Sarvadarshanasangraha 13.5

13.5

satyam/ teṣāṃ svaracintāyām upayogo vākyapadīye hariṇā prādarśi/ tad āha mahopādhyāyavardhamānaḥ:

Here, however, arises a discussion [as to the true application of the alleged rule of Pāṇini], for we hold that, by ii. 3, 66, wherever an object and an agent are both expressed in one and the same sentence in connection with a word ending with a kṛt affix, there the object alone can be put in the genitive and not the agent;[3] this limitation arising from our taking ubhayaprāpti in the sūtra as a bahuvrīhi compound.[4] Thus we must say, "Wonderful is the milking of cows by an unpractised cowherd." We may, however, remark in passing that some authors do maintain that the agent may in such cases be put in the genitive (as well as the object); hence we find it stated in the Kāśikā Commentary: "Some authors maintain that there should be an option in such cases without any distinction, and thus they would equally allow such a construction as 'the exposition of words of the teacher' or 'by the teacher.'" Inasmuch, however, as the words of the phrase in question really mean that the "exposition" intended relates to words and not to things, and since this can be at once understood without any mention of the agent, i.e., the teacher, any such mention would be plainly superfluous; and therefore as the object and the agent are not both expressed in one and the same sentence, this is not an instance of the genitive of the object (coming under ii. 3, 66, and ii. 2, 14), but rather an instance of quite another rule, viz., ii. 3, 65, which directs that an agent or an object, in connection with a word ending with a kṛt affix, is to be put in the genitive [which in this instance is expressed by the tatpuruṣa compound]; and the compound in question will be strictly analogous to such recognised forms as idhma-pravraścana, palāśa-śātana, &c.[5] Or we might argue that the genitive case implied in this shaṣṭhītatpuruṣa is one of the class called "residual," in accordance with Pāṇini's rule (ii. 3, 50), "Let the genitive be used in the residuum," [i.e., in the other constructions not provided for by special rules];[6] and in this way we might defend the phrase against the opponent's attack. "But," it might be replied, "your alleged 'residual genitive' could be assumed everywhere, and we should thus find all the prohibitions of composition in constructions with a genitive case rendered utterly nugatory." This we readily grant, and hence Bhartṛhari in his Vākyapadīya has shown that these rules are mainly useful where the question relates to the accent.[7] To this effect are the words of the great doctor Vardhamāna—