Book Title: Sambodhi 1984 Vol 13 and 14
Author(s): Dalsukh Malvania, Ramesh S Betai, Yajneshwar S Shastri
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
View full book text
________________
54
Nilanjana S. Shah
word by quoting the following paribhāṣā : gawa anwa gera qualqqan (128). It is found in Stradeva's Paribnāsävyttis.
By the sutra कर्मण्यण् (3.2) we derive अरीन्हन्ति इति अरिघातः | Inthe process, first the root is joined with e19a (1T) and then we add the gait to get the word hélia
As another alternative, he derives it from 94 + gila, the causal form of T. We would like to add that one Atreya quoted in the Madhaviya. Dhatuvetti, derives the word wa in the same way 'gara247 ofa चुरादिपाठाद् णावेव संघात शब्दमाह ।
The word niza in the verse 'faatat -7 15314: egizg a (7.90) i derived according to the to the sutra, 1967 14141491 (4.1.55) would not have given the sense of son Kausalya as required by Bhatti. According to the sutra, the word grafa is formed by adding first in the sense of 27775 to a (cf #1-9Agatari 9844 zat). Before affixing the termination St, ha is changed to €9. Therefore, if we derive the word thus, it would mean 27984 of , which is not the meaning required here, as Maitreya has remarked, न ह्यती कोसलस्थापत्यमिति fa: For this very reason, Jayamangala has been severely criticised by Mallinātha, because he has derived the word, acc. to this sūtra.
In order to arrive at the intended meaning, Saranadeya derives the word from 1977 af, formed by 1999 : (4.1.65). Then by *180* (4.1.20) 3 is applied. Now the sūtra afaaz (1.2.49) would function and 64744 would go away. Thus wc atrive at the form 192912 (Son of Kausalya i.c. Rama).
While commenting on a 91919 (5.3.47), Sarañadeva first remarks: कथं रक्षः पाशानिति भट्टिः, क्रियागुणयोनिन्दायोगात् ।
In this case, the game is not very clear. Perhaps he wants to imply that the पाशप् प्रत्यय, being a स्वार्थवाचक प्रत्यय here denotes actions and qualities of the demons as censurable. But as they are already sfina, what is the significance of TT 9799 here? This is the objection and Saranadeva justifies it by remarking that अत्रापि राक्षसक्रिया निन्द्यते ।
Saranadeva has not noted it, but the mascnlive form 149TTTT is held questionable by Mallinātha. The gender of the word 796 is ncuter. Therefore the word 79691T must be in the neuter gender. But Mallinatha himself justifies the forms by quoting a paribhash. स्वाथिकाः प्रकृतितो fararaaaa asfa (83) It means that sometimes words formed by
