Sambodhi 1984 Vol 13 and 14

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

Page 50

Bhatti as quoted in the Durghajavịtti
remarks that Jayamangala jastifies the fom on the basis of the fHIE 99499fag (93.3).
It is strange that not only we do not find the remarks cited by Saraṇadeva, but on the other hand we find the reading 341*18yxa amat: in the commentary.
Anyhow, the reading 341*1gfagrau: must be the original 'one; because Maitreya has quoted that in his Dhatupradipa (p. 83) in support of the above paribhāṣā.
The following paribhāsas have been utilised by Saranadeva to justify some difficult usages of Bhatti. Bhatti has used the instrumental case affixes for th: in the following verses : fecaissfadiana na taifa.1429 (4.11) and afana: 18:..creat griga 11 (7.64.65) These usages seem to go against a ज्ञाप: inferred fom the sārtra 'पुरणगुण सुहितार्थ...समानाधिकरणन (2.2.11). This sūtra enjoins that a word ending with a sixth case is not compounded with great i.e. accu'# words. Form this, we inter a 31194, that the acqui words should goverrn the sixth case affix.
In justification of the instrumental case, Saranadeva cites the paribhāsa: 319#fè a 497 (116) 1. It means that what is established by a Jñāpaka is not universally true. Therefore the above N should not be attached much importance. As an alternative explanation, Saraṇadeva adds that
37431 laagrut for arata uitatea gaiar Such case-endings can edpend upon the will of the narrator. Hence, the instrumental case affixes are possible in करणविवक्षा.
Saragadeva has justified the form any: (14.74), employed by Bhatti with the help of the paribhāşā : arga talata4: (93.1) 1. It means that a rule is not universally valid, when that which is taught in it is denoted by संज्ञा.
By arrafastar faila (6.1.15) we get the forin alqoyi, in the following way : Before weak terminations, s'gao takes place before reduplication. Thus व्ये is changed to वि, we get विवि (द्वित्व) and विवि + उस् = fa 5 JT (471 41 6.4.81) = faby..
But the problem is of deriving the unusual form afany: used by Bhatti. Saranadeva argues that in the sūtra, aleaft etc. a'genot is enjoined by सज्ञा, i. e. यजादि. Therefore it is not always valid. When the स'प्रसारण