iv
"नट नृत्तौ .... .... 'यत्कारिषु नटव्यपदेशः । न तु मार्गदेशीशब्दाभ्यां
प्रसिद्धं नृत्तं नृत्यं च, यत्कारिषु नर्तकव्यपदेशः । तत्र
वाक्यार्थाभिनयो नाट्यं, पदार्थाभिनयस्तु नृत्यम् । अभिनयशून्यः
पुनः शास्त्रोक्तभङ्ग्या स्वगात्रविक्षेपो नृत्तमिति तद्विदः ।नैघण्टुकानां
तु 'ताण्डवं नटनं नाट्यं लास्यं नृत्यं च नर्तनम्' इत्यभेदव्यवहारो
निरूढलक्षणया नेयः' "
Disagreement from Purushakara is also found in Sayana's work; viz., his remark
"एवञ्च पुरुषकारादिषु अतिट्टिषत इति तकारस्य
शेषेणोदाहरणप्रदर्शनं चिन्त्यम्"
about the form अतिट्टिषते, which is according to one view [१]admitted in Purushakara as a form from the root अट्ट. But as such differences of opinion among authors are only common, and as the few contradictions raised can be met, Purushakara deserves to be regarded by grammarians as an authority faultless in every way.
In that portion of Sayana's Pratyayantadhatuvritti (प्रत्ययान्तधातुवृत्ति) where he deals with the form (बहून् बहुं वाचष्टे) भाव. वति is found the following statement:--
"यदुक्तं पुरुषकारे बहयतीत्युदाहृत्य--'इष्ठनि यत्फिषः कार्ये,
तण्णावप्यतिदिश्यते । न चेष्ठनि यिट् फिषो भूभावश्च, भुवो
यिट्सन्नियोगशिष्टत्वात् ।
तेन न्यासे तु भावयतीति चिन्त्या प्राप्तिः इति".
But the quotation is not found in Purushakara; and it is not probable that it existed in the missing leaf mentioned [२] later on, as the context does not require reference to Subdhatu (सुब्धातु) at that place, and as no instances are seen where the commentator has introduced other topics than those immediately relevent to the subject dealt with in Daiva. It would appear therefore that there is another work of the same name,
