Praudhamanorama p159

p159

Objection: In this way, its inclusion in the *sarvādi* list is futile, because operations of pronouns such as [the substitutes] *smāi* etc. do not occur in the dual. Nor is it appropriate [to argue] that the purpose is the optional instrumental prescribed by *sarvanāmnastṛtīyā ca* (Pā. 2.3.27) in *ubhābhyāṃ hetubhyām* or *ubhayorhetvoḥ*, because that is already accomplished by the vārttika, "In [words meaning] reason, cause, and motive, the occurrence of all [cases] is generally seen" (*nimittakāraṇahetuṣu sarvāsāṃ prāyadarśanam*). Nor should it be said that because this vārttika was read by the author of the *Vṛtti* under the rule *sarvanāmnastṛtīyā ca*, it depends on the technical name "pronoun" (*sarvanāman*); for in the Mahābhāṣya it is read under the rule *hetau* (Pā. 2.3.23). For this very reason Haradatta has exemplified: *annena kāraṇena vasati*, *annasya kāraṇasya*. Having anticipated this objection, he states: "Its inclusion here, however..." (*tasyeha pāṭhastviti*).
[On the words] "owing to the unwanted application of *ayac*" (*ayacprasaṅgāt*): this is the intended idea: Under the rule *ubhādudātto nityam* (Pā. 5.2.44), the rule is split (*yogavibhāga*) as *ubhādudāttaḥ*. After the word *ubha*, which denotes a numeral and refers to parts, *ayac* would occur in the sense of the whole; [e.g.] *ubhayoḥ maṇiḥ*. Then [follows the rule] *nityam*; after the word *ubha*, *ayac* would obligatorily occur in the scope of a complex formation (*vṛtti*) in its own sense. Thus, just as *ayac* is obligatory in forms like *ubhayapakṣavinītanidrā*, so too it would occur before the affix *ka*. Objection: Even when *akac* has been applied, *ayac* would be unavoidable! If this is argued, [we say:] it is not so. Because the splitting of the rule is for the sake of achieving what is desired, and by the indication in the formulation *ubhau sābhyāsasya* (Pā. 8.4.21), the interpretation is that this [*ayac*] occurs only where a dual ending is not heard. And likewise the vārttika [states]: "Non-occurrence of another because its scope is the dual and *ṭāp*" (*anyābhāvo dvivacanaṭābviṣayatvāt*). For when *akac* is present, by the maxim "that which has fallen inside it is included in the mention of that" (*tanmadhyapatitaḥ tadgrahaṇena gṛhyate*), the word *ubhaka* does not lose its condition of being in the scope of the dual; but when the suffix *ka* is present, it is certainly lost.
[On the words] "that has been stated" (*taduktam*): "by the Vārttikakāra" is supplied.
Even though *ṭāp* also was mentioned in the prior vārttika, still it was not intended to be affirmed [as independent of the dual], because Kaiyaṭa and others have explained that the scope of *ṭāp* as well should be understood only when followed by a dual ending. With this intention he explains: "in the absence of following dual endings" (*dvivacanaparatvābhāve*). The idea is that because even the single substitute resulting from *ṭāp* is treated as the prior end, the condition of being followed by a dual ending is present.