________________ 158 (44) Aasangati (p. 285,1. 17): Not quite traceable. Bhoja includes it under Virodha'. (45) Samadhi (p. 285, 1. 17): Bhoja gives a figure of sense (arthalankara) named Samahita', which is Samadhi of Mammata 3. Bhoja gives another figure called Samadhi or Samadhyukti which is an Ubhayalankarat, but is quite different from Mammata's Samadhi. Kalpalata probably followed Hemacandra and accepted neither of these. The distinction between Samadhyukti 6 and Samasokti? is pointed out. (p. 285, 1. 24) The verses under discussion is the ill. of Melita * which is not distinct from Samadhi or Samadhyukti, 1. S. K, II. 24. 2. Bhamaha (B. K. L. III. 10.) and Dandi (K. D. II. 298.) also call it Samahita. Udbhata's Samahita is different from the figure of that name given by Bhamaha and others. Udbhata's Samahita is very near the Vyajaokti of Mammata (K. P, X 118 cd ) and Samadhi vakyarthaguna of Bhoja (S. K I, 84 6), and is based on भावशान्ति (f माणिक्य's संकेत-p. 39) 3. K. P. (p. 554) The ill. given by Mammata is borrowed from Dandi. 4. S. K. IV. 44, (cf Dandi's definition of Samadhi guna-K. D. I. 93.) 5. Hemacandra does not accept Mammata's Samadhi as an independent figure, but includes it in Sammuccaya [vide his Viveka (p. 393)]. 6. This figure is acccpt by Bhoja (S. K. IV. 41-45). It is the same as Dandi's Samadhi guna, which latter is not accepted by Mammata and Hemacandra, (cf. Bhoja's Samadhi Sabdaguna (S. K. I. 72 cd, where Bhoja follows Dandi.) The original borrows wholesale from Bhoja's Vrtti on S. K. IV. v. 103: कः पुनः सम सोक्तेः समाध्युक्तेर्वा विशेषः। उच्यते। यत्र प्राकरणिकेऽप्राकरणिको धर्मोऽध्यास्यते सा समाध्युतिः यथा-'असहन्तिव्व किलिम्मइ पिअअमपच्छक्ख दूसणं दिणलच्छी।' इति / यत्र पुनरप्रा करणिके प्राकरणिकधर्मः सा समासोक्तिः / यथा- पिबन्मधु यथ। कामं भ्रमरः फुल्लाङ्कजे / ' इति / ननु धर्मिणोऽध्यासे समानमिति चेत् / न।...एकत्र मनसाऽन्यत्र तु वचसेति सोऽयं समाध्युक्तेः समासोक्तेश्च भेदो भवति / (P. 465). 8. कण्ठच्छेदो व्व देहो व्व पडइ दिअहो लोहिओ होइ रई / etc | S. K. IV. (v. 91). The original borrows from Bhoja's Vrtti: अत्र देहादयो यथोक्तक्रियावन्तो जन्तुवधक्रियायां निबद्धा दिवसादिभिरुपमेया etc f-(P.456). This not the Militam of Rudrata and Mammata as is supposed by the editors of the S. K. (Nirnaya Sagar 2nd. Ed.) आधारपुस्तकद्वये टीकापुस्तके च मेलितमिति पाठः समुपलभ्यते। परं काव्यप्रकाशादिषु तथा सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरणात्प्राचीने स्टविरचिते काव्यालंकारेऽपि 'मीलितम्' इत्येव वरीवर्तीति तदनुरोधादत्रापि मीलित', 'मिलित' वा युक्तंप्रतिभाति / (p. 455-fn-1). This is not correct for the following reasons: (i) Srngara-Prakasa also reads मेलितम् (vide Sr. Pr.-p. 417.) (ii) Melita of Bhoja, the same as his Samadhi, is quite different from Milita of Rudrata and Mammata. (iii) Bhoja too has, both in S. K. and Sr. Pr., an arthalamkara named Milita which partly agrees with Rudrata's and Mammata's figure of that name [vide S. K. III, 41 and Sr. Pr. (pp. 319 and 401)] (iv) Melita is an ubhayalamkara whereas Milita is an arthala mkara, aecording to Bhoja, (v) Even Ratnesvara reads - Melita'.
