The only (or at least the best..) way to make sense of the śloka is by accepting Abhinava’s intepretation. 

Bhāskarakaṇṭha in his Vyākhyā on IPV has nothing to object. Interestingly, he comments on “śāstre” by śivapraṇītādau, which amounts to saying that this exception may apply not only to Śaiva scriptures (-ādau). The hypothesis that this “anomaly” may be part of the so-called Āṛṣa Sanskrit is to be excluded as Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta’s Sanskrit is always flawless.

 Anyhow, a certain margin for assuming a “traditional” practice might be found in the sequel of Abhinava’s discourse. He says that also the more even interpretation (no compound between II and III pādas) could in principle be taken into account, but : evaṃ tu na kvacit paṭhitam (Bh.’s comment: śiṣyapraśiṣyaparamparayā etan naiva śrutam ity arthaḥ). 

In sum, apart from the case at issue, is there any shared agreement in Indian literature about a possible acceptance of this irregularity?

Raffaele

Il giorno 4 nov 2024, alle ore 15:25, Madhav Deshpande <mmdesh@umich.edu> ha scritto:

This is very unusual. Normally, compounds can continue between the first and the second pādas, and the third and the fourth pādas; but not between the second and the third pādas. I don't know of any example similar to Abhinavagupta's interpretation. Leave aside his interpretation for a moment. Is there a good way to understand the verse without assuming such an irregular compounding between the second and the third pādas?

Madhav

Madhav M. Deshpande
Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies
Adjunct Professor, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore, India

[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]


On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 6:05 AM Raffaele Torella via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,

while commenting on IPK I.5.12 Abhinava’s Vimarśinī says:

ātmāta eva caitanyaṃ citkriyācitikartṛtā /
tātparyeṇoditas tena jaḍāt sa hi vilakṣaṇaḥ // Ipk_1,5.12 //
[…] citkriyācitikartṛtātātparyeṇa iti samāsaḥ / ardhayuk pādaviśrāntiḥ iti hi kāvye samayaḥ, na śāstre.

So the first word in the third pāda is to be considered in compound with the last word of the second. According to the rule ardhayuk pādaviśrāntiḥ (by the way, coming from where?) this should be inadmissible, but – Abhinava says – this holds only for kāvya, not for śāstra. My question is: are you aware of a set of exceptional rules only valid for the śāstric metrical texts?

Many thanks!
Raffaele


Prof. Raffaele Torella
Emeritus Professor of Sanskrit
Sapienza University of Rome
www.academia.edu/raffaeletorella


_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology