Praudhamanorama 12_242

12_242

"arvaṇastṛ" (Pāṇini 6.4.127): When vic is added to the root ṛ and guṇa applies, the form is ar; from that, when matup is added, forms like arvantau will be established. When vanip is added by "chandasīvanipau", the form is arvā in the Veda. In standard classical speech, however, it will be established by adding vanip directly to the root ṛ. And this is a word conventionalized in meaning (rūḍhi), from the Amarakoṣa: 'vājī, vāhā, arvā, gandharvaḥ, hayaḥ, saindhavaḥ, saptiḥ'. Therefore, the meaning too does not differ. Even so, since the usage of the n-final and t-final forms would be obtained everywhere, this rule is made for the sake of restriction, like the group of three rules beginning with "tṛjvatkroṣṭuḥ". As for what was said by Haradatta—'Both words arvan and maghavan are simply incorrect in standard classical speech, on account of the Bhāṣya "arvaṇastṛ maghonaśca..."'—that is only prima facie, since it was already stated earlier that the Bhāṣya has a restricted scope. And accordingly, Śrīharṣa used it: 'vāhairalupyata sahasradṛgarvagarvaḥ'.
Now, an objection is raised: on the view that 'qualities are non-distinctive', even though it is pronounced non-nasalized in the rule, it would be nasalized on account of closer proximity; anticipating this, he says: "ā āt". As for what some say: 'Here there is no nasalized [vowel], because, as it is not an aṇ, there is no comprehension of homogeneous sounds (savarṇa). Nor should it be said that "taparastatkālasya" is for the sake of laying down an operation for a non-aṇ; for there is the prohibition "that which is being taught as an operation does not comprehend its homogeneous sounds". Even if qualities are non-distinctive, there is no overextension because a single pure individual is enunciated in the rule'—
on this, the following must be said: to the objection that [taparakaraṇa] is for the sake of laying down an operation for a non-aṇ, the answer 'that which is being taught as an operation...' is inconsistent, because that [prohibition] has the vowels of the aṇ pratyāhāra as its scope.
As they say: 'an [element] of the aṇ pratyāhāra that is enjoined [does not designate its homogeneous sounds],' and so on; otherwise, the prohibition would undesirably apply even in [rules] such as "coḥ kuḥ". If it be argued: in that rule, due to the efficacy of making it end in an indicatory u (udit), there is no prohibition; then what is the use of this crane-catching effort? And because the Bhāṣyakāra did not continue the mention of apratyaya in the rule "taparastatkālasya". Moreover, the statement "because a pure single individual is mentioned" is incongruous, for if [attributes] do not differentiate, the flaw cannot be avoided. For by the statement "a single individual is grasped," the implied sense is that another individual is not designated. And that is consistent only if attributes do differentiate, not otherwise; so let this matter rest. By this, the text of the Prasāda is also refuted which states: "Because of the prohibition 'an enjoined aṇ does not designate homogeneous sounds,' the long ā is not nasalized," because since the long vowel is not included in the aṇ pratyāhāra, its premise is flawed.