Indian Antiquary Vol 42

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 272

260
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[OCTOBER, 1913.
with a ver should not be formed. Thus the view of Bhåmaha's Nyasakâra is that caterte with a word may take place. This is distinctly against Pâņini and is therefore very strongly condemned by Bhamaha. तृचा समस्तषष्ठीकं न्यासकारमतेन न कथंचिदाहरेत् means distinctly that according to the view of the Nyasakara षष्ठीसमास with a सूजन्स may be allowed. तृचा षष्ठीसमासो भवतीति न्यासकारमतं तन्मतेन तृषा समस्तषष्ठीकं न कर्यचिदाहरेत् यतोऽपाणिनीयमेतत्
This is the purport of Bhâmaha's words. Bhâmaha had great reverence for Pâņini; for at the end of the sixth parichchheda he says, ' TIG H q
' Now let us see whether Jinendrabuddhi is the Nya sakara alluded to by Bhamaba. That the two Nyasakâras, the one alluded to by Bhâmaha, and the commentator on the Kdekdvritti, are far from being one and the same person must have now been clear on the following ground :
The Nyåsakâra, Jinendrabuddbi, is not in favour of a tears with a word; but justifies a compound of the genitive with a word ending in by taking the word ending in a to be T and not . Thus Bhamaha's Nyâsakâra can never be Jinendrabuddhi.
____Moreover, वृत्रहन्ता यथोदितः means that the compound वृत्रहन्ता is उदित-actually mentioned by Nyasakâra. It cannot mean : so that it can be included in the class o r owing to the use of the word of as Prof. Pathak seems to think. Bhâmaha's Nyasakâra must be one who has actually used the compound ERIT. It is thus as clear as anything that the Nyåsakara of Bhâmaha is not Jinendrabuddbi on the two following grounds :
(1) Bhâmaha's Nyabakåra is distinctly in favour of the compound of the genitive with a word ending in y; while Jinendrabuddbi is not in favour of such a compound and justifies a compound of the genitive with a word ending in a by taking the word ending in to be a word ending in तृन् and not तुच् to avoid the violation of the Sutra 'सृजकाभ्यां कर्तरि'.
(2) Bhậmaha's Nyasakâra has mentioned the compound quear on the strength of सूत्रज्ञापक and this compounded word must be understood to be तथा समस्तषष्ठीक; that is, वृत्रहन्ता is a compound of the genitive with a n and not word. Jinendrabuddhi does not mention the compound EFEIT at all; and the compound that he mentions according to Prof. Pathak's extract is ther. He uses wife and thus re may be proved to be correct (hy) according to him. But it is not afa or actually mentioned by him ; nor is it according .to Jinendrabaddhi a compound of the genitive with a T a s Bhâmaha's Nyâsakara evidently sanctions.
Prof. Pathak says, "I shall give below Bhâmaha's verses, together with the passage containing the Nyasakâra's Jadpaka, as the extract supplied to Mr. Trivedi from Mysore is most corrapt." Now Bhâmaha's verses given by Prof. Pathak are the same as in my edition of the Pratáparudriya and there is no difference in reading whatsoever; and the extract supplied to me does not differ from Prof. Pâțhak's extract except in one place, where the reading in my passage is more to the point than the one in Prof. Pathak's extract. My extract is as under :
अथ किमर्थं सानुबन्धस्योच्चारणं तृजिति | सुनो निवृत्त्यर्थम् | नेतदस्ति । तद्योगे न लोकाव्ययनिष्ठेत्यादिना षष्ठीप्रतिषेधात् । एवं तहि तदेव ज्ञापकं भविष्यति सयोगे कचित् षष्ठी भवतीति । तेन भीष्मः कुमाराणां भयशोकस्य हन्ता इत्येवमादि सिद्धं भवति ।
On comparing this extract supplied to me for my edition of the Pratáparudriya with Prof. Pâtbak's extract as given above, it will be seen that there is no material difference in them except at the end in the instance given. Now Tuiz is more to the point than uuta ; for Jinendrabuddhi has given this instance to justify the use of the genitive with
तृनन्त word and to show that the prohibition 'न लोकाष्यय-is भनिस्व. The justification of a compound is not in dispute and therefore the reading given in Prof. Pâțbak's extract is not quite in point ; though it appears to be the correct reading as a line of a verse from the Mahabharata.