Kāvyaprakāśa, ullāsa 7 vā / Kāvyapradīpa va Udyota yā dona saṃskr̥ta ṭīkā va Rā. Rā. Dinakara Tryaṃbaka Cāṃdorakara...iṃgrejī noṭas saha Rāvajī Śrīdhara Goṃdhaḷekara.

  • Mammaṭācārya.
Date:
1895
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Kāvyaprakāśa, ullāsa 7 vā / Kāvyapradīpa va Udyota yā dona saṃskr̥ta ṭīkā va Rā. Rā. Dinakara Tryaṃbaka Cāṃdorakara...iṃgrejī noṭas saha Rāvajī Śrīdhara Goṃdhaḷekara. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    301/382 (page 97)
    Here, in the present case, the clepaiting of the moon ’ and the following him of the night ’ have respectively the characters of something that is mentioned*, and some¬ thing that is rementioned’ or referentially mentioned. ’ Re¬ petition, inasmuch as it serves the purpose of denoting- identity of subjects, is thus here an excellence, and not a fault. Vamana too has used the word generally* and not universally ( i. e. in all cases except where the word is referentially mentioned ). In (such) a case (as the present one), 'where something is mentioned and the same thing is referred to, unless the same word is used (as in c&c.), or unless a pronoun (standing for it) is used, ( as in &c. ), there arises the fault ( of Violation of Uniformity’); for, we cannot, otherwise, appre¬ hend the identity of subjects, which is the point here intended. is no fault in such examples as tffacn' &c. Vritti:—Here, if the same meaning of red’ were to be expressed by another word, i. e. r^r, then, this distinct word, seeming as if it conveyed a distinct sense, would obstruct our apprehension (of Uniformity’, which is intended in the verse ). Here, it is only the pronoun that is capable of referring to the sun; not § Jrrrsr, as said by Sanketa; for ?nT^r brings out the idea of resemblance only, not of identity; even has not that capability; for brings out the idea of identity of ‘attributes’ and not of ‘subjects’. (2) of Affix is instanced in &c. Here, instead of using the Desiderative affix ( with § Wt TTZ q I—San. 13