Sambodhi 1998 Vol 22

Author(s): Jitendra B Shah, N M Kansara
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 50

THE MANGALA VERSE OF THE NYAYASIDHĀNTAMUKTĀVALI OF
VISVANATHA : MAHADEVA BHATTA VERSUS RĀMARUDRA BHATTĀCĀRYA
Swera Prajapati
In the field of Sanskrit Šāstras the most remarkable point is that all Šāstras are interdisciplinary in their nature and scope They form an unitive whole even though there are intra-differences among themselves Each Śāstra is enriched by the principles of the other Here in this paper I have taken up an example to show how Alamkāraśāstra develops a concept of its poetic blemish on the strength of the principle of Nyāyaśāstra and later on how an expert of Nyāyaśāstra makes use of that principle while analysing a piece of poetry in a Nyāya work The Mangala verse of the Nyāyasıdhāntamuktāvalil of Viswanātha Nyāyapancānana reads.
चूडामणीकृतविधुर्वलयीकृतवासुकिः ।
भवो भवतु भव्याय लीलाताण्डवपण्डितः ॥१॥ (He by whom the moon is made to be crest-jewel, he by whom Väsuki is made to be grant armlet, may that Bhava, who is an expert in the art of sportive dance Tāndava, be the cause of your well being ) This verse, according to Rāmarudra, is faulty for having a poetic blemish called Samāptapunarätta In this verse 'Bhava' is a vibesya (substantive) pada and the last clause, lilātāndavapandita is an adjective added after the completion of the sentence a Mahādeva Bhatta, the author of the commentary Dinakarī does not agree with Rāmarudra on this point The clause, lilātāndavapandita, according to him, is itself a Višesya, it is not an adjective as said by Rāmarudra So there is no fault Explaining further the nature of the poetic defect, Samāptapunarātta, he argues that "Only in case of a sentence which is completed and the substantive again is added with some adjective then the above defect arises m Thus this argument, says Rāmarudra, is not convincing Mahadeva himself is
* Research officer, Oriental Institute, MS University Baroda - 390 002