Navaratrapradipa 1_74

1_74

evaṃ ca ye hi mādhavācāryanandapaṇḍitaraghunāthabhaṭṭādayaḥ amāviddhapratipadaṃ mukhyatayā grāhyāṃ manyante devīnavarātre, tathaiva tatra pradhānabhūte devīpūjane pradoṣakālasyaiva mukhyakarmakālatvaṃ manyante navarātravratasya ca naktavratatvaṃ sādhayanti tanmate, ye ca śaṅkarabhaṭṭakamalākarabhaṭṭanīlakaṇṭhabhaṭṭabhānubhaṭṭādayaḥ dvitīyāviddhāṃ pratipadaṃ mukhyatayā grāhyāṃ manyante pradhānabhūte devīpūjane ca pūrvāhṇasyaiva mukhyakarmakālatvaṃ manyante navarātravratasya ca naktavratatvaṃ na manyante tanmate ca kiyadantaramiti paṇḍitā eva vicārayantu . nanu śaṅkarabhaṭṭakamalākarabhaṭṭasadṛśānāṃ viduṣāṃ kathamatraitādṛśa āgraha iti cet na kiñcidetat . yato hi--

And so, let scholars themselves consider how great a difference there is between the view of those such as Mādhavācārya, Nandapaṇḍita, and Raghunāthabhaṭṭa—who consider the pratipad conjoined with amā as that which ought to be accepted as primary in the Navarātra of the Goddess, and likewise consider only the time of dusk as the primary time for action in the principal worship of the Goddess, and establish that the Navarātra observance is a night-observance—and the view of those such as Śaṅkarabhaṭṭa, Kamalākarabhaṭṭa, Nīlakaṇṭhabhaṭṭa, and Bhānubhaṭṭa—who consider the pratipad conjoined with dvitīyā as that which ought to be accepted as primary, and consider only the forenoon as the primary time for action in the principal worship of the Goddess, and do not consider the Navarātra observance to be a night-observance. If it is objected, "How could scholars like Śaṅkarabhaṭṭa and Kamalākarabhaṭṭa have such an insistence here?", this is nothing to wonder at, because—