Praudhamanorama 71.2

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.