Praudhamanorama p170

p170

On this point, this must be stated: Is it intended that the technical name [sarvanāman] does not apply in a bahuvrīhi, or that it does not apply to its parts, [namely] the words beginning with sarva? Not the first: for that contradicts the subsequent text, "to yuṣmad and asmad, which are parts of the compound," and because there is an absence of application to the aggregate. Nor does application obtain by the rule governing that which ends therein [tadantavidhi]; for since the parts of a bahuvrīhi are subordinate [upasarjana], they fall outside the category of words beginning with sarva, and hence its application to that which ends therein is out of the question. For this very reason, neither is the second [alternative acceptable]. And one should not say that the exclusion of subordinates was stated by the Vārttikakāra from recitation and not established in the sūtra itself; for by force of the significant technical name, that very meaning is obtained directly through the syllables of the sūtra. By this, [the claim that] "In the opinion of the Sūtrakāra there is no state of being a pronoun in a bahuvrīhi" is also refuted. Its meaning would be "only in a bahuvrīhi." Nor is [the statement] "In the opinion of the Bhāṣyakāra" and so forth [tenable]. For by mentioning a distinction, it is understood that the opinion of the Sūtrakāra and the Vārttikakāra is otherwise—just as when it is said, "Devadatta sees with his left eye," [it is implied that] he does not see with his right. And that is not the case; for the exclusion of secondary [uses] is accepted even in the view of the Sūtrakāra and the Vārttikakāra.
As for what was said beginning with "tvatkapitṛka", that was explained by the older grammarian as follows: "When the bahuvrīhi compound is formed after analyzing it as 'he whose father is you' (tvaṃ pitā yasya) or 'he whose father is I' (ahaṃ pitā yasya), the words yuṣmad and asmad, which are parts of the compound and fall within the compound, would denote all things and thus have the technical name sarvanāman; and when one intends to express meanings such as the unknown, the affix akac by 'avyayasarvanāmnām...' would apply. For, unlike smai and so forth, it is not enjoined in the section on the stem [aṅgādhikāra], and therefore does not depend on the technical name 'aṅga' (stem). Consequently, an undesired form such as tvakatpitṛka would result." The author of the Nyāsa also, having raised the objection that "When the technical name is dismissed merely by the force of the significant technical name, akac will not occur," stated: "For the aggregate refers to a specific entity, but the prior member has by no means departed from denoting all things." All of this is completely erroneous. To explain: In the view where the components abandon their own meaning [jahatsvārthā vṛttiḥ], the parts of the compound have no meaning at all. Even in the view where they do not abandon their own meaning [ajahatsvārthā], their subordinate status is entirely clear, since they denote an external word-meaning qualified by their own meaning. Thus, the text stating "because yuṣmad and asmad, falling within the compound, denote all things" and so forth, and the Nyāsa text stating "For the aggregate..." and so forth, are contradicted under both views. Furthermore, in this way, the substitute smāi in atisarvāya would be unavoidable, because in the section on the stem [aṅgādhikāra] there is comprehension of that which ends therein [tadantagrahaṇa]; for according to your reasoning, the word sarva does not depart from denoting all things. For it is not logical that there is denotation of all things in a prior member, but not in a subsequent member. Moreover, in this way, there would be a contradiction with one's own statement that words beginning with sarva do not denote all things when used in a secondary sense; therefore, this is trivial nonsense.
As for what they also explained: "The technical name that obtained in the analytical sentence, such as 'tvaṃ pitā yasya', is prohibited"—that too is not correct. For is the analytical sentence intended to be the ordinary [laukika] or the unworldly [alaukika]? Not the first; for that contradicts Kaiyaṭa's text stating, "This prohibition applies in the derivational sentence [prakriyāvākya], not in the ordinary [sentence]," and it also contradicts the author's own preceding and succeeding texts in the present context. Nor the second; for since that [unworldly sentence] has the form "yuṣmad-su pitṛ-su", it cannot take the form "tvaṃ pitā".
As for what they also explained: "If it is asked, 'What is the determining factor in the technical name not applying in atisarva and the like, but applying in tvatkapitṛka and the like?', to that he says: 'because it is an operation not dependent on the stem [anaṅgakāryatvena]'. The word 'aṅga' refers to the aggregate. Therefore, in atisarva, the technical name 'aṅga' is required, because smāi and so forth are prescribed after an aṅga that is a sarvanāman; and even if there is the status of pronoun for the mere part, there is no fault. And in the aggregate, since the words beginning with sarva are subordinate with respect to the meaning of the aggregate, the technical name does not apply to that which ends therein—this is proper. Here, however, it is desired for the mere part, not for the aggregate; and since the part has primarily its own meaning alone, the application would occur; thus there is an asymmetry—this is the intention." That too is not correct. For since the rule regarding that which ends therein [tadantavidhi] in the section on the stem is accepted by all, the statement that "there is no fault even if there is the status of pronoun in the mere part" is contradictory; and it contradicts his own text stating that "by the metarule regarding the section on the stem, smai would occur." Now, if the intention is: "Although the technical name applied previously, it disappeared when a transition to another meaning took place"—then let akac also disappear. If it is objected: "In the view that rules apply at the time of the operation [kāryakālapakṣa], the technical name is required again for smāi and so forth, and that is unobtainable—this is the intention"? Be it so. But that is not the meaning of the present text; for because of discrepancy with the Nyāsa text, it contradicts the remainder of the sentence: "such is the opinion of the author of the Nyāsa." And the Nyāsa text will be quoted immediately below.