminence. When he contrasta the शिष्टप्रयोगमात्र with the न्यासकारमत, he does not mean to say that this particalar compound EiT is used by the fore or justified by the Nydsakára. Bhâmaha mentions this word Far as an illustration of the class of genitive compounds justified by the Nylsakara. This is amply proved by the expression rate in the sentence भीष्मः कुरूणां भयशोकन्तेत्येवमादि, and by the ज्ञापक discriminating between तृच् and तृन्, which applies to all genitive compounds like वृवहन्ता . This interpretation of Bhamaha's words which perfectly harmonizes with the sense intended by the Nydsakdra himself, is upheld by sach a competent authority as Bhattoji Dikshita in an interesting passage in the Praudhamanoramd. In his siddhanta-kaumudi, under Panini II, 2, 15, we read कथं सहिघटानां निर्मातु: त्रिभुवन विधातुश्च कलह" इति । शेषषष्ठ्या समास इति कैवटः: On this Bhattoji Dikshita remarks:
शेषषष्ठया इति | केचिनु जनिकर्तुः प्रकृतिस्तत्प्रयोजको हेतुश्चेति निर्देशावनित्योयं निषेध इत्याहुः । न्यासकार स्स्वाह। तृनन्तमेतत् । न लोकेति षष्ठीनिषेधस्त्वनित्यः। पकाभ्यामति वक्तव्ये तृचः सानुबन्धकस्य महणाज्ञापकादिति।
Praudhamanoramd, Benares Ed., Part I, p. 310. Bhattoji's grandson Hari Dikshita explains the words तृणन्तमतेत् as त्रिभुवनविधातुरित्येतत्। सानुबन्धकस्य । त्तस्य हि तृनेव व्याववं इति भावः।
• Jour. Bomd. ds. Soc., Vol. XXIII, p.-182.
