Brhaddess is the work by Matanga; scholars have misunderstood its treatment of samvāda intervals
"article by P.L.S. on Matanga's Brhaddess ). Actually sapta is
related to 'svarāḥ'"
<sup>137</sup>
PĂŢHA VIMARŚA
पञ्चमस्य च श्रृङ्गारो बीभत्सो धैवतस्य च ।
करुणा च निषादस्य सप्तस्थानरसा नव ॥
(Sam Mak II.1.47, <sup>48</sup>)
It is notable that Santa rasa has been included here and bhayanaka has
been omitted; thus the number of rasas enumerated is only eight and not nine,
as stated in the last foot.
46. MS B reading as recorded by the ed.
Section V ( Grāma-mūrchanā )
ग्रामो नाम विशिष्टश्रुतिकस्वरसमूहो मूर्छनात्मा
<sup>1</sup>. cf.
पूर्णापूर्णस्वभावस्वरगतग्रहाशादिविशेषसमूहरूपजातिसमूहश्च ।
(Abhi Bhā on NŚ XXVIII, p. 42)
<sup>2</sup>. C.r. in S R I Sudhā, p. <sup>102</sup>.
3. C.r. in S R I Sudhā, p. 101 has been accepted because 'vyavasthitaḥ' is an
adjectival form which is not matched by a noun that could be qualified by it, but
'vyavasthitih' is an abstract noun that fits the sentence.
4,5. C.r. in S R I Sudhā, p. 103.
6. This verse is not found in the text of Nā Ši.
<sup>7</sup>. C.r. in S R I Sudhä, p. <sup>101</sup>.
8. P.t., modified according to C.r. in ibid.
9. C.r. in S R I Kalā, p. 99 in the name of Muni (Bharata), but this line is
not found in the text of NS. In P.t. this line has not been treated as a citation,
but as a part of the text, because quotation marks are not given.
10. This line forms part of the text of NS (XVIII, 5 ab). Hence it is treated
by us as a citation.
11. P.t. includes ' sadbhih' after 'suddhābhih', but that has no relevance to the
context and has, therefore, been omitted by us.
12. C.r. in S R I Sudhā, p. 105 adds the following half-verse, paraphrasing
the prose-portion regarding the etymology of mūrchanā -
मूर्खनामब्दनिष्यतिर्मुखं मोहे समुच्छये ।
13, 14. C.r. in S R I Sudhā, p. 114.
15. P.t. adds 'tiryak' after 'svarāḥ', but that is redundant.
16. P.t. adds 'ürdhvā' after 'mā'.
<sup>17</sup>. P.t. मध्यमे तिर्यगूर्ध्वगा अपि स्वरा ।
18. Hariņāśvā is the name found in NŚ, S R etc. 'Hariņāhvayā' is the form of
'hariṇāhvā' in the instrumental case; but this case is not relevant to the context.
The P.t. is utterly confused, mutilated and in disorder after this line upto the
end of Anu. 41; it has been reconstructed according to the context, mainly by
re-arranging the order.