5
from the concluding ones of Bhāminivilāsa as well. The poet
who is eareful enough to add more than half a dozen stanzas
of personal eulogistic references at the end of the S'antavilāsa,
and who avers that he has culled these verses of his together
to keep them safe from literary pirates may certainly be expec-
ted not to open his q merely with a verse of such dubious
relevance. The eharacteristice opening of Jagannātha is vigo-
rous and rather ample-both of which qualities are certainly
absent in the present case.
It seems, therefore, that Jagannātha has here infringed the
established tradition which otherwise he follows. Probably,
this breach of tradition is to be attributed to the fact that the
Bhāminīvilāsa is not an integral composition. As Jagannātha
admits in the last stanza of the Santapilāsa, the Bhāmini-
vilāsa is an anthology of the verses which the poet had compo-
sed and which he wanted to preserve from plagiarists. On
account of this promiscuous nature of its contents, Jagan-
nātha does not seem to have thought it his worth while to
endow the Bhāminīvilāsa with his characteristic opening
verses.
Oommentatorial ingenuity, however, has been too wide-
awake to allow the charge of a breach of tradition to rest on
Jagannātha's head.
commentator अच्युतराय that the verse दिगन्ते श्रृयन्ते etc. is itself a
मङ्गल of bhe बस्तुनिर्देशाल्मक pe, and, as auch, it yields no less
than three different interpretations !
मृगपति stands for (i) the नृरसिंह incarnation of विष्णु: ox (i)
Tga a a ha o protected the Brahmins seeking () truth; or
(iii) FEOT who is the husband ( ya ) of Gopis and acts like
a deer (TaA:) for he roams about in the forest All these,
Oonaequently, we
are
told by the
Aecording to him
३ Read: मङ्गलपक्षे तु वस्तुनिर्देशलक्षणमङ्गलपरतया श्ेषेणार्थत्रयं ज्ञेयम् ।
तद्यथा-मृगपतिः । अत्र अजहस्त्रार्थलक्षणया नृमृगपतिर्नरसिंहो प्राह्यः | तथा
चेदं प्रह्लादस्य हिरण्यकशिपुवधोत्तरं ब्रह्मादीन्प्रति भगवत्प्रभाववर्णनक्चनम् । हे ब्रह्मा-