Praudhamanorama p174

p174

to be improper, it was stated by them that it should be read as 'vītajanmajarasaḥ'.
"And this...": for by the Bhāṣyakāra, under the rule "ṭāṅasi—", having rejected ina and āt and having prescribed the substitute na and the substitute at, the e-substitution when the substitute na follows was established by splitting the rule: "bahuvacane jhalyet", "osi ca"; then "āṅi"—and when āṅ follows, there is e-substitution of short a: 'rāmeṇa'; then "āpaḥ sambuddhau ca"—there is the letter e in the vocative, when āṅ follows, and when os follows. Nor should it be said that in 'anena' there would be elision when a consonant follows, because it is specifically prescribed when the n-sound of the substitute an follows. To explain: "anāpi"—meaning, when the n-sound and āp follow, there is an; in the sūtra, 'a' is a neuter mention of that which ends in n. Nor should it be said that when the substitute at is made for ṅasi there would be single replacement with the subsequent vowel, because a long vowel is possible on the strength of the pronunciation of short a. And likewise it is stated under the rule "jarāyā jarasanyatarasyām": "Gonardīya, however, says: 'It should be atijaraiḥ, on the metarule of non-destruction of that upon which an operation is based'." And so, everything such as 'by prior conflict of rules' is contradictory to the Bhāṣya; this is the meaning.
Under "paddanno—" (Pāṇini Sūtra 6.1.61): here, śas and following endings are mentioned as causes. And they imply specific bases corresponding to the substitutes beginning with pad; therefore he says: "pāda, danta...".
Although 'chandasi' continues here from "śīrṣañchandasi", nevertheless it occurs occasionally in classical speech as well; it will be explained that this is from the indicatory clue consisting in the mention of chandas in the vārttika "māsaśchandasi".