Praudhamanorama 71
English (machine translation) 71
- Language
- English
71.1
[On P. 8.2.23] "elision of [the final of] what ends in a conjunct consonant": [On the phrase] 'of that which ends in it': the meaning is: by the metarule regarding the final sound. Although the rule concerning ending in that is obtained through qualification, so it would have been proper to formulate the rule merely as "of a conjunct consonant," nevertheless, on the view that the technical name 'conjunct consonant' applies to each individually, the inclusion of 'end' is for the sake of obtaining a compound ending in a dual, namely 'that whose ends are two conjunct consonants', in order to ward off elision in *dṛṣat karoti* and so forth. For in a compound-formation, the singular number of secondary members is default, while the dual and so forth are obtained through special effort: this is established in the Mahābhāṣya. The [prohibition of] a *yaṇ* is an explicit statement. Or, the statement is to be interpreted. And the interpretation is twofold: either the mention of *jhal* is drawn back from "a *jhal* before a *jhal*" (P. 8.2.26), so that elision is prescribed only for a *jhal*; or the external *yaṇ* is suspended when internal elision is to be performed. Nor should it be said that the metarule of suspension belonging to the sixth book does not see internal elision, which is suspended because it resides in the final three chapters; for the view that metarules apply at the time of operation has been accepted. Nor does the prohibition "there is no assumption of externality when vowels are immediately adjacent" [apply], because it is non-obligatory, and also because there is no immediate adjacency of vowels in an elision that takes effect at a later time. And likewise the vārttika: "prohibition of *yaṇ* in elision of that which ends in a conjunct consonant"; "or not, because elision is of *jhal*"; "or because of being an external characteristic." Here, on the view that rules apply at their place of enunciation, the first two vārttikas [belong], while the third belongs to the view that rules apply at the time of operation: such is the distinction. As for what some say: 'the explicit statement belongs to the Vārttikakāra, while the two modes of rejection belong to the Bhāṣyakāra'—that is groundless, since there is no authority for a difference of views. As for what they also say: 'one who recounts a poem (*kāvya*), a wife (*kalatra*), or the Śālva country is *kāv*, *kalat*, *śāl*; from *adabhrayati* [comes] *aghab*'—that too is incorrect, because elision of that which ends in a conjunct consonant is difficult to obtain on all three views. For the sake of uniformity in the first view, it is easy to state that elision of *a* and elision of *ṇi* are suspended, on the principle that each preceding one is internal and each subsequent one is external. Precisely for this reason, in the Kātantrapariśiṣṭa, *śukl* is cited as an example upon [adding] *kvip* to *śuklayati*, because when *kvip* is added to forms ending in *v*, [the augment] *ūṭh* cannot be avoided.
71.2
Nor is there treatment as the original element, because it is prohibited with respect to an operation in [the presence of] *kvu*; and also because of the unwanted occurrence of elision by "elision of *v* and *y*..." (P. 6.1.66) when *vic* follows. But upon [adding] *kvip* to *giriveśmayati*, on the view that introduces an explicit statement for the sake of prohibiting *yaṇ*, *giriveḍ* is proper; on the view of rejection, however, it ends only in *m*: this is the direction. [On the phrase] 'on this view': the meaning is: because both views are established in the Mahābhāṣya. [On the phrase] 'four forms': as for what they say: 'when both the letter *dh* and the letter *y* undergo reduplication, when both undergo reduplication again, upon optional elision, and when either one undergoes reduplication, there are nine forms. To explain: one *dh* is threefold: with one *y*, with two *y*s, and with three *y*s. Likewise, two *dh*s and three *dh*s are each threefold. Nor is the external *yaṇ* suspended when internal reduplication occurs, because under the rule on the visarga it has been determined by the Bhāṣyakāra and Kaiyaṭa that the metarule of externality does not apply to an internal operation belonging to the final three chapters.' On this, the following must be said: reduplication a second time is incorrect, because it is established as the final conclusion in the Mahābhāṣya under the rule "one in place of both the prior and the posterior" (P. 6.1.84) that a single operational rule applies only once to a single individual instance; otherwise, an infinite number of reduplications would absurdly result. Nor is [this] resolved by elision by "a *jhar* before a *jhar*" (P. 8.4.65) and "of *yam*s after a consonant..." (P. 8.4.64), because elision is optional. Otherwise, how could your statement 'three *dh*s and three *y*s' be coherent? Furthermore, if that were so, "two in place of the whole" (P. 8.1.1) would apply again and again. Precisely for this reason, the mention of *abhyāsa* in the rule "in [the presence of] *liṭ*, of a verbal root" (P. 6.1.8) was rejected in the Mahābhāṣya; but Kaiyaṭa and others have said that it is for the sake of the non-occurrence of reduplication in *caṅ* after *ṇic* added to a form ending in *san* or *yaṅ*. Therefore, here either abandon the forms beginning with the fifth or accept an infinite number of forms; thus the assertion of nine forms is completely untenable. But that there are eight with the reduplication of *s*, and sixteen with the reduplication of the visarga, is a different matter.
71.3
As for what was also said—that [the metarule does not apply] in an internal operation belonging to the Tripādī, and so forth—that too is incorrect; for the unreality of vṛddhi in order to prevent a visarga in *nārkuṭa* and *nārpatyaḥ* is clear in that very Bhāṣya; because [the vārttika] "Prohibition of yaṇ when saṃyogānta-elision applies" is rejected [there] on the grounds that [the yaṇ] is external; and because he himself repeated it in that very manner. Therefore, here the yathoddeśa position must be accepted, so that the bahiraṅga-metarule does not apply. And accordingly, in the Bhāṣya, under the doubling of a yaṇ following a may, *dadhyatra* is cited as the example. And it should not be said that even so, another form may occur according to the Śākala rule *iko 'savarṇe…* (Pāṇ. 6.1.127); for that is prohibited in a compound. Nor should it be said that that prohibition applies only in an obligatory compound; because the mention of *nityam* is rejected in the Bhāṣya, since authority among the sages belongs to each subsequent one. If it is objected: "Here indeed yaṇ itself is impossible to obtain; because the word *sudhī* is formed by samprasāraṇa from [the root] *dhyai*, there would be the undesirable consequence of single prior replacement by *samprasāraṇāc ca* (Pāṇ. 6.1.108)"—if so, no; on account of the statement in the vārttika, "When single prior replacement conditioned by samprasāraṇa applies, there is mention of having the same stem," and because what takes the place of samprasāraṇa is not of that nature. Nor, even so, should the prohibition of yaṇ by *na bhūsudhiyoḥ* (Pāṇ. 6.1.85) be suspected; because, as a stem operation, it applies only when an affix follows, and because, by the maxim of the proximate [rule], it is a prohibition only of that which is obtained by the two rules *eranekāco…* (Pāṇ. 6.4.82) and *os supi* (Pāṇ. 6.4.83). In *dhātraṃśaḥ*: here there is no doubling of the r. Because the status of cause that is directly taught by *rahābhyām* in the section on doubling debars the status of undergoer of the r. In *sudhyupāsyaḥ* and the like, however, the causal status of the ik due to being the original element is not debarred, on the authority of the explicit phrasing *tasmād ity uttarasya* (Pāṇ. 1.1.67) and so forth—so says Kaiyaṭa. But for the t, it definitely occurs, as stated; and that is optional; therefore, here there are two forms. In *lākṛtiḥ*, however, there is only one.