skip to content

Sanskrit Manuscripts : Māghakāvyadurghaṭa

Rājakuṇḍa, Rājakuṇḍa

Sanskrit Manuscripts

<p style='text-align: justify;'>This paper manuscript contains the <i>Māghakāvyadurghaṭa</i> by Rājakuṇḍa (written Rājakruṃḍa in the manuscript), a commentary on the <i>Śiśupālavadha</i> of Māgha. The text consists of grammatical glosses of a few selected passages from each <i>sarga</i> of Māgha's 20-<i>sarga</i> poem. It seems to take its inspiration, both in terms of style and content, from the <i>Durghaṭavṛtti</i> of Śaraṇadeva, a grammatical text that glosses certain words and passages from Sanskrit literature that are difficult (<i>durghaṭa</i>) to explain in terms of Pāṇinian grammar. For example, compare this passage from the <i>Durghaṭavṛtti</i>: "kathaṃ sphuṭopamaṃ bhūtisitena śambhuneti māghaḥ | ....tṛtīyāyā atulopamābhyām iti niṣedhāt | ucyate | sahavivakṣāyāṃ tṛtīyā | ....śambhuneti atra tu tulyārthasyāprādhānyāc ca na pratiṣedhaḥ |" (Renou 1940: 85) with the same gloss in the manuscript: "sphuṭopamaṃ bhūtisitena śambhuneti kathaṃ | yā° | tulyārthair atulopamābhyām ity atrātu atulopamābhyām iti niṣedhāt | nu° | sahayoge <i class='error' style='font-style:normal;' title='This text in error in source'>prannatyāditvā</i><i class='delim' style='font-style:normal; color:red'>(!)</i> tṛtīyā |" (<a href='' onclick='store.loadPage(1);return false;'>folio 1 verso, line 3</a>). The focus of this passage is the Pāṇinian rule 2.3.72, "tulyārthair atulopamābhyām tṛtīyānyatarasyām", which states that a word in the third (instrumental) case can be used in conjunction with a word meaning <i>tulya</i>, 'equal', but not with its synonyms <i>tulā</i> or <i>upamā</i>. In the quote "sphuṭopamaṃ bhūtisitena śambunā", from the first <i>sarga</i> of the <i>Śiśupālavadha</i>, the instrumental "śambhunā" is used in conjunction with "upamā", which seems to be prohibited by the rule. The explanation given here is that the instrumental case is not used to give the sense of 'equal to', but rather to give the sense of 'with' ("saha"). As one can see in the manuscript excerpt, the abbreviation "yā°" serves to introduce the Pāṇinian rule that seems to be contradicted by the quoted example, and then "nu°" introduces a counter-explanation of why the example is, in fact, correct Sanskrit. Following this interpretation, the abbreviations could stand for <i>yathā</i> and <i>nanu</i> respectively. The use of <i>nanu</i> to introduce an objection is found in the <i>Durghaṭavṛtti</i>, although "ucyate" is the most common formula, as seen above. Rājakuṇḍa is also the author of the <i>Kirātārjunīyakāvyadurghaṭa</i>, an unpublished commentary on the <i>Kirātārjunīya</i> of Bhāravi. This manuscript contains the commentary on the first 17 <i>sarga</i>s of the poem, and seems to be the only attested witness of the <i>Māghakāvyadurghaṭa</i>, which remains unpublished. </p>

Want to know more?

Under the 'More' menu you can find , and information about sharing this image.

No Contents List Available
No Metadata Available


If you want to share this page with others you can send them a link to this individual page:
Alternatively please share this page on social media

You can also embed the viewer into your own website or blog using the code below: