Praudhamanorama p165

p165

On "svābhidheya-": the meaning is that there is a fixed limit of demarcation that is required by what is expressed by oneself—that is, by the word 'pūrva' and so forth. Even in examples such as "become the co-wife of the southern direction," the relative demarcation certainly exists; but because it is well known, the word expressing the point of reference is not used. Nor can it be said that there is a prohibition due to being a technical name; for a technical name is indeed a conventional designation of recent origin, and such does not exist for directions—thus Kaiyaṭa, Haradatta, and others in the section on 'astāti'. Here, the statement of the commentators alone is the authority for the fact that for directions the convention is ancient, whereas for the Kurus it is modern. By this, "viśveṣāṃ devānām" is explained, because it is well known in the Veda. The idea is that here, although a connection with a point of reference such as "skilled [in relation to] so-and-so" is possible, there is no fixed limitation to that. One should also cite as counter-examples: "the redness of betel on the lower lip" and "competent in the reply." How, then, are [usages like] Kālidāsa's "tathā pareṣāṃ yudhi ca" ("and similarly of enemies in battle") and "apare pratyavatiṣṭhate" ("the other objects") and so forth? Regarding this, they say: it is because of secondary usage that the words 'para' and 'apara', which actually pertain to relative spatial demarcation through expressing place, are used for an enemy and a disputant. Nor does subordination arise in this way; for being figurative is not being subordinate; rather, it is the transfer to another meaning qualified by one's own meaning. And that occurs only in integrated formations such as compounds. For this very reason, Kaiyaṭa's statement on the rule "bhūvādayo dhātavaḥ" (Pā. sū. 1.3.1)—"[on the phrase] 'etānyapi': the meaning is 'entities to be conveyed by these'"—is consistent. In reality, however, the meaning of the words 'para' and 'apara' is indeed residence in another place and the like, whereas enmity and the like is an implied meaning.
"Why [specify] 'when not a technical name'? [Witness] 'uttarāḥ kuravaḥ'." The word 'uttara' applies to the Kurus with reference to Mount Sumeru as the point of demarcation, and thus relative demarcation does exist here. "However, this is a modern convention," so they say.
On "svam ajñātidhanākhyāyām" (Pā. sū. 1.1.35): the word 'sva' expresses oneself, what belongs to oneself, a kinsman, and wealth. There, because kinsman and wealth are excluded, the self and what belongs to oneself remain; with this intention, he explains: "the meaning is 'belonging to oneself', or 'selves'."
As for what they say: that in the sense of 'oneself' the word 'sva' is neuter, and therefore the example 'sve' or 'svāḥ' is not possible there—that is questionable, because the word 'sva' is masculine even in the sense of 'oneself'. For the authority on this point is the Sūtrakāra himself, who makes a lengthy formulation in the section on "vibhāṣā jasi" (Pā. sū. 1.1.32), where he could simply have said "svam ātmīye" ("sva in the sense of belonging to oneself"). As for what [they say] in support of their statement—