Sambodhi 1984 Vol 13 and 14

Author(s): Dalsukh Malvania, Ramesh S Betai, Yajneshwar S Shastri
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 44

Bhalli as quoted in the. Durghaļavytti
39 The first problem raised in the Durghatavștti with regard to this form is as to why the vocative (i.c., the nominative case) is used here, when the accusative case was required here according to the Värtika, afira: afia:
fagigigagang (on 2.3.2).
To justify it, Saranadeva argues : 1&271781ara q6799712 fedfiat ! aragazafata: #
1 6 04at. It means that here el denotes sorrow and invocation of some relatives. Thus vocative is due, which will take nominative by 877 (2.3.47). This nominative case, being a #17 #funffa is stronger than the accusative case; which is 39afaufta. Thus the use of the nominative in the above case by Bhattikavya is justified. The following remarks of Kaiyata, the anthor of Ag14169999, also favour Bhalti : m'aideala faralgara Bargafugata wafai
While commenting on 35: Bezlafagflaai aaa (5.2.112) Saranadeva notes that there is छन्दाभङ्ग in the verse of Bhatti : परिषदलान् महावीः ... नैकटिकाऽऽश्रमान् (4.12). He justifies it by arguing that this is वृत्तभेद, not 32143 (aa1 1 e arrsfea) 1 In support of this, he cites the paralled instance 'प्रधाने कर्मण्यभिहिते लादीना हुर्द्विकर्मणामिति । This is the Anustup stanza qnoted from Mahabhāşya on 1.4.51. Bliāgavșttikära also believes that this cannot be called छन्देभिङ्ग.
Vardhamana, the author of Gaņaratnamahodadhi, draws our attention to the fact (145) that actually in Mahābhāşya we find the regular Anuştup stanza 1.091 ...etc. It is worth noting that Mallinatha and Bharatamallika give, the flawless reading 17.
Several usages of Bhatti have been justified by Saraṇadeva, by referring to the viewpoints of Maitreyarakṣita. 1. The compounds fuga and in employed by Bhatti in 16.24 and 17.23, respectively are not correct, because they are prohibited by the sūtra grungearkas975THATTUR (2.2.11). .
To justify these compounds, Saraṇadeva quotes the opinion of Maitreya, that in the sutra, kştavyaya not being mentioned, the prolribition does not apply to it. Thus the compounds employed by Bhatti should not be deemed as incorrect.
Sāraṇadeva justifies the parasmaipadi usage afishafa in Amfira Q8641ftataie miaft (6.138) in another way, i.e., by citing the view oí Maitreya: He argues that here the question of setting aside the rule