Praudhamanorama p171

p171

As for what they also explained: "The meaning is that that which is primary in the stem is what is blocked, and that which is opposed to it, being non-stem-dependent, is the blocker. And thus the meaning is that akac would occur because it is an exception to the affix ka." That too is strained, pointless, and not approved by the text of the Nyāsa. To explain: having commented on the text of the Vṛtti, "tvatkapitṛkaḥ, matkapitṛkaḥ", the author of the Nyāsa raised the question: "Now, when the technical name is dismissed here merely through employing a significant technical name, akac will not occur. For the denotation of all things is not possible here, since it concerns a particular entity." [And answered:] "This is not so. For the aggregate refers to a particular entity, but the prior member has by no means departed from denoting all things. Then let these two immediately preceding [examples] fall within the domain of this sūtra. But [the rule] is not applicable to priyaviśvāya and so forth. For priyaviśva and the like are not names of all. Nor is any pronominal operation applicable to the words viśva and the like that have become its parts, because smai and so forth are operations belonging to the stem, and the words viśva and the like are not stems. Thus he considers: this [sūtra] must be formulated primarily so that akac may not occur in tvatkapitṛkaḥ and matkapitṛkaḥ; in priyaviśvāya and the like, it will also serve for the sake of clarity." Indeed, from this Nyāsa text, only the meaning "independence from the technical name 'aṅga'" is obtained; and that is completely set aside in your self-concocted interpretation.
As for what they also explained: "Although this is the view of both the Sūtrakāra and the Vārttikakāra, nevertheless, because it was expounded by the author of the Nyāsa, it is stated to be 'the view of the author of the Nyāsa'"—that too is quite gross; for this sense was not even touched upon by the Vārttikakāra, and because the author of the Nyāsa, by saying 'when the compound has been made,' abandoned far off the meaning stated by you, and hence there is no expounding of it [by him].
As for what they also said: "By the word 'author of the Nyāsa', the Sūtrakāra himself is intended," etc.—that too is not [correct]; because of contradiction with the earlier text such as 'in a bahuvrīhi' under the view of the Sūtrakāra, and because that is interrupted by the text 'Under the view of the Bhāṣyakāra, however...'. Therefore, the Prakriyā texts of the older grammarians and the texts of their commentators here are merely superficially attractive, so let that be for now.
If, however, there is an insistence that even the Prakriyā text must somehow be explained without contradiction to the Bhāṣya, then let it be explained thus: [Objection:] Surely, in 'priyaviśvāya', its purpose is already accomplished due to subordinateness. Therefore, he states the definitive conclusion: "Under the view of the Sūtrakāra". "In a bahuvrīhi": 'when it is intended to be made' is the remainder [to be supplied]. "Merely in subordinateness": the word 'mātra' is in the sense of restriction—only in subordinateness, not prior to that. And thus the rule is rejected; such is the purport. But because the view of the author of the Nyāsa is exceedingly worthless, with the intention that "the very exposition of its own form is its refutation," he said: "tvatkapitṛkaḥ, etc." And this is to be discerned by those conversant with the examination of those various ancient texts.