Sambodhi 1984 Vol 13 and 14

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

Page 60

Bhatti as quoted in the Durghagavptti
55
affixing a targala termination do not follow the gender and number of their original bases. Jayamangala also justifies the masculine gender in the same way.
In justifying the following usage of Bhatti Saraṇadeya tries in vain to reconcile grammar with worldly usage. According to the implication of the sūtra, fagytasgaia (2.3.19), Lakşmaņa, though elder will be considered grammatically stara in the following verse of Bhatti : प्रासोष्ट शत्रुघ्न मुदारचेष्टमेका सुमित्रा सह लक्ष्मणेन (1.14) ।
___Saranadeva justifies it by quoting the principle that 'यस्य क्रियाभिसंबन्धः . शब्देन प्रतिपाद्यते तस्य प्राधान्यं तत्रोक्तम् ।' In his support, he cites the opinion of Jayamangala,... 272. Ffafes 2741 89961|T HET 9791797 Pa anyar 1 These remarks also are not found in the Jayamangala cominentary. Mallinātha however takes a practical stand. He remarks that this subordination of Laksmana is only verbal, the usage only emphasizes the fact that 489 of two brothers was 4510 and that in order to avoid 1, Bhatti had to use Z&Hoa #k. The remarks of Bharatamallika are noteworthy in this context. He explains that fortfanua ugre तृतीया इत्याहस्तन्मतेऽणि लक्ष्मणस्य ज्येष्ठत्वम् because the process of delivery was not complete with the birth of Laksmana, as Satrujña was yet to be born. Therefore Satrujña is mentioned in the accusative case (FEATTE91c9fara कर्मस्वम). He also adds that the प्राधान्य of शत्रुग्न does not in anyway come in the way of Lakşmaņa's prominence.
Saranadeva has noted that Bhattis 3799769997 (3. B) is not correct. According to कषादिषु यथाविध्यनुप्रयोगः (3.4.46), अपुषत् should be employed after 1997. Saranadeva justifiies by remarking that the word 211 here denotes proximity (araficz) as in 347478441 (2.1.15). In another place (6.26) Bhatri has given the usage स्वपोषमपुषत् also.
From the alone discussion, we know it for certain that Bhatti was famous among the grammarians and many of the prominent grammarians took special interest in justifying the forms used by Bhatti. It also becomes obvious that Sarandeva is the most prominent among these grammarians. Saranadeva's Durghaļavștti can be relied upon as
an important commentary on the Astādhyayı, only next to Kasika. There-fore the value of his justification is enhanced for the textual reconstru
ction of the grammatical forms in Bhattikavya.