Praudhamanorama p45

p45

"alvidhyartham": on this account, in vavraśca, vocalization of v does not take place; because substitution of ur-at, being like the original element, is a vocalization, and therefore prohibited by "na saṃprasāraṇe..." (Pā. Sū. 6.1.37). Nor can it be said that substitution of ur-at does not have a following cause; for it is prescribed when an affix implied by the aṅga follows, because after refuting the view that "the governing domain of the aṅga is prior to modifications of the reduplication", the view that "it extends up to the seventh chapter, before its conclusion" is established as the final view in the source texts. Furthermore, by the preceding rule, that which is conditioned by the original element is extended, but that which is conditioned by the substitute is not barred; for [otherwise] there would result the non-operation of "eco'yavāyāvaḥ" (Pā. Sū. 6.1.78) and so forth in nāyakaḥ, pāvakaḥ, and the like. By this rule, however, it is barred; because, relying on the governing domain of the verbal expression, it is accepted that this extension applies to both existence and non-existence. And the mention of the elision of ya, lengthening, etc., in the rule "na padānta..." (Pā. Sū. 1.1.58) is an indicatory sign here. For this very reason, in gaṇayati and the like there is no vṛddhi; because even when the substitute is present, there is an extension of the non-existence of that [vṛddhi] which did not occur when the original element was present. And it has been said: "Let either existence or non-existence be extended at will; there is no burden here." Be that as it may. Since precedence requires a limit, it is proper that only what is proximate should be the limit. And here three things are proximate: the original element, the substitute, and the cause. Among them, the original element cannot be the limit, because it is removed by the substitute. Nor can the substitute or the cause be the limit, because of the undesirable consequence that in vaiyākaraṇa the ai would become ay. Raising this doubt, he says: "seen as prior to the vowel". The idea is that precedence is an incidental mark, not a qualifier. By this, the vārttika "acaḥ pūrvatvavijñānādaicoḥ siddham" is explained.