Praudhamanorama 81.4

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.