काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

CHAPTER VII 223 यथा वा “चापाचार्यस्त्रिपुरविजयी कार्तिकेयो विजेयः शस्त्रव्यस्तः सदनमुदधिर्भूरियं हन्तकारः । अस्त्येवैतत् किमु कृतवता रेणुकाकण्ठबाधां बद्धस्पर्द्धस्तव परशुना लज्जते चन्द्रहासः” ॥२३०॥ इत्यादौ भार्गवस्य निन्दायां तात्पर्यम् । कृतवतेति परशौ सा प्रतीयते । ‘कृतवतः’ इति तु पाठे मतयोगो भवति । are meant to be ‘listened’ to are (1) the thing that attains, and (2) the thing attained; and in any enumeration of these, both of them should be spoken of by means of nouns with the nominative ending].—Nor is it possible for the ‘Bow’ and other things to be regarded either as included in the denotation of the pronoun ‘yat’ (in the first line, which is the objective of the verb to listen), or as a qualification of that denotation. Nor lastly is there any such question as—‘what was attained by what?’— ‘kena kena kim kim’—(which would have established the intended connection between the two sets of sentences). Another example of the same defect— ‘Chāpāchāryastripuravijayī kārtikeyo vijeyaḥ Shastravyastaḥ sadanamudadhirbhūriyaṁ hantakāraḥ Astyevaitat kimu kṛtavatā reṇukā-kaṇṭhabādhāṁ Baddhaspardhastava parashunā lajjate chandrahāsaḥ’ (For translation see above, stanza No. 201) What is intended here is the deprecation of Parashu- rāma himself (for having killed his mother); while the term ‘kṛtavatā’ qualifying the axe, makes the said de- precation appliable to this latter. The reading ‘kṛtavataḥ’ (which would qualify ‘tava’) would afford the intended connection.