Praudhamanorama 81
English (machine translation) 81
- Language
- English
81.1
On this [sūtra], Kaiyaṭa [holds]: [The condition 'eci' ('before a vowel of the ec pratyāhāra')] is a qualifier of edhati as well, because there is deviation [from beginning with ec] in: 'mā bhavān predidhat' ('May you not cause to grow'). Although this [passage] is generally not found in the manuscripts of Kaiyaṭa, nevertheless it is indeed found in some. And it should not be said that when the shortening has been performed by 'ṇau caṅi…' (Pā. Sū. 7.4.11), this is no longer edhati; for what is altered in one part is not another [entity]. Nor should it be said that even so, when the substitute dhidhi has taken the place of the sound dhi by 'ajāderdvitīyasya' (Pā. Sū. 6.1.2), there is confusion regarding the division of base and affix, as in the case of vas and nas; for it has been established as the conclusion in the Mahābhāṣya on the sixth chapter that the reduplication taught in the sixth chapter is a double utterance. Otherwise, even here, there would be no elision of ṇi. [Nor] should it be said that in jighāṃsati and the like, when reduplication has been made of what is qualified by the s of san, the short vowel certainly does not occur; for by making oṇi have ṛ as an indicatory letter, it has been indicated that the shortening by 'ṇau caṅi…' (Pā. Sū. 7.4.1) takes effect first, even though it is external. On this, Mādhava [says]: In 'mā bhavān predidhat', there is no overextension, because what ends in ṇic is a different word, and hence is not grasped by the mention of edhati. For precisely this reason, indeed, on 'na bhābhūpūkamigami…' (Pā. Sū. 8.4.34), it has been stated: 'And the addition of roots beginning with bhā that end in ṇi [is necessary].' Exactly there, it has been stated by all—Kaiyaṭa, the author of the Nyāsa, Haradatta, and others—that the addition is made because [they] would not be obtained since they are different words. Moreover, if what has an added ṇic were also grasped, then on 'upasargātsunoti…' (Pā. Sū. 6.1.91), having cited abhiṣāvayati as an example, raising the doubt: 'How is there change to ṣ, since abhi is connected with what ends in ṇi and therefore is not a prefix with respect to sunoti?', the solution stated by the Bhāṣyakāra and others—that abhi qualifies the meaning of the base—would become incongruous. Nor should one fall into the error that 'in the mention of a base, that which has an added ṇic is also grasped' from the clue 'heracaṅi' (Pā. Sū. 7.3.56); for the clue has only the change to ku as its scope. And likewise says the vārttika: 'The prohibition of hi in caṅ is purposeless on account of the difference in the base; but it is an indicator of the absence of change to ku even in what ends in ṇi, other than in caṅ.'
81.2
Therefore, because of conflict with reasoning, conflict with the texts such as the Mahābhāṣya, the vārttika, the gloss, and the Nyāsa, and conflict with his own earlier and later texts, this Kaiyaṭa is to be ignored. On this, the following is to be stated: Granted that the composite is a different word, even so, let it be considered by what the nature of being the root idh has departed from the base-portion! For it is not the case that because the whole ending in tiṅ does not have the nature of being idh in upaidhata and the like, it is lost in the root-portion. And likewise the vārttika on the rule 'upasargātsunoti…': 'It is established, however, because the parts are different.'
81.3
As for raising a contradiction with the Mahābhāṣya regarding 'abhiṣāvayati', that is quite the contrary; because the root does not lose the form of sunoti, the aforesaid settlement is established on Kaiyaṭa's view. But on your view, since that which has an added ṇic is not grasped because of having a different form, the previously mentioned settlement would be completely inappropriate. For what distinction is there between edhayati and sāvayati—that for edhati, that which has an added ṇic is not grasped, but for sunoti, it is grasped? As for the fact that the addition of roots beginning with bhā ending in ṇi was adduced, that too is not contrary to our [view], because the composite is a different word, and the root-portion is intervened by ṇic, so that the addition is necessary. For this very reason, there is no contradiction with the Nyāsa and others on that [rule], or with his own statements. On the contrary, there is a contradiction only for you, because in the sixth chapter, the Mahābhāṣya and vārttika split the rule 'etyedhatyoḥ…' (Pā. Sū. 6.1.89) and qualify it by 'eci'. Therefore, intending that the text of the gloss and the text of Mādhava here are completely incongruous, he explains: 'ejādyoḥ' ('beginning with an ec vowel')… 'akṣauhiṇī'. That which has ūhas ('divisions/arrangements') is an ūhinī; 'an ūhinī of akṣas ('chariots/armies')' is the analytical paraphrase. An army distinguished by a particular measure is an akṣauhiṇī. The change of n to ṇ is by 'pūrvapadātsaṃjñāyām' (Pā. Sū. 8.4.3). As for what was paraphrased by an older grammarian—'the ūha, i.e., group, of akṣas, that is possessed by it'—that too must somehow be taken in the sense of a genitive tatpuruṣa with the word uhinī; for if the compound were with the word ūha, and then the affix ini [were added], vṛddhi would not occur, because it would be barred by the internal guṇa, since even vṛddhi, being an exception, would have found its application in the analytical paraphrase with the word ūhinī. As has been stated previously: 'Guṇa [takes effect] after a from iṇ, ṅi, and śī, because of savarṇadīrgha.' 'svādīreriṇoḥ'… 'irerinyoḥ' is a corrupt reading found in some places, because in the non-feminine of that which ends in ṇin, svairin, there would be the contingency of the absence of vṛddhi. In svairiṇī, however, vṛddhi should be understood as taking the portion prior to ṅīp. As for what some have explained—by the metarule regarding that which is distinguished by gender [suffixes]—that is futile.
81.4
'prādūhoḍhoḍhyeṣaiṣyeṣu'… On this [vārttika], older grammarians say: The word ūha has been interpolated by some, but is not seen in the Mahābhāṣya and other texts. However, in modern manuscripts, the word ūha is indeed found in the Mahābhāṣya and vārttika. 'nānarthakasya' ('Not of a meaningless [element]'). The idea is: since the meaning that is present can serve as a qualifier of the word, it is not proper to abandon it. Sīradeva, however, says: In the rule 'vraśca…' (Pā. Sū. 8.2.36), the separate mention of bhrāj alongside rāj is an indicator here. If it be asked: 'Is this not improper, because, owing to companionship with rāj which belongs to the class beginning with phaṇ, the mention of bhrāj is exhausted in serving the purpose of change to ṣ for one of that kind alone?'—[the answer is:] for two forms are to be established, vibhrāṭ and vibhrāg; and that can be established even by reading 'rājṛ' in the rule vraśca and the like, because the single ṛ-kāra of the root bhrāj can be given beforehand as 'ṛbhrāja', and because the option taught by 'bhrājabhāsa…' (Pā. Sū. 7.4.3) is stated by explicit teaching, and the ṛ-kāra will be stated as having only the result of ātmanepada, so that an a-kāra can easily be read in its place. Therefore, the indicator stated by Sīradeva is also completely valid. 'praiṣyaḥ'. On account of companionship with eṣa, eṣya too is taken as a non-indeclinable. Therefore, when lyap replaces ktvā from the causal root iṣ, there is only pararūpa, not vṛddhi: preṣya gataḥ ('having sent, he went'). 'pravatsatara…' On this, those who follow the Kālapā school read also the word vatsara and give the example: 'a debt to be paid in a year: vatsarārṇam'. Others read the word vatsa as well. All of that is contrary to the Mahābhāṣya and other source texts.