Publications of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit Class C No.

PATANJALI'S V Y A K A R A N A M A H A B H A S Y A

SAMARTHAHNIKA ( P . 2. 1. 1 ) Edited with Translation and Explanatory Notes by S. D. JOSHI

UNIVERSITY OF POONA POONA 1968

First Edition: May 1968 With Publisher

Printed by J. E. DAVID at Spicer College Press, Ganeshkhind, Poona 7, and published by W. H. GOLAY, Registrar, University of Poona, Poona 7. 10004847-68.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is a pleasure to express here the debt of gratitude that I owe to my student-friend, Mr. Jouthe ROODBERGEN. While preparing the manuscript of this work he was constantly by my side. He has read the entire manuscript line by line and has made substantial changes both in idiom and thought. He has improved the translation by comparing it with the original text and has added a number of notes to make the background of the various arguments clear. Many a passage has been clarified as a result of his helpful suggestions, comments, and corrections. Without his continued assistance, the imperfections of the present work would have been much more numerous. I cannot thank him enough for his collaboration which is responsible for the present shape of the work. I am deeply indebted to my teacher, Prof. R. N. DANDEKAR, Director of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, who, in spite of various activities and pressure of work, not only revised the manuscript securing consistency in style and treatment, but also offered constructive suggestions as regards the presentation of the text and translation. His affectionate encouragement and abiding interest in the progress of this work was a constant source of inspiration to me. His wide experience as scholar and editor has proved highly beneficial to me. I would also like to take this opportunity to express my deep sense of gratitude to my guru, Prof. Daniel H. H. INGALLS of Harvard University, who first taught me how to render Sanskrit texts into English. While at Harvard he introduced me to the various theories in Western linguistics and philosophy. I am also indebted to Prof. Dr. G. V. DEVASTHALI, M. D. BALASUBRAHMANYAM and Dr. S. D. LADDU of C.A.S.S. who have read parts of the Introduction and offered useful suggestions for its improvement. I am also grateful to my colleagues and friends, J. R. Jos HI and Saroja BHATE, for their able assistance in preparing the press-copy of the Sanskrit text and Index. Finally, the Spicer College Press and the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute Press deserve more than formal thanks. They have seen this work through press with such accuracy, speed, and skill as to win most cordial recognition.

C. A. S. S. University of Poona April 28, 1968

S. D. Jos HI.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Text 3. 4. Translation and Explanatory Notes Index .... .... .... .... .... .... i-xix 1- 32 1-208 209-223

INTRODUCTION 1. THE THREE MUNIS OF SANSKRIT GRAMMAR 1.1. In recent years, keen interest has been evinced in Pninian studies, both by Indian and foreign scholars, and fresh attempts have been made to describe the technique of Pnini and his noteworthy commentators, Ktyyana and Patanjali. Pnini's Astdhyy which gives a mathematical mode1 of grammatical description is regarded as one of the greatest monuments of human intelligence2. The first commentarial work on Pnini's Astdhyyi that is available to us is Ktyyana's Vrttikas (Short Critical Notes). Ktyyana was a southerner and a follower of a school of grammar different from Pnini's. The main aim of his Vrttikas is not to explain Pnini's rules but to improve on Pnini's Astdhyyi where it falls short of achieving its goal3. Patanjali's Mahbhsya which is based on the Sax&graha of Vy<}i performs the double task of commenting on Pnini's rules on the one hand and Ktyyana's Vrttikas on the other 1.2. In order to understand the Mahbhsya properly, it might be relevant to state in brief the purpose of this extensive commentary on Pnini4. The purpose of this work is : (i) to defend Pnini where alterations and additions proposed by Ktyyana appear to be unreasonable, (ii) to examine independently the rules and views of Pnini which are left unnoticed by Ktyyana5, (i) to show that what is explicitly stated by Ktyyana or by other Vrttikakras is indirectly and implicitly accepted by Pnini himself6, and (iv) to make additions to Pnini's rules where they cannot account for tne usages of Patafijali's time and area. . 1. Vidya Nivas MlSRA, The Descriptive Technique of Pnini, Paris, 1966, pp. 10-22.
2. L. BLOOMFIELD, Language, p. 11.

3. Betty SHEFTS, Grammatical Method in Pnini, American Oriental Society, New Haven, Connecticut, 1961, p. 18. 4. In stating this, I have made use of the excellent monograph of KlELHQRN: Ktyyana and Patanjalu Second ed., Varanasi, 1963. 5. Bhsya No. 1-39. (The word 'Bhsya No.* refers to the division of the Sanskrit text presented for this translation). 6. Bhsya No. 20-29.

Introduction 2. THE CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF PATAtfJALI'S STYLE 2.1. The language of Patafijali's Mahbhsya is lucid and elegant, but the interpretation of that work involves insuperable difficulties. The arguments in the Mahbhsya are presented in a conversational style as in the Dialogues of Plato. The Indian commentators divide this dialogue into three speakers : the prvapaksin, the siddhntyekadesin, and the siddhntin7. The prvapaksin is the person who raises doubts, asks questions, and attacks Pnini's or Ktyyana's formulations. The siddhntyekadeshi is the person who refutes the objections and defends Pnini or Ktyyana by providing partially correct answers8. The siddhntin is the person who gives final decisions in particularly knotty points, either (i) by saying that Ktyyana's additions to and rephrasings of Pnini's stras are unfounded or unnecessary, or (ii) by defending Ktyyana's rephrasing of the rules, or (iii) by suggesting that a particular rule of Pnini is not needed even if Ktyyana defends it. It is often a difficult task to attribute a particular statement to a particular speaker. The commentators on the Mahbhsya do not always agree with one another in assigning statements to particular speakers. Furthermore, we have to face certain additional difficulties. For instance, Patanjali places before the readers both the sides of a question, examines the merits and demerits involved, in the arguments of these sides, and then arrives at the conclusion that both the views are acceptable for one reason or another. In such cases, commentators take great pains to point out that one of the views belongs to the siddhntyekadesin and is only partially true, while the other view is the final one and acceptable to Patanjali. The commentators Kaiyata and Ngesa do not always find it easy to decide what the final opinion of Patajali is. At times, it becomes difficult for them to judge whether Patanjali concurs with or differs from Ktyyana, in his criticism of Pnini9. The Mahbhsya. which carries an abstruse grammatical discussion, remains a closed book for those readers who are not properly initiated into the highly developed technique of Pnini's methodology. In his Vkyapadiya Bhartyhari has paid a tribute to Patanjali that the Mahbhsya is 7. F. KIELHORN, op. cit., pp. 52-53 etc., and B. SHEFTS, op. cit., p. 17. 8. Occasionally we have the prvapaksyekadesin also whose role is to raise counter objections as demanded by a particular context. His views, though not always incorrect, do not support the issues of the siddhntin. 9. Bhsya No. 190-195.

The Characteristic Features of Patanjali's Style impenetrable in its depth but appears to be lucid on account of its beautiful exposition10. 2.2. While investigating in a theoretical way the logical correctness of Pnini's aphorisms11, Ktyyana and Patanjali often enter into a discussion which does not appear to be relevant to Pnini's descriptive technique. In such cases, we must understand why Patanjali inserts these topics which are in no way connected with Pnini's analysis. It is not seldom that Patanjali gives new interpretation of Pnini's aphorisms and tries to prove the correctness of Pnini's formulations when Ktyyana questions their validity12. In such cases, Patanjali often seems to deviate from the original intention of Pnini. This creates a good deal of confusion in the mind of the reader if he is not aware of Patanjali's intention in giving such tricky interpretations of PninTs rules. Serious students of the Mahbhsya will, however, easily realise that the new interpretations offered by Patanjali are not always essential for understanding Pnini. They are meant mainly to bridge over the gulfs separating the different traditions of the grammarians18. Patanjali's skill lies in harmonizing the trend of philosophization1* introduced by Ktyyana with the pure descriptive approach of Pnini. The digressions from Pnini's text that are introduced in Patanjali's Mahbhsya are often intended to link together two intrinsically different approaches philosophical and linguistic. Patanjali minimizes the divergence between Ktyvana's school, which provides functional and semantic definition, and Pnini's school, which gives structural and formal definition, by reconciling the traditional values, to which Ktyyana often sticks, with the modern technique of Pnini. On account of all this, the Mahbhsya makes a difficult reading. 2.3. This does not, however, mean that we can have a correct understanding of Pnini's grammatical technique only through the examination of Pnini's Astdhyyi15. Scholars are now increasingly aware of the fact that they cannot rely solely on the modern methods of linguistic interpretation for understanding Pnini's code and procedure of grammatical analysis. No one can deny that for the interDretation of Pnini there is only one valuable source and that is the Mahbhsya. 10. Vkyapadiya, II, 480, ed. by K. V. ABHYANKAR and V. P. LlMAYE, Poona University, 1965: alabdhagdhe gmbhiryd uttna iva sdusthavt 11. Grammatical Method in Pnin op. cit., p. 1 7. 12. Bhsya No. 134-136. 13. Bhsya No. 116-119, 140-165. 14. The Descriptive Technique of Pninu op. cit., pp. 25-26. 15. Paul THIEME, Pnini and Pnimyas, JAOS, Vol. 76, pp. 1-23 (1956).

Introduction The value of the Mahbhsya lies not only in its masterly interpretation of Pnini and Ktyyana, but also in its elucidation in fuller detail of the obscure j>oints which are left untouched by his predecessors. Pnini's code affords scope for a variety of possible interpretations and we shall be at a loss to decide which is the correct one, unless we take the help of the Mahbhsya16, The influence of the Mahbhsya on the later grammatical literature and philosophical works is so great that its pronouncements on various issues are regarded as final and indisputable. A person's scholarship was generally stamped as imperfect if he had no proper training in the Mahbhsya17. 3. THE SAMARTHHNIKA: MAHBHCYA ON P.2.1.1. 3.1. The text of the Astdhyyi, which consists of approximately 4000 aphorisms, is divided into eight books called adhyyas. Each book is again divided into four quarters (pdas). For the sake of convenience, Pataiijali further divides each quarter into hnikas : 'day sessions'. The total number of hnikas is 85. The text of the Mahbhsya presented here relates to the first aphorism of the first quarter of the second book of the Astdhyyi and is known amongst scholars by the name samarthhnika. 3.2. The first two quarters of the second book of Pnini's Astdhyyi deal with the procedure of generative grammar i.e. the theory of integration (vftti). For a fuller understanding of this theory, one must first study Patanjali's Bhsya on the two quarters relating to samsa. Therefore, a detailed treatment of it is reserved until the proposed translation of those quarters has been completed. 3.3. I propose to give here a brief sketch of the arguments put forth in the section of the Bhsya translated in this book, and to indicate their connection with one another. In connection with P.2.1.1 Patanjali has discussed fourteen topics ; three of these are discussed before the first Vrttika is taken up for examination (Bhsya No. 42). The practice of discussing a rule independently and before entering into an examination of the first Vrttika on that rule is not uncommon in the Mahbhsya. 4. ANALYSIS OF THE TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THE SAMARTHHNIKA 4.1. According to Patanjali, the word vidhi in P.2.1.1 means 'grammatical operation'. Therefore, Patanjali interprets P.2.1.1 to mean 16. S. VARMA: Scientific and Technical Presentation of Patanjali as Reflected in the Mahbhsya, VI)\ Hoshiarpur, Vol. I, No. 1, pp. 1-23 (1963). 17. Vkyapadfya, op. cit.* II 480: tasminn akrtabuddhnm naivvsihita nicayah.

Analysis of the topics discussed in the Samarthhnika that wherever a grammatical operation concerning finished words is prescribed, it must be applied to words which are semantically connected. 4.2(i). After discussing the meaning of the word vidhi Patanjali raises the question with regard to the character of P.2.1.1 : Is the scope of this rule restricted to a particular section of the Astdhyyi as is the case with an adhikra rule, or does it apply throughout the Astdhyyi like a paribhs rule? Patanjali regards P.2.1.1 as a paribhs rule (Bhsya No. 10). In this connection, another basic question needs to be taken into consideration : What does the word samartha mean? Its exact significance has direct relevance to the determining of the character of the rule. Therefore Patanjali enters into a discussion on the nature of smarthya. According to him, smarthya is of two. kinds : vyapeks : 'meaning-interdependence' and ekrthibhva : 'emergence of single integrated meaning'18. 4.2 (ii). Interdependence of meaning exists only in groups of uncompounded words like rjnah purusah: 'king's man', or in a sentence. Here, the words depend on one another to make the meaning syntactically complete. 'Single integrated meaning' exists only in the integrated forms like rjapurusah: 'king-man'. In the case of the uncompounded word-^roun, the word meanings, separately presented by the stem words, are linked together by some relation indicated by the inflectional suffixes. In the case of the compound, on the other hand, the separate presentation of the meaning by the constituent words and of their relation with each other does not occur. The compound as a whole denotes a single meaning in which the grammatical relation between the constituents also obtains the status of a word-meaning. 4.2(iiiV The differentiation between vyapeks : 'meaning-interdependence', and ekrthtbhva: 'single integrated meaning', which plays an important role in determining the nature of an uncompounded wordrroun and a compound expression, is based on the manner of presentation rf t^n meaning. The two expressions, rjapurusah : 'king-man' and rjnah purusah : 'king's man' have almost identical meaning and refer to the same object. But the ways in which meaning is presented by these expressions are different. 4.2 (iv). Patanjali finally concludes that smarthya : 'semantic connection' should be understood in the sense of ekrthibhva : 'single integrated meaning', and P.2.1.1 as a paribhs-rale (Bhsya No. 10). Since this rule is restricted to cases of 'single integrated meaning', according to Patanjali, P.2.1.1 does not supply the condition samarthah: 18. For the meaning of the terms used here, reference may be made to the translation of the text and to the notes.

Introduction 'semantically connected' in the rules dealing with the uncompounded wordgroup. This does not, however, appear to be Pnini's intention. According to Pnini, the semantic relationship that exists between words is an essential requirement for all the rules involving a finished word as one of the conditions for the operation prescribed by them. In other words, according to Pnini, the condition samarthah is valid for the rules dealing with both an uncompounded word-group and a compound. In P.2.1.1 the word samarthah means any kind of semantic relationship between two grammatical units. The division of smarthya into ekrthbhva and vyapeks is not known explicitly or . implicitly to Pnini. These two interpretations of smarthya date from Ktyyana's period onwards. This whole discussion leads Patanjali to raise the basic question about the utility of the principle of smarthya. 4.3(i). Pataniali, therefore, takes up for discussion the topic of the nurpose of P.2.1.1. While explaining the purpose he adopts an operational approach (Bhsya No. 15). By means of examples and counterexamples he shows where P.2.1.-1 applies and what the purpose of the word samartha in the rule concerned is. The purpose of the word samartha is that the rules dealing with a compound apply to words which are semantically connected and not to words which just happen to occur in immediate sequence without semantic connection. For instance, by P.2.2.8 we derive the compound rjapurusah: cking-man\ The condition samartha supplied by P.2.1.1 informs us that this compound is only allowed when its members, 'king' and 'man', are semantically connected. The phrase(s) bhry rjnah(,) puruso devadrttas1"".'. 'wife of a king, man of Devadatta' serves as a counterexample. Here the words rjnh and purusah occur in immediate sequence, but there is no semantic connection between them. Consequently, no compound is formed out of these two semantically unconnected words. 4.3 (ii). The word samartha means 'having semantic connection as indicated bv syntactic elements'. Literally the word samartha means samah art hah yasya : 'having the same meaning519. The term imolies that uncompounded word-group ( vkya ) and the corresponding compound (vTtti) should convey the same meaning. From Patanjali's discussion (Bhsya Nos. 38 - 40) it appears that another term, namely gamaka, 19. Pnini uses the word samartha in aphorisms 1.3.42, 2.3.57, 3.3.152, 8.1.65, 8.3.44, precisely in the same meaning. In 4.1.82, the meaning *having semantic connection with other words connected* has to be assumed. The word smarthya in P. 8.3.44 is used in the sense of vyapeks, i.e. semantic connection as existing in a sentence. vi

Analysis of the topics discussed in the Samarthhnika was current among the grammarians to express more or less the same idea as conveyed by the word samartha. But it seems that the word gamaha belongs to the non-technical language. Gamakatva : 'ability to exnress (the same meaning)', as the non-technical principle underlying compound-formation in daily usage, must have been silently assumed by grammarians also. The Bhsya No. 38 argues that the mention of the word samartha is not necessary in order to prevent the formation of the compound rjapurusah : 'king-man' from the expression hhry rjnah puruso devadattasya : 'wife of a king, man of Devadatta'. We can prevent the formation of the cmnound rjapurusah from the above expression by the non-technical principle of (a)gamakatva. For, the compound does not convey the same meaning as the corresponding uncompounded word-group. 4 3 (in). But for grammar, which is not concerned with word-meaning (Bhsya No. 68), it will be difficult to account for compoundformation on the basis of the criterion of meaning. How can one establish the criterion for deciding the sameness of meaning,? In order to be able to establish this criterion (the sameness of meaning) one mav have to establish some other criterion, and this may ultimately lead to a regressus ad infinitum (Bhsya No. 68). Patafiiali has thus finally arrived at this: The word samartha is not necessary (Bhsya No. 40). 4 3(iv). But can Pnini not have chosen the word samarthah as a technical term to indicate that, for the formation of a compound out of uncomDounded word-group, mere sameness of meaning between the comnound and the uncomnounded word-grouo is not enough but that something more than this is required? And if he has actually done so, what can that extra-technical meaning expressed by the word samartha have been? It may be that Pnini wants to describe supramorphemic syntactic level of grammar in terms of syntactic or semantic relationship, as also to lay down that semantic connection is an essential requirement for building up syntactic combinations by the rules which involve a finished word as one of the conditions for their application. Since Pnini has stated that samartha is a necessary condition for building up syntactic combination like compounding, etc. the question arises: What can samartha mean in connection with padavidhi: 'syntactic operation'? Here the discussion on the first Vrttika starts. 4.4. It has been already pointed out that the meaning of sdmarthya implied in P. 2.1.1 is ekrthtbhva: 'emergence of single integrated meaning'as seen in compounds. Then Patanjali, while discussing the terms pfthagartha: 'having separate meaning' and ekrthibhva: 'emergence of single meaning' (Vrttika 1), points out that both the vii

Introduction compound and the uncompounded word-group (out of which the compound is formed) present the same meaning but they do it in two different ways.20 But the terms prthagartha and ekrthlbhva evidently indicate the difference in the characteristics of the compound and the uncompounded word-group. Hence arises the question: What are the special characteristic features of ekrthbhva, which distinguish it from the prthagarthatva? 4.5. This topic is left unnoticed by Ktyyana. But Patanjali takes it UD and mentions the grammatical as well as the semantic features which distinguish the compound from the corresponding uncompounded wordgroup. The grammatical features are: (i) absence of the inflectional suffixes, (ii) absence of word-intervention between the members of a compound, (iii) a fixed word-order and (iv) a single accent. The semantic features are: (i) that the members of a compound being uninflected remain ambiguous in indicating the precise number of the object ; (ii) that the meaning of uncompounded word-group is clear while that of the compound is vague; (iii) that the constituents of a compound cannot be qualified by the word outside the compound but that the uncompounded word-group permits this; and (iv) that, when the sense of conjunction is to be conveyed, the conjunctive particle ca\ 'and' is used in the uncompounded word-group but not in a compound. This discussion leads us to the basic question: Whether the denotation of single meaning of a compound is a natural phenomenon or is based on any grammatical rules. 4.6(i). In his first Vrttika Ktyyana has already discussed this tonic which must have occupied the attention of grammarians and philosophers of language from the early days. In Patanjali's opinion denotation of a single meaning by the compound form is a natural thing. In fact, grammarians do not have any criterion to analyse meaning. Pninrs method of generation of word-forms is purely mechanical and unrelated to semantics. It is, of course, true that Pnini collects and classifies all types of meaning under the various headings (Bhsya No. 65-66) ; but these are not intended to teach meanings unknown to us. These meanings present the condition in which the rules are operative. To explain this, Patanjali provides an analog}'. The statements: 'The path is on the right hand side of the well', 'Look at the moon in the cloud5, do not confer a new position on the path or on the moon. They only explain their existing location with the help of distinctive signs, 'well' and 'cloud'. Similarly Pnini's rules only mention the meanings as a condition for their application. 20. See 4.2.(ii). viii

Analysis of the topics discussed in the Samarthahnika 4.6. (ii). Patanjali further says that, for the sake of economy, meanings are not taught. One can define the meaning of A by means of synonym B, that of B by means of G, and so on. This would lead to a regressus ad inftnitum, and also result in the lack of economy. Patanjali further points out that the description of the meaning of each word is an impossible task. Who has competence enough to define the meaning of roots, nominal stems, terminations and particles? In Patanjali's opinion if the entities referred to by the words are known then no fruitful purpose is served by discussing the nature of meaning denoted by the words. Grammar does not serve any useful purpose by teaching meanings which are already known to us from daily communication. 4.6 (iii). If, both the compound and the uncompounded word-group convey the same meaning naturally, then what is the function of grammar? Is a current compound form merely described by grammar (nityasabda), or is it generated by grammar (kryasabda)? 4.7(i). Patanjali's attitude in regard to this question is neutral. In his opinion, whichever alternative is accepted, the basic position of Pnini's procedure remains the same. For, in either view the formulation of the Astdhyyi is not rendered futile.21 The function of grammar is both to analyse the usage into its constituent elements (nityasabda) and to formulate the rules the application of which allows the generation of word-form (kryasabda). It appears that the kryasabda view has reference to the generative aspect of grammar whereas the nityasabda view refers to its descriptive aspect. 4.7(ii). It would perhaps be helpful at this stage to examine in greater detail the meaning of the term 'generative'22 when it is used with reference to Pnini's grammatical system. The 'generative' grammar builds units of a more complex-structure out of the units of a less complex structure by strictly applying the rules which make up the system. It does not matter whether the generated forms are actually used in the spoken or written language. The generative grammar is concerned only with possible correct usage. ' 4.7(iii). How did this generative grammar itself originate? Presumably, in the following manner: A relatively small number of words both from Vedic and actual spoken language was selected. These words were sub21. Mbh Vol. 1, II 14-15: yadyeva nityo'thpi \axya ubhaythpi laksanam, pravartyam hi 22. The term 'generative grammar* used here does not exactly correspond to CHOMSKY'S conception of generative grammar. See CHOMSKY, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, Mass., 1965. ix

Introduction jected to grammatical analysis, and, from this analysis, elements (stems and suffixes) were obtained which defied further analysis into smaller elements. A set of rules was formulated to govern the combination of these elements. These rules were intended to cover all possible correct usages. This is clearly shown by the fact that Ktyyana and Patafijali had to introduce substantial corrections and supplements into Pnini's system, in order to make it cover the usages of their own times and regions. After Sanskrit had been codified by them and had ceased to be a spoken language, the necessity to include new, living usage was no longer there. The only concern then was the correct usage of the written literary Sanskrit, and this was guaranteed by strict adherence to the prescriptions enjoined in the works of the three great grammarians. 4.7 (iv). We find that Pnini's generative grammar differs from the descriptive grammar in at least two respects: (1) His rules of generation are aDplicable only if one adopts the 'bottom-to-top' or the 'beginningto-end' procedure ; ( 2 ) it does not concern itself with actual usage but only with possible correct usage. The procedure of Pnini's generative grammar is called integration (z/ftti) as indicated above. For instance, the nominal stem gamana is built up from the simple elements gam (root) and ana (suffix), the latter being technically known as a kft suffix and the formational process as the kfdvrtti: 'integration by means of krt suffix'. From the complex elements fiutra and kmya a denominative verbal root putrakrnya is formed. Compounding is also a case of integration. From the (alreaHv complex) elements rjnah purusah we form the compound rjapurusah. The uncompounded expression is transformed into a compound. In the nityasabda view the expression rajnah purusah is a paranhrase of rjapurusah. Both exist side by side. The compound is not derived from the non-compound as would be suggested by the kryasabda view. 4.7(v). The two views, descriptive (nityapaksa) and generative (kryapaksa), are not to be looked upon as diametrically opposite to each other; they together present a complete picture of the generative procedure of Pnini's system. The first view (nityapaksa) pays greater attention to the theoretical procedure and the device employed by Pnini in his system for the generation of word-forms, while the second view (kryapaksa) is concerned with the experimental aspect of Pnini's system for the generation of word-forms. In fact, these two views are interdependent, and cannot be dissociated from each other. 4.7 (vi). It has been already pointed out that grammar bases its analysis on the natural data (nityasabda) and tries to derive from it a number of rules capable of explaining the formation of words. The consistency

Analysis of the topics discussed in the Samarthhnika and completeness of the formal rules would be tested by the consideration whether by applying them, one could generate the words which might have been accepted as good usage at the time when the rules were formulated. The nityasabda view takes into account the ultimate form of language, while the kryasabda view takes into account the smallest grammatical unit where the rules of generation are applicable. Both the views considered together imply that, in order to analyse a usage, one should take into account the ultimate form; but that, in order to generate it, one should start from the beginning. Thus Pnini's analytical method combines these two. different approaches, namely, the ultimate form as the starting point of description (vibhajya anvkhyna23) and the same form as the final stage of generation (kramena anvkhyna2*). While formulating the rules of grammar Pnini has adopted the 'end-tobeginning' or 'top-to-bottom5 procedure, but for the application of his rules of generation one has to adopt the 'beginning-to-end' or the 'bottom-totop' procedure. -, . 4.7 (vii). The process of integrating elements into what eventually becomes a finished word is called VfttL Jhere are two types of' t/fttis: ajahatsvrth and jahatsvrth. According to the first type of z/ftti, the compound does not denote a meaning totally independent of its constituents. The compound as a whole denotes a single meaning without, however, ignoring the mutual interdependence of parts. The second type implies that the compound as a single whole conveys the meaning, and in conveying this meaning the constituents have no function separate from that of the whole. These two interpretations of ekrthtbhva seem to date from Patanjali's time and are not known to Ktyyana. It is, of course, not improbable that Patanjali has derived them from some other grammarian whom he does not quote. , 4.7(viii). The next topic that Patanjali takes tip for discussion is whether P. 2.1.1 applies to cases of integration (In. 19) only or also to those of words in a sentence. According to Patanjali, the rule applies to both types of cases. This, however, goes against what he has stated in Bhsya No. 10. In order to show that P. 2.1.1 is applicable to both kinds of cases he interprets the term samartha in four ways (Bhsya N. 100), two of which refer to ekrthtbhva : 'single integrated meaning' and two to vyapeks: 'meaning interdependence'. Thus the scope of P. 2.1.1 is substantially widened: (a) Being paribhs it becomes applicable 23. See KIELHORN'S translation of the Paribhsendusekhara of Ngoj Bhatta, pp. 260-63, second edn. by K. V. ABHYANKAR, 1960, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona 4. 24. See fn. 23. '

Introduction throughout the Astdhyyi. (b) It concerns both compounds and words related to each other in a sentence. 4.8. If it is assumed that, besides the compounds, P. 2.1.1 applies to the words in a sentence context also, a difficulty arises in the case of nighta: 'loss of accent' and yu?madasmaddesa: 'substitution in respect of yusmad and asmad\ Patanjali suggests that the exception to the operation of smarthya is, any way, necessary to prevent the generation of ungrammatical forms, whatever the alternative we choose, ekrthibhva or vyapeks, or both (Bhsya No. 101-111). 4.9(i). Ktyyana holds a different opinion. He knows that Pnini's samartha-paribhs is operative everywhere in the field of grammatical or semantic relation of words. But the nighta: 'loss of accent' and the substitution in respect of yusmad and asmad are applicable to words even though' they do not show such a relationship with each other. Therefore, instead of bringing the nighta and yusmadasmaddesa : 'substitution in respect of yusmad and asmad3 within the sphere of the samartha-paribhs he prefers to mention them under the heading samnavkye: 'in one and the same sentence'. This implies that the words which are not grammatically connected may occur in the same sentence, and that the nighta and the substitution in respect of yusmad and asmad may take place in such cases. In order to substantiate this, he gives a definition of 'sentence'. According to him, a grammatical sentence contains only one single verb. One can say that the introduction of this new section-heading samnavkye has pertinence only in the case of substitution for yusmad and asmad. As for nighta, the examples which Patanjali gives to illustrate the Vrttika, samnavkye, are non-vedic, and their accents cannot be ascertained. Moreover, some of Pnini's rules in the nighta section are applicable only in the complex or compound sentences which contain more than one verb.25 Therefore, if the whole nighta section is brought under the heading samnavkye, the rules regarding the nighta will not apply to a sentence which contains more than one verb. 4.9 (ii). In order to have a clear picture of the operation of the samartha paribhs it would be worth while here to discuss in brief the theory of grammatical relation of words as revealed in Pnini's system. Although Pnini's system appears to have no direct relevance to ontological relationships, his generative rules do take into account the grammatical or semantic relationship26 when those rules are utilised for building a structure of the higher order. This relationship between the two or more meaningful units is called smarthya, and it is variously represented as follows: 25. 8.1.35, 39, 46, 51-53, 58-66. 26. For a detailed treatment of the subject, see J. F. STAAL, Word Order In Sanskrit and Universal Grammar, pp. 38-44, Dordrecht - Holland, 965.

Analysis of the topics discussed in the Samarthhniha (a) Kraka relationship: Here one of the finished words is a verb and the other is a non-verb (i.e. operator). For instance, odanaff pacati: 'he cooks rice'. These kraka relations are divided by Pnini into six broad categories: apdna, sampradna, karana, adhikarana, karman and kartT(b) Genitive relationship: This occurs between two case-inflected words one of which occurs in a genitive case or between a word in a genitive case and a verb. For instance, rjnah puru?ah: 'king's man', or iti me bhti: 'I think so'. (c) Samndhikarana i.e. appositional or syntactic relationship: This relationship is marked by agreement in number, case, gender, person, etc. For instance, mlah ghatah: 'a. blue jar', sa pacati: 'he cooks'. (d) Samsa relationship: A relationship between two or more caseinflected words which when combined into a compound drop their inflectional suffixes. For instance, rjapurusah: 'a king-man'. (e) Mahvkya relationship: A relation between two or more sentences forming one complex or compound sentence. (f) Stem-suffix relationship: The relationship between the stem and the root-forming suffixes (dhtuvrtti) or the secondary suffixes (taddhitavTtti). For instance, putnyati: 'he desires to have a son'; dsarathh: 'offspring of Dasaratha'. It should be noted that this stem-suffix relationship which falls within the sphere of the samartha-paribhs does not include the relationship between the stems and the case-suffixes or the stems and the verb ending suffixes. The primary derivatives fall within the sphere of the samartha-paribhs, only when they are accompanied by an upapada. For instance, kurabhakra\\ 'pot-maker'. (g) Partitive relationship: This might occur between two case inflected words or verbs joined by the particles like ca: 'and', etc. For instance, grmas (ca) nagaram (ca) : ca village (and) a city'; pacati (ca) pathati (ca) : 'he cooks (and) studies'. This relationship is also possible between one finished word or verb on the one hand and the particle itself on the other. For instance, rma eva: 'Rama only'; pacati eva: 'he cooks only'. (h) A preverb-verb relationship: For instance, 'He goes after'. sa anugacchati:

(i) upapada relationship: A relationship between a noun or verb on the one hand and the upapada (accompanying word) on the other. For instance, pitr saha : 'with a father'; bhuktv vrajati : 'having eaten he goes away'. xiii

Introduction 4.9 (ni). To generate the syntactic combinations of the types mentioned above Pnini has laid down an essential condition namely that of meaningful relationship between the units concerned. As a result of this condition the rules concerning finished words become applicable only when these words are inter-related from the point of meaning. Pnini does not define the term vkya: 'sentence' although he uses it. But his rules on nighta and pluta27 imply that a sentence may contain one verb (simple sentence) or more verbs (a compound or a complex sentence whose constituents are connected by means of the particles ca, yat, hi, etc.). Actually, Pnini is not much concerned with defining a sentence, because in his opinion the device of smarthya : 'meaning relationship' between the two grammatical units will be enough for generating or describing the combination of syntactically connected units.28 4.10(i). The foregoing discussion lea^s to the further question: Does the samartha-paribhs take into account only a semantic relationship of one word with another, or does it determine also the grouping of words into a particular set? Suppose B has smarthya: 'semantic connection' with A and C. Then the sequence ABC can be arranged into two hierarchical structures, namely, [AB(C)] and [A(BC)]. Now the question is: When we have several possibilities of grouping, does the samartha-paribhs show preference to any particular way of arrangement or not? The answer is that grouping can be made in any desired order. An illustration will make the point clear. The expression 'king's cow's milk' can be organised into two different arrangements, leading to two different ways of compound-formation: (i) (king's cow)'s milk nnd (ii kind's (cow's milk). The first analysis leads to the compoundform rjagavtksira, and the second to rjagokslra (Bhsya No. 121-129). These compounds denote different meanings and they have different internal structures. The principle of smarthya has nothing to do with the grouping of constituents of the compound to be formed. One can group them in any desired order. However, the rules of compounding and the device of smarthya work in the same order in which the words are grouped. Once the words 'king's' and 'cow's' are grouped into one set (rjagaui) the set as a whole forms a semantic connection with the other words. Its part is not allowed to form an independent connection with any other word. 4.10(i). A similar question is raised in the Bhsya No. 105-111. In the expression "king's cow and horse and man", we cannot say whether the unit 'king's' is connected only with 'cow' or with 'horse' and 'man' as well. The sequence of words can be arranged into two alternative 27. See fn. 25, and 8.2.93, 94, 99, 104. 28. The Descriptive Technique of Pninu Op.cit 112-113. xiv

Analysis of the topics discussed in the Samarthhnika hierarchical structures, with a difference in meaning : [king's (cow and horse and man)] or [(king's cow) and horse and man]. The first set leads to a compound rjagavyasvapurusa, while the second either to rjagavsvapurusa or rjagovapurusa. Here the ambiguity is removed when the compound is formed. However, this is not possible everywhere. The compounds rjadhenuksra or rjadhenvasvapurusa remain as ambiguous as their corresponding uncompounded word-groups. It is only in the case of the word go that we find a visible difference in the internal structures (P. 5.4.90). 4.11. The next question that arises is : Why is the samartha condition restricted to the province of syntax only? The reply is that the operations which are phonologic ally conditioned take into account only the immediate sequence of phonemes (samhit P. 6.1.72) irrespective of whether the phonemes concerned belong to the words which are semantically connected or not. For instance, in the sentence tisthatu dadhy asna tvaxa skena : 'let curds be left alone, eat with vegetables', P.6.1.77 which prescribes semivowels y in place of i, applies, even when the words dadhi: 'curds' and asna: 'eat' are not semantically connected but only occur in immediate sequence. In this discussion, a difference is made between the varnavidhi : 'phonological operation' and padavidhi : 'syntactic operation'. P. 2.1.1 is applicable only in the case of the padaindhu 4.12(i). Having explained the scope of the samartha-paribhs and its utility for the generation of syntactic combination, Ktyyana and Patanjali raise a Question regarding the wording of the aphorism, samarthah padavidhih : Can the aphorism, as it is, prevent the compoundformation of words which are not semantically connected? Obviously it canot prevent such a formation, because the rule samarthah padavidhih, which amounts to saying samarthah samsah literally interpreted, would mean that the process of compound-formation itself is semantically connected. This is a meaningless statement. The rule, as it is, does not mean that a compound is to be formed only of words that are semantically connected, but it means that the operation of compounding is semantically connected (Bhsya No. 132). Therefore, Ktyyana proposes a change in the wording of the aphorism and reads samarthnm padavidhih : 'compounding etc. (takes place) of semantically connected words'. Patanjali tries to solve this difficulty by resorting to a somewhat far-fetched way of uttarapadalopin compounding as explained in the Bhsya No. 139. The purpose of Patanjali's five-way compounding elaborated there is to show that the word samarthah in P.2.1.1 covers everything, all numbers and cases, independently of Ktyyana's rephrasing. For a detailed explanation see Note (122). xv

Introduction 4.12(ii). The whole discussion of the commentators on P.2.1.1, starting from Ktyyana's rephrasing is "based on the assumption that the word padavidhih in the aphorism is vidheya: 'predicate' and the word samarthah is uddesya: 'subject'. Once the rule is analysed like this there is no other possibility to extract sense out of it except by changing the word samarthah to samarthnm. But if the word samarthah was taken as vidheya, and padavidhih as uddesya, the rule would mean : yatra padavidhih tatra samarthah iti upatisthate : "Where an operation concerning finished words is prescribed, there the word samarthah 'semantically connected' is to be supplied". Thus the rephrasing as well as the elaborate explanation given in the Bhsya (No. 139) to interpret the word samarthah becomes unnecessary. 4.13(i). Now Ktyyana raises the question : How may one account theoretically for the formation of samndhikarana compounds like vhapurusah 'brave-man'? According to him, the condition of sdmarthya will not allow such a formation. In the samndhikarana compound, the constituents stand in syntactic agreement, i.e. they refer to one and the same entity. A relation, on the other hand, invariably involves two entities which are mutually related. Since in the expression cbrave-man' only one entity is referred to, namely man, we cannot speak of any meaning-relationship with reference to it. Therefore, a special rule to justify the samndhikarana compounds would seem to be needed. Ktyyana, however, says that such a special rule is not necessary, because Pnini's procedure (P.2.1.58) itself clearly indicates that this type of formation is allowed. Patanjali, on his part, tries to justify these compounds by pointing out the fact that the expression virapurusah refers to the qualities, 'braveness' and 'manhood', as well as to one individual entity, namely man. According to Patanjali, the semantic connection between two syntactically agreeing words is possible, because one and the same entity can be thought of differently on account of the difference in its qualities {Bhsya No. 140170). 4.13(ii). The discussion introduced here by Ktyyana has a philosophical implication rather than a grammatical one. Ktyyana has a philosophical bend of mind a characteristic which Bhartrhari shares with himwhereas Pnini and Patanjali are essentially descriptive grammarians who think that they can do without any discussion on philosophical issues. Pnini and Patanjali take it for granted that the constituents of the samndhikarana compound are semantically connected. According to them the question regarding the semantic xvi

General Observations connection between two syntactically agreeing words falls beyond the scope of grammar. Ktyyana overrates the importance of philosophical issues and Patafijali underrates their relevance to linguistic analysis. Patanjali often shows that the philosophic doctrines explicitly propounded by Ktyyana are implicitly approved by Pnini. 4.14. After having discussed the principle of smarthya and its application Ktyyana and Patanjali introduced the general topic regarding number of words to be compounded. Can a compound of more than two words be formed or not? The conclusion that they arrived at is that a dvandva or a bahuvnhi can be formed of more than two constituent words. Elsewhere a compound is generally formed of two words only (Bhsya No. 171-213). 5. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 5.1. From the foregoing discussion it will be clear that Ktyyana maintains the tradition of Pnini so far its technique is concerned but tries to improve upon that tradition by means of its philosophical interpretation. He defines smarthya in terms of semantics as, ekrthibhva and vyapeks the concepts which seem to have been unknown to Pnini. He also introduces the new section-heading samnavkye and defines vkya. Pnini can do without defining vkya because he describes syntactic combinations in terms of grammatical relationship without bringing in the notion of a sentence. Ktyyana thinks that the wording of the aphorism, samarthah padavidhih, is inadequate and rephrases it as samarthnm padavidhih. He attempts to present a grammar as a system of philosophya tendency which becomes more conspicuous in the Vkyapadtya of Bhartrhari. In connection with the samndhikaratia compounds he raises the question, whether a word denotes guna: 'quality' or draiya: 'individual entity'. It appears that he is more concerned with meaning and philosophization. Therefore, he introduces manv new tonics which are loosely connected, or have no apparent connection, with Pnini's system. 5.2. Before examining the Vrttika first, Patanjali clarifies Pnini's position with regard to the samartha-paribhs. While doing so, he discusses the topics: (i) the meaning of the word mdhi, (ii) the nature of the rule: whether adhikra or a paribhs, and (iii) the operation of the principle of smarthya. He makes his own contribution to the svs^em by introducing the theories relating to the types of vfttis, jahatsvrth and ajahatsvrth. He reinterprets P.2.1.1 and shows that Ktyvana's rephrasing of it is not necessary. It will be seen that Patanjali seeks to steer clear of the two extreme approaches, namely, that of descriptive linguistics adopted by Pnini and that of philosophical xvii

Introduction linguistics adopted by Ktyyana. He accepts in essence Ktyyana's philosophical and semantic view-points, but hints at the same time, that Pnini's procedure takes that view-point for granted without caring to discuss it. According to Patanjali, a discussion on philosophical issues falls beyond the scope of descriptive generative grammar. Thus we find many digressions from Pnini in the Vrttikas and in the Mahbhsya. One must, however, admit that they have substantially enriched the grammatical tradition of India. Some of these digressions are important even from the point of view of modern linguistic and semantic theories. Indeed, they constitute quite a significant contribution to the linguistic thought as a whole. 6 A NOTE ON THE TEXT AND TRANSLATION 6.1. The text of the Vykarana-Mahbhsya given here is virtually reproduced from KJELHORN'S edition.29 I have, however, slightly revised it by introducing my own punctuation, by marking the accent in relevant context, and by using double dandas. I have also changed a few readings which obviously seemed to be misprints, on the authority of other editions and commentaries. The variant readings worth considering are very few. It is, therefore, only seldom that I have recorded them in my notes. 6.2. The main improvement which I may claim to have made in the text of the Bhsya consists in the manner of its presentation. The present text is divided into 14 sections, and each section into paragraphs which are serially numbered for facility of reference. The numbers shown in the translation of the Bhsya correspond to the numbers of paragraph in the Sanskrit text. Sometimes the paragraphs are further subdivided [subdivisions being indicated by (a), (b), (c), etc.,] in order that the reader should find it easy to understand the internal links between the arguments involved. Section-titles and bracket-headings are inserted in the Sanskrit text and the English translation, to make the line of the arguments and the topics discussed in the Mahbhsya clear. These titles and headings are borrowed from the Nirnaya Sagar edition, the VyakaranaMahbhsya, Vol. II, Bombay, 1912. Occasionally, I have ventured to coin new titles and headings when those of the Nirnaya Sagar Press appeared to be inadequate. 6.3. I have tried throughout to make my translation as precise as possible. Accordingly, I have preferred literal rendering wherever it was possible without adversely affecting the intelligibility. 29. The Vyakarana - Mahbhsya of Patanjali, Vol. I, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1962. xviii

A Note on the Text and Translation Serious students of the Mahbhsya are aware of the many difficulties in presenting a definite, final and ideal translation of this work. The present translation and interpretation of the Mahbhsya is mainly based on the two notable commentaries: Pradpa of Kaiyata and Uddyota of Ngesa. Wherever the explanation given by the commentaries appeared to be over-subtle or too far removed from the natural meaning of the text, I have ventured to give what seemed to me to be a stricter and more straightforward interpretation. In such cases, I have clearly indicated in the notes my disagreement with the commentators with reasons. Wherever the interpretation of the commentators was not available, I have supplied my own in the notes. 6.4. It is a matter of regret that the most valuable commentary, namely, the Mahbhsyadpika of Bhartrhari, is not available on the Mahbhsya on P.2.1.1. It is available up to the first seven hnikas only. The next important commentary that is available to us is the Pradpa of Kaiyata which is largely based on Bhartrhari's Dpik. The value of this commentary lies not only in its learned interpretation of the Mahbhsya but also in that it reflects the development in the field of grammatical thoughts from Bhartrhari to Kaiyata. I have given the translation of the relevant portions from Kaiyata's commentary, because I think that it will be invaluable to those who care for a first-hand interpretation of the Mahbhsya. I have also given the translation of such passages from the Uddyota of Ngesa, as contain an independent examination of the Mahbhsya or show some difference from Kaiyata's view-point or present some new observations. The Sanskrit text of the portions translated from the Pradpa or the Uddyota, which follows the Nirnaya Sagar edition of the Vykarana-Mahbhsya, is given in footnotes.

XIX

(IT-

* M

I \\

I R^7% RRiRci | f^

$\ t

( ^

.I

? n^R )

\, Ben. reads ffq- for ^, Ben, reads [^ for ^.

(*)

(%') Fl^fot f ^ W ^ I ^

Nt

ftct

f fwfaj Tqr <nr:

^ ^ fa ft^ TRTK II

S frar f% I

1% S 3. V. <. ^. Before sig^n?^, Ben. ins After gsR, Ben. ins. r % After qtf|^^, Ben. ins. Ben. ^ ^ ^

I cT^r^r I

Fi&T

\9. After c. Ben. ins. ^.

, Ben. ins.

) crft

S flc

ffrffspH ffrR* fr^T ^T ^m^i

a I < . After ^5f, Ben. ins. % * . ^o. After q-c^, Ben. ins. ^ . ^^. After |fcT f^, Ben. gives HI^IRf 1%3 T^T ^ 1%^T^T T as a Vrttika. \\. After ?r xitcfi Ben. gives s^f^j^^n^ as a /.

( ^ . ?.

m ?VR ^^fr

3w* ^^c

t fcf fT%

T^

. Before s j ^ , Ben. ins. 3^.

il ? il

r ^ I

"V

*v. Ben. ^cf; for g ^^5. After ^rr%, Ben. ins. g. F. 2

( R. ?.

I w: 3^:

I wm

^cf

: I f% cift I

^rfcT

I ^

ft

TC

wm

T l II

: I I 3f ^
I

i
cw ?ERI%

P%

| cS T I f HT

i ^^qt: i
i IT% 5 T

I fc iig; i ff^T I

3T*T

. Ben. 3WRT^TO

ff

3{5rff%: s. Ben. arfft&i: for R?^I: . :. Ben. 3T^ r^r %T ff-*, m? wtf ^ - ^ ^ ^ far ? ^ ^ ^ T ( ^ ig. ) l ] o. After 5 2 ^ ^ ^eD- ins. =^. R TT> ^. After ^q:, Ben. ins. grf^.
. Dr. KIELHORN'S 1st and 2nd Ed.

^ T srfr T ^ n f ^ f ^ W$T\ 3 ^ : ^ 5 % ^ cR" ^ II * II |C 6" TOT 5T ^ T% ^ t I

V 9

Ben. ^ft for nft. After f[%:, Ben. ins. Rg Veda X. 106. 6.

V9\S Jfi

^ft

60

: 1^c^ f^lW ^TT

I CT^TT I

: I ^^M ft cT^ T

| 3{f ft

cft

:I After T, Ben. ins. 5. After ft%<fi Ben. ins.

%K

<Nlc

After qf-, Ben. ins. u*?. After 5TP <p:, Ben. ins.

n II 3 H

i % crfl i 3 m t : i

FT-

After 5i5S[:, Ben. ins. ^ i Before ^r<r:, Ben. ins Ben. for #rssffi*pfc for

nd puts g^tff into brackets.

I c^T I

RI^JR^li^l^f^^H^^^Trf^^* II H II

: I ^fTc: I 3f^

I arfr f^T . Ben. puts ^qjT fe^^i into brackets. R. Ben. RT T for REfre:. SK

F. 3

II 5 II

T II V II 3

l cra*i

| fcf Q^ra; I

II C II

Ben. H T * for ^^H * Tm Ben. transp. v^fc and Ben. gives H*rf? Ben.

cft | t ^ M M ^ ^ W W I ^ M ^ I ^ HC WWRt

^ M

II ? II

^i II \% II

Before f^rTq&W ^% 3 ^ T ^ Ben. ins. After JBJ I^RT Ben. ins. ^ .

3PT

t sRsq1: | i

?{g; |

6swraraft Ben. TRr^^ for 3KSr?2TT^ for Ben. gT^Tqr^ f o r

il ? H

H*AHHAMAti\ I

?fi

cff

PH^T

^rfr t: c TT il ? H il t: I tft T f^^T ^Tc8jt^TO^" II

crft t:

wmt

. Ben. sriTtf I ^^ : ^. v. ^^; v.

m^R

m h q

mw

S T P R ^ I T R I ^ II ^

:l

II ?< Il ^ ( ^ i

^. After 3$, Ben. ins. into brackets

cfft f%f ^ : i f. i ft^ ^ f^ ftfi: I

: I q^Hf f ^ : TSff: |

II ^ II

After qTIT^S^t, Ben, ins. ^.

qr ^f ^

II * ? II

fi; I ^ ff

crft

t *r g J F ^ I ^ fc 3 ^ c j ^ r g ^ JF^CT ^a^^fil * n

After cfw^\ I Ben. ins. Ben. tr^sT for &&, .

f :I

ft^T ffcf
;

FTTTT

:I cff TlcT

Y 9 Beo. V. v^. Ben.

: for

F. 4

^ I c^T I ^ T % ^ \ \ f% f ^ q ^ T ^ f ^ F^Tcf II n^^^ ) ^cPlJ

T ff ^Sfif^f-

I Pf:

\\

Ben. om. %f. Before ^r^T ... ^ 5 ^ ^ , Ben, reads into brackets ^m^TTl a Vrttika.

cf|

n 3 il

T: I Ben. marks <pn?2n%g ^ as a Vrttika-,

l f

) f %T

crfl ^ . Before ^TR^^f, Ben. reads f ^. % ^. Ben. a;.

(
UK

: I ^ ^ II WWW I q ^ r f f o : * I WWW || J ^ R I

i II

II ^

II

cil"

dd

: I %$

I f rft I

[ ^

? ^ ^ ]

(^

: I

TT

a;

99-

cil ^T: JTcTT^^F c ^T ^ T

/ c

^ tflHcf |

I ^ T ^ | Wfl

arf^ ^ f s ^ ^ ^ f a " II

ET:. H. V.

PATANJALI'S

V y a k a r a n a

M a h a b h a s y a

SAMARTHAHNIKA ( P. 2 . 1 . 1 ) Translation and Explanatory Notes

(NOW STARTS THE FIRST HNIKA IN THE FIRST SECTION OF THE SECOND CHAPTER) SAMARTHAH PADAVIDHIH (P.2.1.1.)

(/. AS A PARIBHAgA:) '(Wherever) an operation concerning a finished1 word (is prescribed), (the word) samarthah: .'semantically connected' (is to be supplied)'. (//. AS AN ADHIKRA:) '(Wherever) an operation concerning a finished word (is prescribed in the section starting from this rule), (the word) samarthah: 'semantically connected' (has its continued effect in the subsequent rules belonging to this section)'. Note (1): (a) For the meaning of the word samartha see discussion in Bhsya No.2 100 and Note thereon. (b) Ktyyana, Patanjali and the later commentators on the Astdhyyfc understand the word samarthah in the rule as samarthnm: 'to (words) which are semantically connected' (see Bhsya Nos. 132-139). They take the word padavidhih as vidheya: 'predicate' and samarthah as uddesya: 'subject'. In this interpretation the rule means: '(wherever) a grammatical operation concerning a finished word (is prescribed), (it must be applied) to (words) which are semantically connected*. (c) In the interpretation of P.2.1.1 stated under I and II, the word padavidhih is taken as uddesya and samarthah as vidheya. Padavidhi is the condition for supplying the word samartha. Compare Bhsya on P.I. 1.3, Vol. I, p. 46, lines 27-283: wherever the word gunah or vrddih occurs, the word Utah is to be supplied. See Ngesa on Bhsya No. 14: samarthapadopasthnam: 'presentment of the word samartha* (in rules dealing with pada). See end of note (3). 1. The term 'finished' is used of those words which end either in a case-termination or in a finite verb ending, i.e. those words which have undergone the complete process of grammatical derivation (see P.l.4.14). 2. Wherever reference is made to the Bhsya text by number only, the reference is to the division of the Sanskrit text as presented for this translation. 3. Wherever reference is made to the Bhsya text by page and line number, the reference is to the edition by F. KIELHORN and K. V. ABHYANKAR. The Vykarana-Mahbhsya of Patanjali, Vol. I, Poona 1962; Vol. II, Poona 1965. Reference to Kaiyata and Ngesa is based on the edition of the VykaranaMahbhsya, Vol. II, Nimaya-Sgar Press, Bombay 1912. F. 1

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

The difference in interpretation, viz. between that of Ktyyana c.s. and the one proposed here, does not entail any difference in the application of the rule. The difference only concerns the wording of Pnini's rule. In the interpretation stated under I and II the word samarthah can be retained as it is. No change into samarihnm is needed. (d) The difference between panbhs and adhilra is discussed in Bhsya Nos. 3-13. It seems that Pnini takes the rule as a paribhs, because his general practice in the case of paribhs-mlzs is to mention the condition (in the present case the word padavidhih) for the application of the rule in the ru!es themselves (see the section on paribhs in the Siddhn'a^aumud)4. In the case of adhilcara-Yules Pnini generally states the limit of application in the rules themselves by such words as prlc: 'as far as' or : 'up to', but no internal condition for selective application of the rules is mentioned. In the present rule the word padavidhih cannot be taken to indicate a limit for application. (e) The purpose of the rule 2.1.1 is to establish that rules dealing with compound-formation apply to words which are semantically connected and not just to words which happen to occur in immediate sequence without semantic connection. F.i. by P.2.2.8 we derive the compound rjapurusah: *king~man\ The word samarthah, supplied from P.2.1.1, informs us that this compound is only allowed, when its members ('king' and 'man') are semantically connected. The phrase bhry rjnah puruso devadatlasya: 'wife of a king, man of Devadatta' may serve as a counterexample. Here the words rjnah and putusah occur in immediate sequence, but no semantic connection is there. Consequently, no compound can be formed of these two words. For further explanation see Bhsya Nos. 14-15. I
(NOW STARTS THE SECTION IN WHICH THE MEANING OF THE WORD vidhi is EXAMINED)

1.

(Bhsya: Question)**

What is this word vidhi (i.e. how is the word-form derived and what does it mean)? 4. The edition of the Sddhntakaumud used for reference here is the 8th ed , Nirnaya-Sgar Press, Bombay 1942. 4a. Question many times implies objection. Objections are raised in the form of questions. When from the context of the Bhsyas it is clear that an objection is raised in the form of a question, the term "objection" (ksepa) is chosen. When there is no context to suggest objection against a previous argument, the term "question" (prasna) is selected.

Samarthhnika

Kaiyata5: (On) 'What is this word vidhi*. As there is a doubt, because the meaning (of the word in question) has not been settled, the question (arises) whether (the word vidhi) is (derived) in the sense of action or in the passive sense. If we take it to be derived in the sense of action, we will have the genitive case in the sense of object (karmani, P.2.3.65), because pada: 'finished word* becomes the object of prescription. In the other case, the genitive will (express) the sense of relation in general (by P.2.3.50.). Note (2): Vidhu derived in the sense of action, means padnm vidhnam: *prescripn of finished words'. Thus P.2.1.1. will be applicable where a finished word is prescribed (see the niptma-rnkz P.2.1.17; 3.1.127; 3.1.128; 5.4.126). Vidhu derived in the passive sense, means: 'what is prescribed', i.e., grammatical operation. In that case padavidhi means padakryai 'grammatical operation (like compounding) applicable to a finished word' (padasya vidhih means padasya kryam). For a similar discussion on the meaning of the word vidhi see Mbh.6 on P. !. 1.58, Vol. I, p. 151. lines 17-20. (Bhsya: Answer) The letter f denoting the passive sense (is added) after (the root) dhft preceded by (the preverb) vu What is prescribed (by Pnini's rules) is vidhi: 'operation5. But what could that be which is prescribed? 'Compounding', 'prescription of case-ending* and 'treatment as a part of the following word'. Kaiyata8 : (On) 'But what*. This question (is raised by the pur\>apa?sin9), because the specific (categories of) grammatical operations (applying to.a finished word) are 5. P. 313: frflrfTfirsFfaf 5T^T f f o I -rffrwaRr *f| tffcT S ^ H P? TT f i 6. Mbh. will be used as the abbreviation for the Mahbhsya. 7. I.e. the suffix ki prescribed by P. 3.3.92. 8. P. 313: l% ^ f t f a I ^OTf^^f$fTfN^TTC5RT:11 9. The prvapakin is the person whose role in the discussion is to raise doubts, ask questions. He is answered by the siddhntin who settles doubtful points and gives his views as final. Occasionally there is a third person, the siddhntyekadesin, who will refute objections, though not in a final way. His role is to provide a part truth which suits the occasion. In the discussion going on in Mbh. the partners are not persons different from Patanjali himself, although the division of roles may go back to discussions actually held by Patanjali with students or opponents.
?TP-

2.

Mahbhsya (P.2.I.1)

not stated here (in P.2.1.1). Another (i.e. the siddhntin), who has already in mind the specific (categories of) grammatical operations to be stated subsequently, answers: 'compounding' etc. Note (3): The three categories of operations, 'compounding', etc. are prescribed for finished words. Therefore, they come under P.2.1.1. Vibhaktividhna : 'prescription of case-ending' may be illustrated by P.2.3.4. This rule prescribes the accusative case for words joined with the words antar and antarena. The purpose served by P.2.1.1 is now that the accusative case is added to a word only, when it is semantically connected with the conditioning words antar and antarena, and not, when it is just followed immediately by them without semantic connection. The rule P.2.3.2, which prescribes the accusative in the sense of object, cannot be strictly regarded as a padalcrya, because the case-ending prescribed here is added to the nominal stem and not to a finished word. In order to assign the status of padalcrya to rules like this one Kaiyata somewhat reverses current procedure. It is not so that a case-ending having a fixed categorical meaning is added to a nominal stem, but the finished word, ending f.i. in the accusative, must be used in the sense of object (Iarmani). Words ending in other cases will not have that sense. To this interpretation Kaiyata gives the name niyama: 'restriction*. In this way rules like P.2.3.2 become padalrya also. Parngavadbhva: 'treatment as a part of the following word' may be illustrated by P.2.1.2. The rule states that a case-inflected word followed by a vocative is treated like a part of that vocative, when a rule dealing with accent is to be applied. The purpose served by the word samartha in P.2.1.1 is now that P.2.1.2 will be applied, when the preceding word is semantically connected with the following vocative. Only then it will be treated as a part of that vocative. For an example of 'compounding* see Note (1) sub (d). The construction vibhaktividhnam vidhyate: 'prescription of case-ending is prescribed' (accusativus interioris objecti) is the same as that in plam pacati: 'he cooks cooking'. The specific prescription of a case-ending like the accusative becomes the object of the general action of prescribing. , This section points out that the word vidhi is derived in the passive sense and that padavidhi means 'grammatical operation prescribed for a finished word'. Since Patanjali has interpreted P.2.1.1 so as to mean that a grammatical operation prescribed for a finished word applies to a semantically connected word, he has to change the meaning of the word padavidhi into padalarya : 'operation prescribed for a finished word'. But normally padavidhi will mean: 'rule prescribing operation, etc.*. See Kaiyata's use of the word padavidhi in his comment on Bhsya No. 14.
(HERE ENDS THE DISCUSSION IN WHICH THE MEANING OF THE WORD vidhi

15 EXAMINED)

Samarthhnika II

(NOW STARTS THE SECTION IN WHICH IT IS EXAMINED WHETHER THE RULE IS A paribhs O A adhikra) R N 3. (Bhsya: Question) But what (kind of rule) is this: adhikra or rather paribhs? Kaiyata10: (On) 'But what . . . is*. If this (rule P.2.1.1) is considered as an adhikra, then the word padavidhih becomes redundant, so one might object, because the subsequent (rules) invariably prescribe a grammatical operation for a finished word. Therefore, since the word padavidhih is mentioned, (this would give us a clue) to decide that (the rule) is a paribhs and the question would be out of place. (If one argues) in this way, then (we will say that) the question (raised in the Bhsya) concerns what would be proper and what would not. This being so, if the alternative: adhikra is accepted as the proper one, then the word padavidhih need not be mentioned. If (the alternative:) paribhs is accepted as proper, (the word padavidhih) has to be mentioned (to show the condition for the application of the rule). Even in the alternative view, viz. that of adhikra, (we may say that the word padavidhih) serves the purpose of clarification, (so from the word padavidhih we cannot conclude whether the rule is adhikra or paribhs). Note (4): An adhikra-rule is a section-heading rule, restricted to that section, the limit of which is generally stated in the adhikra-mle itself. In each rule belonging to that section the adhikra-rule is repeated (anuvrtta). A paribhs-rule is an interpretative rule applicable throughout the Astdhyyi and not restricted to a particular section. When we consider P.2.1.1 as an adhikra, the word padavidhih which, in fact, states the condition for the application of the word samarthah need not be mentioned. Even then the adhikra-ruh will apply to 'compounding', 'prescription of case-ending', and 'treatment as a part of the following word', just because they come under this section. But if the rule is a paribhs, the condition under which it operates has to be mentioned in the rule, so that it will select itself its instances scattered throughout the Astdhyyi. See further Note (1) sub (d). io. P. 313 : f 5rPd% I % {

6 4.

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1) (Bhsya: Counterquestion) But what difference is there between adhikra and paribhs? Kaiyafa11 :

(On) 'But what'. We have to understand that this question is asked by a person different (from the one who asked the previous question). But the first one must (already) have known the difference between them. Otherwise the question: 'But, what (kind of . . . ) ' (in Bhsya No. 3) cannot be justified. 5. (Bhsya: Answer to Counterquestion)

The adhikra is present in each (subsequent) rule, so that it will not be necessary to mention it (again and again) in every (subsequent) rule. But a paribhs, although it occurs in one place (only), illuminates the whole science of grammar as a lamp. Take an example : a brightly shining lamp, although it stands in one place (only), illuminates the whole house. Kaiyata12: (On) *The adhikra . . . in each (subsequent) rule*. When the question is asked about the nature (of adhikra and paribhs), the utility is stated, so that by this we will know their nature. Thus, when a word used as a section-heading is presented in each (subsequent) rule, its utility is that it need not be mentioned (again in each subsequent rule). (On) 'But a paribhs*. The meaning of the passage is that a paribhs is formulated by stating a condition in it, (and) it covers everything wherever it finds that mark. But in other passages the author of the Bhsya proceeds without making a distinction between adhikra and paribhs, because both share the characteristic of being for the sake of other rules, as is shown by the statement: 'an adhikra-nile is of three kinds'13. Similarly, the statement: 'when two paribhss which find scope (i.e. each of them finds scope for application somewhere to the exclusion of the other), (and) which present themselves simultaneously (for application in one particular case)'14. 11. P. 314: sfr: jtfrfir I 12. P. 314: 3TfWT:

13. Mhh. on P. 1.1.49, Vol. I, P. 119, lines 9-13. 14. Mbh. on P.l.1.14, Vol. I, P. 70 lines 20-21.

Samarthhnika

Note (5): In the first quotation the term adhikra includes paribhs also. In the second quotation the term paribhs includes adhikra. See Bhsya No. 130. 6. (Bhsya: Another Counterquestion) But what difference in (economy of) effort is involved here? Kaiyata15: In which view (either adhikra or paribhs) do we have lghava: 'greater economy of effort' or in which (will we have) gaurava: 'lesser economy of effort', that is the question. 7. (Bhsya: Answer to the second Counterquestion)

If it is an adhikra (the word samartha) should be accentuated (with svarita). But if it is a paribhs^ all (vidhi, i.e. injunctive rules, concerning a finished word) are required by it (to supply the condition samartha in them). Kaiyata16: (On) 'should be accentuated*. It means that the word 'samartha* should be read with (an accentuation of) svarita quality. Here the svarita (accent) which is a quality (of a sound) is mentioned in the form of action as: syarayitavyam-. 'should be accentuated', just as the quality 'white' (i.e. 'it is white' is sometimes put) as 'it "white-s" ' (i.e. it appears to be white). It goes without saying that in this view (Le. the view of adhikra) the word (padavidhth) need not be mentioned. (On) 'all . . . are required*. It means that (the rule taken as) paribhs should be formulated by mentioning the word padavidhh, so as to cover as many grammatical operations as there are concerning a finished word. In case of other paribhss also (a paribhs-rule) requires (the vrJ/'-rules) furnished with that mark which is mentioned as a condition (in the paribhs-rvles themselves). Note (6): A paribhs contains two elements, 1. a marker (M), to indicate where the rule becomes operative, 2. a proviso (P), for the vid/ii-rules (i.e. rules which 15. P. 314: =f7: cp^rfCTM ^pfiWT TO qc^F TW 16. P. 314: ^TfcTS'Tfrf I ^ftuP44tf tfsapf TfrpTcnT: I c^ fT

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

deal with word-formation) required by the paribhs, and which are scattered throughout the Astdhyyi. How will the paribhs~m\e recognize the v/d/n-rule for which it is looking? The vidhi-rule contains the same marker which is stated in the paribhs. F. i. the paribhs-mle P. 1.1.3 ilo gunavrddln states that, wherever guna or vrddhl is prescribed (M), it will come in the place of the vowels (both short and long) u u, r, I (P). This paribhs becomes operative and will supply the word iJah (P) in whichever vidhi-rule contains the conditioning word guna or vrddhi (M). P.7.2.1 14 mrjer vrddhih contains (M), so the paribhs P. 1.1.3 becomes operative and supplies the word ilah (P). Only then P. 7.2.114, its meaning having been completed in this way, becomes operative for word-formation. Therefore, Patanjali says that, if P.2.1.1 is a paribhs, it would require all vidhi-ru\zs concerning a finished word (M) to supply the word samartha (P). This is not so in the case of an adhikra. The adhikra becomes automatically effective in whatever rule follows in that particular section. No guiding instrument for selecting its own instances is built in. How an adhikra is uttered with svariia is not clear from P. 1.3.11 svaritendhikrah. The original accentuation of the successive vowels of the word samarthah is anudtta, udtta, svarita, by P.6.2.139 (the udlta of rtha is retained in samrtha) and by P.8.4.66 (the vowel following after udtta takes svarita). Whether the adhikrasvarita is different from the original svariia or whether all vowels of the word samarlha will take svariia is nowhere clear in Mbh. The form svarayitavyam is a denominative formation. The ganastra concerned, tat Jaroti, lad caste, occurs in the curdJi-section of the Siddhan'a^aumiid (No. 2573, p. 426). The form svarayali means svaram k^oti: 'makes accent', 'is accented*. Patanjali uses the general term svarayitavyam instead of the more fitting term svarita$itav\)am. 8. (Bhsya: Another doubt)

In the same way (just as there was a doubt whether the rule is adhikra or paribhs) there is another doubt: whether (the word) smarthya: 'semantic connection5 should (be taken as) 'meaninginterdependence' or (as) 'single integrated meaning3. Kaiyata17: (On) 'single integrated meaning'. That is 'single integrated meaning', where (constituent) words by taking on the meaning of the main member (of the compound) either (become) meaningless or convey another meaning (in addition to their own meaning), as they (respectively) either abandon their own meaning 17. p. 314: cr^Tsff^rr^ ^% j zpr freF^q^^^rerqifa fr^TT^r^fa" 3T

Samarthhnika

or present their meanings as qualifiers (of the meaning of the main member). 'Meaning-interdependence' is of the nature of mutual requirement. Note (7): *Semantic connection' is interpreted in two ways: 1. 'meaning-interdependence', 2. *single integrated meaning'.18 Interdependence of meaning only exists in uncompounded word-groups like rjnah purusah: 'king's man' or in the sentence. Here the words require each other to determine and complete their meaning. Single integrated meaning is again interpreted in two ways: i) ajahaisvrth Wrttih, ii) jahatsvrth vrtth (see Bhsya No. 75). In the first interpretation the constituents which combine to make integration (vrtti)19 do not abandon their own meaning, but retain it insofar it qualifies the meaning of the main member of the compound. F.i. in the compound rjapurusah: 'kingman' the word rjan denotes the meaning: 'related to a king*, that means 'man', which is the meaning of the main member. The word rjan thus stands for the meaning pur usa by presenting its own meaning as a qualifier to it. This is called upasarjambhtasvrtha: 'presenting its own meaning as subordinate'. A constituent word does not give up its own meaning, but changes it, so as to become a qualifier of the main member. Since this constituent does not present its meaning separately anymore, it cannot be itself qualified by a word outside the compound. In the second interpretation the constituents of the word-composition (vrtti) give up their own meanings which merge in a new, single meaning denoted by the word-composition as a whole. The compound rjapurusah as a whole denotes a single meaning 'king-man', where the part-meanings are no more separable from

18. The term ekrthbhva, translated here as 'single integrated meaning' literally means 'emergence of single meaning'. This emergence may be due to integration of constituent meanings, as is the case int ajahatsvrth vrtti, or it may arise naturally as singleness of meaning, in which the constituent meanings have no part. These two interpretations date from Patanjali?s period. In the Vrttikas ekrthbhva simply means emergence of single meaning owing to integration of constituent meanings which, when uncompounded, have separate meanings (see Vrttika I on P.2.1.1). To avoid repetition of the words 'emergence of the translation 'single integrated meaning' is chosen. .. 19. The term vrtti literally means 'turning something into something else'. It is used with regard to the process of word-formation in which a meaningful unit of a structurally higher order is built up from meaningful elements, i.e., integration. The term vrtti is also used to denote the resulting integrated form. See Siddhntakaumudi, p. 209, Sarvasamdsapravesa. For the translation of the term vrtti usually the word 'word-composition' is chosen, because this word can be taken to refer to compounding as well as to the formation of non-compound words. Also, this word gives some indication of the process of formation in which. higher units are built up from their elements .

10

Mahbhs\ja (P.2.1.1)

each other. So in the phrase darsamyah rjapurusah: 'handsome king-man' the 'man' is not qualified by darsaniyah, but the 'king-man', i.e. the compound as a whole. This, anyway, would be the theoretical explanation. But, actually, darsariiyah goes with purusah. Patanjali states that the main members of the compound can be qualified by a word outside the compound. See Bhsya Nos. 27 and 28 and Ngesa on No. 28. To sum up: In the ajahaisvrth view the members have individual meanings, but the subordinate member assumes the meaning of the main member. In the jahaisvrth view the meanings of the constituent members merge in a whole. It does not mean that the members have no meaning at all, but that their meaning is not to be separated from the whole. The compound conveys meaning as a whole, and in conveying meaning the parts have no separate function from the whole, whereas m the ajahatsvrth view the compound does not convey meaning totally independent from its constituents. 9.

(Bhsya: Consequences of the alternative interpretations: elcrthlbhva are shown with regard to the alternative: adhilcra or paribhs)

Among these alternatives, if we take 'semantic connection' as 'single integrated meaning' and (the rule as) adhikra, (then) 'compounding' only will come under (the) control (of this rule). 'Prescription of caseending' and 'treatment as a part of the following word' will be left out. If, on the other hand, we take 'semantic connection' as 'meaninginterdependence' and (the rule as) adhikra, (then) 'prescription of caseending' and 'treatment as a part of the following word' will come under (the) control (of this rule). But 'compounding' only is left out. Moreover, (the words) samartha and yukta have to be stated (separately) elsewhere. Where elsewhere? In (the rules) P.8.3.44 and P.8.1.2420. But if we take 'semantic connection' as 'meaning-interdependence' and (the rule as) paribhs, (then) whatever operation in grammar smells of finished word, all of that will come under (the) control (of the rule), but 'compounding' only will be left out. Kaiyata21: (On) '(then) 'compounding' only'. Because 'single integrated meaning' is only found there. 20. Wherever a Pnini-rule is quoted in the text of the Mbh., the translation may indicate its number only. The explanation will be given in the note on the Bh?ya in question. 21. P. 315: ^nrrfl" {T^T ^ r i cr^pffanrares1 ngreTcf n

Samarthhnika Note (8):

11

The alternative: 'single integrated meaning' or 'meaning-interdependence', is possible in both interpretations of the rule, adhifyra and paribhs. If we regard P.2.1.1 to be restricted to cases of 'single integrated meaning', rules prescribing 'case-terminations' and 'treatment as a part of the following word' are necessarily left out, because 'single integrated meaning' only exists in compounds. If, on the other hand, we regard P.2.1.1 to be restricted to cases of 'meaninginterdependence', it will only cover the rules prescribing 'case-terminations' and 'treatment as a part of the following word'. Rules prescribing 'compounding' are left out, for the simple reason that 'meaning-interdependence' does not exist in compounds. P.8.3.44 prescribes that the visarga which originates from the word-endings -is and -us is substituted by s, before a semantically connected word which begins with the letters , /r, p, ph. This rule would not be covered by P.2.1.1, if we regard the latter rule as an adhifyra. P.8.1.24 states that substitutions for the pronouns yusmad and asmad do not take place, when these pronouns are connected with the particles ca, v, ha, aha, eva. This rule would not be covered by P.2.1.1, if we regard the latter rule as an adhtyra. But if we take P.2.1.1 as a paribhs, no such difficulties would arise. There is, however, another difficulty then. In the rules P.8.1.24 and 8.3.44 the condition samartha: 'semantically connected' is required and could be supplied by P.2.1.1 as a paribhs. Then a question arises: why does Pnini separately mention this condition in these rules by the words yulte and smarthye respectively? The mention of these words in these rules gives us the clue that P.2.1.1 is restricted to word-composition rules and does not cover the rules dealing with the sentence. 10. (Bhsya: Final view)

Among these alternatives, (if we accept) that 'semantic connection' is (here) 'single integrated meaning' and (the rule is) a paribhs, then the rule can be better kept as it is (than in other alternative interpretations). Kaiyata22: (On) 'Among these'. (In the case of P.2.1.1 as an adhikra there will be three alternatives:) The first alternative: 'semantic connection' as 'single integrated meaning' (and the rule 2.1.1 as) an adhikra. The second alternative: 'semantic connection* as 'meaning-interdependence* (and the rule as) an adhikra. 22. P. 315: ^ftfcT | iCffFffaTC: T^f^RiT %W$: TO": \

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

The third alternative: both types of semantic connection (i.e. 'meaninginterdependence' and 'singie integrated meaning') (and the rule as) an adhfyra. Again, in the interpretation as a paribhs, there will be three alternatives. Out of six possible alternatives (the alternative) 'single integrated meaning* and (the rule as) a paribhsa is decided upon. Note (9): (a) The consequence of the final view is that 'prescription of case-termination* (referred to as PCT) and 'treatment as a part of the following word' (referred to as TPFW) will not be covered by P.2.1.1, because they are excluded by the condition of 'single integrated meaning'. According to Kaiyata (in his comment on 'can be better kept as it is') this does not matter, because other provisions are made, so as to make the rules dealing with PCT and TPFW applicable in the case of semantic connection between the elements in question. In P.2.3.2 which is a PCT rule, we can manage without the word samartha. The case-ending prescribed here is karalcavibhalcti: 'case expressing the relation between noun and verb' which invariably implies a semantic relation between verb and ^arala: 'operator'. The separate condition samartha is not required here. In the case of upapadavibhakii: 'case-ending governed by an accompanying word*, Pnini himself uses the words pu/^e and yogt in the rules concerned to indicate the condition of semantic connection (see P.2.3.4; 2.3.16, etc.). So here also we can do without the word samartha. In the case of TPFW rules the function of the word samartha is taken over by the statement iannimitla: 'its cause' (Vrltila No. II on P.2.1.2, Mbh. Vol. I, p. 357). An example is P.2.1.2 where it is stated that, as far as accentuation is concerned, a preceding word is considered as a part of the following vocative. The Vrt\a now says that this rule only applies, if the preceding word is a genitive and if the genitive meaning can be considered as the cause of the vocative meaning. In the expression madrnm rjan: 'O king of Madra' the country is regarded as the cause of the kingship for the person referred to by the vocative. The condition lannimitia, which prescribes a causal relation between two meanings, cannot be fulfilled, unless there is a semantic connection between the genitive and vocative meanings. By accepting the alternative: 'semantic connection' as 'single integrated meaning* for P.2.1.1, its scope is undoubtedly restricted, but possible undesired consequences are taken care of by special provisions, and no harm results. (b) By accepting P.2.1.1 as a paribhsa its scope is widened. The rule becomes applicable to rules prescribing denominative and Irt formations involving a finished word as one of the conditions for the operation prescribed, as P.3.1.8

Samarthhnilca

13

(where the condition supah : 'after a word ending in a case-termination' is stated) and P.3.2.1 which states that the l?rt suffix aN is added in the sense of 'agent' after a root when this latter is preceded by a word in the accusative expressing the notion of grammatical object. Because P.2.1.1 covers cases like these, the rule P.3.1.8 cannot be applied in a construction like naya putram icchaty artham: 'bring the son, he wishes money'. Out of the immediate sequence putram icchati we cannot now form the denominative putnyati2*, because semantic connection is lacking here. Similarly, in the phrase naya kumbham faroti patam: 'bring a jar, he makes a cloth' we cannot apply P.3.2.1 to form the compound kumbhafra. 11. (Bhsya: Objection)

Even so, in some places (the word) samartha is mentioned, when it need not be. And in other places it is not mentioned, although it should have been. To begin with, it is mentioned when it need not be, as in P.4.1.82. (Then,) it is not mentioned, although it should have been, as in P.3.2.1 (where we have to supply: ) 'after a semantically connected (root)'. Kaiyata": (On) 'P.4.1.82*. Since P.6.3.17 prescribes non-elision of case-ending, the implication is that taddhita suffixes are added after (a word) ending in a casetermination. Therefore (the rules prescribing taddhita suffixes prescribe operations) for finished words. So when (P.2.1.1 as) a paribhs presents itself (to a rule prescribing iaddhita formation) there is no chance for a suffix to be added in the absence of semantic connection. (On) T.3.2.r. If we accept the view that prtipadika: 'nominal stem' stands for a group of five (notions, viz. genus, individual, gender, number, noun-verb relation), the nominal stem itself expresses the notion of (grammatical) object (and) so this (rule P.3.2.1) cannot be regarded as dealing with afinishedword. But if we accept the view that the nominal stem stands for a group of three (notions only, viz. genus, individual, gender), then (the notion of grammatical) object can be expressed by the case-ending (only) (and) there is no difficulty now, because P.2.1.1 presents itself in P.3.2.1, since the latter rule deals with finished words. 23. See Siddhntakaumudx, No. 2658 on P.7.4.33. 24. P. 315:

ffa: M

14 Ngesa25:

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

(On) 'group of five'. This is a rash statement. Even if we accept that view (viz., that a nominal stem expresses five things in a general way), (still) it is necessary to add the case-ending (to the stem) in order to indicate the (special) meaning of that (i.e., of the accusative case). But the intention of the prvapaksin in the Bhsya is as follows: the word padavidhih (in P.2.1.1) denotes an operation which concerns a finished word. And in this way (P.2.1.1 will operate) in the case of compounding (which is of finished words) and of taddhita suffixes (which are added after finished words) only, both of which directly concern finished words, but it would not (operate) here (i.e. in the case of Jrt suffixes like aN which are added to a root26). For here the thing directly concerned is a root and not a finished word. Note (10): P.4.1.82 is an adh'tkra rule which states that the words samarthnm (i.e. samartht: 'after a semantically connected word'), prathamt: *after the first (word)' and v: 'optionally' continue to have effect in the subsequent rules27. The objection says that it is not necessary to mention the word samarthnm here, because all taddhita suffixes are added after words ending in a case-termination (see below on P.6.3.17). So the operation prescribed by P.4.1.82 will be padakdrya: 'grammatical operation prescribed for a finished word' and P.2.1.1 would become effective and supply the condition samartht. P.3.2.1 (see Note (9) states that the /erf suffix aN is added after a root, when the latter is preceded by its grammatical object. The objection says that the operation prescribed by P.3.2.1 cannot be a padavidhi: 'grammatical operation prescribed for a finished word', because aN is prescribed after a root. Pnini should have separately stated the condition samartha for the connection between root and upapada: 'accompanying word*. 25. PP. 315-16:

26. The question whether the panbhs 2.1.1 applies or not is really immaterial, for P.3.2.1 can only operate when the preceding word functions as a grammatical object with regard to the following root. This definitely implies semantic relation. See note (9). 27 Strictly speaking, P.4.1.82 means that the expressions: samarthnm prathamt: 'after the first (word) among semantically connected (words)' and va: 'optionally' are continued. But Patanjali (see Mbh. on 4.1.82. Vol. II, p. 239) and following commentators have twisted the meaning of the rule for reasons explained in the Paribhsendusekhara, KIELHORN'S trsl., pp. 307-315.

Samarthhnika

15

P. 6.3.17 states that the locative case, added to a word ending in a consonant or a, standing for a notion of time, is not optionally elided before the suffixes tara, tama, tana and the word Iala. If we assume that taddhita suffixes are added just to a nominal stem, then there would not have been any occasion at all to employ the locative before tara, tama, etc. From this we conclude that taddhita suffixes are added to a word ending in a case-termination. According to the 'five-thing' view mentioned by Kaiyata, the. derivational process of the word kumbhakra: 'potter' would start from umfc/ia -f kr + aN, instead of from kumbha + am + kr + aN, since the sense of the accusative case-ending am is already included in the nominal stem Jumbha. This, of course, is a wrong view, because in compound-formation the first member must be a finished word. 12. (Bhsya: Objection rejected)

But is it not so, that, when we say kumbhakra: 'pot-maker' (or) nagarakra: 'city-maker', we do apprehend semantic connection (between 'pot' and 'maker', etc.)? Kaiyata28: (On) 'But is it not so'. If the word JcumbhaJtra conveys (the meaning 'potmaker', where the compound constituents are) semantically connected, as well as (the meaning 'pot', 'maker', where the constituents are) not semantically connected, then we will have to make some special provision (viz, to supply the word samartha) in order to prevent the use (of kumbhakra: 'pot-maker*) in the sense of (*pot', 'maker', where the constituents are) not semantically connected, otherwise not. Note (11): Special provision need, of course, not be made, since the word kumbhakra exclusively conveys the meaning 'pot-maker'. 13. (Bhsya: Objection reaffirmed)

Yes, that is true. It is apprehended once a suffix has been added. (ButsN that same suffix must first be generated after the semantically connected word. 28. P. 316:

16 Kaiyata29:

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

(On) 'that same . . . first'. This rule (P.2.1.1) is made, so that compounding etc. should not (take place) of semantically unconnected words. The same is true here also. That is, mention of (the word) samartha should be made to prohibit (the addition of) the suffix (aN), when there is no semantic connection. The answer (to the objection that the word samartha should be stated in P.3.2.1) is not given by the author of the Bhsya, because it is obvious. For, the significant designation 'upapada' is stated only for making the paribhs (P.2.1.1) effective (here) by making the (addition of) the suffix dependent on a finished word. Note ()2): The prvapalcsin says that at the level from which compounding starts there may or may not be a semantic connection between the elements, as explained by the meaning-analysis, f.i. l^umbham Iaroti as against naya Iumbham fyaroti patam: *bring a pot, he makes a cloth'. According to the rules of the grammatical system the compoundfyumbhakaracan only be generated in the meaning indicated by the first analysis. In the case of the second analysis compounding is not allowed. For this reason P.3.2.1 must come under P.2.1.1. The objection says that this is not possible, because P.3.2.1 is not a padavidhi: *(rule prescribing an) operation for a finished word*. How P.2.1.1 becomes operative here is not shown by Patanjali. From the Bhsya it appears that the objection remains without answer. Kaiyata says that Patanjali has done so, because the answer is obvious. Since the word karmani in P.3.2.1 refers to the upapada (a designation given to a finished word) and functions as the condition for adding the suffix, the rule P.3.2.1 becomes a padavidhi Therefore it comes under P.2.1.1. The discussion concerning the nature of the rule P.2.1.1 is initiated by Patanjali, not by Ktyyana. In Vrttika XIII (Mbh. Vol. I, p. 368) Ktyyana takes, the rule as a paribhs, because he presupposes that P.2.1.1 applies in the mg/ita-section (see Bhsya No. 120). In Vrttika XVII Ktyyana uses the word samarthdhil?<ra referring to P.2.1.1. The view preferred by Patanjali is that of paribhs (see Bhsya No. 10), and his view is taken over by the later commentators. But this does not prevent Patanjali to refer to the rule as an adhilcra (see Mbh. Vol. I, p. 368, line 25 ; 29. P. 316: ^f T ^ TT^f^f^f I ^^R ^TTT^ftS^T^rf T T* T

Samarthhnika

17

p. 369, line 2, line 6). There is no inconsistency here, because Patanjali considers the paribhs as a subdivision of the adhil(ra (see Kaiyata on Bhsya No. 5 and note 5).
(HERE ENDS THE SECTION IN WHICH IT IS EXAMINED WHETHER THE

RULE IS A paribhs O AN adhikra). R Ill

(NOW STARTS THE SECTION ON THE PURPOSE OF

THE samartha-paribhs)

14.

(Bhsya: Question)

Now, what is the purpose of mentioning (the word) samartha (in P.2.1.1)? Kaiyata30: Through the question regarding the purpose of the main word samartha the question about the purpose of the rule itself is raised. Although by this word we cannot generate semantic connection (between the elements to be compounded), because to generate semantic connection, when the elements themselves do not show it, falls outside the scope of this rule, still, the word samartha serves the purpose of providing the proviso 'semantic connection' for the rules dealing with a finished word. Therefore, the word samartha is regarded as the main one. Note (13): For the meaning of padavidhi: 'rule prescribing a grammatical operation for a finished word*, i.e. rule dealing with a finished word, see note 3. 15. (Bhsya: Answer)

(a) He (Pnini) will state (in P.2.1.24) (that a word in the) accusative case is compounded with (the words iritd etc., as in kastasritdh: 'who has resorted to effort', narakasritah : 'who has taken his refuge in hell'. (a') What is the purpose of mentioning samartha (with regard to P.2.1.24)? (So that this rule will not become operative in the following example:) pasya devadatta kastam rito visnumitro gurukuUam: 'see, o Devadatta, the (painful) effort, resorted to the house of his teacher has Visnumitra'. ~ 30. P. 316: 3T"q%| sn*T^tfT*fT^r g^Nr^T: | cWfa

F. 2

18 Note (14):

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

The examples are given in the sub-sections indicated by accentless letters (a-f). The counterexamples follow in the sub-sections indicated by accented letters (a'-f). The words underlined in the translation of the counterexamples correspond with the compound-constituents in the examples. The rules mentioned in this Bhsya prescribe compounding. The words given as examples are compounds. The counterexamples show how the words used as compound-constituents in the examples may occur in immediate sequence without semantic connection. Throughout these sections it is shown that the word samartha supplied in each rule quoted becomes purposeful by prohibiting compounding in the counterexamples. F.i. the word samartha in P.2.1.24 becomes purposeful by prohibiting the formation of the compound of the semantically unconnected words kastam and sritah which here form part of two different sentences. (Bhsya continued) (b) (Pnini will state:) P.2.1.30 (by which rule we derive the compounds) sankulkhandah: cpiece cut off by nippers', k^knah: 'made blind in one eye by a hog'. (b') What is the purpose of mentioning samartha (with regard to P.2.1.30)? (So that this rule will not become operative in the following example:) tistka tvam sankulay khando dhvati musalena: 'stop (cutting) by nippers, the piece (already cut off) by a pestle slips away'. Note (15): The rule P.2.1.30 states that a word in the instrumental may be compounded with a semantically connected word denoting a quality, when it (the quality, f.i. Jcanatva: 'blindness') is caused by the thing denoted by the word in the instrumental, and with the word artha. For further explanation see note (14). (Bhsya continued) (c) (Pnjni will state:) P.2.1.36 (by which rule we derive the compounds:) gohitam: 'good for cows', asvahitam: 'good for horses'. (c5) What is the purpose of mentioning samartha (with regard to P.2.1.36)? (So that this rule will not become operative in the following example:) sukharn gobhyo hitam devadattdya : 'pleasant for cows, good for Devadatta'. Note (16): The rule P.2.1.36 states that a word in the dative may be compounded with semantically connected words denoting things intended for the objects denoted by the words in the dative, and with the word artha: 'for the sake of, bali: 'a

Samarthhmka

19

sacrifice*, hita: 'good*, sulha: 'pleasant', tlfitai 'reserved for*. For further explanation see note (14). (Bhsya continued) (d) (Pnini will state:) P.2.1.37 (by which rule we derive the compounds:) z/fkabhayam: 'fear of wolves' dasyubhayam: 'fear of robbers', caurabhayam: 'fear of thieves'. (d') What is the purpose of mentioning samartha (with regard to P.2.1.37)? (So that the rule will not become operative in the following example:) gaccha tvavi ma vfkebhyo bhayeflh devadattt yajnadattasya: 'do not go away because of the wolves, fear of Devadatta has Yajnadatta'. Note (17): The rule P.2.1.37 states that a word in the ablative may be compounded with the semantically connected word bhaya: 'fear*. For further explanation see note (14). (Bhsya continued) (e) (Pnini will state in P.2.2.8 that) (a word in) the genitive is compounded with a case-inflected word. (By this rule we derive the compounds:) rjapuru?ah: 'king-man', brhmanakambalah: 'brahminblanket'. (e') What is the purpose of mentioning samartha (with regard to P.2.2.8)? (So that the rule will not become operative in the following example: ) bhry rjnh puruo deuadattasya: 'wife of the king, man of Devadatta'. Note (18): For further explanation see notes (1) sub (e) and (14).

(Bhsya continued) (f) (Pnini will state:) P.2.1.40 (by which rule we derive the compounds:) aksasaundah; 'addicted to dice', strsaundh: 'addicted to women'. (f) What is the purpose of mentioning samartha (with regard to P.2.1.40)? (So that the rule will not become operative in the following example:) kusalo devadatto 'ksesu saundah pibati pngre: 'skilled is Devadatta in dice, the addict drinks in the winehouse'.

20 Note (19):

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

The rule 2.1.40 states that words ending in the locative may be compounded with the semantically connected words saunda etc. For further explanation see note (14). The first and the last but^one stra are quoted by Patanjali in vrtti form, whereas the others are quoted verbatim. 16. (Bhsya: Objection)

Now, even if we mention (the word) samartha here (in P.2.1.1 and which therefore becomes effective in P.2.1.27), why is (compounding) not allowed in (the expression) mahat kastam sritah: 'who has made a painstaking effort'? Kaiyata31: (On) 'painstaking effort*. In the example given, there is definitely semantic connection (of mahat) with the action of srayana: 'resorting to'. Therefore, the question is raised (how can the word samartha serve to prevent possible undesired compound-forms built up from the constituents mahat, kasta and srita?). la32. If (first) a compound were formed here out of the two words fyasta and srita, then (the undesired expression) mahat f?astasritah (where mahat would be the outside qualifier of k^ta) would result. Ha. Even if we form a 'three-word' compound (of mahat, k<*?ta anc^ srita together at the same time), still the substitution of for t (in mahat, by P.6.3.46), prescribed when the final member of the compound follows (i.e. when ka?ta occurs as the final member in the compound mahatfyasta), would not take place, when the middle member in the compound follows (i.e. as the middle member in the compound mahatkastasrita). 31. P. 3I7:TT^sptsfTfri STJhn^ WmfoMT ST^fafcT ST^f: I fr S T S : TrcRT H^'^fsTcT fftr c I STqTpT ^ZTFri" * * 1 T TT TT TT%

? ^TTTT: II 3P$ c3T|:

1 1 32. The divisions la etc. are based on the summary at the end of the note.

Samarthhnika
33

21

lib. (Also,) even if a 'three-word' compound were made, (internal) compound (construction) would be there according to P.2.1.61. And the accent Ib. which according to P.6.2.47 applies to the compound mahkastasrita (when we derive it from) mahkastam sriiah, that same (accent) would apply here (i.e. in 'three-word' compounding at one and the same time) according to P.6.1.22333*. (But) still the accentuation in the form mahranyfitdh: 'gone beyond the great forest* would show a difference (in 'two-word* or 'three-word' compounding). Ib. If 'two-word' compounding were made as mahranyam aftah, the accent would apply according to P.6.2.144, but if we make 'three-word' compounding lib. with (internal) tatpurusa of two (words) according to P.2.1.61, (then) the word mahranya would be accentuated on the final syllable according to the accent (prescribed) for compounds (by P.6.1.223), just as the word sl in prvaslpryah. Ile. But others say that, if we make 'three-word' compounding, the sense 'admiration for (making the effort) * would not be conveyed, and there would not (even) be the relation of qualifier and qualified (either), because there is no mutual relation between the words mahat and k<*?ta' s m c e t n e v directly convey the meaning of the main member (viz. srita). So no (internal) compounding would be there and, accordingly, there would be no (question of) substituting for t (in mahat). And for the word mahat the (undesired) original accent according to P.6.2.47 would result. Ngesa34: (On) 'just as . . .' Others (i.e. Ngesa himself) say that,, if we make a three-word bahuvfihi out of (the expression) mahn devadaltah priyo 33. By 'internal construction' we mean grouping of two constituents, made after the whole compound (i.e. 'three-or-more -word' compounding) has been formed at one and the same time. This 'internal construction' should be carefully distinguished from the more current procedure of building compounds by combining two words at a time, e.g. from A-j-B-f-C we derive the compound ABC. The grouping AB or BG within ABC is called 'internal construction'. In 'twoword' compounding, on the other hand, we form the same compound ABC by first compounding A and B, then AB and C. Here the grouping of A and B occurs before the compound ABC as a whole is formed. The purpose of making such a subsequent internal construction may not be immediately clear. But for the application of rules within Pnini's system, f.i. when accent is concerned, it may make a difference whether we make such an internal construction or not (see note on B hasy a 181). 33a. So far accentuation is concerned it does not make any difference here whether we start from a 'two-word' compound, left side analysis, or directly make a 'three-word' compound. 34. P. 317: ft 5 ^r^TrT: pft r. 1 1

22

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.)

Vho likes the great Devadatta', (we have to accept) on the authority of the mention of (the word) bahulam: Variously' (in P.2.1.57), (that) in compounding three words (together at a time), compounding of internal constituents by P.2.1.61 does not take place in order to prevent the (incorrect usage) mahdcvadattapriyah (where the internal iatpurusa would be mahdevadatta) and to establish the (correct usage) mahaddevadattapriyah. And, therefore, (the form) mahatkastasritah as such will be treated as one word having one accent. But this is not desired. This is what the Bhsya means. At the end of (the discussion on) this rule35, while making the statement that P.2.1.57 does not apply to the internal words which form part of the 'three-word' compounding, (the author of the Bhsya) has almost stated that the rules (like P.2.1.61), which give a detailed account (of P.2.1.57) and which are meant to restrict (what should be) the first member of a compound, do not apply either (to the internal constituents in 'three-word' compounding). Note (20): (a) P.6.3.46 states that the t of mahat is substituted by a, when mahat is followed by a syntactically agreeing word or by the word jfiya. P.2.1.6 states that the words sat, mahat, etc., may be compounded with words denoting what is being admired, and the compound is called tatpurusa. P.6.2.47 states that a word in the accusative, except when the idea of separation is expressed, retains its original accent, when it is followed by a word ending in Kia. P.6.1.223 states that a compound has udtta accent on the final syllable. P.6.2.144 states that a word ending in Kta etc. has udtta on the final syllable, when it is part of a compound and preceded by a gati, krafa or upapada. P.2.1.57 states that a qualifying word is variously compounded with a syntactically agreeing qualified word and the compound is called tatpurusa (karmadhraya). (b) The question put by Patanjali is, why is compounding not allowed of mahat 4* kastaih + sritah, in spite of their semantic connection? The implication is that compounding of these three words may give rise to undesired formations. Kaiyata makes a painstaking effort in determining which formations are desired and which are not. The possibilities for compounding these three words are basically two: either we make 'two-word* compounding (f.'i. from A + B we derive AB; from AB + C we derive ABC), or we make 'three-word* compounding (from 35. See Bhya No. 198

Samarthhnika

23

A + B + C we derive ABC). Each basic possibility is again subdivided into two. In 'two-word' compounding we may proceed by *left-side' analysis, i.e. analysis, where the rightmost constituent is last combined, as indicated above, or by 'right-side* analysis, i.e. analysis, where the leftmost constituent is last combined: from B + C we derive BC; from A + BC we derive ABC (see also note on Bhsya Nos. 171 and 181). If 'three-word* compounding is first made, then subsequently we may or may not form internal constructions of constituents, f.i. as tatpurusa, (c) Kaiyata first takes up 'two-word' compounding, 'right-side* analysis. A compound is formed of I?astam (B) and sritah (C), by P.2.1.24, which rule states that a word in the accusative is compounded with the words srita etc. But the next step, i.e., the compounding of mahat (A) with Iastasrita (BC) cannot be made, because mahat qualifies the subordinate member ka?ta ( sec spelcsam asamartham bhavatu Bhsya No. 26). So what results is an expression where mahat is a separate word and kastasritah is a compound. This is not desired. What will be the result, if we take 'two-word' compounding left-side* analysis? Mahat will be compounded with k<*?tam according to P.2.1.61. Substitution of the / of mahat by will take place by P.6.3.46. The accent will fall on the final syllable by P.6.1.223. Then the form mahlastm is compounded with srita by P.2.1.24. The accent of mahkastam is retained by P.6.2.47. The resulting form reads maha^astdsritah which is the desired form. In the 'three-word' compounding ABC the internal construction AB will be regarded as a tatpurusa by P.2.1.62. The substitution rule P.6.3.46 and the accent rule P. 6.1.223 apply. The result is the form mahkastsritah. That means, that in 'two-word* compounding 'left-side' analysis, and in 'three-word* compounding we cannot show a difference in the resulting form. The accents according to P.6.1.223 and P.6.2.47 coincide. This is why Kaiyata replaces the example mahaf T^astam sritah by mahad aranyam atah. Here P.6.2.47 cannot apply, because of the condition affina: 'non-separation*. Compound-formation in *two-word' compounding, 'left-side' analysis will be as follows: [a] from mahad aranyam we derive, mahranyam by P.2.1.61. The substitution rule P.6.3.46 and the accent rule P.6.1.223 apply. [b] from mahranyam atah we derive mahranyatth by P.2.1.24. The accent is prescribed by P.6.2.144. In 'three-word* compounding by P.2.1.24 the internal construction AB would be tatpurusa by P.2.1.61. The accent falls on the last syllable according to P.6.1.223 (mahranyd). This accent will prevail over the accentuation

24

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

(P.6.2.144 of the compound-whole (mahranyftth), because Bhsya No. 187 states that the accent of the internal construction prevails over the accent of whole compound. So in this case an undesired accentuation will result. Kaiyata may not have felt satisfied with these attempts to arrive at an undesired form. He mentions still another possibility. Suppose we make 'threeword' compounding. Then we may say that the words mahat and kasta are each of them directly connected with the main compound member srila. This implies that between mahat and k^sta there is no mutual relation. This being the case, the rules P.2.1.61 (forming internal tatpurusa) and P.6.3.46 cannot apply. The result would be the form mahatlastsritah which is undesired. Summary of Kaiyata's successive explanations: I. 'Two-word' compounding. a. 'Right-side' analysis: the undesired expression mahat Iastsritah. b. 'Left-side' analysis: the desired form mahalastrith. II. 'Three-word' compounding. a. Without internal tatpvtrusa (P.2.1.61 is simply not taken into account). This gives the undesired form: mahatkastintak. b. (Ha is rejected). With internal iaipurusa (P. 2.1.61 is taken into account). This gives the desired form: mahkastsritah. c. (lib is rejected). Without internal iatpurusa (application of P.2.1.61 is rejected, because semantic relation between mahat and kasta is denied). This gives the undesired form: mahatkastsriiah. The possibilities Ib and lib happen to produce identical forms, but Kaiyata, by means of his example mahranyfitahy shows that this need not always be so. Here Ib would give mahranyfith and lib mahranyafttah. What Ngesa means to say by his remark that in 'three-word' compounding we cannot consider the internal construction mahlcasta (AB) as a tatpurusay is this: if the internal grouping A + B is conditioned by the uitarapada: 'final compound-member', as prescribed by P.2.1.51, then only we can combine AB after the 'three-word' compound ABC has been formed. Only in such a case, i.e. when the uttarapada (here C) follows, internal construction (like ABC) is allowed. But if already in 'two-word' compounding we can combine A and B independently, because grouping them is not conditioned by an uitarapada, then we are not supposed to make an internal construction AB after the 'three-word' compound ABC has been formed. F.i. we can combine mahat and

Samarthhnika

25

together as mahkastam quite well independently, without having a following word srita. Now in 'three-word' compounding of mahat, fastam an(^ srita which necessarily results in the form mahatkastasritah, we are not supposed to make a subsequent internal grouping of mahat and fczsta, frm which we would derive the internal construction mahlcasta. See also note on Bhsya 198. 17. (Bhsya: Counterobjection) mah-

Do you mean to say that we cannot form (the compound) kastasrith? Kaiyata36:

(On) 'cannot form*. It is totally impossible to form a compound out of the expression bhry rjnah puruso devadattasya: *wife of a king, man of Devadatta' (,but) we cannot say the same is true here. This is what (the Bhsya) means to say. Note (21): For the possibility of mahkastasrith see note (20). bhry etc. see note (1) sub (e). 18. (Bhsya: Answer to counterobjection) For the expression

(No), we can form it, if we have the following uncompounded expressions: (from) mahat kastam (we derive) mahkastam; (from mahkastam sritah (we derive) mahkastasrith. But when we have the following uncompounded expression: mahat kastaih sritah, then we should not form it. And yet it would result. Kaiyata30: (On) 'we can make it, if. When we first form a compound of mahat and kasta (which is possible,) since they show interdependence (in meaning), without taking into account the word srita, the compound (of mahJ^asta) with the word srita would result. Note (22) : The word 'it' in the Bhsya *we should not form it' and 'it would result' is rather ambiguous, as is pointed out in Bhsya No. 20. 36. P. 317: ? 3 T W^ftfa I ^ T T W TT: JTfrrerrerercfTcq^*RT*mft,

37. P. 317: ^ f ^f I f^^'TfteriUWt: MXWwroi H^t^d^: * T $ P TT

26

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

In making a compound out of the three words mahat (A), kastam (B), and rllah (C) it is the question whether we have to combine only two words, leaving the third word out, or whether we have to combine all three. The first alternative presents two possibilities: la. A+B makes AB; C lies outside the compound AB. Ib. B+C makes BC; A lies outside the compound BC. The second alternative of combining ABC together is again subdivided, this depending on whether we make * two-word* compounding (i.e. combining two words at a time) or 'three-word* compounding. If 'two-word' compounding, then we have the choice between 'left-side' and * right-side* analysis. The possibilities will be then as follows: II a. 1. A + B makes AB ; AB + C makes ABC. II a.2. B + C makes BC; A + BC makes ABC. II b. A + B + C makes ABC. The forms resulting from the above combinations will be the following: la. mahlzastam + sritah. For making the compound mahlcastam the rules P. 2.1.61 and P.6.3.46 apply. The resulting expression is correct. Ib. mahat + kastasritah. For making the compound fcistasrztah, the rule P.2.1.24 applies. The resulting expression where mahat lies outside the compound is incorrect, but has been taken into account by the pwrvapaksm, because he does not know yet the statement sdpeksam asamartham bhavati in Bhsya No. 26. II a.1. mahkastasritah. For making this compound the rules mentioned under la apply, and, in addition, P.2.1.24. The resulting compound is correct usage, as Patanjali himself states in this Bhsya. II a.2. mahkastasritah. For making this compound P.2.1.24 applies and, in addition, P.2.1.61 and P.6.3.46. The resulting form is correct, but later on (Bhsya No. 33) it is pointed out that this way of forming the compound is not correct. II b. mahatkastasrhah. For making this compound the rules P.2.1.61 and P.2.1.24 apply simultaneously. The resulting compound is not correct. See also note (20), possibility lie and Ngesa's comment on Bhsya No. 20. The word 'it' in the /?s\;a-translation refers to undesired possibilities of formation, i.e., Ib; II a.2; and II b. 19. (Bhsya : Objection) Then why cannot we form it?

Samarthhnifca 20. (Bhsya : Counter objection)

27

Why cannot we form it out of what? Out of two (words) or rather out of many? Kaiyata38: (On) 'Why out of what*. The non-committal statement (i.e., fyasya, in the singular) isr meant to indicate (the possibility of) a 'two-word' or 'three-word' combination. Note (23): If the Bhsya would have read kaVh o r k^m instead of k<*tya, the author would have committed himself to 'two-word' compounding exclusively or to 'three-or-more-word' compounding exclusively. The objection of Bhsya No. 19 does not indicate out of what, i.e., out of which words the compound cannot be formed. This point is brought out by the counterobjection. The expression dvayoh (bahnm) : '(compounding) of two words (out of many)' in the Bhsya is to be distinguished from dvctyoh dvctyoh (bahvnm) : '(compounding) of two words at a time (out of many)' in Bhsya No. 171 ff. Dvayoh means compounding of two words only, while leaving out a third combinable word, whereas dvayoh dvayoh means combining two words at a time in 'three-or-more-word* compounding, like A + B makes AB; AB +. C makes ABC, etc. The word dvayoh in the present Bh$$a refers to the undesired possibility A + BC (Ib, note 22). 21. (Bhsya: Intention of the objection)

Why cannot we form it out of many (words)? Kaiyata39: (On) 'why cannot we form it out of many (words) ?' Since both words (mahat and ka?ta) n a v e the status oi grammatical object with respect to (the action of 'resorting to' expressed by) srita, both are semantically connected with klta. Or, (if it is argued that) k&sta only has the status of object, (then the reply would be that.) through this (word Iasta), mahat also would be semantically connected with srita. This is what (the Bhsya) means to say. Note (24): In the first alternative the words mahat and fasta are independently related to srita, both being regarded as its objects. In the second alternative kata on^Y ls 38. P. 317: sf^q- JRtfnfefcT I 39. p. 317: ^prf q^qrrr ^cftfir i sritrflr ST q*ft% rar^nr iftfqr fr^r snotfimftfir >TTW: II

28

Mahhhsya (P.2.I.)

regarded as the object. But since mahai stands in syntactical agreement with kasta, it enters into the same construction regarding srita. See note (20), possibilities II a, b and c. 22. (Bhsya : Answer)

(Because in the rules dealing with compounding) the expression sup sup; 'a case-inflected word with a case-inflected word' is present. Kaiyata40: Since number (as shown by the singular used in the words sup and sup) is intentionally used, only one case-inflected word can be compounded with one caseinflected word, so compounding of many (words at a time) is not allowed. Just as in the expression pasun yajeta: 'one should sacrifice by means of an animal* no more than one animal is mentioned. So also here. Ngesa: See translation given with Bhsya No. 24. Note (25): The word sup is continued from P. 2.1.2. in subsequent rules and the word sup from P.2.1.4. When both of these words are read together in the following rules they are taken to mean: 'a case-inflected word is (to be) compounded with a case-inflected word*. The expression sup sup is not a rule, but a combination of two words to indicate their combined continued effect. The question underlying the present discussion is put in Bhsya No. 21 : why no compounding of many words at a time? An answer is given in the present Bhsya: the expression sup sup is there. The commentators agree in taking this expression as a prohibition of compounding many, i.e., more than two, words at a time. But Kaiyata and Ngesa differ in interpreting Bhsya Nos. 22-23. According to Kaiyata, the words sup and sup each of them signify any one case-inflected word. Why is that so? Because the singular sup and sup is intentionally used. Only two words can be compounded at a time. According to Ngesa, the words sup and sup refer each of them to one caseinflected word only, that is one specific case-inflected word only, excluding all other case-inflected words. Two words only can be compounded at all. The question of compounding more than two words at a time does net even arise. This interpretation seems improbable. But it represents a recurring argument wherever Patanjali discusses the question of dravya: 'individual* and larti: 40. P. 318:

SamarthhniJ^a

29

'generic feature, generic notion*. The view that a word signifying dravya always stands for one specific dravya is denied by assuming that a word stands for akfti. See Mbh. Vol. I, p. 243, lines 16-20. 23. (Bhsya : Objection)

But still, sir, do not rules become effective (by using words) in a generic sense? Take an example: where the word prtipadikt: 'after a nominal stem', occurs, (we see that a suffix) is added each time after a different nominal stem. Kaiyata41: (On) 'But still, sir*. Just as the statement brhmano na haniavyah: *a brahmin is not to be killed* prohibits the killing of brahmins as a whole (generically), in the same way here also compounding may be formed of many (words at a time, according to the expression sup sup). Ngesa42: Fearing that a rule, even if it becomes effective (by using words) in a generic sense, is not observed to apply to many individuals simultaneously, included in that generic sense, (Kaiyata) says: 'just as the statement . . . a brahmin etc.*. Note (26): By giving his example Patanjali, i.e., the purvapalcsm, defines generic sense in an operational way. He shows how it works, when we take a word in a generic sense. It works so as to include all individual instances to which it refers in a general way. The prvapaksiris point is now, if a word taken in a generic sense will include all its individual instances, why does not it include also groups of individual instances? To Kaiyata's opinion the pwrvapaksms point is this: if a word taken in a generic sense will include all of its individual instances, why does not it include also groups of individual instances? But this point is not clearly brought out by the illustration given in the Bhsya. Kaiyata tries to remedy this by adding an example of his own: 'a brahmin should not be killed*. This injunction, by mentioning the word 'brahmin* in a generic sense, forbids killing of any single brahmin as well as of brahmins taken collectively, i.e., of groups of brahmins, i.e., of two or more brahmins at a time. 41. P. 318: ^ ^ Kft 5fir 1 TOT

42. P. 318: 3TTfr?ft wem^FT WWtfTpT cTWHg^far *nTCcSr[fnT

30

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.)

The discussion up to this point, according to Kaiyata, may be summarized as follows : 1. (Bhsya 21). Why not compound many words at the same time? 2. (Bhsya 22). Sup sup is there. The singular used here forbids compounding of more than two words at a time. Any single case-inflected word is to be compounded with any single case-inflected word. 3. (Bhsya 23). What if we take sup and sup in a generic sense? Will not that make compounding of groups of words possible, since generic sense applies to individuals as well as to groups, as is shown by the injunction 'a brahmin should not be killed'? The same discussion, according to Ngesa, may be summarized as follows: 1. (Bhsya 21). Why not compound many words at a time ? 2. (Bhsya 22). Sup sup is there. Here the words sup and sup stand for individuals. Thus only one specific case-inflected word is to be compounded with only one specific case-inflected word. So the possibility of compounding three or more words at a time does not even arise. 3. (Bhsya 23). Words are used in a generic sense. Sup sup means that any single case-inflected word is to be compounded with any single case-inflected word. The answer given in Bhsya No. 22 is denied. The last interpretation of sup sup is correct, but it does not answer the question whether words taken in a generic sense will also apply to groups of individuals. The next Bhsya, while accepting that generic sense covers more than just one individual case, denies that generic sense applies to groups. Ngesa's interpretation is to be preferred to that of Kaiyata for the following reasons : 1. The wording of Bhsya No. 23, taken literally, is a denial of the view that a word stands for one single specific individual. It cannot be a denial of Kaiyata's interpretation of Bhsya No. 22, which already assumes that the word sup stands for any single case-inflected word. 2. According to Kaiyata, Bhsya No. 23 intends to point out that a word taken in a generic sense stands for a group also. This is not what the text literally says. If Patanjali's intention would have been such, he would probably have used the phrase: nanu ca bho icrtis tu samudycpi parlsampyate (see f.i. Mbh. Vol. I, p. 41, line 13). 3. Suppose Bhsya No. 23 means what Kaiyata thinks it means, viz., generic sense applies (to individuals as well as) to groups, and Bhsya No. 24 denies the latter, then the statement in Bhsya No. 24: True, that is so' would

Samarthhmka .

31

be out of place. Because this is, in fact, what Bhsya No. 24 denies. In Ngesa's interpretation the statement: 'True*, etc. fits well, because Bhsya No. 24 does not deny what was stated in Bhsya No. 23, but accepts the view that a word does not stand for only one single specific individual, but for any individual. 24. (Bhsya: Answer)

True, that is so. Generic sense, however, applies fully to each individual, not to a group. To whatsoever the word prtipadikt: 'after a nominal stem* fully applies, after that much we should generate (a suffix), and it fully applies to each individual (prtipadika), (but) not to a group (of prtipadikas). So also here: to whatsoever the expression sup sup fully applies, of that much compounding should take place. And it (viz. the expression sup sup) fully applies to two (words), not to many. Kaiyata43: (On) 'Generic sense, however*. Knowledge comprised within a generic notion refers to each individual separately and not to a group. This being the case, just as (we cannot say that) a group of prtipadikas is a prtipadila, (and) so we cannot add case-suffixes after it, so also, because a group of case-inflected words cannot be regarded as a case-inflected word, we cannot form a compound (of mahat and ka?ta) (the word) srita. Since a suffix which we want to employ ( (P.4.1.2) and a group of case-inflected words which we want to compound (ciltirsyasya) (P.2.1.24) form part of the predicate phrase (pradhnatvt) (in P.4.1.2 and P.2.1.24) and since (the expression) '(after a) nominal stem' (continued in P.4.1.2 from P.4.1.1) and the two case-inflected parts (of a compound, referred to by the words sup and sup continued in P.2.1.24 etc.) form part of the subject-phrase, (therefore) the singular number, which concerns the (individual as the) substratum (of the generic notion), is intentionally used. But, because in killing a group of brahmins we go against the spirit of the injunction, the singular number (which, regularly, should be regarded as used intentionally) is not intentionally used in the prohibition 'a brahmin should not be killed'.

32 Ngesa":

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

(Pare tu . . .) But others say that the intention of the statement: 'the expression sup sup is there', made in the Bhsya, is brought out later on by the words: 'generic sense, however, applies fully to each individual*. (Itaras tu . . .) But the other (i.e. the prvapaksin) thinking (that the intention of the siddhdniin in Bhsya No. 22 is this) that the singular is intentionally used (in the words sup and sup) (and) that therefore only one single (specific) case-inflected word can be compounded with one single (specific) case-inflected word, raises a doubt (about this interpretation) by saying *But still, sir'. Note (27): The final answer to the question raised in Bhsya No. 21 is that, even when we take the words sup and sup in a generic sense, they will apply to individuals separately and not to groups, i.e., two or more individuals at the same time. So the expression sup sup definitely excludes 'three-or-more-word' compounding. In his example given with Bhsya No. 23, Kaiyata shows that the prohibition of killing with regard to a brahmin generically represented applies to individual brahmins as well as to a group of brahmins. The latter application is now denied. Generic sense does not cover groups. In his comment on Bhsya No. 24 Kaiyata brings in a Mlmms doctrine concerning intentional use of number. Why does he do that? The answer might be that there is still another possibility of making the words sup and sup apply to groups of words, or rather to words in groups. If generic sense applies to individuals why cannot it apply in a succession to individuals in a group? That means we will apply the generic sense, in a succession, as many times as there are individuals in the group, because we cannot apply it simultaneously to the group as such, according to Bhsya I^Jo. 24. Suppose the group consists of ten brahmins. By applying the prohibition in its generic sense of brahmin ten times in a succession to the ten brahmins we will save the individuals and, practically, the group also. In this way we could apply the generic words sup and sup each to two or more words forming part of a group. But this is not allowed, because the singular of sup and sup is intentionally used. We cannot apply each of these words twice or thrice or more times within the same group of words, no more than we are allowed to kill more than one animal in the same sacrifice. To indicate where the singular is intentionally used Kaiyata refers to the Mtmms doctrine: in the predicate, number is intentionally used, not so in the subject (see note on Bhdsya No. 134). 44. P. 318:

 25. (Bhsya : Objection)

Samarthhnika

33

Then why cannot we make it (viz. the compound kastasritdh) out of two words (ka?tam and sritah)? Note (28) : See note 22, possibility Ib. 26. (Bhsya : Answer) and a. (Answer). Because semantic connection (between kastam sritah) is not there.

b. (Objection). How (can you say that there is) no semantic connection? c. (Answer). That which requires (an outside word, i.e. a word outside the compound as its qualifier) is (treated as) semantically unconnected. Kaiyata46: This (statement: spe^sam asamartham bhavati) is a (semantic) principle. In making a word-composition (vrtti) the qualifying word (upasarjana, say A) should convey the meaning of the main compound member (pradhna, say B). But if (A) requires (C as) its own qualifier, then (A) becomes the main member (with respect to C), so how could one word (A) be at the same time the main member (with respect to C) and how could there be ekrtfbhva: 'single integrated meaning* (of AB where A functions as a qualifier of B) ? Note (29) : The compound AB conveys one single integrated meaning. Here the subordinate member (say A) assumes the meaning of the main member and loses its independent status, i.e., it becomes inseparable from the whole AB (see note 7). We will say that a word enjoys the status of being independent, when it can be qualified by some other word. But if there is a word C outside the compound AB which qualifies A, then, with regard t C, the member A has to retain its independent status. If it-does so, it cannot function as a qualifier of B at the same time. It cannot be semantically connected with B, let alone its entry into a compound with B. To say that A is qualified by C amounts to saying that A is separable from B. Therefore, in an uncompounded word-group where A qualifies B, it (A) can in its turn be qualified by C, because A is separable from B. This is not so in word-composition. Here A is not separable from B. This is indicated by 45. P. 318: n^fq-jq-Tr *Rcftfol ^nTPTiT \ ^rft T Tz T i T sp F. 3

34

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1) spefysa see

Kaiyata's use of the word eJ^rihibhva. For the meaning of note (30). 27. (Bhsya : Objection)

If (we accept) the statement: 'what requires an outside word is treated as semantically unconnected', (then) the word-composition (rjapurusa: 'king-man') in the expressions rjapurusah abhirpah: 'handsome king-man', rjapurusah darsariyah: 'goodlooking king-man? would not result (from the uncompounded word-groups abhirpah rjnah purusah and darsanlyah rjnah purusah). Kaiyata46: Another (i.e. theprvapaksin), thinking that this-(statement: spelsam etc.) is a rule, raises a question by saying: 'if . . . what requires'. Note (30): If we cannot form the- word-composition Iastaritah, where iasta (A) is qualified by the outside word mahat (C), then how can we form the wordcomposition rjapurusah, where purusah (B) is qualified by the outside word abhirpah (C) ? According to the prvapal?sin, both examples show a similar pattern insofar one of the compound members is qualified by an outside word. Whether the compound member is subordinate or predominant is still a point for later discussion. The statement spelcsam asamartham bhavati is not restricted so far to the subordinate member. The word sapefysa may be used with regard to each of two words which stand in a relation of qualifier and qualified. If A is the qualifier of B and B is qualified by A, then we will say that they require each other, i.e., A is sapcfysa of B and reversely. This does, of course, not mean that B can never be used without A or reversely. 28. (Bhsya : Answer)

Nothing wrong here. (Because it is here) the main member which requires (an outside word). And compounding does take place, even if the main member requires (an outside word). Kaiyata47: (On) *And does take place'. Because it does not involve contradiction (when we say) that it is qualified by more than one qualifier, (and this is so) prescisely for this reason, that (the main member retains its) status of main member (i.e. predominance, even when it is qualified by an outside word). 46. P. 319: 53^3 rTticrftft1 Tc T ^t^rfrT ffe T W 47. P. 319:

Samarihhnu\a Ngesa48:

35

(Yady api . . .). Even if in the case of the compound (rjapurusah, the qualifying term darsamyah) is construed with the whole (i.e., pwrusah as qualified by its relation to the king) and we cannot, therefore, say that the main member (viz., purusah) requires (the outside word) darsamyah, yet, when we construe the word darsarivyah with rjapurusah, we do so, not because purusa: 'man' is related to rjan: 'king*, but because the man himself only becomes the criterion for being qualified. With this in mind Patanjali makes his statement l;ke that, so we should understand. Note (31): (Explanation of Kaiyata). Suppose that in a sequence of uncompounded words, indicated as C - A - B, both C and A qualify B, then this will not affect the status of B as the qualified word. But, if in the same sequence A qualifies B and C qualifies A, this will affect the status of A, which now becomes that of qualifier (subordinate member) with regard to B, and that of qualified (main member) with regard to C. This is contradictory. (Comments on the remark of Ngesa). Ngesa argues that the property 'goodlooking* inheres in a man and has nothing to do with his being in the service of a king. Still, if the function of the adjective is to restrict the meaning of the word qualified, we may say that it is not just the man who is goodlooking, but the man who is employed by the king. So darsanya as a restrictive adjective qualifies the whole rather than a part of the compound. See further note (7). So Ngesa cannot justify Patanjali. 29. (Bhsya : Objection)

Then, where the subordinate member requires (an outside word), there word-composition, as in devadattasya gurukulam: 'Devadatta's teacher-family', devadattasya guruputrah: 'Devadatta's teacher-son', devadattasya dsabhry; 'Devadatta's slave-wife', would (actually) not result (from the corresponding uncompounded word-groups). Note (32): Here the genitive word devadattasya qualifies the subordinate members guru and ddsa in the compounds quoted. Thus the expressions mean: [Devadatta's teacher] *s family, etc. The Bhsya says that compounding should not be allowed here, because the subordinate member is qualified by an outside word. 48. P. 319: WFTFT

36 30. (Bhsya : Answer)

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

Nothing wrong here. Here the (word in the) genitive requires (i.e. qualifies) the whole. It requires (the word) gurukulam: 'teacher-family' as a whole. Kaiyata49: (On) 'requires the whole'. The genitive case devadaitasya is used after the relation50 with the whofe gurukulam, etc. has been formed. (But the fact is,) Devadatta is related with the whole (i.e., the teacher-family) through the part (i.e., the teacher) by implication. Therefore, we have to accept that (the genitive word while touching the whole) touches the qualifier-part also (i.e., the word guru). This has been stated: 'Which (meanings or words) enter into a relation with the whole gurukula, etc., those (meanings or words, like devadattasya), being (first) connected with parts (of that whole), are subsequently construed with what contains those (parts)'51. Note (33): While forming a relation with the whole, the outside qualifier forms a relation with the part. This is not an independent relation with the parts, but the whole functions as a medium here. 31. (Bhdsya : Answer rejected)

I. Then, where (the word in) the genitive does not require (i.e. qualify) the whole, there your word-composition (kimodanah, saktvdhakam, ptaliputrakah) as in kimodanah sBnm: 'rice of what (kind of) grains', saktvdhakam paifiynm: 'a certain measure of barley grains offered for sale', kuto bhavn ptaliputrakah'' 'from which part of Ptaliputra 49. P. 319: I

O -: 50. The word translated as 'relation' is vyatireka. This term is used for the genitive relation which exists between two different things, as to be distinguished from the relation expressed by syntactical agreement, where only one thing is referred to. See Vkyapadya III 14, 150 and Helrja's commentary on that: patasya suklah: 'the white (quality) of the cloth' is vyatireka, whereas suklah patahi *white cloth' is samndhkarana-xel&tion (syntactic agreement). 51. Vkyapadya of Bhartrhari, ed. by K. V. ABHYANKAR and V. P. LIMAYE, Poona, 1965, p. 120 (III. 14,48)

Samarthhnila

37

are you, sir?' (or 'from which Ptaliputra are you, sir?') would (actually) not result (from the corresponding uncompounded word-groups). Note (34): In the first expression (fimodanh sUnm) Iim is compounded with odanah, although no semantic connection is there. Semantically Iim goes with sali: 'grain' which, lies outside the compound. The expression means 'rice of which grams' and not 'what kind of rice prepared from grains'52. In the second expression saktu: 'barley* is compounded with dhala: 'measure', but it is qualified by paniya: 'offered for sale', which is an outside word. In the third expression the word-composition ptaliputraka is formed according to P.4.2.123 (with the suffix vufi in the sense of tata gatah: 'coming from there') from the word ptaliputra, although this latter word requires the outside word J^utah. (Bhsya continued) II. And also here (word-composition would actually not result) : devadattasya gurukulam: 'Devadatta's teacher-family', devadattasya guruputrah: 'Devadatta's teacher-son', devadattasya dsabhry: 'Devadatta's slave-wife'. If the (word in the) genitive requires (i.e. qualifies) the (compound as a) whole, then we would not necessarily understand the following (meaning) : '(the man) who is Devadatta's teacher, his son'. Then what (else could we understand)? 'Son of somebody else's teacher, also connected in some way or other with Devadatta (but not necessarily as a teacher)'. This meaning might be understood. But since, in fact, we understand necessarily the following meaning: '(the man) who is Devadatta's teacher, his son', therefore, we think that this (word in the) genitive does not require (i.e. qualify) the (compound as a) whole. Kaiyata63: (On) 'And here also'. If it is assumed that (the word outside the compound) is connected with the (compound as a) whole (and not with a part of the com52. The word kim in kimodanah does not denote the sense of 'bad', as f.i. in the compound kimsakh (Kirtrjunya 1,5), because then him could not be construed with the outside word slinm. P.5.4.70 prescribes compounding with kim only, if it expresses censure of the meaning conveyed by the directly following word. 53. P. 319: ^ r ^cftftf | *PT5TTO*** tffa

38

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

pound), (then) the (undesired) possibility of understanding (the relation expressed by the word in the genitive in the sense of) nearness etc. also would arise, this is what the passage means. (On) 'this . . . does not*. Here (in the word devadattasya) the genitive case is employed with respect to a teacher, and word-composition (vrtti, i.e. compounding) does take place, because (the word guru: 'teacher') is a correlative word and because it cannot give up its requirement (of the other correlated word, viz., devadatta, which lies outside the compound) even in (forming) wordcomposition (i.e., when it becomes part of a compound), just as (it does not give up) its own meaning (i.e., 'teacher'). This has been stated: *Every correlative word is employed as showing invariably requirement (of the other correlated word). And (its) interdependence (with the other correlated word) is not abandoned even in (forming) word-composition, just as (it does not give up) its own meaning'54. Note (35): What Kaiyata in his comment on 'And here also' means by 'nearness' is that we may take the undefined relation expressed by the genitive devadattasya as one of nearness: *son of the teacher who is standing near Devadatta'. In this section of the Bhsya Patanjali shows that the statement spelsam asamartham bhavati must be qualified in several ways to make it fit current usage. In the Bhsya Nos. 27-28 Patanjali takes the expression darsamyah raja* purusah as correct usage. The main member of a compound may be qualified by an outside word, i.e., a word outside the compound. In addition to this, Patanjali argues that the semantic principle spefysam etc. must be relaxed even with regard to the subordinate member of the compound. In a number of expressions like devadattasya gurululam the outside word is construed with the subordinate member. We cannot say that the genitive word devadattas^a is construed with the compound as a whole, because, in that case, we might misunderstand the meaning of the expression as is pointed out in the Bhsya.

Bhartrhari in the passage quoted from the Vafyapadtya makes a proviso for compounding where the outside word is construed with the subordinate member. It is allowed in case of 'correlative' words. The term 'correlative* refers to the words like 'father*, 'son', 'teacher', 'pupil', which invariably imply a relation of the one to the other. In such cases we may use the uncompounded expression devadattasya guroh putrah and also devadattasya gurupuirah. This made it possible for Ngesa in his comment on svrthavat: 'just as (it does not give up) its own meaning* to interpret the word svrthavat as svrthamtropasthpal?a~ vfya: '(like in) a sentence where (every word) presents only its own mean54. Vkyapadya, p. 119 (III 14. 47).

Samarlhhnil^a

39

ing55. Therefore, modern editors56 have changed the original reading svrthavat into According to Bhartrhari, the semantic principle speksam etc. is relaxed in the case of Correlative' words. But, as is shown by the examples ftmodanah etc., the principle is also relaxed in the case of words which are not correlative. (Bhsya continued) III. Elsewhere also, in fact, where (the word) samartha: 'semantically connected' is mentioned, (we see that) an operation applies (to a word) in spite of the fact that the word requires (still another word). Where elsewhere? In (the illustration of) P.8.3.44: brhmanasya sarpis karoti: 'brahmin's ghee he makes'. Therefore, we cannot formulate this (semantic principle) : speksam asamarthctth bhavati. Note (36): The examples up to now were concerned with elcarthivbhava: 'single integrated meaning', as resulting from vrtii: 'word-composition*. The present example shows how the semantic principle speksam etc. is relaxed also in the case of vyapeks: 'meaning-interdependence' (of words in a sentence). P.8.3.44 (see note 8) prescribes change of s into s for particular endings of words which must be semantically connected. If we accept the principle speksam etc., then, in the sentence quoted, the word sarpih cannot be regarded as semantically connected with karotu because it requires (i.e., is qualified by) the outside word brhmanasya. But according to usage change of s into s does take place. So the semantic principle does not even apply here. See further Bhsya Nos! 163-164. The example mentioned by Kaiyata on this passage occurs in Bhsya No. 162. 32. (Bhsya : Objection, serving as an introduction to Bhsya No. 33.)

Then why cannot we form the word-composition (kastasritah) from (the uncompounded word-group) ma hat kastam sritah? Note (37): ". . " * . . . ' ~ . ' The possibility of 'three-word' compounding is denied in Bhsya No. 24. The possibility of 'two-word' compounding, 'right-side' analysis, is rejected in Bhsya No. 26, on the authority of the principle speksam etc. In Bhsya No. 31 this principle itself is rejected. That means that the undesired possibility of 'two-word' compounding, 'right-side' analysis, is not excluded. The question put in Bhsya No. 25, therefore, remains open and the present Bhsya is a reminder of that. 55. In a compound the subordinate member presents the meaning of the main member, see note (7). 56. The Nirnya-Sgar Press edition of the Mahbhsya reads vkyavat in the stanza quoted.

40 33.

Mahbh&a (P.2.1.1) (Bhsya : Answer (first part of a rephrasing of the semantic principle))

A rule should be made to the effect that no word-composition (i.e. compounding) (is allowed) of words qualified (by an outside word), or that a qualifying word is not (allowed to be used, once word-composition has (already) taken place. Kaiyata5Ga: (On) 'of words qualified*. Change of s into s, etc. do take place, because the rule (only) prohibits word-composition. In consequence of the previously stated (objections, in Bhsya No. 31), this also is stated as the semantic principle itself. Note (38): The Bhsya means two things : 1. as soon as the compound fyastasritah has been formed, no outside qualifying word can be added, and 2. if fyasta is already qualified (by mahat), then it cannot enter into a compound with sritah. This is a straight answer to the question put in Bhsya No. 32. According to Kaiyata, this Bhsya is also an answer to the point brought out in Bhsya No. 31 sub III. Since the reworded principle only prohibits word-composition, the rule P.8.3.44, which deals with words in uncompounded word-groups, can apply even when there is an outside qualifier, i.e., lying outside the word-group required for the change of s into {5. 34. (Bhsya : Objection)

If a rule is made to the effect that no word-composition (is allowed) of qualified words, or that a qualifying word is not (to be) used, once word-composition has (already) taken place, (then) word-composition (gurukulam, guruputrah, dsabhry), as (we have it) in (the expressions:) devadattasya gurukulam: 'Devadatta's teacher-family', devadattasya guruputrah: 'Devadatta's teacher-son', devadattasya dsabhry: 'Devadatta's slave-wife', would not result (from the corresponding uncompounded word-groups). Note (39): Bhsya No. 33 answered the objections made in Bhsya Nos. 32 and 25, and in Bhsya No. 31 sub III. Still the objections made in Bhsya 31 (sub I and II) have not been satisfactorily answered. The present Bhsya reminds us of that. 56a.

Samarthhnika

41

35. (Bhsya : Answer (second part of a rephrasing of the semantic principle)) The rule (stated in Bhsya No. 33) should be made to the effect that (the compounds) guruputrah etc. are excepted. Note (40): This is an answer to Bhsya No. 31 (sub I and II), in the form of a proviso added to the rule as formulated in Bhsya No. 33. The word 'etc*, in the Bhsya includes the cases mentioned in Bhsya No. 31 (sub I). 36. (Bhsya : Objection) Then a rule should be made to this effect: No word-composition (is allowed) of qualified words, or a qualifying word is not (to be) used, when word-composition has (already) taken place, except (in the case of the compounds) guruputrah etc. 37. (Bhsya : Answer) a. (Answer) The rule need not be made. b. (Objection) Then why cannot we form the word-composition (kastasritah keeping the word mahat as an outside qualifier)? c. (Answer) Because (the partly compounded expression mahat kastasritah) does not convey the (same) meaning (which we understand from the uncompounded expression mahat kastam sritah). Here the uncompounded word-group and the compound should convey the same meaning. But the meaning which is understood from the uncompounded word-group mahat kastam sritah: 'he has made a painstaking effort' is not at all understood from the compound mahat kastasritah57* For that reason we say: 'because it does not convey the same meaning, (therefore such compounding is not allowed)'. We do not say (that such compounding is not allowed for the reason that) it makes a wrong word. But where the same meaning is conveyed (by the uncompounded word-group and the compound), there word-composition does take place. Take the examples: devadattasya gurukulam: 'Devadatta's teacher-family', devadattasya guruputrah: 'Devadatta's teacher-son', devadattasya dsabhry: 'Devadatta's slave-wife'. Kaiyata58: (On) 'mahat kastasritah*. (The partly compounded expression mahat kastasritah) we may understand as: 'one who has made effort does a big thing', 57. For its meaning see Kaiyata below. 58. P. 320: j j ^ ^ f ^ ^fa \ *T. ^^^: err * r ^ sTcffr, T g far spj'r' i : ii X T^tf Rtfcrf Sftff,

42

Mahbhdsya (P.2.1.1)

or we may understand (it in such a way) that bigness qualifies the verb and not (the noun) Iasta, (as: 'who has greatly made effort' and not as: 'one who has made great effort'). (On) 'We do not say'. About (a word or a compound) used in daily speech we discuss whether it is correct or not, just as (we do in case of) the words go, gvt etc.59. But this (partly compounded expression) mahat I^astasritah is not at all used in the sense of the uncompounded expression mahat I^astam sritah. But this (i.e. grammatical system) gives an explanation of (words) actually used. Therefore, we will not form a compound (Iastasritah) here (from mahat kastam sritah), this is the meaning of the passage. Ngesa60: In this way the partly compounded expressions Icimodanah sUnm etc. are justified, for the only reason that they convey the same meaning (as the corresponding uncompounded expressions). Although (the partly compounded expression devadattasya gurululam is established as correct by the argument: /because it is a correlative word' etc., as given by Kaiyata61, (still this) cannot establish (the partly compounded expressions) Iimodanah etc. as correct. Therefore, only what is stated in the Bhsya (i.e. agamalaiva) is sound62. Note (41): First the semantic principle was formulated as spelcsam asamartham bhavati. This proved to be too wide. The principle was formulated anew as savisesannm vritir na etc. and an exception was added to it. This provides the answer for 59. See Mbh. Vol. I, p. 2, line 24; p. 5, lines 21-22; p. 10, line 8. The reference to go, gvi in this context is misleading, because the question of Prakrits is brought in here which were considered at bad usage in toto. But the point here is to decide correctness with regard to the usage of the Sanskrit speaking community only. If this community uses compounding of semantically unconnected words, how could Pnini prevent that? 60. P. 320: qpf srnr 1 1 61. In his comment on Bhsya No. 31 sub II. 62. I.e. Bhsya No. 37. The principle for forming compounds is [a)gamakatva, i.e. compounds will be formed, when they convey the same meaning as the corresponding uncompounded word-group. Smarthya, i.e. semantic connection, cannot serve as such a principle, because then all asamartha compounds (the constituents of which are not semantically connected) would be considered as incorrect usage. Still many asamartha compounds are used by people who are regarded as normative speakers. The reason why these compounds are used at all can only be that they are gamaka.

Samarthhnika

43

the points brought out in Bhsya 31 sub I (kimdanh sHnm etc. could be included in the gwruputrdi list), II & III. But finally Patanjali thinks that this principle even in its new wording is not required, since the simpler principle of (a) gamakatva (uncompounded word-group and compound should convey the same meaning as decided by usage) will serve the same purpose. Patanjali is cautious in adding new rules to the body of Pnini's system. If he can avoid to do so, he will avoid it. Here he can, because (a) gamakatva is a principle already accepted by Pnini in his rule 2.1.11, which allows compounding optionally for uncompounded word-groups. For further explanation see Bhsya No. 72. 38. (Bhsya : Refutation)

If the reason is that the same meaning is not conveyed, (then) there is no point in using (the word) samartha (in P.2.1.1). Also here, in the expression bhry rjnah puruso devadattasya: 'wife of the king, man of Devadatta', the meaning which we understand from the uncompounded word-group, the (same) meaning we do not understand at all from the (partly) compounded (expression) bhry rjapuruso devadattasya: 'wife, king-man of Devadatta'. Therefore, there is no point in using (the word) samartha. Note (42): The compound 'king-man' is rejected, because it does not have the same meaning as the uncompounded words, 'king, man' in the first example quoted. Then why does Panini use the word samartha in his rule? The purpose of the word samartha is fulfilled by {a) gamakatva also. Unless we show that by the mention of the word samartha we achieve what we cannot achieve by (a) gamakatva, the word samartha cannot be purposeful, because (a) gamakatva will reject compounding, when the uncompounded expression and the compound differ in meaning. Patanjali's fear is that, in using the principle (a) gamakaiva, not only the reworded principle savisesannm vrttir na etc. becomes superfluous, but Pnini's rule 2.1.1 also. So Patanjali must show that what is achieved by samartha cannot be achieved by (a) gamakatva or reversely. He must show that both principles answer different requirements. 39. (Bhsya i Refutation refuted)

Then this (must be) the reason (behind the use of the word samartha) : We have compounding with the negative particle where semantically unconnected words are compounded and where (the same) meaning is conveyed (as in the corresponding uncompounded word-group), f.i. in akimcit kurvnam: notwhatsoever doing', amsath haramnam: 'not-r^

44

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

pulse taking5, agadhd utsr?tam: 'not-from-the-deep risen' (and the purpose of mentioning the word samartha in P.2.1.1 is) that these (expressions) would not be (regarded as) correct. Kaiyata63: (On) 'compounding with the negative particle . . . where (the same) meaning is conveyed*. (A compound,) even if it is incorrect, is used in speech, if it is accepted as conveying (the same) meaning (as the corresponding uncompounded word-group), just as the (incorrect) words gvS64 etc. (are used in speech side by side with the correct forms go etc.). If the word samartha is not mentioned, (then) there is a chance to treat such a word (i.e. compound) as correct. Therefore, to prevent that, this (word samartha) is there. This is what the passage means. The negative compounds (i.e. compounds formed with the negative particle), (mentioned) here, have the meaning: *not-doing whatsoever', 'not-taking pulse', 'not-risen from the deep*. Note (43): In these examples the negative particle, although compounded with the noun, semantically goes with the verb. We could justify compounding here by saying that the compounds convey the same meaning as the corresponding uncompounded word-groups. If we accept (a)gamakatva as the criterion, the compounds will be considered correct; not so, when we accept smarthya instead. That means, we cannot replace samartha in P.2.1.1 by (a)gamal?a. Still, these compounds, although they are gamaka : 'conveying the same meaning as the corresponding uncompounded word-group', seem not to have been accepted in standard speech, because they are not included in the enumeration of asamartha, gamafya, negative compounds given in Bhsya No. 40. For standard speech see Pataiijali's remarks on P.6.3.109. 40. {Bhsya : Rejection of the word samartha justified).

This is not the reason (behind the use of the word samartha) either. The correctness of some compounding" with the negative particle which is formed of semantically unconnected words, (and) which conveys (the same) meaning (as the corresponding uncompounded word-group), is to be necessarily stated by a rule. (The enumeration of the compounds asryampasya, apunargeya, asrddhabhojin and anapurasakasya as they occur respectively in the expressions) asryampasyni mukhni: not-sun63. PP. 320-21: ^S^rrat TT^cfT ^ \ l^f^tfTSRfa TO?fffa'Rft

64. See Kaiyata on Bhsya No. 37.

Samarthhnika

45

seeing faces', apunargeyh slokah: 'not-to-be-sung-again stanzas', asrddhaboft brhmanah: 'not-funeral-oblation-eating brahmin' (and) anapwrhsakasya (in P. 1.1.43) will serve as a restriction. Only this (group of enumerated compounds) we accept as correct, no other (group of asamartha, negative, gmaka compounds). Therefore, there is no point in mentioning (the word) samartha. Kaiyata65: (On) *anapumsalasya'. When we take the view that the negative particle is construed with a verb, (then) we have here (in the word anapinhsakasya: 'the neuter suffixes are not included*) a case of compounding of semantically unconnected words. In order to have a clue that some negative compounds formed of semantically unconnected words are correct, the word anapumsakasya is treated as (a case where) the negative particle is construed with the verb. And also,66 if (we take it as a case where) the negative particle is construed with the noun, no harm is done. The matter (is) like this: when the word samartha is mentioned, we have to state these (compounds), in order to (justify them by a special rule which then becomes) vidhi: 'rule teaching something new which cannot be obtained by a general rule', (and) when (the word samarlha) is not mentioned, that same statement (of the compounds in question) will serve as a restriction. (On) 'Only this*. (Patanjali) uses the singular (in etasya), because he assumes non-differentiation (of individual instances). (If we do not assume use of the singular in this sense) the plural should have been used, because there are many (individual instances). Ngesa: (On) 'Will serve as a restriction*. And thus expressions like akimcit kurvnam, mentioned before, are incorrect. This is what (Kaiyata) means to say. Because 65. P. 321: sr^q^cf^f^- | r: i 66. The word api in the text is rather difficult to explain. It gives the meaning that even in the case of paryudsa: 'negation construed with the noun* no harm, i.e., no difficulty, is there; the compound will still be asamartha: formed of semantically unconnected words', just as in the case where we take the negation to be construed with the verb. This is obviously incorrect. The original reading may be conjectured to have been as follows: paryudse hi tv atra na katth: 'but, as is clear, in the case of paryudsa no difficulty is there' (because the compound would be samartha: 'formed of semantically connected words'). 67. P. 321:fozTTHsf^f^Tffal R^f ^Tf%fVcT f ifafacZTTcfir: spftTT: 5rnp?rc*hinf ^fir ?rm: n

46

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

the compounds, aswryampasya etc., mentioned above, which are to be considered as correct, are many, the singular (in etasya) is inappropriate. Therefore, (Kaiyata) says 'non-differentiation*. What the Bhsya means to say by eiasya eva is: prgultasya: 'mentioned above' (i.e. asryampaya, etc.). Note (44): The rule P. 1.1.43 states that the first five case-endings (see P.4.1.2) are called sarvanmasthna, with the exception of the neuter suffixes. 1. Why does Kaiyata bring in the question of vidhi and niyama? This has to do with his view that the compounds mentioned in Bhsya No. 39 are incorrect. They are incorrect, if we apply the criterion of sdmarthva, so Bhsya No. 39 says, and, therefore, we need the word samartha in P.2.1.1. Suppose the word samartha is there to prevent compounds like afyimcit kurvnam. Then the same word samartha will prevent the formation of asryampasya etc. mentioned in Bhdsya No. 40. In that case we would have to make a special statement to the effect that asryampasya (A), apunargeya (B), asrddhabhojin (C), and anapumsakasya (D) are correct usages, in spite of the word samartha. Suppose now that the word samartha is not there. We can no more prevent the formation of alimcit urvnam etc. mentioned in Bhsya No. 39. But, kaiyata says, we can still prevent this formation without the help of the word samartha. How? For this the Mtmmsd doctrine of vidhi and parisamJchy (i.e. niyama in the terminology of the grammarians) will provide the means68. When the word samartha is not mentioned in P.2.1.1 we are allowed to form asamartha compounds. Therefore, a special rule to the effect that A, B, C, D, which are asamartha, are correct usages, is not required. They are justified by the general rule. Yet we find that a special rule in the form of enumeration is made to declare the compounds A, B, C, D as correct. What does that indicate? It indicates restriction. Out of all asamartha negative compounds only A, B, C and D are correct. To put it briefly, when the word samartha is there (in P.2.1.1), the special rule becomes vidhyartha, i.e. it prescribes compounding which we cannot form according to the general rule, because the word samariha prohibits it. When the word samartha is not there, we can form the compounds in question by the general rule. Nothing is there to prohibit them. The special rule, formulated nevertheless, does not prescribe some new operation which we could not have from the general rule, but it, in fact, prescribes the same thing. This means

68. See Tantravrttika 1.2.4, as quoted in the Mmmsnyyapraksa, ed. Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1937, p. 202.

Samarthhnika

47

that the special rule is restrictive. The special provision made for A, B, C and D applies to these compounds only. No other compounds, although they are asamartha, negative and gama\a> are regarded as correct. In Kaiyata's explanation anapumsakasya iti should not be taken by itself, leaving out the expressions mentioned immediately before. The word iti goes with the whole group, in which anapumsafyasya is only the last member. The question remains, why are not the compounds mentioned in Bhsya No. 39, which are asamartha, negative and gamaa, just like the ones mentioned in Bhsya No. 40, included in the enumeration? From the compoundforms themselves no criterion. for exclusion can be inferred. The reason for noninclusion may have been that these compounds, afyimcit furvnam etc., were not accepted by the sistas as belonging to standard speech. See Note (43). Among the compounds included in the enumeration given in Bhsya No. 40 two go back to Pnini: asryampasya (P.2.3.36) and anapttmsakasya (P. 1.1.43). It is not clear where Pataiijali got the other two compounds from. Perhaps these might be usages of his times. 2. The argument may be summarized as follows: a. In Bhsya No. 38 it i? argued that mention of the word samartha is not required to prevent the formation cf the compound rjapurusa from the exDress'on bhry rjnah puruso devadattasya, because we can prevent it by applying the criterion of (a) gamafyatva. Does this compound convey the same meaning as the corresponding uncompounded word-group or does it not? This is itself a question of meaning, not to be decided by rule, but by usage. Smce in this case a compound is not used, we infer that it does not convey the same meaning as the corresponding uncompounded word-group. b. Bhsya No. 39 denies the validity of this criterion. We cannot always achieve by (a) gamakatva what we can achieve by (a)smarthya. Are the words in the uncompounded expression from which these compounds,._ mentioned in Bhsya No. 39, have been built, semantically connected or not? Obviously they are not. But we may say that the compounds alimcit harvnam etc., mentioned in this Bhsya, are correct, judging by (a) gamakatva.'* But we cannot say so when we apply the criterion of (a)smarthya which would declare them incorrect, as they, in fact, are. So, in order to have this desirable result, viz., incorrectness, the word samartha in P.2.1.1 is required. c. Bhsya No. 40 denies that the word samartha in P.2.1.1 is required to make the compounds animt Jurvnam in Bhsya No. 39 incorrect. We can make an enumerative statement of a restrictive character like the one given by Patafijali, starting from asryampasya and ending with anapumsakasya. This will do to declare all other compounds of similar structure incorrect.

48

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.)

3. The following table will make clear that Patafijali by applying his (a) gamakatva-critenon is able to give a more precise account of what is regarded as correct usage in his time, than by applying the criterion of (a)smarthya. gamaka/ agamaka Three compounds in Bhsya No. 31, sub I. Three compounds in Bhsya No. 31, sub II. c. Kastasritah (where mahai is the outside word), Bhsya No. 32. d. Rjapurusah (from bhry rajnah etc.) in Bhsya No. 38. e. Three compounds in Bhsya No. 39. f. Four compounds in Bhsya No. 40. b. correct/ asamartha incorrect correct (see Ngesa on Bhsya No. 37) correct incorrect

gamaka asamartha

Samaka

agamaka

agamaka

incorrect

gamaka gamaka

'*

incorrect correct

Taking (a)smarthya as the criterion to decide that compounds are correct or not, we find that all of them are incorrect. But we know that those mentioned under a, b, and f, are correct. The desired result, viz., correctness, can only be obtained, when we take (a)gamakatva as a criterion. This is why Patafijali substitutes this criterion for that of (a) smarthya. Only in the compounds mentioned under c, and d, both criteria give the same result. In the case of e, the criterion gamakatva does not work. From the special enumeration of negative compounds it appears that the compounds in Bhsya No. 39 are not accepted by the sistas. 4. In his Bhsva on P. 1.1.43 (Mbh. Vol. I, p. 101, line 5) Patanjali says that the word anapumsakasya is to be regarded as a compound of semantically unconnected words (asamarthasamsa). At the. end of this Bhsya he says (lines 14-16): *With regard to what you also say, viz., that the word anapumsakasya is to be taken as asamarthasamsa, (I reply that), even if this should be stated as a rule, (still) it would cover many instances (like that). Which? Astyampasyni mufthani; apunargeyh slokh; asrddhabhojt brhmanh.

Samarthhmka

49

Kaiyata, on this Bhsya, remarks that the word anapwmsakasya, since this lengthy form is preferred to the shorter form strtpumsayoh: 'in the feminine and masculine', gives us a clue, viz., that negative compounding does take place, even if the words concerned are not semantically connected. The word anapum&akasya may thus be interpreted in two ways: (A) as the final member in a restrictive enumeration, as indicated by Pataiijali, when he uses the word niyamrtham in Bhsya No. 40; (B) as a sample of the class of asamartha, negative, gamaka compounds, serving as a criterion to justify asamarthasamsa, as indicated by Patanjali in his Bhsya on P. 1.1.43. According to interpretation (A) the compounds mentioned in Bhsya No. 39 are incorrect, because they are not included in the enumeration. According to interpretation (B) they will be correct, because they show the same pattern as the word anapumsakasya. In this case the compounds mentioned in the table sub e. will be correct. How to interpret Bhsya No. 39 in the light of interpretation (B) ? An attempt may be made as follows: The prvapaksins argument is that the word samartha in P.2.1.1 is deliberately used by Pnini to deny that the compounds aklmcit kurvnam etc. are correct. The prvapaksin here assigns a wrong purpose to the word samartha, as is pointed out by the siddhntin in Bhsya No. 40. If we assign this intention to the use of the word samartha, it would involve Pnini himself in a contradiction, since he uses the word anapumsakasya which shows a pattern similar to the other compounds and which must be regarded as correct. Since anapumsakasya stands as the representative of a class of compounds, it will justify the compounds in Bhsya No. 39 which are also asamartha, negative and gamaka. So the word samartha cannot have the purpose assigned to it by the prvapaksin. The difficulty in interpreting in this way is the word niyamrtham in Bhsya No; 40. We have to explain it in the sense of jnpaka: 'clue'. But Patanjali invariably uses nlyama in the sense-of the later Mnihsaka's parisamkhy. This means that we cannot but interpret it in the sense of an enumeration of a restrictive type. This is what Kaiyata does. As a consequence, the compounds in Bhsya No. 39 are declared to be incorrect. But in the Bhdsya on P. 1.1.43 the word niyama does not occur and Kaiyata explains the word anapumsakasya as being jnpaka. Consequently, all compounds showing the same pattern are justified. In his comment on Bhsya No. 40 Kaiyata also uses the idea of jnpaka, when he says kesmcit sdhutvajnpanya: 'in order to have a clue for the correctness of some (words)'. By using the word * kesmcit' Kaiyata tries.to reconcile the idea of jnpaka and that of restrictive enumeration. (HERE ENDS THE SECTION ON THE PURPOSE OF THE samarthaparibhs) F.4

50

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1) IV

(NOW STARTS THE SECTION IN WHICH THE DIFFERENT CHARACTER ISTICS OF SEMANTIC CONNECTION ARE EXAMINED) 41. (Bhsya : Question)

Now, apart from the question whether (the word) samartha should be mentioned in P.2.1.1 (or not), (when) you say samartha, what do you really mean by samartha? Kaiyata69: (On) 'Now, apart from the question whether . . . is mentioned*. It means that, even if mention (of the word samarthah in P.2.1.1.) is accepted, (it is) for the sake of enlightening the ignorant. (On) 'what do you really mean by samartha . Although it was already discussed whether semantic connection means 'single integrated meaning' or 'meaninginterdependence*70, still this is the right place to discuss it. (These words), however, have been used before, (only) after (taking into account) what has been established here. Ngesa71: (On) 'ignorant', What (Kaiyata) means to say is that for people who have only the grammatical rules to guide them (laksanaikacaksuska) (in deriving the formations) it is difficult to know everywhere, whether a compound conveys (the same) meaning (as the corresponding uncompounded word-group) or not. Irrespective of the fact whether the word samarthah is there (in P.2.1.1) or not, all (correct) usages are provided for (by this grammar), only (after taking into account the criterion of) gamaJatva etc. which can be known (to us) through traditional teaching (only), so we should understand. I, (Vrttika : Answer) The word samartha (means) single integrated meaning of words which (when uncompounded) have separate meanings (of their own). 69. P. 321: 3pT f^prTtrpffffl- \

70. See Bhya No. 8. 71. P. 321 : sr^-gj-f^f | ^Tcpr TTT^Tc^TT^^ 35^1 tNffcS^f 3"f ^^: I

Samarthhnika 42. (Bhsya : Explanation)

51

(When) we say samartha (it means) single integrated meaning of words which (when uncompounded) have separate meanings (of their own). Kaiyata72: (On) 'which have separate meanings (of their own)'. First, he examines semantic connection as single integrated meaning. Subsequently, he will examine the definition of meaning-interdependence. (From) prthag arthah yesm padnm, tni: 'which words have a meaning of their own, those (words), (we derive the compound) prthagarthni padnii 'words having a-meaning-of-theirown\ In the uncompounded word-group rjnah pwusah: 'king's man', as we know, the word 'king* conveys only the meaning 'king', and the word 'man' also (conveys) only the meaning 'man*. But in the compound rjapurusah: 'kingman' the word 'king' also conveys the meaning 'man' only. In this way single integrated meaning arises out of two (words, viz., 'king' and 'man'). Alternatively, the designation 'single integrated meaning' is given to what arises as a quite different meaning of the whole (and) which does not correspond to the meanings of the parts, since it has become one, like muddy water. Even if a compound (vrtti) is a word totally different (from its constituents) (and its) constituents are meaningless like speech-sounds in a word, still, taking into account the identity of the (whole with the constituent) words, (the Vrttika) says: 'single meaning of (integrated) words which have separate meanings (of their own in the unintegrated form)'. (On) 'the word samarthavacana\ It means: the sense denoted by the word samartha. (The suffix) LyuT is added (to the root vac-) in the passive sense.73 Note (45): The two different interpretations of 'single integrated meaning* given by Kaiyata correspond to the alternatives ajahaisvrth vrtti and jahatsvrih vrtti See Note (7). In the first alternative the subordinate member in the compound takes on the meaning of the main member. In rjapurusah the constituent rja 72. P. 321: q^rqfrfrfTrflr j r^rpfhTT^f fiT^T *m*4 tttaft'll ff

II 73. P.3.3.113.

52

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

takes on the meaning rjasambandhavn: 'king-related'. In the second alternative the constituents cease to retain a meaning of their own as they merge in one single meaning conveyed by the compound as a whole. The meaning of each constituent is inseparable from that of the whole, just as water and mud are inseparable from muddy water. 43. (Bhsya : Question)

But where (do words) have separate meanings (of their own), (and) where (do they) have a single meaning? Kaiyata74: (On) 'But where*. It is impossible (to say) that within one and the same sphere (words) have separate meanings (of their own) as well as a single meaning, because this is contradictory. So a question is raised. 44. (Bhsya : Answer)

In the imcompounded word-group (words) have separate meanings (of their own), like in rjnah purusah: 'king's man'. But in a compound, (words) have a single meaning, like in rjapurusah: 'king-man'. Kaiyata75: (On) 'king's man'. The word rjnah: 'king-related' which conveys the meaning 'king,' whose relation has become revealed with (regard to something yet) unspecified, functions as a qualifier. The word purusah: 'man' conveys the meaning *man' which is self-contained (and) which functions as the main member, because it belongs to the predicate. In the compound the genitive is not employed, because the difference (between separately presented meanings) is eliminated and the relation requiring that (difference) is included (in the compound-meaning itself). This natural non-appearance (of case-ending) is prescribed by the rule P.2.4.71 in order to have the desired (grammatical) result which comes as a consequence of (adding) the case-suffix. 74. P. 322 : ^ g;prft%| TO#f3n"^f ^ fa^^t^f^JT SPT^cftf 5 F : HT 75. P. 322: XI^T* T$*T ?fcT I T ? ^c2T%f T^*T TT^TPff^ Pi TT I ff

Samarihhnil(a Note (46):

53

The word rjnah acts as a qualifying word and, therefore, requires a qualified word, which, as such, may be any noun. The word purusah on the other hand, does not require a qualifying word. In the expression 'in relation to rdjan purusa is there' the word purusa is vidheya: 'predicate*. A compound has single meaning. The relation expressed by rjnah: 'kingrelated' becomes part of the compound-meaning in rjapurusah and is, therefore, no longer separately indicated by a case-suffix. A relation, as expressed by a case-ending, requires two different things presented by two different word-meanings. To express this relation between two separate word-meanings is possible only in the uncompounded word-group. Since the relation expressed by the case-ending is included in the meaning of the compound, why then, when forming the compound, employ case-endings and drop them again? This procedure is adopted for grammatical purposes. F.i. we cannot drop the -n of rjan in a compound by P.8.2.7, unless the case-ending is there, so that the designation pada: 'finished word* will apply to it. See P. 1.4.14. P.2.4.71 prescribes /u/f-elision of case-endings, when a word becomes a verbal or nominal stem. 45. (Bhsya : Objection)

Why do you say: '(words) having separate meanings (of their own)'? Because when we say: 'let the king's man be brought', the king-man is brought. And (when we say): '(let) the king-man (be brought)', the same (man is brought). Kaiyata76: (On) 'Why do you say'. For, if one single qualified meaning (i.e. 'man' qualified by 'king-related') is not conveyed, then (we might say that) words in the uncompounded word-group convey a separate meaning (of their own). And if from the compound (rjapurusah) we understand only (the meaning) 'man', (then we might say that the compound conveys) single integrated meaning. But since by compound and uncompounded word-group one and the same meaning is conveyed, therefore, there cannot be a difference in (type of) semantic connection either. 76. P. 322: f^RT^q^f ^% | 1J* ff n

54 Note (47) :

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

The point made by the prvapaksin here is that even from the uncompounded word-group we may understand single meaning, in the form: 'man qualified by relation to a king*. Also, in the case of a compound, the meaning conveyed is not simply 'man' without the relation to a king acting as a qualifier. So, since both, compound and uncompounded word-group, convey the same meaning after all, how can one say that the uncompounded word-group has a different meaning (prthagartha) from the corresponding compound? The words prthagartha and ekrthlbhva in the Vrttilca denote two different ways of presenting the same meaning. In the case of the uncompounded word-group the wordmeanings separately presented by the inflected words are linked together by some relation indicated by the inflectional suffixes. In the case of the compound this separate presentation of the meaning of the constituents and of their relation does not occur. The compound as a whole denotes single meaning in which the relation also obtains the status of word-meaning. This contrast is brought out by the terms prthagartha and ekrthibhva. But the prvapaksin misunderstands the word prthagartha and thinks that it means 'having a different meaning', i.e., an uncompounded word-group has a meaning different from that of the corresponding compound. With this (wrong) meaning in mind, the prvapaksin raises his objection: if the expressions have a different meaning, how can the result be the same? See further Kaiyata on Bhsya No. 46. When Kaiyata, there, mentions 'difference in meaning', he means to say, 'difference in presentation of meaning*. 46. (Bhsya : Answer)

We do not say at all that a different person is brought. Kaiyata77: (On) 'we do not say at all*. In the uncompounded word-group, even if the words present separate meanings, we understand qualified meaning on the basis of the 'qualifier-qualified relation', due to mutual requirement and compatibility of word (-meanings). In the compound also the same qualified meaning is conveyed by the two words rjan and purusa, so where is a chance to bring a different person? But this does not mean that compound and uncompounded wordgroup have the same meaning. Just as brhmannm saiam bhojyatm: 'five score of brahmins should be fed', and satam brhmanh bhojyantm: 'one hundred 77. P. 322: Tfrfcr
^PTI *\ i<w sfft^rorr i ^TT

Samarthhnika

55

brahmins should be fed*. These expressions do not involve (any) difference in the act to be done, yet there is a difference in word-meaning (as regards its presentation). The same thing here also, such is the meaning of the passage. (HERE ENDS THE SECTION IN WHICH THE DIFFERENT CHARACTERISTICS OF SEMANTIC CONNECTION ARE EXAMINED)

(NOW STARTS THE SECTION IN WHICH INTEGRATED MEANING ARE EXAMINED) 47.

EXAMPLES

OF SINGLE

(Bhsya : Question by an adherent of the meaning-interdependence view)

Then what special feature is brought out by single integrated meaning? 48. (Bhsya Vrttfya78 : Answer (special features brought out by single integrated meaning))

Non-disappearance of case-ending; intervention (by another word) ; connection of one (word) with the other (i.e. word-order) as we wish; accent. Note (48) : These are the special features of words in an uncompounded word-group as contrasted with a compound. 49. (Bhsya : Illustration for non-disappearance of case-ending)

Non-disappearance of case-ending, occurs in an uncompounded wordgroup, like in rjnah: purusah: 'king's man'. But in a compound it does not occur, as in rjapuruab>: 'king-man'. Note (48): The rule concerning disappearance of case-endings is P.2.4.71. The word bhavati in the Bhsya text may have both meanings: 'occurs' and 'is allowed'. 50. (Bhsya: Illustration for word-intervention)

Intervention (of a word) occurs in an uncompounded word-group, like in rjnah rddhasya purusah: 'man of a - - rich - - king'. But in a compound it does not occur, like in rjapurush: 'king-man'. 78. The term Bhya-Vrttika is used with reference to those Vrttikas which are not attributed to Ktyyana by KIELHORN. We cannot decide whether they are, in fact, written by Pataiijali or whether Pataiijali paraphrases Vrttikas written by another scholar. See F. KIELHORN, Ktyyana and Pataiijali, 2nd d. Vrnas, 1963, p. 15.

56 Kaiyata79:

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

Intervention (by another word) also is observed in an uncompounded wordgroup, when different meanings are presented, as in bhry rjnah puruso de\>adaitas$a: 'wife - - of the king, man - - of Devadatta*. When (different meanings) are not presented, it is not observed. Because in the middle of the word 'devadatta we cannot insert another word. Ngesa80: (On) Vife of the king'. Between (the words) bhry and devadattasya (the words) rjnah purusah are inserted, so we should understand. 51. (Bhsya: Illustration for free word-order)

Connection of one (word) with the other (i.e. word-order) as we wish occurs in an uncompounded word-group, like in rjnah purusah: 'king's man' (and) purusah rjnah: 'man of a king'. In a compound it does not occur, as in rjapurusah: 'king-man.' Kaiyata81: (On) 'as we wish*. In an uncompounded word-group words are used without a fixed order. But in a compound order is fixed. This originates from (the fact that a compound has) one single meaning. Just as, when we should use (the sequence) k-a'T~k~a> w e do n o t u s e ( tne sequence) r~I(-a~k-a. Note (49) : Just as in a word the order of phonemes is fixed and we cannot have the same word when the sequence of phonemes is changed, so also in a compound the order of constituent words is fixed. Word-order in a compound is regulated by P.2.2.30 etc. 52. (Bhsya: Illustration for accent)

In an uncompounded word-group (consisting of two words) there are two accents, like in rjnah purusah: 'king's man'. In a compound, however, (there is) one only, as in rjapurusah: 'king-man'. 79. P. 323: szr^rr^fcr g^T^^ * 3TW ^T ? T r Tffil T *f 80. P. 323: II 81. P. 323: Jr#^ffT% I <K^fa4d#lfTqV TFft snftT: I STTRt 5 r: 1 *r fpTfcf'^snT: 1 w r *&$ ^fir 5r^ft^r# ^ P ^fir T JPT^T it

Samarthhmka Kaiyata82:

57

(On) 'two accents*. DifFerence in meaning brings along difference in accent, as in dvadatta gam abhyja: *O Devadatta, drive the cow away*. If no . difference in (meaning), (then) (no difference in accent) is observed, as in (the word) ghath : *jar\ Here both the words rjnah and prusah take udtla on the first syllable, according to (P.6.1.197). .(The compound) rjapurush takes udtla on the final syllable (by P.6.1.223). /Note (50): The accent of dvadatta is by P.6J.I98; that of gam by P.3.1.2 and P.8.2.5; that of abfoaja by P.8.1.70, P.8.2.5 and P.6.1.162; that of ghath by P.3.1.134 and P.6.1.163; that of rjan by Undi No. 16288 and P.6.1.197; that of prusah by Undi No. 523 and P.6.1.197. 53.

(Bhsya: Answer rejected by the adherent of the meaning-interdependence view)

These are not special features brought out by single integrated meaning. Then what (are they)? These are stated by a rule. For the revered master has said: supo dhtuprtipadikayoh (P.2.4.71); upasarjanam prvam (P.2.2.30) (and) samsnta udtto bhavati (wtti: 'gloss' on P.6.1.223). Kaiyata8*: Also in the case of non-difference in meaning (i.e. of single meaning) nondisappearance of case-ending is observed, as in vatssujah: 'born in the rainy season', gosucarah: 'moving among cows' (P.6.3.14). Also, even in a compound free use of words (i.e. word-order) is observed, as in antad: 'the end and the beginning' (and) dyantau: 'the beginning and the end' (P.2.2.32-33) ; in jtapuirah: *to whom a son is born* (and) putrajtaht 'to whom a son is born* 82. P. 323: gt ^cfTTf^T*!^^^ ^PCWt S ^ WW

83. See Siddhntakaumudi, Undi-section. 84. P. 323: areftf ^ Q4<\*ft ^3": I ^TT HfN^: t^N< fir II

58

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

(P.,2.2.37). In the uncompounded word-group the use (i.e. order) of (the particle) ca: 'and' is fixed, like in dhavas ca Ihadiras ca: 'both Grislea Tomentosa (or Anogeissus Latifolia) and Acacia Catechu*, and ca fyhadiras ca dhavah is not allowed. Also, single accent is observed (to occur) in an uncompounded word-group, as in llsnena parasun vrscan: 'O you, who cut down with a sharp axe' (P.2.1.2 and P.6.1.198). Also, in the case of single meaning, different accents (are there), as in fyrtavi: *in order to do' (and) nvetavdi: *in order to go along'; accent according to (respectively) P.6.1.200 and P.6.2.51. 54. (Bhsya: Another answer by the adherent of the single integrated meaning view) Then the following are the special features brought out by single integrated meaning: (indication of) particular number; clear indication of meaning; qualifier to the subordinate word; connection by means of (the particle) ca: 'and'. 55. (Bhsya: Illustration for indication of particular number) (Indication of) particular number occurs in an uncompounded wordgroup, as in rjnah purusah: 'man of a king3, rjnoh: purusah: 'man of two kings', rjnm purusah: 'man of many kings'. In a compound it does not occur, as in rjapurusah; 'king-man'. Kaiyata85: (On) *(Indication of) particular number*. In an uncompounded word-group the subordinate (i.e. qualifying) words, since they express the case-meaning 85. PP. 323-24: Cf^TTf^N" ?t% I

^TT

^1 1

Samarthhnika

59

(and indicate particular number), convey their own meaning as associated with a particular number. But in a compound, since (the subordinate words) convey the meaning of the main member in which their own meaning has become merged, they convey singular number without differentiation (i.e., non-committal singular number). As has been stated: Just as the juices of all medical herbs, while keeping their medicinal power in the honey-elixir (with which they are mixtured), exist there without being separately cognised, similar (to that), number is regarded86. Alternatively, 'singular number without differentiation' general, without particularity. This has been stated: means number in

Or, after (its) aspect of generality has become operative, number as such, since distinction (of particularity) has been eliminated, is so characterized that it functions by means of removing distinction. Just as we may call an object coloured, because it has some indistinct colour, although8T specific colour like white is understood, (the same is true of no number) . But in some cases (of compounds) particular number is clearly indicated, for instance dviputrah: 'having two sons', triputrah: 'having three sons', etc., where the meaning of the nominal stem itself is a particular number. In (the word-composition) lval&nah: 'belonging to thou\ mmalflnah: 'belonging to me', the substitutes (iavaka and mamaka) indicate singular number88. In the form saurpikam: 'measured by one winnowing basket'89 we apprehend singular number, because the nominal stem indicates a well-defined measure. Similarly, from (the compound) msajth: 'one month old'90 we understand singular number, because (this word) is used to convey a particular (period of) time. In the same way, elsewhere also, delimitation by particular number by different means should be observed. Note (51): Kaiyata wonders what number do we understand from the subordinate member of a compound? In compounds like rjapurusah: 'king-man' we do not know whether the man belongs to one king, two kings or more than two kings. In these cases the question is whether the subordinate member conveys the idea of a particular number or of no number at all. Kaiyata's answer is that in wordcomposition we apprehend abhedailcaivasamkhy: 'singular number without differentiation'. Following Vfoapadiya, Kaiyata then offers two different inter86. 87. 88. 89. 90. Vkyapadya III, 14.102 (ed. ABHYANKAR-LIMAYE, p. 124). Ibid., Ill, 14. 103-4, p. 124. P. 4.3.3 The restriction to singular number is expressly made. P. 5.1.26. , When we want to convey the meaning 'two months old', the word duimsajtah is invariably used.

60

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

pretations of abhedaikatvasamkhy. According to the first view, from a wordcomposition we apprehend singular number which includes other numbers too. The notion of other numbers also exists in singular number, because it is inseparably associated with the notion of singular number. In this view the subordinate word expresses singular number, which is non-committal and may represent any number. The second view says that abhedaikaivasamlhy means notion of number in general without specification being made. In a wordcomposition the subordinate word expresses this notion of number in a general way, without conveying any specific information about it. 56. (Bhsya: Another reason for non-apprehension of particular number) There is a reason why this happens to be so. What is that reason? Because that word (i.e. inflectional suffix) which expresses the specific (number), that (inflectional suffix) is not there (in a compound). You better pronounce it (i.e. the inflectional suffix in the compound), sir, (and then you will see that) this specific (number) will be understood ( even from a compound ). Kaiyata91: (On) 'Because it is not there.' It means that the case-ending is removed by 57. (Bhsya: Rejection of the additional reason)

a. But don't you think that it should not be necessarily so? Meaning, in fact, should not suit words. Words, in fact, should suit meaning. Kaiyata93: (On) 'But still*. The Teacher has certainly not prescribed elision (of the case-ending), when the (case-ending's) meaning is there (i.e. when the function of case-ending is there), but rather the natural absence of the word (i.e. inflectional suffix) is observed, because (its) meaning is not there. (On) 'should suit meaning*. Because a word is used to convey the meaning desired to be conveyed. {Bhsya continued) b. Look at this here from this angle: meaning is of such a nature here (i.e. in the case of a compound) that from it (compound) we do not 91. P. 324: g^ftpaTff \ ^ T f ^ ^ f t ^ ^ 3 T f r : II 92. P. 2.4.71. 93. P. 324: ?F

Samarthhnika

61

understand a specific (number). And this must necessarily be taken in this way. But who thinks that a specific (number) is not understood, because there is no word (i.e. inflectional suffix) which expresses the specific (number), he would understand specific (number) here: apsucarah; 'moving in the waters', gosucarah; 'moving among cows', varssujah: 'born during the rainy season5. Kaiyata94: (On) 'gosucarah': A cock is called gosucarah, who moves with one cow, or with many cows, all of these are indiscriminately called so (viz. gosucarah). Note (52): "in all these examples aluk' *non-elision' (of case-ending) takes place by P.6.3.14. From the number indicated by the inflectional suffix nothing can be inferred with regard to its actual appearance in the meaning of the word. The word apsucarah means a tortoise or a fish swimming or moving in the waters. Gosucarah means a cock which moves with cows. Varssujah means a fire-fly (indragopa) appearing in the rainy season. These words as a whole denote meaning: 'a tortoise', 'a cock', or 'a fire-fly.' Whether the animal in question swims in water taken as one body, or in many watery places; or walks along with one, two, or more cows; or appears during one, two or more rainy seasons, is of no importance. The number 'many' indicated by the inflected member of the compound, does not find expression in the single integrated meaning denoted by the compound. 58. (Bhsya: Illustration for clarity of meaning) Clear indication of meaning occurs in an uncompounded word-group, as in brhmanasya kambalas tisthati: 'the brahmin's blanket lies there.' But in the compound clear indication of meaning is not there, as in brhmanakambalas tisthati:'' the brahmin-blanket lies there', or 'o brahmin, the blanket lies there'. (Here) doubt arises, whether this (viz. brhmana in brhmanakambala) is vocative or (a constituent of) a genitive compound. Kaiyata95: (On) 'brhmanalambalah'. Although here we can decide (meaning) by (difference in) accent, still, what this (Bhsya) means is that we cannot decide 94. P. 324. ftsRT fff I t*!^: 3pFf ^sf I 1&&T rftr gtftfj 3T 95. P. 325: sTT&JUj^Si^1 ^f^f I nf^r M: i

62

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

it by the form of the word only. Even where there is no difference between the accent of the vocative and that of the genitive compound, as in tisthati brhmanaIambalah: 'there lies the blanket, o brahmin', or 'there lies the brahmin-blanket', even there decision can certainly be made on account of context etc. The word Iambala has its final syllable accented either by the Phit-stra 1.2196 or by the mptana-xxAe P.5.1.3. What we call non-clarity of meaning is (really) a special feature brought out by single integrated meaning, because, when this (single integrated meaning) is there, case-endings which convey a relation requiring difference (between separate meanings) are absent. Note (53): a. The vocative hrhmana in hrhmana kambalas tisthati is accented by P.6.1.98 (accent on first syllable). P.8.1.19, which prescribes loss of accent, is not applied, because brhmana is not preceded by another word. Kambal will have a separate accent by Phit-sv.ita 1.21 (accent on final syllable). b. If brhmanakambalh is a genitive compound it will have one accent (on the final syllable) by R6.1.223. c. The vocative brhmana in tisthati brhmana fambalah will be unaccented by P.8.1.19, because it is preceded by the verbform tisthati The word fambala has the accent on the final syllable by Phit-stra I.21. So both in the case of vocative and of compounding with a genitive word the expression brhmana(-) kambalah in tisthati brhmana (')kambaldh has the same accent. 59. (Bhsya : Rejection of the special feature)

This is not a special feature (of a compound) either. Because it happens that something which is not clear in an uncompounded word-group becomes clear in a compound. As for what is not clear in an uncompounded word-group (we have the example) : ardhaih pasor devadattasya: 'half of beastly Devadatta', or 'half of the beast of Devadatta'. (Here) doubt arises, whether (this expression means) 'half of Devadatta who has the quality of a beast/ or rather 'half of that which is called 'beast', insofar it has got a conventional name ('beast'). But that becomes clear in a compound, as in ardhapasur devadattasya: 'half of the beast belonging to Devadatta5. Kaiyata97: (On) 'This . . . either'. Because (lack of clarity of meaning in a compound) is not everywhere. The word api is meant to include 'non-disappearance of caseendings', etc. 96. G. V. DEVASTHALI, Phit-stras of ntanava, Poona, 1967, pp. 48, 83. 97. P. 325:

Samarthhnika Note (54):

63

It is admitted by the Bhsya Nos. 55-57 that absence of indication of specific number (in the subordinate member) is a special feature of a compound. The word api in the present Bhsya cannot refer to this absence of specific number and mean that this is not a special feature either. Therefore, Kaiyata says that api refers to the 'non-disappearance of case-endings' mentioned in Shasta No. 49. This 'non-disappearance' of inflectional suffix is not a special feature of an uncompounded word-group only, because inflectional suffixes are retained even in a compound, as in gosucarah: 'moving with cows'. 60. (Bhsya : Illustration for a qualifier to the subordinate word)

A qualifier to the subordinate word occurs in an uncompounded wordgroup, as in rddhasya rjnah purnsah: {man of a rich king'. In a compound it does not occur, as in rjapurush: 'king-man'. Kaiyata98: (On) 'rich'. In the uncompounded word-group the word rjan: 'king' does not give up its own meaning, nor does it take on the meaning of the other word (in the word-group) and so it is fit to form a relation with a qualifying word (outside the group). But in the compound, since (the word rjan here) conveys the meaning of the other word (which acts as the main member and) its own meaning stands as a qualifier (to the main member), it is not fit to enter into relation with a qualifying word (outside the compound). Note (55): For explanation see Kaiyata on Bhsya No. 42 and Note (7). Only the principal member of a compound can be qualified by a word outside the compound, see Bhsya No. 28.
-*
6 1 . ( B h s y a : R e j e c t i o n )

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

64

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

Kaiyata": (On) This . . . either*. Because (absence of a qualifying word for the subordinate member of a compound is) not (a feature which) covers all cases (of compounding). Note (56) : See Rhnsva Nos. 29-39. 62. (Bhsya : Illustration for connection by means of the particle ca) Connection by means of (the particle) ca: 'and' occurs in an uncompounded word-group: as connection by means of ca with what is owned, and as connection by means of ca with what is the owner. (Example for) connection by means of ca with what is owned : rjno gaus csvas ca purusas ca,: 'and cow and horse and man belonging to a king'. In a compound it does not occur, as in rjno gavsvapurusah: 'cow-horseman-s belonging to a king.' (Example for) connection by means of ca with the owner: devadattasya ca yajnadattasya ca visnumitrasya ca gauh: 'and Devadatta's and Yajnadatta's and Visnumitra's cow'. In a compound it does not occur: devadattayajnadattavisnumitrnm gauh: 'Devadatta-Yajnadatta-Vinumitra>-s cow'. Kaiyata100: (On) 'connection by means of ca\ The particle ca is used in an uncompounded word-group to indicate aggregation requiring distinction (of the groupconstituents). But in a compound, since (its) single meaning becomes manifest as a whole, (and) distinction (of constituents) ceases to be there, the particle can although it is indicative (of conjunction), ceases to be, since there is nothing to indicate (any more). (HERE ENDS THE SECTION IN WHICH THE SPECIAL FEATURES OF SINGLE INTEGRATED MEANING ARE EXAMINED) VI (NOW STARTS THE SECTION IN WHICH IT IS EXAMINED WHETHER DENOTATION OF WORD-MEANING IS NATURAL OR TAUGHT BY GRAMMAR) 63. (Bhsya : Question) Now, when (you say that) these are the special features (of a compound) caused by single integrated meaning, (the question is) whether 99. P. 325: rrqftcftf^f | 100. P. 325: ^ffTf ^t%" I

Samarthhnika

65

denotation of meaning by (compound-) words is natural or rather (taught) by grammatical rule? Kaiyata101: (On) 'Now, when . . . these'. What the Bhsya means to say is this: If denotation of meaning is (taught) by a grammatical rule, theneven if we do not accept that single integrated meaning is denoted (by a compound), because the dvandva compound is prescribed in the sense of ca102 and because the meaning ca is expressed by the dvandva compound itself, (the particle) ca will not be used (and) we cannot infer (either) that (a compound denotes) single integrated meaning, because (the special features brought out by single integrated meaning) can be justified otherwise. But if (denotation of meaning by a compound is) natural, (then) the rule cdcthc : 'in the sense of conjunction*103 will r be meaningless. Note (57): Among the special features brought out by way of contrast in uncompounded word-group and compound the use of the particle ca is mentioned. It is not used in a compound, but it is used in the uncompounded word-group. This is, because conjunction between two meanings is possible, when they are separately presented. Since a compound denotes single meaning, there is no chance for ca. Now the prvapaJ?sin says that, in order to Justify non-use of ca, we need not refer to single meaning in a compound. Pnini prescribes the dvandva compound n the sense of conjunction (P.2.2.29). Once the meaning 'conjunction' is already denoted by the compound, we cannot use ca in the compound, because of the maxim uktrthnm aprayogah: '(words) the meaning of which has already been denoted (somewhere else) are not used again*104. The objection that Pnini cannot prescribe the dvandva compound in the sense of conjunction, because words denote meaning by nature and not by grammatical rule, is met by the remark that in that case P.2.2.29 will be redundant. 64. (Bhsya : Answer)

He says: (denotation of meaning) is a natural thing. Why is that so? Because there is no teaching of meaning. Meanings are surely not taught (by rule). loi. P. 325: srq-crfJTfwfr i w ws:qrf I 5 102. P. 2.2.29. 103. P. 2.2.29. 104. See note (78) on Bhasya No. 96. F5

66 Kaiyata105:

Mahbh&a (P.2.1.1)

(On) 'Because there is no teaching of meaning'. (For instance,) in the rule acaiuravicatura etc. (P.5.4.77). This is what (the Bhsya) means. Note (58): Probably the word 'He' refers to Pnini. See Bhsya No. 65. The passage means that denotation of single integrated meaning by a compound is natural, because words convey meaning not on the authority of grammatical rules, but of the usage established by the speech-community. Kaiyata illustrates this by quoting the nipiana rule P.5.4.77 which simply lists compounds without indicating their meanings. 65. (Bhsya : Objection)

But how can he say so: 'meanings are not taught', when he (himself) teaches meaning? Because the revered master has stated: P.2.2.24; P.2.2.29; P.4.1.92; P.4.2.1; P.4.2.68. Kaiyata106: He thinks that by forming (two) different sentences (we can establish that) meaning is taught: (1) subantam anekam anyapadrthe vartale: '(a group of) two or more case-inflected words denotes anyapadrtha , (2) tac ca bahuvrihisamjnam: 'and this (group of words) is called bahuvnlu. In this manner formation of different sentences should be observed elsewhere also. Note (59): Here the term vifabheda: 'formation of two different sentences out of one' does not mean splitting a sentence into two parts, as is the case in yogavibhga, but interpreting the same sentence in two different ways. Each interpretation requires, in fact, a different sentence. Here Kaiyata gives two interpretations of the rule anekam anyapadrihe. If we accept the first interpretation given, we may say that Pnini teaches meaning also. Anekam anyapadrthe (P.2.2.24) : 'two or more words (ending in the nominative case are compounded) to denote the meaning of another word (not included in the compound and such a compound is called bahuvfhi)'. F.i. the compound piimbarah: 'wearing yellow garments' denotes the meaning tVisnu\ which is not denoted by any of the constituents of the compound separately. 105. p. 326: 106. P. 326: f^T ^TfsR pq%CSF

Samarthhnika

67

Car the dvandvah (P. 2.2.29) : 'two or more words (ending in the nominative case are compounded) to denote the sense of ca: 'and' (and the compound so formed is called * dvandva . F.i. rmakrsnau: 'Rma and Krsna*. By the word apatye: 'in the sense of "descendant" ' Patanjali refers to the rule tasypatyam: '(the suffixes aN etc. are added to a word ending in the genitive case, in the sense of) "his offspring"' (P.4.1.92). F.i. aupagavah: 'offspring of Upagu'. By the word rafale: 'in the sense of "coloured" ' Patanjali refers to the rule Una raktam rgt: '(the suffix aN is added to a word ending in the instrumental case and denoting a particular colour, in the sense of) "coloured by that"' (P.4. 2.1). F.i. ksyam: 'a cloth dyed by a yellow-red colour*. By the word nirvrtte: 'in the sense of "built by" r Pataniali refers to the rule tena nirvrtiam: '(the suffix aN is added to a word ending in the instrumental case, in the sense of) "built by him"' (P.4.2.68). F.i. kausm&: '(a city) bult by Kusmba'. See also P.5U.79; 6A170; 5.4.32; 4.4.19. 66. (Bhsya : Answer)

These (rules) are not (for) teaching of meaning. Of these words, which are naturally endowed with these meanings, explanation is stfven by wav of guidance (or condition).Take an example: kpe hastadaksinah panthah: 'the path is on the right-hand side of the well', abhre candramasam basya: 'look at the moon in the cloud', in this way explanation is given, by way of guidance, of that path and of that moon, which are (already) naturally located there. In the same way also here: what denotes the meaning of ca: 'and5 is (called) dvandva; what denotes the meaning of another word (not included in the compound) is (called) bahuvnhi. Note (60): The rules referred to in the previous Bhsya are not formulated to teach meanings yet unknown to us. The meanings indicated here .represent the condition for applying designations like dvandva or bahavrihi or for employing taddhita suffixes like aN. P.2.2.29 (crthe dvandvah) does not prescribe the meaning ca: 'and' for dvandva compounds, but it prescribes the designation dvandva to a group of two or more words like rmalcrsnau: 'Rma and Krsna', which indicates conjunction. The sense 'conjunction' which we understand from this compound is established by the usage of the speech-community and does not originate from Panini's rule. To explain this point examples aie given. The statements 'the path is . . .' and 'look at . . .'do not confer a new position upon the path or the moon, but their existing location is explained with the help of distinctive signs, 'well' and 'cloud'. Similarly, the sense 'conjunction' is mentioned in P.2.2.29 as a sign or condition for the application of the designation dvandva.

68 67.

Mahbh&a (P.2.1.1) {Bhsya : Objection)

But why are meanings not taught (by rule) ? Kajyata107: (On) 'But why'. Let there be teaching of meaning by vkyabheda: 'formation of two different sentences out of one'108, just as there is teaching of stem and suffix. Note (61): For the explanation see Note (59). BS. (Bhs\)a : Answer)

But this is for the sake of economy. It is for the sake of economy that meanings are not taught. Because by a man who is going to teach meaning necessarily, meaning (of the word A) must be determined with the help of some word (B). And with the help of which word (C) meanwhile (the meaning) of that (word B) is determined by which you determine the (meaning of A). With the help of which word (D) do you determine (again) (the meaning)' of that (word C)? Then of that (word D) with the help of which (word E) is (meaning-determination) made? (And) of that (word E again), with the help of which (word F) is (meaning-determination) made? And so we get into a regressus ad infinitum. To teach meaning is, in fact, impossible. For who, really, is capable to teach the meaning of verbs, nominal stems, suffixes and particles? Kaiyata109: (On) *for the sake of economy'. The word laghu stands for lghava: 'economy*. For the sake of economy meanings are not taught. Otherwise, lack of economy and regressus ad infinitum would result. To explain more fully: If (we assume that) meanings are taught by means of vlfabheda: 'formation of two different sentences out of one', as in (1) '(a group of) two or more (words) dnotes the sense ca: "and" ', (2) 'and that (group) is called dvandvdllo> then the following question might be raised: *but what is the meaning of caY With 107. P. 326: f g^rflfo I ^ff^W>T%^^T ^r^^PT^FTcr %fo VT?: I! % 108. See Note (59). 109. P. 326: ^^q-frfT I W^T^t ^T^% SfcT I

' i era". '3>: 110. See Kaiyata on Bhsya No. 68.

Samarthahnilca

69

regard to this the teacher woufd have to answer: '(the meaning of ca is) samhra: 'collection' and itaretarayoga: 'mutual connection'. This would lead to regressus ad infinitum of question and answer in the form: 'what (is) mutual connection?', and lack of economy would be the consequence. 69. (Bhsya : Objection)

But don't think that, when the meaning of a suffix is mentioned, the meaning of the stem is not mentioned. When a quality is referred to, the thing in which that quality inheres is certainly understood. Take an example: 'white', 'black'. Kaiyata111: (On) 'But don't think'. What (the Bhsya) means to say is that the meaning of a certain element (say 'suffix') only is stated, but we understand (the meaning of) another element (say 'stem'), because it is connected (with the first element). (On) *is\ The affixes sU etc.112 are prescribed in the sense of the qualities 'singular number' etc. and by (those) qualities the thing having (those) qualities is implied, because it is impossible to have qualities without a substratum. (On) 'Take an example "white" \ (Even if the word sukla: 'white') denotes the quality only, (still by it) the thing possessing the quality is implied, this is what the passage means. Similarly, when a suffix is prescribed in the sense of apatya: 'descendant', mention of the person possessing offspring, which is the meaning of the stem, is implicitly made, as a consequence (of the mention of suffix-meaning). Ngea113: (On) 'when the meaning of a suffix is taught*. When the meaning of a suffix is mentioned, it is not necessary to mention the meaning of the stem, because one i n . P. 327: ?r ^^ '^ftrfr I

1 1 112. Svdi stands for the case-suffixes prescribed by P. 4.1.2. 113. P. 327: ST^PTiSf Pf^t" %fa \ VKWI$fa%5 torrftrssft T 3 C ^fr ^TT^: I I src*nsf TT

70

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

can understand the meaning of the stem simply because of its relation (with the sense of the suffix). This is what (the Bhsya) means to say. The literal meaning is: one should not form the idea that, when the meaning of a suffix is mentioned, the meaning of the stem is not mentioned. And thus it is not necessary to mention the meaning of a stem, this is what (the Bhsya) means. Note (61): When f.i,, the suffix aN is mentioned in the sense lasya apatyam, we know by implication that the stem-word must mean 'a person having offspring'. Similarly, when we hear the words 'white, black', we understand also the thing which is white or black. Colours do not exist apart from the coloured things. When Pnini states that the nominative singular case-ending denotes the sense of singular number, it means, by implication, that the stem denotes an object in which singular number inheres. Without the notion of dravya it is impossible to speak of singular number. Therefore, the prvapaksin says that Pnini indicates the general meaning of the stem also while stating the meaning of the suffix. 70. (Bhsya : Answer)

You put the matter in the wrong way. In this manner these (words) would be words denoting general meaning (of a stem)114. And words denoting general meaning (of a stem) without context or qualified (word) do not present particular meanings. But because, when one says vrksah: 'tree', (the word), in fact, necessarily stands for some particular (meaning and not for any single object) by nature, therefore, we think that these (words) are not words denoting general meaning (of a stem). If they are not words denoting general meaning (of a stem), the stem denotes (the particular meaning of) the stem, (and) the suffix denotes (the meaning of) the suffix (only and not stem-meaning in a general way). Kaiyata: (On) 'in the wrong way'. Just as the quality 'white', 'black' implies any thing possessing that quality, and not a particular thing possessing that quality, in the 114. I.e. the stem-meaning implied or the stem-meaning presupposed without which the suffix-moaning cannot be conceived. F.i., in- the word aupagavah, formed with the suffix dy, the stem-meaning required is that of generator of offspring*. The word smanyasabda does not stand for generic meaning here. 115. P. 327: fcTcpq- fa | 3 ^ ^ : fT ^fif *T*PT fw^

%f W f t

i *refh ^ i ii

Samarthhmia

71

same way, from (the words) vrksah : 'tree' (and) plaksah : 'Ficus Infectoria' also we would understand any substance (dravyamira) which can be the location of singular number (as conveyer! by the nominative s:ngular suffix). If we do not accept that meaning is determined by daily usage, nor either that meaning should be instructed with reference to every stem by grammar, then (the words) vrksa etc. would stand for any substance (dravyamira), (and) so, when context etc. are not there, we would not understand a particular (lexical) meaning. But we do understand (a particular lexical meaning). Therefore, even if we do not want to, we have to accept, on the basis of reasoning, that the relation between word and meaning arises only from the way in which older persons communicate. ' Note (62) : The illustration offered in Bhsya No. 69 is wrong, so the siddhniin says. In Bhsya No. 69 it is argued that mention of the suffix-meaning implies mention of the stem-meaning. To show how the one implies the other, the example, suklah is given. Bhsya No. 70 points out that, from the point of view of vyavahra: language-communication', the word sukldh implies the notion of any substance possessing that quality. Only the extra-linguistic situation or a qualified word like patah in suklah patah, restricts the general meaning of these words to a particular object. In the case of aupagavah and vrksah the suffix-meanings 'offspring' and 'singular number' would imply any person who has produced offspring and any single object. The case of sullah is different, because here the general implied meaning of any white substance is sufficient for the purposes of communication. But in aupagavah and vrksah the general implied meaning is not helpful in communication. People do not understand any single object from the word vrksah, but necessarily a tree. Nor do we understand from aupagavah the child of any father, but rather the child of Upagu. To teach these particular meanings used in daily communication is beyond the scope of grammar. 71. (Bhsya : Another answer)

We do not, in fact, intend to teach meaning. For there are many words the meanings of which are not known, as jarbhn turphdnt.116 Without the use of words, in fact, many meanings are understood, by winking, and by gestures of the hand. There is really no point at all in explaining meaning which has (already) been understood (from usage). Whosoever says that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, (or) that molasses is sweet, (or) that ginger is pungent, what purpose is achieved (by him) in saying so? 116. RigVeda X, 106.6.

72 Kaiyata117:

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

(On) * (words) the meanings of which are not known'. The meanings of the words svarga: 'paradise', aprva: 'merit', deva: 'god' cannot be understood as 'this means this', because (these meanings) cannot be delimited by visual perception118. This being so, how could their meanings be pointed out. This is what (the Bhsya) means. Their meanings are understood only, because people familiar with the three Vedas use them. (On) Vinking*. Just as we understand meaning by means of these (gestures), because they are used (to convey a particular meaning), so also (we understand meaning) by means of words. This is what (the Bhsya) means to say. (On) 'really no . . . at all'. Because grammar is formulated to prevent mixing of correct words with incorrect (words), it does not aim at explaining meanings (already) known (to us) from daily communication of people. Note (63): Words like 'paradise', 'god' do not possess a meaning which we can clearly point out as having a "one-to-one" correspondence with a given object. They do not refer to objects having a particular perceptible shape to which we can point. Still, from the use of these words by the learned we understand some meaning, in the form of: 'the thing is there*. Grammar which deals with linguistic analysis is not interested in meaning as determined by vyavahra: 'daily usage*. The capability of conveying meaning is not restricted to language only. Gestures may also function as signs to which we attribute some meaning. Kaiyata finally remarks that grammar is mainly interested in teaching which words are correct and which are incorrect. Grammar will not achieve any gain by teaching meanings which are already known to us from daily communication.

// (VrUila: Statement about economy in the view that denotation of mean injf by "word is natural) 117. P. 327: q-TTR * ?rni^ ffr I

irenqrfaT^H srjfteRfitfer ^re: II 118. Vkyapadtya, ed. ABHYANKAR-LIMAYE, Poona, 1965, p. 26 (II, 119): The thing is there, such is the characteristic of the conveyable meaning of all words. It is stated that this ('it exists') is the same in the case of 'merit', *god' and 'paradise'^ as it is in the case of 'cow'.

Samarthhmla

73

And the statement of option119 is redundant, because this (option) (with regard to use of the compound or of the non-compounded expression) is naturally there. 72. (Bhsya : Explanation)

The statement of option is redundant. Why? Because it (viz. option) is naturally there. Two alternative views are here: the view of vTtti: 'integration5 and the view of az/rtti: 'non-integration'. And this is naturally there: compound and non-compounded expression. This being so, since the domain of integration is a natural datum (and, consequently,) compounding does result invariably, with what else could the statement of option be connected other than the designation ('compound')? But application and non-application of the designation ('compound' to the integrated form) is not desired. Therefore, there is no point in stating option. Kaiyata120: (On) 'the statement of option is redundant*. Here, in the case of meaninginterdependence, there is no compounding, in the case of single integrated meaning there is no uncompounded word-group. Therefore, since their domains (of operation) are different, there will be no bdhyabdha/abhva: 'relation where the one prevails over the other' between them. So there is no point in (stating) option. Because option refers to what has one and the same purpose (or meaning). (On) 'But . . . of the designation . . . not*. In the view of single integrated meaning the (integrated) form citragu: 'possessing brindled cows', is only desired, and not an expression like citrh gvah: 'brindled cows'. Similarly, the form rjapurusah: 'king-man' is desired, and not the expression rjnah, purusah: 'king's man*. Oneness of word, oneness of accent, oneness of case-ending are always desired in the case of single integrated meaning, this is what the passage 119. P.2.1.11. Normally the word ca in a Vrttika indicates that to something already stated, something else is to be added. This is not the case here. We cannot connect this Vrttika with the previous one. Patanjali, while paraphrasing the Vrttika, has left out the word ca. 120. PP. 327-28: ^fqr^TRSTW" %% I %% Amm STOft * Wfir, T

: II

74 Note (63) :

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

P.2.1.11 prescribes that compounding is optional. The sense 'man in service of a king' can be expressed by the uncompounded expression rjnah purusah, as well as by the compound rjapurusah. The prvapaksm now points out that to make this statement about optional formation of compounds is redundant, because the domains of the compound and that of the uncompounded wordgroup are different. Compounds show some special features in distinction from the uncompounded word-group, as: one accent, one case-ending, one wordform. The choice between compound and non-compound entirely depends upon the speaker's decision. Sometimes he may use the compound, sometimes the noncompound. So why state that compounding is optional? This statement of option can, of course, not mean that the designation samsa optionally applies to compounds, because the compound is invariably designated as samsa. (HERE ENDS THE SECTION IN WHICH IT IS EXAMINED WHETHER DENOTATION OF MEANING BY WORDS IS NATURAL OR TAUGHT BY GRAMMAR) VII (NOW STARTS THE SECTION ON DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF INTEGRATION) 73. (Bhdsya : Question) Now, those who form integration121, what do they mean (by integration) ? Kaiyata122: The question is: which definition do the kryasabdikas: 'adherents of the view that words are derived (transformed) by grammatical operation' give, who think that integration is formed optionally from the uncompounded word-group only? But the naityasahdikas: 'adherents of the view that words are underived (not transformed)' think that integrated form and uncompounded word-group have invariably a different domain. 74. (Bhsya : Answer) They say that 'integration' means conveying the meaning of something else. 121. I.e. those who turn, transform, the uncompounded expression into a compound. The expression vrttim vartayanti actually refers to the generative aspect of grammar (kryasabdapaksa), as opposed to the descriptive aspect of grammar (nityasabdapaksa). See Introduction. 122. P. 328: 3Tqff \ STS: il ^TOfe^fTRcl 3rf^fT*KT fact ftftrofasPT HW^ M

Samarthhnika Kaiyata123:

75

Where the meaning of one word (viz. the main member of the compound) is conveyed by another word (viz. the subordinate member), that is integration, such is the meaning of the passage. Just as in the word rjapurusah: 'king-man' the word raja- conveys the meaning of (the word) purusa, which is not (so) expressed in the stage of the uncompounded word-group. Note (65): In a compound the subordinate member will take on the meaning of the main member. See Note (7). 75. (Bhsya : Objection) Now, for those who say so, is it so that (they take the view of) jahatsvrth iffttih: 'integration which involves loss of the constituents' meaning' or rather ajahatsvrth vTttih: 'integration in which the constituents retain their own meaning3? And what difference does that make? If (we take the view of) jahatsvrth vfttih, (then,) when we say rjapurusam naya: 'bring the king-man', the result is that any man might be brought (and,) when we say aupagavam naya: 'bring the offspring of Upagu', (the result is that) any offispring might be brought. If (we take the view of) ajahatsvrth vfttih the result would be dual number124, since both (constituents) retain their own meaning. Which (view of) integration (would) now (be) the proper one? Kaiyata125: (On) 'Now, for those*. But in the view of an adherent of the theory which says that words are not generated by grammar, (compound) words like rja" purusah,the parts of which show resemblance to the words (rjan and purusah) in the uncompounded word-group, (but) which are found to have no meaning, just as phonemes (which form part of a word) are in reality wholly without parts,are merely analysed by resorting to the fictional device of grammatical derivation. 123. P. 328: q-^prff*T^TPTpT% I TO ST^T zrWmTTfW 5T*5Rr<i *ft S T 124. P.l.4.22. 125. P. 328: 3 ^Trftrfa I TT Jwf*VZfH 1 r\[qHq|fr| n er^ftr rerfa ^mf *mt m : M

76

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

(From) jahaii padni svrtham yasym s: 'that in which the words (i.e. constituents) abandon their own meaning' (we derive) jahaisvrth. (On) 'of any man*. If (you argue that) the use of the word rjan is meaningless, then (the answer is that the words purusa and rjapurusa would be synonyms, just as the word yva: 'barley* and yvala: 'barley*. Note (66): The point is made that, if the subordinate member (rjan) conveys the meaning of the main member (purusa) then the subordinate member would be redundant. The answer given by Kaiyata is that, even if the part rjan in rjapurusa is meaningless, we may consider rjapurusa as a synonym of purusa. To explain this, Kayata presents the analogy of \)va and yavala. Here the sequence ];-"-v-a in yvaia appears as similar to the independent word yva: 'barley'. But we cannot derive the meaning of the word yvalca from that of the arbitrary segments yva and a, where ka is meaningless anyway. Yet we say that the word yva is a synonym of yvalca. Similarly, the word rjapurusa is not a combination of the words rjan and purusa. Its meaning cannot be derived from that of these two words. Rjan never denotes the sense purusa in an uncompounded word-group. Yet there is no objection in considering the words rjapurusa and purusa as synonyms. See Vkyapadfya II, 11-12; II, 14 (the part brhmana in brhmanakambalah: 'brahmin-blanket* has no meaning) ; II, 52-60 (meanings of words cannot be derived from meanings of parts, i.e., phonemes) ; II, 38 (the grammatical devices for analysis are only a beginner's help and are to be discarded in a later stage of learning, cf. also II, 238). 76. (Bhsya : Amrver) constituents'

Jahatsvrth; '(integration which involves loss of the meaning)'. Kaiyata126:

(On) * Jahatsvrth'. As long as it does not give up its own meaning, it is certainly impossible (for the subordinate member) to take on the meaning of another word, because it (i.e. the subordinate member) is (still) under the control of its own meaning. 77. (Bhsya : Objection)

But (do you think that) it would be proper that integration should be called jahatsvrth? 126. P. 329:

SamarthhniJta Kaiyata127:

77

(On) 'But . . . proper*. Because the meaning which is assumed (by the subordinate member) is not given up. just as fire (does not give up its) heat. 78. (Bhsya : Answer)

It is certainly proper. For thus we observe in daily life: the man when he takes on a job (assigned to him) by somebody else, abandons his own work. Take an example: a carpenter, when he takes on a job (assigned to him) by a king, abandons his own carpenter's job. In the same way, it is proper that (the word) rjan: 'king3, when it is used in the sense of purusa: 'man', should abandon its own meaning. And (the proper name) Upagu, when used in the sense of 'offspring', should abandon its own meaning (too). Kaiyata128: (On) *a carpenter . . . on a job (assigned to him) by a king*. When a carpenter is called upon by a king to act as a messenger, then he leaves his own job. Note (67): Kaiyata seems to think of a person who abandons his own profession in order to take up a new one, assigned to him. This is not necessarily what Patanjali means. The example might mean that the carpenter gives up the work he was doing at the moment of the king*s assignment and starts doing some carpentry work for the king. 79. (Bhsya : Reminder of the objection)

But still, was it not pointed out that, when we say rjapurusam naya : 'bring the king-man', the result is that any man might be brought? And when we say aupagavam naya: 'bring the offspring of Upagu' (that) any offspring (might be brought)?. Note (68) : See Bhsya No. 75. 80. (Bhsya : Answer) No difficulty here. Although this (i.e. the subordinate member) gives up its own meaning, it does not dp so entirely. That meaning of its own, which is incompatible with the meaning of the other (word, i.e. the main 127. P. 329: a^f ^ f r f a | ^Tiri^T^q* cTm^Tc I S T p ^ ^ u ^ ^ I! 128. P. 329: f^T TR^nfuf fa I ^ V^T < S f ^ f t fa*T^ c 3f TT Pt i

78

Mahbhsya (P.2..1)

member) is abandoned. Take an example: a carpenter, when taking on a job (assigned to him) by a king, abandons his own carpenter's job, but he does not stop hiccuping, laughing and scratching. And this (subordinate) meaning, which, in fact, acts as a qualifier is not incompatible with the meaning of the other (i.e. main word). Therefore, it will not abandon that (i.e. its own meaning). Kaiyata129: (On) 'not . . . entirely*. Integration is called jahaisvrth with regard to the mere (fact of) abandoning (of meaning), but it does not mean total abandonment (of its own meaning). Becaus? this is retained in order to give ass'stance to the other (i.e., main meaning). And if (the subordinate member) would give up its own meaning totally, (then,) because it is not capable of giving assistance to the other (i.e., main meaning any longer), it (subordinate member) would in no case be retained (in the compound), since it has no function (there). This is the meaning of the passage. (On) 'And this meaning*. If one would ask what is now the special feature (of the subordinate member) in compounding, since the meaning rjan: 'king' serves as a qualifier equally in the uncompounded word-group, (then the reply would be that) in the uncompounded word-group, (even) if we apprehend a relation of its own (i.e., of the subordinate member) with a word (outside the construction), there is no loss of semantic connection (with the mam, qualified word). (But) in the compound, because its own meaning (i.e. that of the subordinate member) has become subordinate, it (subordinate member) is capable of giving assistance to the main meaning. Therefore, there will be loss of semantic connection (with the main member), in case if we apprehend a relation of its own (i.e., of the subordinate member) with a word (outside the compound) . Note (69): The statement that constituents give up their own meaning should not be taken too literally. They only give up their own meaning, insofar it would be contrary to the meaning of the main member. If a constituent of a compound presents its meaning as predominant, it is allowed to be qualified by a word outside the compound. The construction rddhasya rjapurusah is not allowed.
129. P. 329: ^TTCERTT^HTT \

II q* < ff44>dfd T II rfxTPHT^T ?% I fircfa ffir %<r,

Samarthhnika

79

But the uncompounded word-group rddhasya rjnah purusah is allowed, because, the meaning of rjnah can be predominant with respect to that of the word rddhasya. In the compound-form the word rja" does not retain its predominant character and, therefore, it cannot have a qualifier outside the compound. This does not mean that the word rja" gives up its meaning entirely. It retains it, insofar it may serve as a qualifier of the main member. See Notes on Bhsya Nos. 26, 27 and 28. 81. (/mspa : Another answer) Or rather, it (i.e. rja- in rjapurusa) will act as a differentiating (word), because of (its) connection (with the following member purusa). Take an example: ghrtaghatah: 'ghee-not\ tailahatah: 'oil-not'. Even when the ghee or the oil is poured out, (still) (they) act as differentiating, because of the (former) connection (between liquids and pot, which serves to make us recognize) : 'this is the ghee-pot', 'that is the oil-pot.' Kaiyata130: (On) 'because of . . . connection*. The word rdjan: 'king' (first) transfers its distinctive character, caused by its own meaning, to the meaning of (the word) purusa: 'man', (and then) gives up its own meaning, but (this does not mean that) appearance of distinctive character, caused by that (meaning of the word rjan) ceases to be in (the meaning of the word) purusa. Just as the colour of a pot which originates from heat produced by (its) contact with fire, does not cease to be there (in the pot), even when the contact with fire is no longer there. This is what the passage means. Note (70): Even if the subordinate member gives up its own meaning, the latter does not totally disappear. It can be utilised to differentiate the meaning of the main rr.mbor. Patpnjali tries to illustrate this by the example of ghee-pot and oilpot. Even after removing the ghee and oil the pots can be distinguished from each other by the traces left of ghee and oil. The example presents the difficulty (as is pointed out in the next two Bhsyas) that the traces of ghee and oil will disappear after some time and the pots can no longer be distinguished. Kaiyata tries to remedv this by his own example of the colour-change produced in a pot by heating. This change is permanent, just as the traces of the word rjan are permanently present in the word purusa forming a part of the compound rjapwrusah. This is the reason why not any man is brought, when somebody says 'bring the king-man', 130. P. 329: 3T?4qifc% | : H fa#5Rfafr |fn*fa:gwrci wf^Tcft^: M

80

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

82. (Bhsya: Rejection of the second answer) You put it the wrong way. For in that (pot) there is a quantity of matter whatever and however much it may be. You better put the gheepot on the fire and scrub it with a grass-brush, sir, (and you will see that) the difference (produced by traces of ghee) will not be perceived (any more). Note (71): See Note (70). 83. (Bhs^a : Answer justified) Then take this example: jasmin- (or) campaka- flower wrapped up in leaves. Even when the flowers are scattered from (the wrappers), (still) they act as differentiating, because of their (former) connection, (with jasmin- or campaka- scent) : 'this is the jasmin- wrapper', 'that is the c am paka-wr apper'. Note (72): See Note (70). 84. (Bhsya : Another answer) Or rather, this adhikra-rule: samartha etc.131 is framed with regard to word-composition. Semantic connection means (either) differentiation or relation. Some other (grammarian) says: semantic connection means both differentiation and relation. But what (do you mean by) differentiation or relation? When we say rjnah \ 'king's' any (word denoting a) thine^ owned has a chance to be supplied here (in connection with the word rjnah). When we say purusah: 'man', anv (word denoting) owner has a chance to be supplied (in connection with the word purusah). When we say now rjapurusam naya: 'bring the king-man', (the word) rjan here keeps the man away from other owners (and the word) purusah on its part, keeps the king away from other things owned. When delimitation is made in this, way on both sides, if that (word rjan) gives up its own meaning, let it do so. In no case whatsoever will just any man (without relation to a king) be brought. Kaiyata132: (On) *is framed with regard to word-composition*. And if in word-composition there would be no differentiation and relation, then there would be no 131. P.2.1.1. 132. P. 330:

Samarthhnilca

81

semantic connection at all, because this is the nature of semantic connection. This is what the passage means. Here differentiation, insofar it implies relation, is regarded as semantic connection, because (the one, i.e., differentiation) is inconceivable without (the other, i.e.,) relation. Or relation is regarded as semantic connection, insofar it implies differentiation, because (relation) is inconceivable without differentiation. Or both (differentiation and relation), conceived together, are regarded as semantic connection. This is what the passage means. (On) 'any . . . owner*. This statement is made in view of the knowledge we may have of the dependence of the man from some other source. Otherwise, when we say 'man', we would (simply) understand that he exists and there would be nothing to infer any owner. This being so, when we accept the view that semantic connection is regarded as differentiation, (then the word) rjan keeps the man away from other owners (and) gives up its own meaning. But (the word) 'man', even without abandoning its own meaning, keeps the king away from other things owned. And, when the meaning 'king', having fulfilled its purpose, gives up its meaning, let it do so. But if it would give up its meaning without having fulfilled its purpose, (then) there would be no compounding at all. The same can be said about (semantic connection as) relation. Note (73): The meaning of the compound rjapurusah is that a king only is the master of the man, and that the man only is the king's belonging. The word 'man' eliminates other belongings of the king and the word 'king's* eliminates all other owners, i.e., masters. This is meant by the term 'differentiation' (bheda). The mutual connection between the words "king's" and "man" is called relation (samsarga). Kaiyata says that differentiation implies relation and vice versa, because the one is inconceivable without the other. 85. (Bhsya : Ajahatsvrth accepted) Or a^ain, let us accept ajahatsvrth integration. 86. (Bhsya : Objection) . But is it proper that integration should be called ajahatsvrth? Kaiyata133: (On) 'But is it proper*. It is improper (for a word, i.e., the subordinate member of a compound) to take on another meaning (i.e., of the main member),

: i 3Rpra?TihEq> Pr^ft sfrr^cj( jmv I ^ aflsfriffanr n 133. P. 331: J ^ f ^ r ^ l ^TrsfTT^rr^'T ^^frcT^q'T^cTTt^TT^T^^^firfCT "17^: II

F.6

82

Mahbhsya (P.2..)

as long as it does not give up its own meaning and still remains under the control of it. This is what (the Bhsya) means to say. 87. (Bhsya : Answer)

Certainly, it is proper. For thus it is observed in daily life: the mendicant does not give up previous alms, when he receives alms for the second time. His mind is set upon storing (food) only. Kaiyata134: (On) 'upon storing*. So also, a word having one meaning only in some sphere (i.e., when uncompounded), may have more than one meaning in some other (sphere, i.e., when occurring as a part of a compound). Note (74): In the compound rjapurusah: 'king-man', analyzed as rjasambandhavn purusah: 'man related to a king', both words refer to one and the same man. The constituent rjan takes on the meaning 'man' (i.e., rjasambandhvn), while restricting this sense by presenting its own meaning (i.e., rjan) as a qualifier to it. This is what is meant by 'storing': the word rjan takes on the meaning rjasambandhavn: 'king-related' (i.e., man), in addition to its own meaning as a qualifier of 'man'. In the uncompounded word-group rjnah purusah: "king's man" the word rjan (in rjnah) conveys its own meaning only. 88. (Bhsya : Rem'nder of the objection)

But was it not (already) pointed out that the result would be dual number, according to (P.l.4.22), since both (words) retain their own meaning? Note (75): See Bhsya No. 15. 89. (Bhsya : Counter objection)

But dual number of which (case) would result? Kaiyata135: (On) 'of which'. Because one and the same case-ending cannot convey two meanings, (one of which is) the subordinate one and (the other is) the main one. Therefore, the question is raised. 134. P. 331: 135. P. 331:

Samarthhnika DO. (Bhsya : Intention of the objection)

83

Of the nominative case. Kaiyata136: (On) 'Of the nominative case*. Because the subordinate meanings yield to the main meanings, the nominative case, which is the case for the main meaning, must bo taken on by the subordinate meanings also. This is what (the Bhsya) means to say. 91. (Bhsya : Answer) (The word) rjan: 'king9 is not fit to be used in the nominative case. Kaiyata137: (On) 'not fit to be used in the nominative case'. In case we use nominative dual the relation of subordinate and main (meaning) itself (which is present her?) cannot be conveyed, because (from the nonrnative case-ending) we do not understand the (owner-owned) relation. Note (76): The nominative case is used only to express the meaning of the nominal stem (Prtipadikrtha). Here the word rjan is taken to convey the idea of the owner-owned Nation which cannot be expressed by the nominative. 92. (Bhsya : Another intention of the objection) Then (dual) of the genitive would apply. Kaiyata138: (On) 'Then . . . of the genitive*. Because (the genitive) expresses relation and because that (relation) ex'sts between both (words rjan and purusa). 93. (Bhsya : Answer) (The word) purusa is not fit to be used in the genitive case. Kaiyata139: (On) 'not . . . in the genitive case'. If there would be genitive dual, then a relation of both words together with regard to another related (word) would 136. P. 331: 137. P. 331 : ff SPTTlTEPTSr ^fir I 5nT*il(a^"H t p T SRftfa II 138. P. 331: ^S^nTcf^fff I t 139. P. 331: ^ )% II

84

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

be conveyed, because (then) they (the words fjan and purusa) would be on the same level. Note (77): If we apply genitive dual (rjapurusayoh) we have to show another word which is connected with both rjan and purusa. With regard to this other word outside the compound, rjan and purusa are on the same level, i.e., the outside word must be construed with the genitive of both rjan and purusa. 94. (Bhsya : The previously staled intention accepted)

Then (dual) of the nominative case only would apply. 95. (Bhsya : Reminder of the rejection)

But was it not (already) pointed out that (the word) rjan (in rajapurusa) is not fit to be used in the nominative case? 96. (Bhsya : Intention of the objection justified)

That (genitive meaning), being (already) expressed (by the compoundform) (and thus being included in the compound stem-notion), has become bare-stem-notion. This being the case, dual of the nominative would apply only, according to (P.2.3.46). Kaiyata140: (On) *being . . . expressed*. Sometimes meaning, although expressed (by another grammatical element than the nominal stem), is not included (in the bare-stem-notion). F.i., in rjnah: "king's" the relation expressed by the genitive case-ending, is nowhere included (in the bare-stem-notions rjan: 'king' or purusa: 'man'). Sometimes (meaning), although included, (i.e., implied) (in the bare-stemnotion), is not expressed. F.i., in the /a/purusa-compound rjasa'fhah: 'kingfriend' the meaning *the king is his friend' is included (i.e., implied), but it is not expressed (by the compound). 140: P. 331: arfiirf^r f% I ^rf^^^T^fff^Tf^ftsfq- ^T-cHT^: I *WT T 5 TT

r: il

Samarthhnika

85

Also, sometimes meaning (which has some connection with the bare-stemnotion) is expressed (by a grammatical element other than the bare stem), (and it) is included (also in the meaning of the word which contains that grammatical element, but not in the bare-stem-notion). F.i., in pacati: *he cooks' the meaning 'agent' expressed (by the verbal ending) is included (in the verbmeaning), because (the notion of agent conveyed by the word-form) stands as subordinate (to the action denoted by the verb). But this (meaning 'agent') is not the meaning conveyed by the bare stem (although the bare stem agrees syntactically with the verb). In this way three (words) are mentioned (as a condition for nominative case meaning). Th;s being so, since (the genitive relation in the compound rjapurusa: 'king-man') cannot be detached (from the bare-stem-notion), nominative dual would apply, because the (genitive) relation is expressed, included (and) has become bare-stem-notion. Note (78): Prtipadilcrtha: *bare-stem-notionJ (i.e., notion conveyed by the bare nominal stem of either compounded or uncompounded word) is expressed by the nominative, according to P.2.3.46. Antarbhta means 'included, implied', either in the bare-stem-notion or somewhere else. Abhihiia means 'expressed', either by the bare stem or by some other grammatical element. Kaiyata npvy wants to explain why there is a chance for applying the nominative (dual) by showing possible combinations of the three terms prtipadilcrtha, antarbhta and abhihiia in three examples. (1) If some grammatical notion is expressed somewhere else than in the barestem-notion, it is not regarded as a bare-stem-notion, although it may sometimes be expressed by and included in the bare-stem-notion. The example is rjnah where the (genitive) relation is expressed by the genitive case-ending and, consequently, it does not form part of the bare-stem-notion, although in the compound rjapurusah the genitive relation is part of (i.e., expressed by and included in) the bare-stem-notion. (2) Even if some notion is included in the bare stem, but not expressed by the prpadilca, then it is not bare-stem-notion, although it may sometimes be expressed by and included in the bare-stem-notion. The example is the genitive /afpurusa-compound rjasalcha, where the meaning 'the king is his friend' is included (i.e., implied) but it is not expressed by it, and consequently it does not form part of the bare-stem-notion, although this meaning can be quite well expressed sometimes by and included in the bahuvrhi form rjasalch. (3) If some grammatical meaning is included somewhere else than in the bare-stem-notion and if it is expressed somewhere also, it is not bare-stem-notion,

86

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

although it might be included sometimes in the bare-stem-notion and be expressed by it. In the example pacati the notion of agent is not included in or expressed by the subject to be supplied, f.i. devadattah, but included in and expressed by the verbal ending -/i.141 Here the notion of agent stands as subordinate to the notion of action expressed by the verbal root. The form devadattah agrees syntactically with the ending -tu Since the ending refers to an agent, the form devadattah stands for bare-stem-notion and not for agent. In this way the nominative form devadaitah results. But sometimes the notion "agent" may be included in and expressed by a bare-stem-notion also, as in the_case of pal^t: *cook*. III. (Vrtka : Answer} Because the whole has one single meaning, there is no (question of) case-ending on account of the number of constituents. Note (78): The word ailrthya : 'oneness of meaning' occurs in the following relevant passages in Mbh.: (1) Vol. I, p. 31 (Vrtka 13), where Patanjali glosses it as. efyaivam arihah: *the meaning (of a whole), is oneness' (i.e., the following singular number indicates that the meaning of the whole is one) ; (2) Vol. I, p. 229 (Vrtka 1), where Patanjali explains: iasyailatvd e1(avacanam eva prpnoti: 'because of its oneness singular number only applies'; (3) Vol. I, p. 240 (Vrtka 27), where Patanjali says that aikrthyam means ekrthah: *one single meaning (leading to singular number). From these passages it seems that the word afycrthya is used in the special meaning 'one single meaning of a whole, leading to the use of singular number'. It does not just mean ekrthbhva: 'single integrated meaning*. The term ekrilnbhva means to say that the word as a whole conveys a single meaning which differs from the sum of the meanings of the parts. Whether this unified meaning of the whole occurs in one, two or more instances is immaterial. F.i., the word riilotpala: 'blue lotus' as a whole conveys one single meaning. This does not exclude the use of dual or plural: mlotpale, tnlotpalni. 97. (Bhsva : Explanation) The meaning of a whole is oneness. Therefore, there will be no (question of employing) case-endings on account of the number of constituents. 141. See Bhsya on P.2.3.1, Vrttika 4. {Mbh. Vol. I, P. 44, lines 14-15). Here Patanjali gives the example pacaty odanam devadattah'. 'Devadatta cooks the rice', and states that singular number etc. are expressed by the finite verb. Kaiyata commenting on this passage says that the ending -ti expresses singular number belonging to the agent.

Samarthhnil^a

87

Kaiyata142: (On) 'of a whole*. Here the case-ending is to be employed after the word rjapurusa: *king-man\ taken as a whole. And by that whole a special meaning, characterized by singular number, is conveyed, to which the constituents render assistance. Therefore, the singular is used, based on that (oneness of the whole), and not the dual, based on the number of constituents, which are (merely) subordinate (to the whole). That is the meaning of the passage. Ngesa143: Although the whole conveys one single meaning, (still) there is a chance for dual (as we have it) in the (integrated) whole dhavakhadlrau: *Grislea Tomentosa (or Anogeissus Latifolia) and Acacia Catechu* there would be dual. Therefore (Kaiyata) says: 'Here*. IV. (Vrttika: Alternative vier) Some (say that) semantic connection (is) mutual requirement. 98. (Bhsya : Explanation) Some prefer (to take that) semantic connection as mutual requirement144. But what (do you mean by) requirement between two words? We do not say: 'between two words'. What then? Between two meanings. When we say rjnah purusah: 'king's man', (the word) rjan: 'king' requires (the word) puru?a: 'man', saying: 'he (i.e. man) is mine (i.e. king's)'. (The word) purusa also requires (the word) rjan, saying: 'I (i.e. man) am his (i.e. king's)'. The genitive case serves to express the relation between these two. Take an example: (in the expression) kastath sritah: 'who has made a hard effort' the accusative serves to express the relation between kriy; 'action' and kraka: 'operator'. Kaiyata145: (Cn) 'the relation between . . . 'action' and . . . 'operator* \ By the word 142. P. 332: ^THr^fT I ^

^: n 143: P. 332: tf^pNr^fr ^ W f ^ f o f T ^ fgSRf S^ 3TT^- ^ | f a II 144. Vyapeks: 'meaning interdependence' implies that word meanings require each other. In the present Bhdsya the meanings 'require' and 'requirement' seem to be more fitting to the examples given. 145. P. 332: f ^ r ^ T ^ f f f T f c f I ^TT^CTATnT^SRirmTftSAT^^ I i s r ^ ^ 5rPsr*T fcfrn 1 1

88

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

}(raka: 'operator' here a thing is denoted in which a capacity110 (to enter into meaning-relations) is located. Since it is the cause147 of the relation between the action and the thing, the capacity itself is (regarded as) a relation. Accordingly, the accusative expresses the capacity (of the thing to enter into the meaningrelation) 'grammatical object*. That is the meaning of the passage. Or, by the word krai^a that capacity itself is denoted. And the accusative expresses that capacity. (But) it is said in the (above) Bhsya that (the accusative) expresses the relation between action and operator, because (through that capacity) we understand (the relation) by implication. Note (79): The word salti: '(innate) capacity' refers to the capacity of a thing to enter into different meaning-relations as expressed by the case-endings of the word used to denote that thing. This (innate) capacity makes it possible for a thing to appear in various meaning-relations. Now the question is raised whether the case-ending expresses the meaning-relation or it expresses the capacity itself. The first view says that, actually, the capacity is the cause of the relation, but it is not conceived as different from the relation. The relation implies, presupposes the capacity. The second view says that the accusative expresses the capacity, but, since through the capacity we understand the relation also, we may say, in a secondary sense, that the accusative expresses the relation between action and thing. The capacity implies the relation. 99. (Bhsya : Objection)

Now suppose we take semantic connection as single integrated meaning only, or (alternatively) semantic connection as meaning-interdependence (only), (the question is), whether the rule as it is will do, or whether we have to add (something to the rule) in view of either of those (two) alternatives. Kaiyata148: (On) 'Now suppose only'. If we understand from this rule (2.1.1) that semantic connection can be interpreted in two ways, then an examination of 146. The doctrine of sakti is mentioned in the Vkyapadlya II, 131: 'Whether (the thing) has no (innate) capacity (for being used in various ways) or whether it has all kinds of capacities, assignment (and assumption) of definite (purposive function like) action etc. with respect to one and the same thing is brought out by words only'. 147. I.e. since it gives expression to the relation, etc. 148. P. 333: 3 T

Samarihhnilta

69

yu!(layul(ta: 'which is proper and which is not' is appropriate, otherwise not. Therefore, the question is raised. 1O0. (Bhsya : Answer)

It will do (as it is), he says.149 How? (In the word samartha) sam- is compounded with the word artha. But sam- is a preverb. And preverbs again are of such nature: where a word expressing action is used, there they indicate a special feature of the action. But here not any word expressing action is used with which jamcould be semantically connected. This being so, we have to infer from the use of sam- that certainly some word which deserves to be used (and) with which sam- can be semantically connected, is not used here. For instance, when we have se^n smoke, we infer that there (is) fire; (and) when we have seen a tripod, (we infer) that (there is) a saihnysin: 'ascetic'. But which is that word which deserves to be used (and) which is not used? We answer: (1) (2) (3) (4) samartham stands for samgatrtham: 'mingled together5 (or) samartham stands for samsrstrtham: 'fused together' (or) samartham stands for sampreksitrtham: 'seen together5 (or) samartham stands for sambadd hart ham: 'bound together'.

Therefore, when first semantic connection is taken as single integrated meaning, we will make the meaning-analysis as follows: (from) samgatrthah (we derive) samarthah (and from) samsrstdrthah (we derive) samarthah. For instance, (when) we say samgatam ghrtam: 'ghee is mingled together (with something)5 (or) samgatam tailam: 'oil is mingled together (with something)', we infer that it has become one (with something). ^ When semantic connection is taken as meaning-interdependence, then we will make the meaning-analysis as follows: (from) sampreksitrthah (we derive) samarthah^ (and from) sambadd hart hah (we derive) samarthah. But what is the meaning of (the verb) sambandh- here? Sambaddha is said (with reference to an animal) which, by means of a rope, is joined to an iron bar or a post. (But the verb) bandh- is not necessarily used in the meaning of 'joining to'. What (else) then? It is also used in the meaning 'not abandoning'. For instance, we say: 'these two bulls are bound together', when they do not leave each other. 149. By saying 'he' Patanjali probably refers to himself as the siddhntin.

90

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

Or, it also happens that (the verb) bandh- is used in cases of such kind. For instance, 'we have relations with the Gargas' (or) 'we have relations with the Vatsas'. 'Relation' means 'connection'. Kaiyata150: (On) *But sam- is a preverb'. The use of the word (i.e., preverb) samimplies a suitable action, since it cannot be convincingly argued that it is semantically connected with the word artha which means 'thing'. This is the meaning of the passage. (On) 'in cases of such kind'. That means, in cases showing meaninginterdependence. (On) 'we have relations'. It is seen that the word sambandha is used with regard to (relations) established by (transmission of) knowledge etc., even when abandoning is there151. That is the meaning of the passage. Ngesa152:

ParasparasaThsrsta . . . The meaning of the term elrthtibhva is stated in an absolutely clear way by this (statement of Patanjali's, where he says) that it means only presentation of meanings which have (inseparably) fused together153, and not presentation of separate (meanings). Nanu sambaddhau . . . But (in the example) 'these two (bulls are) bound together' the relation 'bound together' refers only to the single presentation (of inseparable meanings), but this is not the case in the subject under discussion (viz. vyapefys: 'meaning-interdependence'), because meaning-interdependence refers to separate presentation (of meanings). But in that case (i.e., of meaninginterdependence) there is separation only (and), therefore, (Patanjali) says: 'or, it also happens that'. Note (80): From the present Bhsya it appears that the word samarlha in P.2.1.1 may refer to both types of semantic connection, el(rtlnbhva and vyapefys. It all 150. P. 333: tf ^ t W T ^ f a I ^ < fT ^T^RTSfarsfcr S P T T* T T2 : il
H

151. Kaiyata refers to the relation of guru and sisya. 152. P. 333: TWT^cn^W^Pa^r, ? T : II

153. The Bhya says: samsrstrthah samarthah.

Samarthhnil(a

> i ' 91

depends on the meaning-analysis given. There are four ways of meaninganalysis. The first two refer to presentation of inseparable meaning, as is, the case in efyrthtbhva, the next two refer to presentation of separable meanings, as is the case in vyapcls. A doubt is raised about the latter two analyses. They do not exclusively refer to vyapeisa. The verb bandh- is used in three meanings: ( 1 ) *to fasten to', by physical, external means. This illustrates (2) 'to bind together*, by a feeling of belonging together. This illustrates eJrthibhva. (3) 'to have relations with', in the sense of the relation between teacher and pupil, etc. According to the commentators this illustrates vyapelsa. In the uncompounded word-group rjnah purusah the relation between rjan and purusah is indicated by external means, viz. the case-ending of the word rjan, like the rope which fastens the animal to a post. In the compound rajapurusah the constituents are not externally connected, but presented as inseparable, like the two bulls. It is not clear what the third example means to illustrate, elcrtfnbhva or The word cvamjyakesu : 'in cases of such kind' in the text of the Bhsya presents a difficulty. It may refer to the example of ahni: *non-abandoning, non-separation' mentioned just before, or it may be taken to refer to the examples of the relations with Gargas and Vatsas mentioned subsequently. In the first case the relations with Gargas and Vatsas exemplify relations established by non-external means f.i., a feeling of belonging together. In the second case the relations with Gargas and Vatsas exemplify relations established by external means. This is how the commentators1 explain it. According to Kaiyata, it may be a relation of teacher and pupil, where oral transmission of knowledge functions as the external indicator. The first case goes with elrthbhva, the second case with vyapefys. The point which should be kept in mind is that the discussion is not about the permanent or non-permanent character of the relation itself, as might be suggested by the use of the words ahni and ham. The question is whether the relation is indicated by some external means (case-ending, rope), or is not indicated by an external means (absence of case-ending, feeling of belonging together). The non-compounded word-group rjnah purusah shows a relation between two meanings which are presented as separate and the connection of which is indicated by a case-ending. The compound rjapwusah shows the same relation

92

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.)

of two meanings, but presents them as non-separable. The verb bandh- can be used to refer to connection with and without external means of indication. By these illustrations it is pointed out that smarthya can be interpreted in two ways: ekrtlnbhva smarthya and vyapeks smarthya. In the next section Patanjali rejects the second interpretation. (HERE ENDS THE SECTION ON DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF INTEGRATION) VIII (NOW STARTS THE SECTION IN WHICH OBJECTIONS BROUGHT AGAINST 'SEMANTIC CONNECTION' ARE REFUTED.) 101. (Bhsya : Shortcomings in the view of meaning-interdependence)153a

But if we take this semantic connection as meaning-interdependence, (then) special features brought out by single integrated meaning should be stated (by separate rules for meaning-interdependence). Kaiyata154: (On) 'But . . . this*. If we do not accept that in word-composition semantic connection takes the form of single integrated meaning, then, just as in the uncompounded word-group we have particular number, qualifier to the subordinate word, etc., (so also) they would emerge (in the compound). Therefore, (their) non-application has to be established by a special rule, and a rule for optional application (of compounding) has to be made for the sake of nonrejection (of the use) of the uncompounded word-group which has the same meaning. So, in this way the form of the word is sometimes conceived as natural (i.e., not the product of grammatical derivation), by resorting to the view that (words are) not (grammatically) derived. Sometimes, for the sake of enlightening the unenlightened, (it is conceived as derived by grammatical procedure) by resorting to the view that words are grammatically derived. But in the view that words are grammatically derived many properties belonging to word-composition would have to be established by a special rule (and this) would involve loss of economy. 153a. The present Bhsya only points out shortcomings in the vyapeks-view. But the next two Bhsyas, according to the commentators, point out shortcomings both in the ekrthibhva- and the vyapeks-view. 154. P. 333-334: BF^rf^fsffa" \ *fe

Samarthhnika Note (81):

93

According to the view that words are naturally given, the statement about optional formation of compounds is not required, because both uncompounded word-<?roup and compound are naturally there in speech. But, according to the second view, the compound is derived from the uncompounded word-group and so a statement that the compound is optionally formed from that word-group is necessary, otherwise compounding would invariably take place of such a group. The present Bhsya says that a special rule to the effect, that the subordinate member in a compound cannot be qualified by a word outside the compound, is necessary, if we assume that in the compound the constituents present their meanings separately. But if we assume that the compound denotes single meaning, the special rule is not required, because the meaning of the subordinate member is not separately presented. So there is no chance for it to be qualified by another word. Similarly, if we take the view that compounds are derived from uncompounded word-groups, then in the compounds nisiausmhh: 'departed from kausmbf, gorathah: 'a chariot to which oxen have been yoked', ghr'aqhatah: 'a jar filled with ghee*, wo have to assume that the first member stands respectively for niskrnta: 'departed', goyukta: 'to which oxen have been yoked', and ghrtapwrna: 'filled with ghee'. This assumption makes it necessary to formulate a special rule for dropping the verbal forms krnta, yukta and prna. But if we assume that the compound as a whole denotes single meaning, such a special rule is not required any more, because we can say that the meanings tyrnta* yukta and pwrna appear in the compound-meaning, because the constituents have become integrated in the whole. These meanings do not belong to any constituent, but arise due to integration. Compounds are not derived from the uncompounded word-group and so the question of dropping parts of the latter does not arise. V. (Varltifya : a shortcoming pointed out)

In this case (we should make a rule stating) prohibition of loss of accent and of substitution for yusmad and asmad, after (what is called) nnkraka. 102. (Bhsya : Explanation)

In this case (i.e) when we take semantic connection as meaninginterdependence, loss of accent and substitution for yusmad and asmad would result after (what is called) nnkraka. A rule should be made stating prohibition of these (substitutions). (Example for) loss of accent: ayam dano harnena: 'here is a stick, catch with it'. Due to the consideration that there is meaning-inter-

94'

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

dependence between danda and (the verb) hr-, loss of accent would result (which is not desired). (Example for) substitution for yusmad and asmad: odanam paca tavK bhavisyati'. ccook the rice, yours it will be', odanam paca mama bhavisyati: 'cook the rice, mine it will be'. Due to the consideration that there is meaning-interdependence between odanam (on the one hand) and yusmad and asmad (on the other), substitution by vm, nau etc. would result (which is undesirable). A rule should be made stating prohibition of these (substitutions). Kiyata155: (Qn) 'in this case . . . after . . . nanlrala . The word nn expresses prthagbhdva: different actions'. Therefore, that J(raka: * (different) "operator'* in relation to a different verb', is (called) nanlrala. Just as in ayam dando harnena (the word) danda is the agent of the (impl'ed) verb ast'u not of the verb- haratiS Also, nn (means) bhinna (which means anyat and so we analyse:) anyat Iralam yasya: '(an action) which has a different operator'157, that (action) also (is called) nnlraka. Just as in odanam paca tava bhavisyati the word lava: 'yours' is not used as a krala of the (verb) pac-: 'to cook', therefore no substitution for yusmad158 results for (lava), which follows after the verb pac-159. In some (manuscripts), however, there is a reading pacaudanam tava bhavisyati: 'cook the rice, yours it will be'. Odanam is (object -) operator with regard to the verb form paca and not with regard to the action of becoming (i.e. bhavisyati). Therefore, (the status of operator belonging to odanam is 155. P. 334: cHT ^T^i^FTff" 1 ^TSTS?: ^ n T T ^ ^ : I

156. It is an instrumental operator with regard to harati. 157. I.e., an operator other than yusmad and asmad. 158. Tava which belongs to the yusmad paradigm cannot now be substituted by te. 159. The present Vrttika prohibits substitution of te for tava when the latter word is preceded by nnkraka. This term refers to the verb (paca) which has a karaka different from yusmad. In the sentence odanarh paca tava bhavisyati the verb paca is connected with odanam by the action-operator relation, whereas no such relation between paca and tava exists. Therefore, the verb paca becomes nankraka: 'having an operator different from (the following yusmad-form tava)'

Samarthhnika

95

called) nnJ^rakatva, because it is Irala: 'operator* with regard to a different action.100 Note (82): The rules P.8.1.20 - 23 (which prescribe substitutes for yusmad and asmad) and P.8.1.28 (which prescribes loss of accent for a verb, when preceded by a word which is not a verbform) are mentioned under the section-heading ..rules padasya and padt (P.8.1.16-1 7). Therefore the rules P.8.1120-23 ; and P.8.1.28 prescribe grammatical operations for finished words. Now the question arises whether P.2.1.1 supplies the condition samartha in these rules, so as ta make the operations applicable to finished words in semantic connection with other words, or not. (a) Suppose the condition samartha: 'semantically connected' is restricted tos the domain of efyrthlbhva: 'single integrated meaning' which exists in word-" composition only. In that case, rules dealing., with uncompounded word-groups where semantic connection exists in the form of vyapeJcs: 'meaning-interdependence' will not come under P.2.1.1. . i ! The rules P.8.1.20-23 and P.8.1.28 deal with words in the sentence, not with words in a compound. So the condition samartha will not be supplied. The consequence is that these rules will apply to words which occur in immdiate sequence without having semantic connection. Thus, in-the uncompounded, group, ayam dando harnena, P.8.1.28 (which prescribes loss of accent; for the verb)<will apply becaue the verbform hara is immediately preceded by the nonverbform dandah, even in the absence of semantic connection between them.' Similarly, in the uncompounded group odanam paca tava bhavisyatu ,P>8.1.22 will apply and cause substitution of tava by te, even if paca is not semanticaJLy. connected with tava. This, however* is not desired. To prevent the operations prescribed by the rules under discussion a special rule must be formulated. (b) Suppose the condition samartha is to be supplied in the case of vyapeks: 'meaning-interdependence' as existing in uncompounded word-groups. ?!?hen the rules P.8.1.20-23 and P.8.1.28 will apply to words in uncompounded groups, only when they are semantically connected. In the uncompounded group ayam dando harnena semantic connection exists between dandah and hara, because danda, referred to by anena, is the instrument-operator of the action of harana: 'catching*. Accordingly, P.8.1.28 would apply and the verbform Tzara would be unaccented. In the uncompounded group odanam paca tava bhavisyti the word tava will be substituted by te, because semantic connection exists between 160. The word odanam is a kraka with respect to the verbform paca (A), but not so with respect to the verbform bhavisyati (B). Here the term nnkraka refers to the kdraka which functions as such with respect to an action A, but not so with respect to the different action B. Tava is not now substituted by tef because it is preceded by the mmkraka odanam.

96

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

paca and lava through odanam. This is somewhat more clearly shown in the wording of the variant read:ng paza odanam iava bhavlsyati. Odanam is semantically connected with tava by the owner-owned relation. But the loss of accent for hara and the substitution of ie for lava are not desired, because they are at variance with usage. To prevent the operations prescribed by the rules under discussion a special rule must be formulated. (c) Conclusion: Both when the condition samariha is restricted to the case of elrihbhva and when it is restricted to the case of vyapelsa, a special rule to prohibit undesirable consequences is required, because, in the former case, the said ru]es would operate even in the absence of semantic connection, and. in the latter cas?, the rules would operate, because there is semantic connection between the words concerned (see fn. 153a). 103. (Bhsya : Objection)

Why do you say "after nnkraka: 'different operator (:n relation to a different action)'", when you take hold (of a branch with a stick and) catch (the fruit) with that same (stick)? Kaiyata161: (On) *when you take hold . . . with that same*. And, therefore, because the (same) stick is the operator with regard to the action of catching (also), there cannot be the status of different operator. Therefore the question is raised. Note (83): The prvapasins point is that the same stick is used for the two actions : holding and catching. We cannot say that there is a different operator. The wordmeaning danda: 'stick' goes with the implied verb astu as well as with the verbform hara. Here the prvapafcsin applies the term nnJ(ral(a to the thing 'stick' rather than to the different forms of the word danda denoting the stick. The term nnl(arnka is used here in the first meaning mentioned by Kaiyata on Bhsya No. 102. 104. (Bhsya : Answer)

We do not say at all that we take hold (with one thing and) catch with another. Then what (do you say)? We believe in the word as our authority. What the word says, that is our authority. And here the word denotes existence: ayant dctndah: 'this (is) a stick'. (The verbform) asti: 'is' is understood. That (word) dandah: 'stick', which has become 161. P. 335: ^hTB-SZrfo \ R fi

Samarthhnika

97

the agent (with regard to asti), becomes the instrument when being connected with another word (viz. hara). For instance, somebody asks somebody: 'Where is Devadatta?' He answers.him: 'He is in the tree'. 'In which one?5 The one standing (there in front of you)'. (Here the word) 'tree', which was used as a location (viz. 'in the tree'), becomes agent when being connected with another word (viz. 'stands'). Kaiyata162: (On) 'this (is) a stick'. Where another verb is not heard, there the action astl: 'is' is understood only, because it comes quickest to our mind. Therefore, since (the word) danda is agent of the verb asiu certainly the status of nnkraka: 'different operator in relation to a different verb' is there. (On) 'Where is Devadatta?' When many men are standing at a distance, then these questions and answers arise. (On) 'The one standing'. When other trees,have been cut down, but one (only) still stands, then Devadatta is pointed out as having a particular tree as his location. Nagesa168: ' (On) 'The one standing*. Forming a conjunction with the upward region (i.e. standing upright) is also a meaning of (the verb) sih-, that is what (Kaiyata) means to say. Note (84) : The answer of the siddhntin is that the term nnkraka does not refer to a thing, but to a wordform. Although the same stick is used in both the actions, the word dandah as an agent-operator to the verb asti is different from the word anena (i.e. dandena) as the instrumental operator to the verb hara. Thus there is a different operator in relation to a different verb. The expression yas tisthaii in the Bhsya singles out one particular tree, excluding others. Kaiyata explains this by assuming that only one tree is left standing, whereas the others have been cut down. This assumption is not required. The expression yas tisthati actually means 'the tree standing in front of you.' Thus it will refer to one particular tree, in distinction from other trees 162. P. 335: SRT ^^t^cftf I i

163. P. 335: F.7

98

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

which are not in front of the person addressed. Kaiyata seems to think that tisthati can. only mean 'stands upright (in a vertical position)'. VI. (Vrttika: Another shortcoming pointed out) Prohibition of compounding, when (a word which forms part of) an aggregate (is to be connected with a word outside that aggregate). 105. (Bhsya : Explanation) Prohibition of compounding is to be stated, when (a word which forms part, of) an aggregate (is to be connected with a word outside that aggregate). (For instance, from) rjno gaus csvas ca purusas ca: 'king's and cow and horse and man' (we derive) rjagavsvapurush". 'kingcow-horse-man*. Kaiyata16*: (On) 'when . . . an aggregate*. That means: when someone wants to express (a relation with) more than one related word165. In the example given, (the word) go: 'cow* is semantically connected with rjan: 'king', asva: 'horse' arid purusa: 'man." This being so, both (designations) dvandva and tatpurusa would apply simultaneously. Or first (the designation) tatpurusa (and) then dvandva. Since there is no conflict, because the two designations dvandva and tatpurusa apply to different ways of grouping, we cannot settle the question by applying tKe para-rule166. When we take here (rdjago) as a genitive tatpurusa, then (the suffix) TaC would apply according to (the rule) gor ataddhitaluki1*7'. And the meaning (also) differs: when we say rjagavsvapurush: 'king-cow (and) horse (and) man' no connection would be understood between asvapurusa and rdjan.lc>s Note (85): \, According to P.6.1.123, which states Sphotyana's opinion, the stem go becomes gavaN when followed by a vowel : go + asva > gava + asva 164. P. 335: sp^RT ff^f I 3m^f**FT *nrferfo Prefix wti: i *I^T> TTWTPT i <

U5,5. I,., when a ^.wprd which forms part of an aggregation is also to be semantically connected with a word outside that aggregation. tffi., P. 1.4.2, which states that in case of a conflict between two rules the later rule prevails. 167. P.5.4.92, see following Note sub. 2. 168. I.e., i wer first form the compound rjago. Kaiyata seems to take the word go to mean 'bull' here. If it is taken to mean 'cow' the form should be rdjagavydvapurush.

Saniarihhnika

99

> gavsva: 'cow (and) horse'. Since P.6.1.123 is an optional rule, the form gosva, according to P.6.1.109, is allowed too. : 2. According to P.5.4.92 the stem go takes the suffix TaC when occurring at the end of a fafpurusa-compound : rjan. + go + TaC > r/n + gav + a > rja + gava > rjagava + i W (P.4.1.15) > r/agav: 'king-cow'. 3. If we first form a JvanJva-compound ('cow-horse-man'), then there are two possibilities, either with avaN or without it. In the first case, the form will be gavsvapurusah. In the second case, we will have gosvapurusah. ^These forms, when connected with rjan as genitive tatpufusas, will read rjagavsvapurush and rjagosvapurush. Both forms are desired in the sense 'king's cow-horse-man'. They are not desired in the sense 'king-cow* (and) horse (and) man* which is the desired meaning of rjagavyasvapurush. 'ny^^vu 4. Now the question is raised: why not first connect go with rajah, since go is^ equally connected with rjan as it is with asva and purusa Or .why not simultaneously connect go with rjan, asva and purusa? Both of these possibilities would give the form- rajagav: *king-cow\ debarring jjhe other forms rdjago or rjagava, as explained sub 3. This form rajagav, when connected with asvapurusa: 'horse (and) man', would give rjagavyasvapurush. But this form is not desired in the sense 'king's cow-horse-man*. 5. Ngesa remarks that, according to the view of semantic connection as sjngte integrated meaning, a; word outside an aggregate cannot be connected with-. a constituent of the aggregate. The aggregate as such conveys meaning^ its partf do not. So either go or asva or purusa cannot be. separately connected with rjan, if first the JvanJva-compound is made. But what about the stage before, i.e. when the JvandW-compound has not yet been formed? Here go is semantically connected with rjan, which lies outside the aggregation, and with asva and puaisa which form part of the aggregation. Why now first connect go with asva and purusa and not simultaneously with rjan, on the one hand, and with asva and purusa on the other? Why cannot go form single integrated meaning with rjan and with asva and purusa at the same time? This is the difficulty in the cl(rthlbhva view. According to, the view of semantic connection as meaning-interdependence any constituent of the aggregate can be connected with the outside word rjan. But there is one condition, and that is contiguity* In the sequence rjnah + [gauh + asvah -+- purusaJij the words asvah and purusah cannot be connected with rjnah because they do not follow immediately. The word tfquh intervenes. But gauh can be connected with rjnah,. Soever when go is part of the aggregation, i.e, of a .Jvano'va-ompound, it can form an independent connection of a different type (viz.tafpurusa-construction)'with rjan. This is not desired.

100

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

Therefore, both the elarthbhva-view and the vyapeks&view present difficulties. In the first case the difficulty arises before the Jvanc/va-compound has been formed; in the second case, the same difficulty, viz. that dvandva and fafpurusa-compound can be formed simultaneously, is there. But there is an additional difficulty, viz. that, even if the dvandva is formed first, still the possibility of connecting go with rjan remains there. Patafijalfs Bhsya from the beginning of this section gives the impression that these difficulties only arise in the vjjape^s-view, but the commentators think differently (see fn. 53a). VIL (Vrltika : The second shortcoming removed}Or (we will allow compounding of words which are) more likely to be connected (than other words). Note (86): Instead of stating a prohibition we will allow compounding of such words which strike us as being more connectible, more easily to be combined semantically and grammatically, than other words in an utterance. 106. (Bhya : Explanation)

Or, compounding will take place of those words which are more likely to be connected. But which are (those words) more likely to be connected? Those which will make a dvandva-compound. Why is that so? Because their integration results more easily. Take an example: When we say: 'This man is more qualified (samar that ara) for study', (then the meaning: ) 'He grasps a book more easily' is understood. Kaiyata169: (On) 'Their . . . results more easily*. The nominative case, being prescribed m the sense of bare-stem-notion does not require an outside object (to establish its meaning), but the genitive, because it requires an external correlative, is exogenous (bahiranga). In the example given, dvandva (-compounding) comes first, because it is based upon the nominative case which is endogenous (i.e. antaranga, i.e. does not require any external correlative). Compounding with the genitive case does not take effect, when a dvanJva-compound is to take effect, in accordance with the rule: 'That which is bahkanga does not take effect, when that which is antaranga (is to take effect)170. 169. P. 335: rrqf ii^idTfft I

J70. F. KiELjKORN, Paribhcendusekhara of Ngoji Bhatta, Paribha, No. 50,

Samarthhnika Note (87):

101

A word in a nominative case is self-contained. It does not express a relation between two correlated terms. But the genitive case added to a word A shows that A is related to another word B. Unless B is there the genitive cannot function. Therefore, the dvandva (-compound) gavsvapurusa will come more quickly to our mind than the genitive tatpurusa compound rjago (i.e. rjagavl). Since the word go is first connected with asva and purusa it cannot form vyapeks or ekrtkibhva connection with rjan simultaneously. 107. (Bhsya : Another explanation)

Some other (grammarian) has said: Or, compounding will take place of those words which are more likely to be connected. But which are (those words) more likely to be connected? (Those) which will make a dvandva-compound. Why is that so? Because those (i.e. words forming a dvandva) appear with the same case-ending, (whereas the word) rjan (forming a tatpurusa compound with purusa) appears with a different case-ending. There is a difference between one's own brother and the son of the paternal uncle. Kaiyata171: (On) *They\ The fact of belonging to the same genus (i.e. appearing in the same case) will act as the immediate criterion to establish (either of the semantic connections:) meaning-interdependence and single integrated meaning (between gauh, asvah and purusah). Note (88) : The first explanation of the present Vrttika takes the semantic point of view: the genitive ending, in addition to its stem-meaning, requires a meaning for relating its own meaning to. This is not the case with the nominative, which, so to say, is self-contained. A dvanJva-compound which unites nominative meanings prevails over a genitive compound. The second explanation states the structural point of view, viz. that of pattern-congruency. DvanJva-compounding is based upon uniformity of casepattern, and so takes precedence over genitive tatpurusa compounding which shows dissimilarity of case-pattern. Since the dvandva and tatpurusa cannot be formed simultaneously, we cannot say that go is connected with rjan and asva simultaneously. VIII. (Another Vritika which removes the second shortcoming) Or, (the purpose is achieved), because (we assume that) the aggregate (as such) is connected (with the outside word). 171. P. 335:

02 108.

Malibh&a (P.2.1.1) (Bhsya : Explanation)

Or again, this is achieved, because (we assume that) the aggregate (as such) is connected (with the outside word). The (word) rdjan is semantically connected with the aggregate as such, not with a part (of the aggregate). Kaiyata17*: (On) 'semantically connected with the aggregate as such*. The word rjan functions as a qualifier of the meaning of the whole dvandva, therefore, it is semantically connected (with the dvandva), not with a part (of it). Ngek173: Nanu dvandve . . . (Objection). But if (we first form) a dvandva, just as we have semantic connection of the meaning rjan with the aggregate, so also we have semantic connection (of rjan) with the word go which forms part of the aggregate. Therefore, the designation latpurusa would apply to the part (rjago) also, (just as it is applicable to the aggregate rjagavsvapurush), and so there would be a possibility of adding (the suffix) TaC. If (you argue) like this, (our answer is) that there is no difficulty. Here, after (the expression) 'not with the part' (in the Bhsya) we have to supply: '(not with that part) which requires (i.e. is bound together with) asva and purusa*. Not (89): 'Achieved', i.e. the form rjagavsvapurush is derived correctly. See Note (85). The previous Vriii\a (No. VII) prohibits simultaneous formation of dvandva and ialpurusa, because go should be first connected with asva and purusa. Once the dWnJva-compound has been formed, go cannot be independently connected with rjan according to the elcrtlnbhva-v'iew, because a part of a whole (i.e. aggregate) does not function independently. But in the vyapeks-v'iew, according to which constituents can function independently, because they retain their own meaning, go can be connected with rjan, even if the dvandva is first formed. The present Vrttika now says that the outside word rjan forms semantic connection with the whole as such and does not form independent relation with a part of that whole. So even in the vt;ape/es-view the word rjan cannot be 172. P. 336: ^ ^ I T ^ i ^ T ? f e f o I ^T^RS^ST^ S fT T T Tc H T tfo T15T: S TO ^ # ? n } : II T 173. P. 336: - traftR3W*RTT

Samarthhnila

103

separately connected with go to form the taipurusa-compound rd/ago. According to Kaiyata, the present VrttU(a says that rjan cannot be separately connected with go, because rjan functions as a qualifier to the whole. Therefore, it must be connected with the whole. (Bhsya: Another arrangement of the same Vrttika~text for the sake of another explanation) (a) Some other (grammarian) says: Or, (we will allow compounding of words) which are more likely to be connected, because (we assume that) the aggregate (as such) is semantically connected (with the outside word). (b) (Bhsya: Explanation) Or there will be compounding of words which are more likely to be connected. Why is that so? Because the aggregate as such is semantically connected (with the outside word). Kaiyata174: In this view the meaning-connection with the aggregate (as such) is the cause for being more likely to be connected. But when connection with the aggregate is there, the connection with the part is also inferred. With this in mind, we understand (the use of) the comparative degree.175 Note (90): Connection with the whole is superior to connection with its parts. Connection with the parts is inferred on the basis of the first connection. The word rjan is connected with the whole (i.e. aggregate), made up of go, asva and purusa first, and only then with its single constituents. So the direct connection of rjan is with the whole gavsvapurusa, and not with go, asva, or purusa independently. 110. (Bhsya : Objection) In this view 175a, (the word) va: 'or5 (in the new interpretation given in Bhsya No. 109) becomes redundant. Kaiyata176: (On) 'In this view'. Option is there when two different reasons are given for one thing to be established. But here one reason is for one thing and another reason for another thing. 174. P. 336: II 175. I.e. connection with the aggregate prevails over the inferred possibility of connection with the part. 175a. I.e. in the new interpretation given in Bhya No. 109. 176. P. 336: stf^T TST ?f I ^f3^ T tcTS^nTOPT fa**q> ^fcT I %% Il 109.

104 Note (91):

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

I. First Explanation: (a) Vrttika VII says that dvandva is first formed, because the word go is more easily connected with asva and purusa than with rjan. Once the dvandva has been formed, the compound as a whole will be connected with rjan. The reason for fornr'ng the dvandva first (and not the tatpurusa) is samarthaiaratva: 'the status of being more easily connectible'. (b) Vrttila VIII says that the word rjan cannot be separately connected with parts of a whole (i.e. aggregate), because it functions as a qualifier of the whole. It must, therefore, be connected with the whole. The reason for connecting rjan with the whole is samudyasmarthya: *semantic connection with a whole*. (c) The two Vrttikas give alternative reasons for the same fact, viz., that dvandva is formed first. II. Second Explanation: Bhsya No. 109 connects the reasons given in the VrItfyas VII and VIII in a different way, as follows: Why is dvandva formed first? Because its constituents are samarthatara: 'more easily connected*. Why are they more easily connected? Because the word rjan has samudyasmarthya, 'connection with a whole*. The fact A is established by a reason B which in its turn is established by a reason C. So here the two reasons B and C establish different things. We cannot say that B and C are alternative reasons for the same fact A. 111. (Bhsya : Answer)

a. (Answer). And yet this (word va) is significant. How? (Because the word) rjan here which requires (i.e. qualifies the words) asva and purusa (also), cannot at all form a compound with (the word) go (only). b. (Objection). Then what (else is to be compounded with what)? c. (Answer), (The word) go which requires (i.e. is qualified by) rjan can form a compound with asva and purusa. In that case, go becomes the main member here. And compounding does take place, even if the main member requires (an outside word).177 Kaiyata178: (On) 'And yet this'. The word v: 'or' tells us that (the word) rjan is not compounded with go, because it (i.e. rjan) is treated as asamartha: 'not 177. See Bhya No. 28 and Note, (30). 178. P. 336: qr^fe^f^ | 5HTqSTc?TRn'T*Tfe W t ^T :1 1

Samarthhnika semantically purusa). connected', because

105

it qualifies (the outside words asva and

Note (92): (a) The word v in Bhsya No. 109 is significant, because two reasoifs are presented for not compounding first rjan with go : 1. The Jvanc/va-compound of gauh, asvah and purusah is first formed, because the word rjan is connected with the whole as such, and not with go only. This is called samudyasmarthya. 2. The word rjan cannot be compounded with go, because the principle spelcsam asamartham bhavati (Bhsya No. 28) forbids it. According to this principle a qualifying word, when connected with a word outside the compoundconstruction, cannot enter into a compound (see Bhsya No. 33). The word rjan is connected with the words asva and purusa which lie outside the compound-construction of rjan and go. Therefore, rjan cannot be compounded with go. 3. The first reason says that rjan cannot be connected with a part, because it is connected with the whole. The second reason says that rjan cannot form a compound with go, because rjan is asamartha. Why? Because rjan is connected with the whole. (b) The purvapasin now raises the question what to compound with what? If rjan cannot be compounded with go, because rjan is connected with outside words, the same logic would apply to go also. The word go cannot form a compound with asva and purusa either, because it is semantically connected with rjan which lies outside the compound of gauh, asvah and purusah. (c) The siddhntin answers that go, asva and purusa are main members. Even if they are semantically connected with the word rjan, which lies outside the JvanJva-compound, they can form the c/vanJva-compound. The principle spefysam asamartham bhavati is restricted to the subordinate member (see Bhsya No. 28). (HERE ENDS THE SECTION IN WHICH SHORTCOMINGS REGARD TO SEMANTIC CONNECTION ARE REMOVED.) IX (NOW STARTS THE SECTION ON THE DEFINITION OF THE SENTENCE) IX. (Vrtu'ka: Definition of the sentence) A finite verb together with indeclinable, operator (indicating caserelation with the verb), and qualifying word makes a sentence. WITH

106

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

112. (Bhsya : Explanation) (a) A finite verb, together with indeclinable and noun (i.e. operator) and noun-qualifying word, receives the designation 'sentence', so (a definition) should be stated. (Example for) 'together with indeclinable': uccaih pathati: 'he reads a loud', mcaih pathati: 'he reads softly'. (Example for) 'together with noun (i.e. operator)': odanam pacaii: c he cooks the rice'. (Example for) 'noun-qualifying word': odanam rnrduvisadam pacati: 'he cooks the rice so that it becomes soft, without the grains glueing together5.179 Kaiyata180: (On) *A finite verb'. In order sometimes not to apply or to apply181 loss of accent etc. after (what is called) nnkraJca, loss of accent and substitution for yusmad and asmad will be taught later on as conditioned by samanavdl^e: 'within one and the same sentence*182. The sentence is technically defined (here), so as to prevent taking 'sentence' in its non-technical183 sense (there).184 Indeclinable, operator, qualifying word are taken individually as well as collectively, just as (in the prohibition) : 'no entry for svirasV85 Compare (the rule) atlupvannum vyavye 'pi.186 179. If we read mrdu and visadam as separate words, odanam must be neuter. If mrduvisadam is read as one word, the gender of odana may t>e neuter or masculine. 180. P. 336:

ci| cj [jrf % I

181. For loss of accent see the example stated under Vrttika XIII: nadys tisthati kle. Even in absence of semantic connection between nadyah and tisthati loss of accent takes place, because both words occur in the same sentence. 182. In Vrttika XI. 183. The non-technical definition of 'sentence' according to Ngesa is suptinantacayo vdkyam: 'sentence is a group of noun(s) and verb(s). See Ngesa fn. 208. 184. In Vrttika XL 185. The prohibition applies to individual sdras as well as to groups of them. 186. The rule P.8.4.2 says that (n is substituted by n) even when letters belonging to (the pratyhra) at, letters belonging to the ku or pu class, the preposition d, or the augment nUM intervene. That means, each of them separately, or some of them together.

Samarthhnika

107

And when (the author of the Vrtkas) says 'a finite verbform', he wants to indicate singular number, because he gives a technical definition187. And in the same way, with regard to (the rule) ttnn alinah188 (the author of the Vdritikas) will state that the exclusion of tin: 'finite verb' (by stating atin) is redundant, because the section deals with what is the same sentence.189 In (the sentence) bhavati pacaii: * "he cooks"190 comes into existence', although a relation of action and operator191 is there (which may give us the idea of one sentence), (yet) loss of accent (in pacati) is not possible, because there are two finite verbs, and, consequently, there is not one sentence. Note (93): The verbform pacati in the example bhavali pacati will not suffer loss of accent, since it is preceded by tin: 'finite verb'. This is in accordance with P.8.1.28. But Ktyyana's view would be that in this example there are two finite verbs, and so there are two sentences. Because of that pacati cannot lose its accent. (Bhsya continued: Adverbs included in the definition) (b) And along with the adverb, so (an addition to thfc definition) should be stated. (Example:) susthu pacati: 'he cooks nicely', dusthu pacati: cooks badly'. Kaiyata192: (On) 'And along with the adverb*. Since (the word visesana in Vrttila IX) is put near (the word Itrafya), it implies that visesana means krakavisesana only and not kriyavisesana: 'adverb*. And by (the word) khyta: 'finite verb' predominance of (the idea of) action is indicated, so that even (construc187. From the non-technical use of the term 'sentence' we already know that it must contain a verbform or verbforms. Since 'sentence' is technically defined as containing a verbform, this must mean one verbform only. In a technical definition every element is significant. 188r The rule P.8.1.28 says that a-finite verb after what is not a finite verb (is unaccented). 189. See Vrttika XI. P.8.1.28 prescribes loss of accent under a certain condition. Since this rule applies in what is the same sentence,which according to Ktyyana can have one finite verb only, the condition that the preceding word must be atin: 'not a finite verb' is redundant, because it could not be anything else. 190. I.e. the action of cooking of which he is the agent. 191. Here sdhya means 'the action to be achieved' and sdhana 'the means', i.e. 'operator which brings the action into result'. 192. P. 337:
*TT3T: n

'he

108

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

tions) which do riot contain a finite verb, as devadatlena sayhavyam : 'Devadatta must go to sleep'*93 are rightly regarded as a sentence. Ngesa194: (The word) savisesanam in itself would take care of kayvisesana also, that is why (Kaiyata) states: 'Since . . . is put near*. Even if (the word kraka} includes (kriyvisesana) also, because it is regarded as a kraka: 'operator'195, yet the point is, that this (separate mention) also, like the mention of avyaya: 'indeclinable' (in Vrttilca IX), is for the sake of specification, so we should understand. Note (94) : In Vritika IX the words krala and visesana are parts of a dvandvacompound. But since visesana follows immediately after kraka, we may take it to mean krakavisesana : 'noun-qualifying word* and not kriyvisesana: 'adverb*. Ngetsa remarks that the word sakrakam would include even and 113. (Bhsya: Another formulation of the definition of the sentence)

Some other (grammarian) says: 'The finite verb together with a qualifying word |(makes a sentence)'; that's all. Because all these (i.e. avyaya etc.) are qualifying words (to the verb). Note (95): ; See Vkyapadfya II, 4: 'What contains parts (i.e. words) which, when isolated (from the! sentence-context), require (each other), (but) the words of which (when not isolated) do not require (other words outside the sentence) ; where the verb (action) dominates; what contains subservient (i.e. qualifying) words (and) what has a single purpose, is regarded as a sentence*. According to this definition tfye sentence is considered as an autonomous meaning-whole. No outside word reference is needed196. X. {Vrtka: Another definition of the sentence) What contains a single finite verb (is called 'sentence'). 193. The form sayitdvyam is not a verb form, but a form ending in a krt-suffix used for deriving nouns from verbal roots. See Note (99). 194. P. 337: fffa^nrfa^C f w f a t w f a fowrataRT fTf~?q'[^t% I ^rf^

195. A paribhs says kriyavisesannam karmatvam napurhsakalingat ca: *a function as object and take neuter gender'. See K. V. ABHYANKAR, Paribhssaihgraha, phandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1967, pp. 221, 347! ! 196.

Samarthhni^a 114. (Bhsya : Explanation)

109

What contains a single finite verb receives the designation 'sentence', so (the definition) should be stated. (Example) brhi brhi: 'speak, speak!'. Kaiyata197: (On) 'What contains a single finite verb*. The word ela: 'single* expresses (the idea of) 'identical', and not (the idea of) 'numerical*. And this (word cJatin) is a ta/iuvn/ii-compound. (On) 'speak, speak*. In the expression brhi brhi devadatta: 'speak, speak, Devadatta!* loss of accent for the vocative rightly takes place, because (the expression) forms a sentence. Ngesa198: But since (the word) efya is mentioned (in the definition just given), it remains still very difficult to justify (the designation 'sentence' for the example brhi brhi). That is why (Kaiyata) says: 'The word ea: 'single*. Note (96): We cannot explain how to apply the designation 'sentence* to brhi brhi, according to the definition lhytam etc.,199 because there is no visesana: 'qualifier', nor according to the definition efyatin just given, because, numerically, there are two verbforms. Ngesa200: (On) 'The word ea*. Because there is no point in applying the designation 'sentence' to a single word (Kaiyata) says bahuvrhh: *(ckat'n is) a bahuvfhicompound*. That means, a word-group containing a single finite verb. But others say that the non-technical definition lchytam savisesanam vkyam,201 which also applies to (the example) pacajx bhavaii,20^ is only ap197. P. 337: rr^f^ff^tf^f | r^t>^is<: *rHi*i^*-ft, ^ ^qiq'i-qV I 3":frrfirn 198. P. 337: ^?r^nT?UH<tfr^qqf^^^^i||" anf-rr^^Tc^1 ^f% \\ 199. The definition given in Bhya No. 113 and Vrttika IX. 200. P. 337: (rspr^f T^BT ^RT#?TRt 5nft^RT^Tm^-?|^f|f?f^f \

201. Bhsya No. 113. 20^. See Kaiyata on Bhya No. 112.

HO

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

proved by Pnini, since he mentions (the word) atin in the slra: iinn almah.203 Note (97): The implication of the stra Vhen following after what is not a finite verb, a finite verb (is not accented)' is that Pnini accepts the possibility of a sentence, containing more than just one verb form. Otherwise the word atinah would be redundant. In Others' Ngesa includes himself. The words pare iu are to be connected with huh at the end of Ngesa's comments. Ngesa204: This being so, the outcome is that if we isolate (words from the sentencecontext) they will require each other (as complements to their own meaning), because (within the sentence words show) the qualifier-qualified relation. Nple (98) : If we detach the word rjnah from the phrase rjnah purusah: 'king's man*, then its meaning remains in mid air, because it serves as a qualifier to that of purusah. Nagera205: The word khyta there (i.e. in the definition l(hyiam etc.) indicates a word in which the idea of action is predominant. Therefore, examples like tvay scfyilavyam: 'you must go to sleep' are included. Note (99): Technically sayHavyam is not tinan'.a, but Irdanta. Nevertheless the idea of action (kriy) is the main idea conveyed. A word like kart: 'agent' on the other hand, is not Iriypradhna, but karirpradhna. It conveys the idea of agent as its main idea. Therefore, it cannot be lchyta: 'finite verb'. Ngesa206: The word savisesanam : 'along with qualifier' means 'along with that qualifier which qualifies directly or indirectly'. Therefore, in the sentence nadys tisthaii I(le: 'it stands on the bank of the river'207 we are justified (in saying that) nadyh etc. come in the same sentence. 203. P.8.1.28. 204. P. 337: ^ 205. P. 337: cT^l 206. P. 337: ^ f ^ ^ J ] pTc^ TOTTCT^W ^r fe^FT ^ f f TOT 207. The example is given in Bhya No. 120.

Samarthhnika Note (100):

\\ 1

The word I(le is directly connected (semantically and grammatically) with nadyh and indirectly (yuktayukla) with tisthati Ngesa208: With this same intention 'sentence' is defined in the Amarafyosa as expressing action construed with operator (Jtra\a), which (definition) may apply to (each) one (out of three) categories: (1) a group of nouns, (2) a group of finite verbs, (3) a group of noun(s) and verb(s), according to the statement saptmantacayo vlcyam Icriy v kraknvit: 'a sentence is a group of nouns and of verbs and of noun(s) and verb(s) combined, if (the word denoting action) is construed with an operator'.209 Here the word v means 'if. But whether the operator is to be expressed by a finite verb or a different word is another matter. (The word) suptinantacaya is used to prevent that (i.e. sentence-status) for one (word only). Note (101): Ksrasvmin, commenting on the above quoted passage from the Amarakosa has the following to say: 'A group of finite verbs', f.i. '"he cooks" comes into existence', which means: 'cooking is being undertaken'210. *A group of nouns', f.i. 'this (is) inborn in noble people*. The supplied verb bhavaii: 'is' is merely expletive here211. 208. P. 337:

209. Amara's Nmalingnussanam, ed. by H. D. SHARMA and N. G. SARDESAI, Oriental Book Agency, Poona, 1941, p. 42, where also Krasvmin's comments are given. -.f^^r^T^t WT-q^fa ^^fif-TTT/t ^^Tcftar: I

; I 210. See fn-. 190. 211. This is a quotation from Bhartrhari's Ntisataka, stanza No. 52: 'Expletive', i.e. even without bhavati this will be a sentence,

H2

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

Action construed or connected in sense with an operator (makes) a sentence: 'Devadatta, drive the white cow with a stick'212. In all these (three categories) the definition (of a sentence refers to a) syntactical construction (formed of words) owing to (their) interdependence and to their semantic compatibility. This is stated by Jaimini: *A sentence is considered one which serves one single purpose, if (its words, when) isolated (from the sentence-context), require other words to complete their scn:e213. Bhatta also says: slcanksam etc.214 One (part of the) definition (in the Amaralosa) refers to the nature of the word, the other (part of the) definition takes meaning also into account, so some say'.215 Ngesa210: Etat samnrthakam eva . . . That (the definition) lthytam etc.217 has absolutely the same meaning as this one (in the Amara^osa) is, of course, clear. This (definition lhyaiam etc.) only we should take as the definition of a single sentence which contains one subject (-phrase) and one predicate (-phrase). This was stated by (Bhartr-)hari.218 Ngesa219: The meaning of this word vd^pa: 'sentence' (in Vafyapadiya II, 4) is: a single sentence. Because of the rule (stated) by Jaimini: arthaiJ^aivad elam

212. The example devadatta gm etc. partly occurs in Ksik on P.8.1.8. 213. Jaiminimnrhsstra II, 1.46: 214. Ksrasvmin quotes here Vkyapadya II, 4. For translation see Note (95). The verse is not from Kumarilabhatta as Ksrasvmin supposes but from Bhartrhari, Vkyapadya II, 4. 215. One part, i.e. suptinantacayo vkyam, the other part, i.e. kriy v kraknvit. 216. P. 337: i sfSRT f f w i

SfrT I 217. I.e. khytarh savisesanam, Bhsya No. 113 and Vrttika IX. 218. Ngesa quotes here Vkyapadya II, 4. See fn. 214. 219. P. 337: ^ w f a ^ f o ? ^WpTcTO: M 31WTK^ ^TPPT 1 1

Samarthhnika

113

(etc.).220 Precisely for that reason a sentence is no longer one, when it contains more than one subject (-phrase) and more than one predicate (-phrase), so the Mtmdmsakas claim. When, however, Kaiyata says that this (definition lhytam etc.) 221 is the technical definition, he is wrong. And he is also wrong, when he denies that the phrase pacati bhavati is a sentence,222 by assuming that singleness (of finite verb) is intended (in the definition lhytam etc.). For we do not gain anything (by assuming that) singleness (of finite verb) is intended (here), because in accordance with (the explanation of) the Bhsya given before223 the status of ^hyla in its full sense is applicable to one verb only.224 Note (102): We do not gain anything, because, even if the sentence contains more verbs, one verb will be considered the main one and the rest is subordinate. Still the sentence is regarded as one. The logical paraphrase of the expression pacati bhavati is: yatkimcitkartrlc pacil?rty bhavati: 'the action of cooking, the agent of which may be anybody, comes into being'. This is also stated, by Patanjali on P. 1.3.1: 'the action of cooking etc. becomes the agent of the action of coming into being'.225 From this paraphrase it is clear that the main verb is bhavati and that pacati functions as the agent of bhavati Although pacati hhavati contains two verbforms, the status of verb belongs to bhavati only. By the term fyriyapradhanatva the word pacati is excluded from verb-status, since it functions as agent (kartrpradhna). See also Note (99). Ngesa226: Also, because it would be wrong to understand that the status of sentence belongs to (a phrase containing) one single finite verb, and not to another (containing more than one verb), according to the maxim stated in the Bhsyai vyaltipaksc na brhmanarh hanyd kydaa ekath brhmanam ahatv kfti syt: 'when one takes the view that words denote individual things (rather than genus), one would comply with the injunction 'don't kill a brahmin' by (just) not killing one (unspecified) brahmin.227 220. See fn. 213. 221. The definition given in Bhya No. 112. 222. See Kaiyata on Bhya No. 112. 223. See Ngesa fn. 201 and 205. 224. I.e. to the main verb in the sentence. 225. Mbh. Vol. I, 256, line 28; p. 257, line 13. 226. P. 337: f ^oirfarr?TST^TT jpflfec % 227. Ngesa quotes rather freely from Mbh. See Vol. I, p. 243, lines 1-2. See also the discussion in the Paribhendusekhara of Ngojlbhatta, ed. by F. KIELHORN, Part II, trsl. p. 193 (See ed. by K. V. ABHYANKAR, Poona 1960). F.8

114 Note (103):

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

If singleness of finite verb form is intended in the definition lhyatam etc., the question is whether to take singleness as referring to the individual or to the genus. In the first view the designation Verb* will apply to one particular verb only, f.i. to bhavatu and not to any other verb. In the second view the designation 'verb' will apply to any representative of the verb-class, i.e. any verb or group of verbs would make a sentence. So nothing is gained by taking singleness either as vyal^ii: 'individual' or as jti: 'genus'. Ngesa228: Moreover, although by assuming that singleness (of finite verb) is intended, this (status of single sentence) is denied for an expression, such as pacati Jaroti ca which contains two verbs of equal status,229 (yet) it is impossible to deny (sentence-status to verbs), when they are paired in view of (the relation of) qualification230, because a finite verb, when accompanied by a qualifier (-verb) is regarded as single. But by this (i.e. first definition) the expression brhi brhi cannot be covered either, because the (verb brhi cannot be regarded as) being accompanied by a qualifier, since (the other form brhi) is not put here as a qualifier. But the gain resulting from sentence-status (can be shown) by assuming that we have here question and answer (by supplying the question) 'Shall I tell (you) something?' (to which the answer 'speak, speak!' is given). Here vowelprotraction (pluta) in the last syllable of the sentence is achieved by the rule anantyasypi prasnlthynayoh,.231 Therefore he gives the technical definition ekatin: 'containing one single finite verb' suited for his own science (i.e. grammar). Note (104): In the answer brhi brhi vowel-protraction (and svarita-accent) is applied to both verbforms, according to the rule just quoted. This rule is restricted to 228. P. 337: f ' % 5 '* 1 srer 229. I.e. two main verbs, no relation of principal and subordinate being there. 230. I.e. the qualifier-qualified relation, in which the main verb is the qualified one. 231. P.8.2.105 states that in case of question and answer even the final vowel of a non-final word in a sentence is protracted and receives svarita-accent.

Samarthhnila

11.5

words occurring in the same sentence, because the word vlfasya is continued from P.8.2.82. The expression brhi brhi cannot be a sentence according to the definition lhytam savisesanam (Bhsya No. 113), no qualifying words being there. But the e/fa/m-definition is not conditioned by the presence of qualifying words, so the designation 'sentence' applies and we can justify vowelprotraction. The gain of assuming sentence-status for brhi brhi lies in this that we can now apply P.8.2.105 here. The difference in the interpretations offered by Kaiyata and Ngesa amounts to the following: ( 1 ) According to Kaiyata the definition lchytam svyayakrakavisesanam, otherwise formulated as alhyatam savisesanam, is a technical definition. According to Ngesa it is a non-technical, popular (laufaka) one. (2) According to Kaiyata singleness of finite verb is intended in the definition lchytam etc. According to Ngesa it is not. (3) According to Kaiyata the phrase pacati bhavati is not a sentence. According to Ngesa it is. Ngesa232: As for the fact that Kaiyata explains the example m the Bhsya (viz.) brhi brhi by supplying the word devadatta, this is wrong, because (this expression) can be justified (as a sentence) by the previous definition too.233 And the double expression (viz. brhi brhi) wouEd be meaningless. By this 232. P. 337: *r s

fir I 3 T ^ R

233. I.e. thedefinition ekatin.

116

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

(argument) the (following) statement of Kaiyata in the eighth (section)234 is refuted: 'this other definition (viz. ekatin) is formulated to make clear that singleness of verb form is intended (in the definition khytam etc.) by removing the doubt whether singleness of Verbform (was or) was not intended in the earlier definition (viz. khytam svyayakrakavisesanam) .234a Even if we accept that in the word-repetition agre 'gre: 'in the very front* the second word is (a) separate (utterance), so that we can apply prvarpa (-ekdesa)235and when this is granted, how can there be the status of a single verb (for a group of verbs as) in brhi brhi?yet (we will say that) a group of (identical) finite verbforms showing the same sequence (of phonemes) forms (a single) sentence, because (the word) ekatin is a ka/mvr/n-compound236. Consequently, the expression pacati: 'cooks' only (in pacati bhavati) is not a sentence (.because it contains two non-identical verbs). The fact that, according, to this definition, (the word) atinah: 'preceded by what is not a finite verb' is rejected,237 is a different matter. Precisely for that reason the revered master has not used the word ca: 'and' or the word va: *or* in the expression ekatin vkyam: *a sentence contains one singlte finite verb', because the scope237la (of this definition ekatin) is (quite) different (from that of the previous definition). He would definitely use that (word ca or vd), if the scope were the same238, because we observe that such is the style of the revered master. So the first definition (viz. khytam etc.) is common to grammar, as in the case of vkyasya teh: 'the last vowel of a sentence (is protracted and has udtia),239 and to non-technical usage. Precisely for that reason protraction of vowel occurs in paca pasya ca devadatta3: 'cook and see, o Devadatta!*. If only ekatin had been stated (as a definition), then one 234. Kaiyata on Bhya on P.8.1.28. 234a. The definition ekatin, according to Kaiyata, explains the meaning of the earlier definition khytam etc. It was not clear to us whether the singular in the form khytam was intentionally used or not. This doubt is now removed by interpreting the word khytam as ekatin. 235. P.6.1.109 states that a single substitution in the form of e and o replaces e and o occurring as word finals and following initial a. In order to apply P.6.1.109 we require two finished words. The first word must end in e and the second must begin with a. Whether the utterance of two words consists of identical words or of different words is immaterial. 236. It means 'what contains a single finite verb'. Therefore, it implies that there must be something else in addition, but not a different verb. Although we utter the word brhi twice, it is regarded as the same verb, because it has the same meaning and sequence of phonemes. 237. See Note (97) on Ngesa fn. 200. 237a. Kaiyata thinks that the scope of these definitions is the same, see fn. 234a. Ngesa thinks they have a different scope, see summary given in Note (105). 238. In that case ekatin would be an addition to or an alternative of the previous definition but leaving its scope unaltered, 239. P.8.2.8?.

Samarthknila

117

would form the wrong notion that this only (should be applied) also there240, (and not the earlier one)241. For that purpose (viz. to remove this wrong notion) this (definition l^tam etc.) is given. The definition ekalln applies to (the section) samnavlfe: 'within the same sentence'242 and (is applied) sometimes (to achieve) protraction of vowel243. That is precisely why the example brhi brhi is appropriate244. That is precisely why in the Bhsya on the rule tinn atinah,2*5 while interpreting the Vrttilca: "the word atin is meaningless, because the section is headed by (the expression) *within the same sentence' ",246 (Patanjali) states that in one and the same sentence no two finite verbs occur. And by this same (Bhsya) it is pointed out that ekatin is afca/iuvr/i-compound.247It will be clear (to us) at once that this meaning (of the definition el(atin) is demonstrated here in the subsequent Bhasya also. Note (105): Patanjali had to choose such an example for the new definition elzatin, as would not be covered by the earlier definition. For such an example, three possibilities present themselves: (1) a single finite verb only, (2) a single finite verb accompanied by one or more qualifying words, (3) repetition of the single finite verb. The single finite verb brhi cannot be a sentence according to the definition khyiam etc., because qualifying words are lacking. It is, however, a sentence 240. I.e. to P.8.2.82. 241. I.e. the wrong notion that only the definition ekatin is taken into account in order to apply protraction in the sentence just mentioned. We can apply the definition ekatin if a sentence contains only one finite verb. But the expression paca pasyn ca contains two finite verbs. Therefore Ngesa points out that in order to apply protraction etc. the first definition has to be taken into account. This is the purpose behind the first definition. 242. The section dealing with anudtta and substitution for yumad and asm ad (P.8.1.20) should come under the heading samnavkye, i.e. this latter word is to be read in P.8.1.18. 243. P.8.2.105. 244. Because the verb group brhi brhi forms one sentence according to the definition ekatin and takes phxta by P.8.2.105. See Note (104). The expression 'that is precisely why' means: because ekatin is also applicable if protraction of vowel is wanted. 246. Atinvacanam anarthakara samnavkydhikrt (on P.8.1.28). 245. P.8.1.28. 247. I.e. where the Bhya on P.8.1.28 says: na ca samnavkye dve tinante stah: 'within the same sentence there are no two finite verbs'. If we take ekatin as a karmadhraya-compound, a sentence would consist of only one finite verb, no other words being allowed. Since the statement quoted here denies that a sentence does not consist of more than one finite verb, it implies that a sentence may contain more than just one finite verb, i.e. verb -f- noun, but not two finite verbs. Therefore ekatin must be bahuurihi.

118

Mahbhsya (P.2..1)

according to the definition ekatin. There is one difficulty here: if brhi is the example for elat'in, we will not know whether the word elcal'n is a Icarmadhrayacompound, meaning Consisting of one single finite verb' or a bahuvnhicompound, meaning Containing one single finite verb'. The only alternative left for Patanjali which can indicate both that the utterance should not contain two or more different verbs and that ekatin as a bahuvrhi compound allows other words in addition to a single verb, is to repeat the word brhi The sentence brhi brhi cannot be covered by the definition lhylam etc, because no qualifying word is there. If Patanjali had chosen any other form than to repeat .brhi, and stated his example as brhi devadatta: 'speak Devadatta!', the expression would be covered by the definition khytam etc. Kaiyata misunderstood Patanjali here. By supplying the word devadatia after brhi brhi he has obliterated the significance of the example, for which he was duly criticized by Ngesa. Summary showing which definition applies to which example: 1. uccaih pathaturivcaihpathatu susthu pacalu dusthu pacati are sentences according to both the definitions. The number of finite verbs is one. The same is true in case of odanam pacaiu odanam mrduvisadam pacati. 2. brhi brht is a sentence according to the definition eJatin, but not according to al(hyatam etc. The same holds good of the one verb sentence brhi 3. paca pasya ca devadatta (example given by Ngesa) is a sentence according to lhytam etc., but not according to elatin. 4. pacati (example given by Ngesa) is a sentence according to ekatin, although Ngesa denies that. He thinks that, ekatin being a a/juvr/ii-compound, there should be something more in a sentence than just a finite verb. This is not correct. Compare the term e/fdc: *monosyllabic* and the discussion in the Paribhsendusekhara of N;gojbhatta, d. F. KlELHORN Part II, trsl. pp. 154-5 (sec. ed. by K. V. ABHYANKAR, Poona 1960). 5. brhi brhi devadatta (example as supplemented by Kaiyata) is a sentence according to both definitions. 6. pacati bhavati (example mentioned by Kaiyata) is a sentence according to khytam etc., but not according to ekatin. XI. (Vrttika: Purpose of the definition of the sentence) Within the same sentence loss of accent and substitution for yusmad and asmad (takes place). 115. (Bhsya : Explanation) The word samnavkye: 'within the same sentence' being put as a section-heading, loss of accent and substitution for yusmad and asmad

Samarthhnika

119

are to be stated (as coming under this heading). For which purpose? So that loss of accent etc. would not take place, when (preceding nonverb and following verb occur) in different sentences. (For instance,) ayaxd dndo harnena: 'here is a stick, catch with it', odanam paca tava bhavisyati: 'cook the rice, yours it will be', odanam paca mama bhavisyati: 'cook the rice, mine it will be'. Ngesa248: (On) *within the same sentence*. The word samna: 'same' is (used here as) a synonym of e#a: 'one*. It means within one (and the same) sentence as defined in that way249. Note (106): According to the definition lchyiam svyayakrafyavisesanam (Vrttilca IX), the examples given in the present Bhsya might be regarded as single sentence, because the Vdrt\x\a does not make a restriction with regard to the number of verbforms allowed in one sentence. According to Ngesa250 the definition given in this Vrttil^a applies to an utterance containing more than one vreb also, if one of them is principal and the rest subordinate. In the examples ayam dandah etc. hara and bhavisyati are the principal verbs. The implied verb asti and the verb paca are subordinate, because the actions of existing and cooking are subservient to those of catching and belonging to. Consequently, the verb ham would be unaccented by P.8.1.28, because it is preceded by a word which is not a finite verb and which occurs in the same sentence. Also, substitution for tava and mama will be there. But according to the definition elatin (Vrttika X) the rule P.8.1.28 does not apply to the example ayam dandah harnena, because the preceding word dandalfty which goes with the implied verb astu cannot be considered as a part of the sentence in which the verb hara occurs. Consequently, hara will retain its accent (on the first syllable by P.6.1.162). In odanam paca etc. the words tava and mama are not replaced by te and me, because the immediately preceding Word paca does not belong to the same sentence. In the word samanavafoe and the follownig discussion, vfoa: 'sentence* is to be taken as defined by ekatin, insofar as loss of accent and substitution for yusmad and asmad are concerned. 248. P. 338: 249. I.e. as ekatin. 250. See Ngesa fn. 228.

120

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

XII. (Vrttila: A shortcoming pointed out) Prohibition (should be stated), when there is connection with ca: 'and', etc. 116. (Bhsya : Explanation)

When there is connection (of yusmad and asmad) with ca: 'and', prohibition should be stated. (For instance), grmas lava ca svam mama ca svam: 'the village is your property as well as mine'. Ngesa251: (On) 'When there is connection . . . with ca etc.'. According to some the meaning (of this Bhsya) is that (the condition) samnavlcyc: 'within the same sentence' is not supplied in the rule na cavhhaivayultc.252 This is wrong, because it goes against the next Bhsya which says that in case of connection with ca etc. (things go strictly) according to the rule253 as we have it. Moreover, in your (just mentioned) interpretation, the gain is that you can apply this prohibition (of substitution for yusmad and asmad) even if (the word preceding yusmad and asmad occurs) in a different sentence also. Since in such a case there is no (possibility to) apply substitution, the prohibition is totally useless. Therefore (we must interpret this Vrttika) to mean only prohibition of substitution for yusmad etc. Note (\07): Vrttilca XI is interpreted in two ways: 1. Substitution for yusmad and asmad is not allowed, when these words are connected with ca etc. But this is merely repetition of P.8.1.24. Thus the Vrttika appears to be superfluous. Therefore, the next Bhsya says that Ktyyana's purpose in repeating the stra is to indicate that in the case of connection with ca etc. he agrees with Pnini and that his Vrttilaisamnavlye cannot take care of this prohibition. 2. According to some the Vrttika means: cdibhir yoge samnavkye iii etasya pratisedhah: 'when there is connection with ca etc. (the Vrttika) 251. P. 338: ^rffoq^fer \

252. This rule, P.8.1.24, states that substitution for yu$mad and asmad is not allowed, when they are connected with the particles ca, va, ha, aha, and eva. 253. I.e. according to P.8.1.24.

Samarthhnilca

121

c does not apply*. That means substitution for yusmad and asmad is prohibited, when these words are connected with cat irrespective of the fact whether the word preceding yusmad and asmad occurs in the same sentence or not. For instance, in the expression Vartate grmah. Tava ca mama ca ayam patah: 'There is a village. This cloth is yours as well as it is mine', the yusmad-iorm tava is preceded by a word grmah which belongs to a different sentence. Since there is a preceding word, P.8.1.20 (which comes under the adhilra-rule P. 8.1.17 padt: 'after a word* i.e. immediately preceded by a word), would apply and cause substitution for tava. The present Vrttika, however, in nullifying the condition samanavafae for P.8.1.24, wants to prohibit substitution for tavat when it is connected with ca. This implies that substitution for tava when connected with ca would take place, if the condition samnavlye for P.8.1.24 is retained. But, as a matter of fact, this condition itself prohibits the substitution, because the word grmah which precedes tava belongs to a different sentence. So there is no gain in nullifying the condition samnavlfe. Moreover, abolishing samnavfoe for P.8.1.24 would be regarded as a new teaching. It would give the impression that Ktyyana accepts samnavkye as a section-heading (i.e. condition) in case there is no connection with ca, and rejects it when this connection exists, whereas Pnini has stated a special rule (P.8.1.24) regarding the substitution in case of connection with ca. But Patanjali in the next Bhsya, says that in case of connection with ca things go strictly according to P.8.1.24. 117. (Bhsya : Objection)

Why is this (Vrttika) stated? According to the rule254 (as we have it), prohibition is already stated, when there is connection with ca etc. Ngesa255: (On) 'Why is this*. The question is raised why the prohibition256 is stated and the definition of the sentence in the form of alhytam svyaya- etc.257 (is given). Precisely for this reason258 the statement: 'the designation "sentence** etc.* in the text of the answer becomes appropriate. Note (108): The question is not restricted to Vrttika XII, but refers also to the Vrttikas X and XI, because Patanjali, while answering the question, includes these 254. P.8.1.24. 255. P. 338: 256. Vrttika XII. 257. Vrttikas IX and X. 258. I.e. because the question refers to both prohibition and sentence-definition.

122

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

earlier Vrttikas too by mentioning vJfasamjn: *the designation "sentence" ' and samnavl(\)dhil(ra: 'the section-heading rule "within the same sentence" \ 118. (Bhdsya : Answer) Something new is introduced here, (viz.) the designation "sentence"259, and the section-heading rule "within the same sentence". One might think that this260 is an objectionable thing, because this leaves everything open to doubt.261 Therefore, our teacher262 explains in a friendly way, that in case of connection with ca etc. (things go) strictly according to the rule263 (as we have it). Note (09): Panini has accepted the sentence-definition given in Vrtla IX, so Ngesa says (see fn. 200). Panini also added a special prohibition of substitution for yusmad and asmad, when they are connected with ca etc. (P.8.1.24). Ktyyana, however, has given a new sentence-definition (elatin, Vrttika X) and has introduced a new section-heading rule (samnavlfe, Vrttika XI). This might give the feeling that Pnini and Ktyyana teach different things, with the result that everything is left undecided. Therefore, Pataiijali warns us and says that the Vrttikas X and XI must be taken as a supplement to Pnini's rules. P.8.1.24 is not to be considered as being at variance with Ktyyana's Vritikas and, therefore, to be discarded. According to Patanjali, this is what Ktyyana himself suggests by his Vrttika XII which repeats P.8.1.24. Patanjali indicates that not only P.8.1.24 is to be retained, but also the first sentence-definition (see fn. 232). 110. (Bhsya: The purpose of the sentence-definition ekatin and of the section-heading samnavkye is pointed out)

Both this designation vdkya: 'sentence' and the section-heading samnavkye must be necessarily stated. XIII. (Vrttika: Purpose of the new rules) If loss of accent applies to semantically connected words, inclusion is to be made of words which syntactically agree264 and of words connected 259. I.e. the sentence-definition ekatin in Vrttika X. 260. I.e. introducing the Vrttikas X and XI. 261. Ngesa renders vikalpate as vypnoti: 'covers'. The sentence might then be translated as follows: 'one might think that that (i.e. Vrttika IX and P.8.1.24) is to be discarded, because this (i.e. Vrttikas X-XII) covers everything'. 262. Ktyyana. 263. P.8.1.24. 264. I.e. those words which refer to one and the same thing. They are not regarded as semantically connected, because semantic connection requires two related things. In the case of syntactical agreement there is only one thing. See note (111).

Samarthhnika

123

with connected words265, since they cannot be considered as semantically connected. Note (110): Ktyyana wants to introduce the section on nighta: 'loss of accent' under the heading samnavfye (Vrttila XI), instead of under the samarthaparibhs. For that reason he defines what is vkya: 'sentence*. The present Vxlti\a states an objection against bringing the mg/ita-section under the domain of the samartha-paribhs. 120. (Bhsya : Explanation)

If loss of accent applies to semantically connected words, inclusion should be made of words which syntactically agree and of words connected with connected words. (Examples) for words which syntactically agree: patave te dsymi: 'to you who are skilful I will give', mfdave te dsymi: 'to you who are tender-hearted I will give'. So much for words which syntactically agree. (Examples) for indirectly connected words: nadys tisthati kMe: 'it stands on the bank of the river', vrksasya lambate skhym: 'it hangs on the branch of the tree', sBnm te odanath dadmi: 'of grains I give you rice', saUnm me odancffli daddsi: 'of grains you give me rice'. But why is (loss of accent) not achieved? Because (the words concerned) are not semantically connected. Kaiyata266: (On) 'if loss of accent applies to semantically connected words'. (The word) nighia is used in wider sense. It includes also substitution for yusmad and asmad. (On) 'to you who are skilful*. In this (example) there is lack of semantic connection (between 'you' and 'skilful'), because of the special statement samndhikaranam asamartharh bhavati: 'when words syntactically agree, they are regarded as not semantically connected.'267 If the section-heading samna265. I.e. indirectly connected words. They are not regarded as semantically connected, because the genitive case nadyah is not construed with the verb tisthati, but with the noun kle. The same holds good of the other examples. 266. P. 338: g - ^ f jSTf^ ^f^f | fasffiT ^ ^ C T ^ I %T ^ctf^T^P" 3 p -T"^% II ? TT

T T O I fF TT 267. See Bhsya No. 162.

124

Mahbhsya (R2..1)

vfaye2G8 were not here, no substitution for yusmad and asmad would take place209. In the case of indirectly connected words, grammatical operation would evidently not take place, because there is no semantic connection. Note (111): In the examples of indirectly connected words the verb is unaccented according to P.8.1.28: 'a finite verb is unaccented when preceded by what is not a finite verb'. This rule is a padavidhi (see Notes 82 and 83), since two finished words are mentioned as conditions for its application. In the example rtadys tisthati faule the word nadyh is at'm: 'other than finite verb' and tisthati is tin: 'finite verb'. The samarthaparibhs (P.2.1.1), when brought to bear upon P.8.1.28, states that loss of accent occurs in the finite verbform, when this is semantically connected with what is not a finite verbform. The present Vrttifaa says that, if we adhere to the samartha principle, special statements are required for words which stand in syntactical agreement and words which are indirectly connected. In the example nadys tisthati, /fiHe the verb is not semantically connected with the preceding genitive, but it is indirectly connected, through the word faule. The verb tisthati goes directly with faule, because the action is located in Icla. With reference to nadys the word Itfile is yufata: 'connected' and the word tisthati is yufatayufata: 'indirectly connected'. In the example stinm te odanam dadmi semantic connection is between sUnm and odanam on the one hand, and between odanam and te on the other. This means that te is yufatayufata with reference to sUnm and reversely. If the samarthaparibhs is applied here, the rules P.8.1.22 and P.8.1.24 will find scope within these sentences. But if we replace samartha by samnavfaya, these rules will find scope here, because the words concerned occur in one sentence, according to both definitions of the sentence in Vrttifaas IX and X. In the example patave te dsymi, the words patave and Ze, which syntactically agree, refer to the same person. So semantic connection which requires two different things is out of the question (see Bhsya No. 162 and fn. 264). Therefore, te could never have been substituted for tava except by the present Vrttifaa. The KIELHORN-ABHYANKAR ed. p. 38, 1. 7 reads vrfasasya lambate sfah. The Banaras reading . . . sfahym is preferable, because in this way the example shows a symmetrical structure with the earlier example nadys . . . faule. The translation is based on the Banaras reading. (HERE ENDS THE SECTION ON THE DEFINITION OF THE SENTENCE) 268. This section-heading replaces the condition samartha supplied by P.2.1.1. 269. Because in the above examples semantic connection is regarded as to be lacking.

Samarthhnika X

125

(NOW STARTS THE SECTION ON THE FORMATION OF THE COMPOUND rajagaiJk&ra) XIV. (Vrttika : Objection) In the form rjagaviksra: 'king-cow-milk' there is a possibility of two (ways of) compounding, because two genitive cases are present here. 121. (Bhsya : Explanation)
5

'

'

In the form rjagazksira: 'king-cow-milk there is a possibility of two (ways of) compounding. Why is that so? Because two genitive cases are present (here). For here are two genitive cases: rjnah goh ksiram: 'king's cow's milk'. Kaiyata270: (On) 'In . . . rjagavk&ira\ The form rjagoksra would also result (which is undesired) in the sense *milk of a cow, which (cow) belongs to a king'271. Ngesa272: Since both the compounds are desired in different meanings, how can there be an undesired result? Therefore, (Kaiyata) says: 'which belongs to a king'. What it means is that (the form rjagoksra) would result in a particular sense (viz. ' (king-cow)'s milk' ). We should understand that (we would obtain) this undesired result in all views2. Note (112): From the uncompounded expression "king's cow's milk" two ways lead to a compound, this depending on the priority we give to internal compounding of the constituents of the compound to be: ^ 270. P. 338: XT 5 T ft ;ftT RN P STFTFf II 271. Rjagaviksra means: * (king-cow)'s milk' and rjagoksra means: 'king's (cowmilk)'. The compound rjagoksra is.not desired in the meaning '(king-cow)'s milk'. 272. P. 338-339: 273. I.e. in the vyapeks- and in the ekrthbhva-view. For the resulting meaning it does not make any difference whether the compound-constituents retain their meaning or not.

126 I. (king-oow)'s milk, II. king's (cow-milk).

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

As will be shown in the following technical compound-formation, the t ways of compounding do not result in the same compound-form. J273a^ r [ {rjan + Nas + go -f sU) + Nas] + [ksira + am] }+ am {[rjan 4- go + Nas] + [ksira + am] }+am P.2.4.71. { [rja + go + Nas] + [ksira + am] }+ am P.8.2.7. { [rjago + TaC + Nas] + [ksira + am] }+ am P.5.4.92. { [rjago + TaC + NlP + Nas] + [ksira + am] }+ am P.4.1.15. { [rjago + a + NlP + N'as] + [ksra -{- am] }+ am {[rjagav + a + NiP + Nas] + [fora 4- am] }4- am P.6.1.78. { [rjagava +t + Nas] 4- [ksira + am] }4- am {[rjagav +I 4- Nas] 4- [fea 4- am] }+ am P.6.4.148. { rajagav + k^ra }+am P.2.4.71. rajagaviksfoa + m P. 6.1.107. rjagaviksiram IL { [rjan + Jas] 4- [ (go 4- Nas) -f (stra 4- am) + am] } 4- am { [rjan + Nas] + [go + fera 4- am] }4- am P.2.4.71. { [r/an 4- #a$] + [goksira 4- am] }4- am { rjan + goksira }4-am P.2.4.71. { rja + go/fstra } 4-am P.8.2.7. { rjagoksira } 4- am rjagoksvra 4. m P.6.1.107. rjagok&vram When the taddhha-su&x TaC is added (in the compounding I), then the feminine ending NiP has to be used for expressing feminine gender. In the compounding II no TaC is added, because go does not occur at the end, but at the beginning of the (internal) compound. The question now is whether the form derived according to I can have the meaning of the form derived according to II. The answer to this is provided by the next Vrttika: siddham tu rjavisisty . . . . 273a. First stage constituents are indicated by ( ), second stage constituents by [ ], third stage constituents by / |

Samarthhmla -, 122. (Bhsya : objection refuted)

127

Why do you say: 'possibility of compounding two words (in the genitive with a third word)'? Because (in the rules dealing with compound) 'with one case-inflected word' is present274 (there is no possibility for compounding two words with a third word). Kaiyata275: (On) 'Why do you say'. He puts the question thinking that the meaning (of dvisamdsaprasanga) is: 'possibility for compounding two words which end in the genitive case (with a third word)'. (On) sup sup. Because (Pnini) wanted to express (a particular) number276 (in the expression 5up sup) and because a group cannot be considered as ending in a case-ternrnation, there is no possibility of compounding (two genitive words with a third word). Note (113): According to the sup sup rule a compound of more than two case-inflected words at the same time is not allowed. An uncompounded group of two or more case-inflected words cannot be regarded as itself being one case-inflected word. Therefore, this group cannot be compounded with another word. The technical compound-formation of the three words together would be: [(rjan -f Nas) + (go + Nas) -f (ksira + am)] + am [ rjan + go -f k*ra ] + am P.2.4.71. [ rja + go + stra ] + am P.8.2.7. rjagokfira + am P.6.1.107. rajagolsram No internal compounding of constituents is first-made. The taddhita-sufiix TaC (P.5.2.94) cannot be added, because go is not the final member of a compound. It remains, however, ambiguous whether go goes with -rdjan or with ^slra. Consequently, the compound may have two meanings: '(king-cow)'s milk* and 'king's (cow-milk)*. But the sup sup rule forbids this kind of compounding. 123. (Bhsya: Intention behind the objection)

We do not take dvisamsaprasanga to mean this: 'possibility of compounding two case-inflected words (with a third word)'. How then? 274. See Bhsya No. 22 and Note (25). 275. P, 339: f f ^ z p ^ ^ftf | S C : ^SRraft: SnTftfSTtf^ Sc*rf *T;^T r^T^pT I! TT 276. I.e. the singular. See Kaiyata on Bhsya No. 22.

128

Mahhhsya (P.2.1.1)

(We take) dvisamsaprasanga (to mean) : 'possibility of compounding in two ways'. (Thus) the compound rjagoksra would result also (in the sense 'king-cow's milk'.) 124. (Bhsya : Third objection)

But (do you mean to say that this) should not be allowed?277 125. (Bhsya : Answer to the third objection)

It should be allowed, when we use the following way of compounding: (from) goh ksiram: 'cow's milk' (we derive) gokslram: 'cow-milk'; (from) rjno goksram: 'king's cow-milk' (we derive) rjagoksiram: 'king-cow-milk'. But when we use the following way of compounding: rjno goh k&Lram: '(king's cow)'s milk' then it should not be allowed, and (yet) then there is a chance of making it. Why is it not allowed then? Kaiyata2: (On) *It should be allowed*. That is to say, in a different meaning279. And thus the following (meaning) is conveyed (by the compound rjagoksiram) : *milk characterized by cow, which (cow) belongs to a king*. But (the meaning) *(milk of) a cow qualified by a king' is not conveyed. Note (114): The meaning conveyed is: 'king's cow-milk* and not 'king-cow* s milk'. The question is, why is not rjagofcsira formed in the sense *king-cow*s milk*? XV. (Vriiika : Ammer) But (what we want) is achieved, because (the word) goh: 'cow's' is semantically connected with kstra: 'milk' which is qualified by rjan: 'king'. 126. (Bhsya : Explanation)

This is achieved. How? Compounding takes place of (the word) goh: 'cow's', which is qualified by rjan: 'king', with ksira: 'milk' (and) not of (the word goh) alone. Is this to be stated by a special rule? Not necessarily. How shall we understand it, unless a rule to that effect is being stated? Just as (a person) is keen (to have milk) of a cow, and is not satisfied 277. For bh-, meaning 'to be, to be allowed', see Note (48). 278. P. 339: ^ ^ ^ I arofancscr: iiOTTT 279. I.e. in the meaning 'king-cow's milk'.

Samarthhnika

129

with just any milk. In the same way, (a person) is keen (to have milk) of a king ('s cow), because (he wants) milk of that cow which belongs to a king. Kaiyata280: (On) 'of . . . qualified by rjari. And therefore (the word) go is first joined with rjan (and) afterwards with ksira. This is what (the Bhsya) means. Ngesa281: (On) 'of (the word) go . . . first*. In which order we group words, in the same order the rules of compounding are applied. That is what (Kaiyata) means to say. Note (115): It is not just milk which is wanted, but cow's milk. Then it is not just cow's milk, but king-cow's milk. Thus the order of grouping referred to by Ngesa is: first we group 'cow' and 'king'. and then 'king-cow' and 'milk*. Since in this case go is qualified by rjan, the word go alone has no semantic relation with sra, but rjago has. Therefore, no compound of go with stra can be independently formed. 127. (Bhsya : Another answer)

Or again, in cases like this, there is no chance at all for compounding (the word) goh\ 'cow's', which requires282r;an : 'king', with ksira: 'milk'. Why (not)? Because there is no semantic connection. How (is there) no semantic connection? 'What requires an outside word is treated as semantically unconnected'283. Kaiyata284: (On) 'Or . . . no . . . at all'. Since the word, go is connected with both (rjan and fysira)% go cannot be compounded with ksvra according to the statement 'what requires an outside word is treated as semantically unconnected*. But it can be (compounded) with rjan, because with respect to rjan (the word) go is the main word (of the resulting compound rjago). 280. P. 339: ^ 3 ^ % ^ ^ 5 % | Zff >. ^ ^TT ^: 1?*m tffrfcr II 281. P. 339: jj^. cr^jfjff | fa ^frr Sf^^cfj^IcTtf*n*Ulk'W<|fTlf<fd* TT II T3: 282. I.e. 'is qualified by'. 283. See Bhya No. 26 and Note (29). 284. P. 339:

F.9

130 Note (116):

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

If we first want to compound go with Isiram, the word go would be the subordinate member in the compound. If a subordinate member requires, i.e. is qualified by, a word outside the compound, as is the case with go, then the subordinate member is considered asamartha: 'unfit (for semantic connection)'. This means that go cannot be compounded with Islra, since it is qualified by the outside word rjan. 128. (Bhsya : Objection)

Then how can we compound (the word) go with rjan, when it (i.e. go) requires (i.e. qualifies) ksira? 129. (Bhsya : Answer)

Then go becomes the main member there285. And compounding does take place with the main member, even if the main member requires (i.e. is qualified by word outside the compound)286. (HERE ENDS THE SECTION ON THE FORMATION OF THE COMPOUND rjagavksra ) XI (NOW STARTS THE SECTION DEALING WITH THE PURPOSE BEHIND THE USE OF THE WORD padavidhi) 130. (Bhsya -.Question)

But why is the section-heading samartha: 'semantically connected' made with regard to padavidhi: 'operation dealing with finished words' (only) ? Kaiyata287: (On) 'the section-heading samartha. The word adhilra: 'section-heading' is used in the meaning of paribhs: 'interpretative rule', because both of them are meant for the sake of other (vidhi-rules). For adhikra means 'commission'. And this (meaning) also applies in the case of paribhs. And thus it will be 285. I.e. in the resulting compound. 286. See Bhya No. 28. 287. P. 339: : i sr w qfoTmsT*narflFcT i cf^r ^ gr-^ft x ^ x qft

SamarihhntJ(a

1 31

stated (in the Bhsya) on the rule Iupvoh r fca - pau ca288 that what is called adhikra is threefold289. Here the objection regards the use of (the word) pada: 'finished word*. The rule should only read samartho vidhh: 'a grammatical operation (applies only to what) is semantically connected'. Ngesa290: (On) 'commission*. (It means) presentation (of a word) in another rule. Note (117):

Ksil on P. 1.3.11 has the following to say: Adhilro .vtniyogh. sYaritagunayuJctam sabdarpam adhilrlalvd uitaratropatisthale: * Adhikr (means) commission. The word-form which is marked with svanfa-quality presents itself in the subsequent rule, because it is commissioned (to do so)*. The passage in the Bhsya referred to by Kaiyata291 is a repetition of an earlier passage292. The following kinds of adhikra are enumerated: 1. Located in one place, yet elucidating the whole grammar, just as a bright lamp located in one place lights up the whole house. 2. Dragged along. Just as a piece of wood to which rope or iron has been fastened is dragged along, in that way what is dragged along by the particle ca is also adhikra. 3. Presenting itself where needed from rule to rule, so that it need not be stated (again and again).293 A paribhs ( 1 ) is applicable throughout the grammatical system. It is not restricted to a particular section. It is not necessarily continued in subsequent rules. It becomes operative in a rule which contains the condition for its application294. Anuvrtli (2) refers to the process of continuing a rule having an independent meaning of its own, or parts of that rule, in subsequent rules. The continuation is generally without break. No intermediate rule can be left out. It does not function as a section-heading. For instance, within the section anabhihite (starting from P.2.3.1), the word dviixy (from P.2.3.2) is continued without break up to P.2.3.5. Adhikra (3) is a section-heading which functions only when connected with the rules mentioned in that section. It is not dragged from rule to rule, but the 288. P.8.3.37. 289. See Kaiyata on Bhya No. 5 and Note (4). 290. P. 339: 291. Mbh. Vol. Ill (ed. F. KIELHORN, 1909), p. 341. 292. Mbh. Vol. I, p. 119, lines 9-12. 293. See Vrttika 1 on P.l.3.11: Pratiyogam tasynirderthh. 294. For examples see Note (6).

132

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

connection of adhikra and rule belonging to that section is direct. For instance P.2.3.1 is the heading of the third part of the second chapter in the Astdhyay, but it is not continued in each subsequent rule. Discontinuation of this heading occurs in case of P.2.3.8; P.2.3.16; P.2.3.32 and other rules. XVI. (Vrltika : Answer) The word samartha (is stated as a condition) with regard to padavidhi: '(rule prescribing an) operation for finished words', because in case of a rule dealing with phonemes we understand (that the operation applies only) when (the phonemes concerned occur) in immediate sequence. 131. (Bhsya : Explanation) The section-heading samartha: 'semantically connected' is stated with regard to padavidhi: '(rule prescribing an) operation for finished words' (only), so that we should understand that in case of a rule dealing with phonemes an operation (is to be performed) only (when the phonemes concerned occur) in immediate sequence.295 (Examles: ) tisthatu dadhy asna tvath skena: 'leave the curds, eat vegetables5; tisthatu kumricchatram hara devadatta: 'don't bother about the girl, take the umbrella. Devadatta!'. Kaiyata296: (On) 'only . . . in immediate sequence*. That means even without semantic connection being there. Note (118): The question is why the section-heading samartha is restricted to padavidhi only. The Vrtka says: because in a rule dealing with phonemes immediate sequence (samhlt, P.6.1.72) only is considered as the condition for grammatical operation, and not meaning-connection. Here the difference is stated between varnavidhi: '(rule prescribing an) operation for phonemes' and padavidhi: '(rule prescribing an) operation for finished words*. The immediate sequence of - and ch- in kumf chairam causes the application of the augment tUK as follows: kumn +tUK +chalram P. 6.1.75, fyumr + t + chairam P.I.3.2 and 3, kumn + c + chairam P. 8.4.40, Rumne chatram. In the case of dadhi asna also the rule P.6.1.77 applies even in absence of semantic connection between the words concerned. (HERE ENDS THE SECTION DEALING WITH THE PURPOSE BEHIND THE USE OF THE WORD padavidhi) 295. I.e. without taking into account whether the phonemes belong to words which are semantically connected or not. 296. P. 340: arr^RRTTPT ^f I faTlfa ffPTsaRcipf: II

Samarthhmka XII

133

(NOW STARTS THE SECTION IN WHICH THE OBJECTION THAT P.2.1.1 IS MEANINGLESS IS REFUTED) XVII. (Vrttika : Objection) The use of the heading samartha: semantically connected' is meaningless, because it stands in syntactic agreement with the vidheya: cwhat is to be prescribed' (i.e. predicate'). 132. (Bhsya : Explanation)

This heading stands in syntactic agreement with the predicate. And what is the predicate? Compounding. To say samarthah padavidhih: c a grammatical operation dealing with finished words is semantically connected' amounts to saying: 'compounding is semantically connected'. But in this (final) stage (of compound-formation) rjapurusah: 'kingman' the heading samartha can neither allow (us) nor disallow (us) to form anything (i.e. a compound). The use of the heading samartha is meaningless, because it stands in syntactic agreement with the predicate. Kaiyata297: (On) 'of the heading samartha9. The word vidhi is taken here as derived in the passive sense only.298 Its meaning should be taken as (grammatical operation in the form of) compounding etc., dealing with finished words. And the Word samartha is taken as its appositional noun. This being so, it means that nothing can be achieved by (using) the word samartha, because compounding of words which are not samartha is not prohibited. To explain more fully: a compound (formed) of words which are samartha is automatically samartha. A compound also of words which are not samartha, (like that of rjnah and purusah in the expression) bhry rjnah puruso devadaltasya: 'wife of the king, man of Devadatta' is anyway formed, because there is nothing to prohibit it. Even for a compound (formed) of words which 297. P. 340: crq-srff mr p iih

ftrc^: i OTT ff 1 rfe^^ i _ t T T m V TT T

^ 1 *fl ^TT3Tf%r<|fr 3 1 cTFTR TT jqiMr ^"i an ^^ 298. See Kaiyata on Bhya 1. No.

134

Mahbhsya (R2..)

are not samartha, no purpose is served by this (use of) the word samarlha, because (a compound of words which are not samartha) is produced (anyway), and because (its) correctness is settled by anolher rule.290 The negative compounds like alimcit Iurvna: 'doing nothing-whatsoever' formed of words which are not samartha are discarded, because (all negative compounds formed of asamartha words, insofar they are accepted) are enumerated (and the rest is considered incorrect300). Therefore, (the rule samarthah padavidhih) is not meant for rejecting (compounds made of words which are not samartha). Note (119): The word samsa generally means 'compound' as the finished product of the process of compound-formation, like rjapurusah. In the present Bhsya, however, samsa refers to the process of compounding. Patanjali says that padavidhih which is the vidhcya: 'predicate' (literally: 'what is to be prescribed') stands for samsa. Since padavidhi means 'an operation for finished words' it follows that samsa must refer to the operation of compounding, and not to the result of the operation. Thus the rule samarthah padavidhih comes to mean: 'compounding is semantically connected'. But what can that mean? Patanjali says, this is meaningless. The rule thus interpreted does not contain any information about the conditions in which compounding should or should not take place. This is further explained by Kaiyata, as follows. The rule states that compounding is semantically connected. Compounding itself takes place either of samartha or of asamartha words. a. Suppose compounding takes place of samartha words, i.e. words which are semantically connected. This is, in fact, desired. But it is not achieved by the rule 'compounding is semantically connected*. This rule only says that the process of compound-formation must be semantically connected, whatever that may mean. The rule does not say that a compound must be formed of words which are semantically connected. b. Suppose compounding takes place of asamartha words, i.e. words which are not semantically connected. An example would be the compound rjapurusah: 'king-man', when formed out of the expression bhry rjnah puruso deva~ dattasya: 'wife of the king, man of Devadatta'. Such a compound is undesired. But the rule 'compounding is semanticaliy connected' cannot prohibit it. The rule does not say that a compound must not be formed of asamartha words. The rule does not refer to the constituents of the compound at all. Since the rule thus interpreted cannot be made significant with regard to compounding either of samartha or of asamartha words, Ktyayana feels that the 299. P.3.2.36. 300. See Notes (43) and (44).

Samarthhnilca

135

word samartha in the rule must somehow refer to the constituent words of the compound, and not to the process of compounding. In the actual wording of P.2.1.1, however, samartha is used in apposition to padavidhi, i.e. compounding, and cannot, therefore, refer to the compound-constituents. This is why Ktyyana in his next Vdrtdka proposes a change in the rule and reads samarthnm padavidhih'/compounding (takes place) of semantically connected words'. This excludes words which are not semantically connected. Such a change in the rule is necessary, so Ktyyana feels. XVIII. (Vrttika: Answer) But (what we want) is achieved by reading (the word) samarthnm: 'of (words) which are semantically connected'300a. 133. (Bhsya : Explanation) This is achieved. How? The rule should read samarthnm padnm vidhir bhavati: 'an operation applies to words wh.xh are semantically connected'. Kaiyata30': (On) 'this is achieved*. Vacant: *by reading (in the genitive)' means vykhynt: *by interpreting (in the genitive sense)*. Padavidhih is said to be samartha in a secondary sense, because it concerns (words which are) semantically connected. Note (120): The rule samarthah padavidhih, when taken literally, does not make any sense. Ktyyana proposes to change the rule and read samarthnm. Kaiyata thinks it is not necessary to change the rule. We only need to interpret the word samarthah in a secondary sense to mean samarthnm. See further Note (122). 134. (Bhsya : Objection)

(But) even so, it302 would not be effective for one (word) or two (words). Kaiyata303: Itaras tu . . . But somebody else, thinking that this is a rephrasing (of the rule), says: *(but) even so*. Because just as in (the injunction) pasund yajcta: 300a. I.e. instead of samarthah in P.2.1.1 samarthnm is to be read. 301. P. 340: f^g- f-j-f^ | c T ^ ^ r ^ ^ T f e ^ : I 302. I.e. the rule 2.1.1 in which the plural form samarthnm is mentioned. 303. P. 340: ^ x g TOfafafa T^T|-rr^[^f^ | * C qRFTT ^f^T ^ WTT Ti II See Note 122 sub D.

136

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

'one should sacrifice by means of an animal' number is intentionally used in the (logical) subject (of the injunction), so also here304 plural is intentionally used. Note (121): The objection says that strictly according to the plural form samarthnm, since it requires a minimum number of three words for the application of P.2.1.1, the condition samarthnm would not be provided in the case of a grammatical operation concerning one word (which would require the singular samarthasya in the rule), nor in the case of a grammatical operation concerning two words (which would require the dual samarthayoh). Kaiyata in his example refers to a A/imms-doctrine known as grahailalvanyya: 'principle of singular number for "cup" \ based upon the J almimmxmmssira 3.1.13: ekatvayuklam ekasya srulisaviyogl: "(a word) is connected with singular number, because a direct statement refers to one single (object)'. According to the Mmmsakas the sentence graham sarhmrstl: 'he cleans a cup' is paraphrased as sammrjanena graham bhvayet: 'one should produce the effect desired in a cup by cleaning'.305 This again means graham uddisya sammrjanam vidlnyate: 'with reference to a cup, cleaning is prescribed'. The injunction pasun yajeta is paraphrased as pasun ygam bhvayet: 'one should bring about a sacrifice by means of an animal'. This means ygam uddisya pasur vidhlyale: 'with reference to a sacrifice an animal is prescribed'. Several things are to be noted here: 1. 'Cup' functions as the subject (uddcsya, i.e. that with reference to which something is prescribed). The subject is the thing already known to us. 'Cleaning' functions as the predicate (vidheya, i.e. that which is prescribed with reference to something). The predicate is the thing newly communicated to us, not known before. 2. The subject is guna: 'subsidiary' with regard to the predicate and the predicate is pradhna: 'principal' with regard to the subject. 3. In the subject, number (and gender) are not intentionally used, i.e. have no special significance attached to them. 'Cup' stands for any cup, not for one particular cup. But, in the predicate, number (and gender) are intentionally used. Therefore, in pasun number (and gender) are significant. Sacrifice should be performed with one (male) animal.

304. I.e. in the rephrased or reinterpreted rule samarthnm padavidhih. 305. According to Mmms a verbal meaning can be paraphrased or construed as an instrument (karana), or as an object (sdhya). The instrument-construction is shown in the example graham sammrsti, where sammrj- is paraphrased as sammrjanena bhvayet. The object-construction is shown in pasun yajeta, where yaj- is paraphrased as ygam bhvayet. For details see The Mmmsnyyapraksa by padeva, ed. by V. S. ABHYANKAR, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona 1937. p. 24.

Samarthhnika

137

Ngesa thinks that Kaiyata's reference to pasun yajeta is incorrect, because here pasu is the predicate, whereas in samarthnm padavidhih the word samafthnm is a subject. According to the A/wnms-doctrine the number of the subject is not relevant. Therefore, Ngesa says that Kaiyata does not follow the grahaiJatva-pnnciple, but rather presents an illustration: just as in pasun number is intentionally used, so also in samarthnm. XIX. (Vfttika : Answer) Or, because (the form samarthnm30*) is mentioned as ekascsa: 'retaining of one (only)'. 135. (Bhsya : Explanation)

Or rather, this307 is mentioned as ekasesa: 'retaining of one (only)'. (From) samarthasya: '(applying) to a semantically connected (word)', and samarthayoh: '(applying) to two semantically connected (words)', and samarthnm: '(applying) to many semantically connected (words)', we derive samarthnm: '(applying) to many semantically connected (words)'.308 Note (122):

(a) The expressions siddharh tu and el(asesanirdesd v in a sequence of Vrttilcas occur in several places in Mbh.309 In all of these cases siddham tu serves as an answer by the siddhntin to an objection raised by the prvapaksin. The alternative answer is indicated by v. In the present case this means that the Vrttiltas XVIII and XIX are alternative answers to the objection stated in Vrltil(a XVII, which points out that the word samarthah in P.2.1.1 is meaningless. Vrthlia XVIII says that P.2.1.1 should be formulated differently as samarthnm padavidhih: 'an operation concerning finished words applies to semantically connected words*. Vritilca XIX should statealthough Patanjali gives a different explanationthat the word samarthah in P.2.1.1 may be taken as an e/?asesa-form representing all cases and numbers of the word samarthah. This means that samarthah is equal to samarthasya, samarthayoh, samarthnm, samariht, samarthe. Thus the rule comes to mean: 'an operation concerning finished words applies to one, two or more semantically connected words (them306. Or samarthah? This latter is possible in case we take Kaiyata's view that the form samarthah in P.2.1.1 need not be changed into samarthnm, but only be taken in a secondary sense. See Note (122). 307. I.e. samarthnm or samarthah. 308. 'Derive', that is by means of ekasea. This is a kind of word-composition or word-integration in Pnini's system. It is formed in the sense of ca: 'and' of words which are alike in form and meaning, and which end in the same case. See P. 1.2.64. 309. For instance, Mbh. on P. 1.1.3; 4.3.120; 6.3.68; 8.4.68 and see also 2.4.58.

138

Mahbhsya (R2..1)

selves), (and also applies to a word) when it is preceded by a semantically connected word (samariht), (and also applies to a word) when it is followed by a semantically connected word (samarthe) ,310 In the first case the word samarthah refers to the word which is operated upon, in the other cases the word samarthah represents the condition for the operation.311

(b) Ktyyana prohibits ekasesa of wordforms ending in different cases, because it would involve contradiction in meaning. Vrttika XIII on P. 1.2.64 states elcavibhalctyantanam iti tu prthagvibhaktipratisedhrtham : 'the conditi cf?avibhal(tyantnm : "of wordforms ending in the same case'*, however, should be stated in order to prohibit ekasesa of (wordforms having) different cases'. The next Vrttika says na vrthavipratisedhd yugapad vacanbhvah: 'or (the preceding Vrttika need) not (be stated, because) wordforms (ending in different cases) are not (construed) together (with one case-governing word), since (it involves) contradiction in meaning'. For instance, the form brhmanbhym: 'to both brahmins' or 'by both brahmins' cannot mean brhmanya: 'to the brahmin' and brhmanena: 'by the brahmin' together, when it is to be construed with the verb Iff- in the expression brhmanbhym Iff tarn: *done by the two brahmins'. Here brhmanbhym stands for brhmanena brhmanena ca and not for brhmanena brhmanya ca. Similarly, when brhmanbhym is to be construed with the verb da- in the expression brhmanbhym dehl: 'give to the two brahmins', the form brhmanbhym cannot stand for brhmanya brhmanena ca, but only for brhmanya brhmanya ca. This implies that ekasesa of words ending in different cases is theoretically allowed, when syntactical construction does not involve contradictions as far as meaning is concerned. But this is nowhere stated explicitly, nor do we have any example cited by grammarians to support this. (c) Why does Patanjali not explain the word samarthah in P.2.1.1 as ekasesa} He cannot do so for two reasons: (i) Ekasesa cannot be formed of different cases. We cannot say that samarthasya samartht samarthe is equal to samarthah. (ii) An ekasesa-orm does not occur in the singular. For ekasesa the form should read samarthah. This is also the reason why Patanjali cannot take the ekasesa-Vrttika as an alternative answer to Vrttika XVII where the word samarthah in P.2.1.1 is referred to. Patanjali is forced to connect the ekasesa-Vrttika with the directly preceding Vrttika: siddham tu samarthnm etc. Here is a plural form samarthnm which can be explained as ekasesa. The difficulty was that the plural form samarthnm would not cover the singular samarthasya: '(applying) to one semantically connected word', nor the dual 310. An example of samartht is P.8.1.28. For samarthe see P.8.1.69. The technical meaning of the ablative and locative cases in samartht and samarthe is laid down resp. in P. 1.1.67 and P. 1.1.66. 311. See paribhs No. 10 in The Paribhsendusekhara of Ngojibhatta, Part II,
trl. by F. KIELHORN, p. 51.

Samarthhnika

139

samarlhayoh: * (applying) to two semantically connected words'312, if we consider that plural is intentionally used. This difficulty is solved, if we take samarlhnm as an clascsa-form, as stated in Vrltika XIX.

There is, however, another difficulty. If we take the genitive samarthnm as elasesa to stand for (i) samarthasya (singular), (ii) samarthasya ca samarlhasya ca (dual), (iii) samarthasya ca samarthasya ca samarlhasya c (plural),313 how do we account for other case-endings than the genitive, as samartht, samarthe} Ktyyana has not considered this problem and Patanjali is left to his own resources, without the help of a VrUila. Patanjali tries to solve the difficulty by resorting to a somewhat farfetched way of utiarapadalopin compounding as explained in Bhsya No. 139. The purpose of Patanjali's five way compounding expounded there is to show that the word samarihah in P.2.1.1 may cover everything, all numbers and cases, independently from Ktyyana's Vrttikas. Patanjali's explanation, however, leaves three things unexplained : (i) The use of the word v in the ckasesa-Vrttika. (ii) Why should Ktyyana in the ekasesa-Vrttika give an interpretation of the preceding Vrttika: siddharh tu etc., which was meant to be a rephrasing of P.2.1.1 ? Ktyyana never gives interpretations of his own Vrttikas. (iii) Why does Patanjali make such an effort to include other cases than the genitive? They are, in fact, covered by the e/fasesa-form samarthnm. This word also stands for one semantically connected word. When a grammatical operation is performed upon a semantically connected word (samarthasya), conditioned by a following or preceding word, then the following or the preceding word must necessarily be semantically connected also. That is to say, samarthasya pade paraiah: *(a grammatical operation is performed) upon a semantically connected (word), when followed by a word* cannot but mean: samarthas^a samarthe pade: *(a grammatical operation is performed) upon a semantically connected word, when followed by a semantically connected word*. Similarly, paddt parasya samarthasya: '(a grammatical operation is performed) upon a semantically connected word, when preceded by a word' cannot but mean samartht padt samarthasya: '(a grammatical operation is performed) upon a semantically connected word, when preceded by a semantically connected word*. In order to have this meaning it is not necessary to supply the words samarthe and samartht in addition to samarthasya. (d) Kaiyata seems to have no difficulties. He takes the Vrttika: siddham tu etc. as an interpretation (vykhyna), not as a new formulation of P.2.1.1. 312. See Bhya No. 134. 313. See Bhsya No. 135. The second case represents samarthayoh, the third case samarthnm.

140

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

The word samarthah in this rule is interpreted in a secondary sense to stand for samarthnm. Pnini says padavidhi is samartha. Really, padavidhi is not samartha, but since padavidhi applies to samartha words it may be called samartha in a secondary sense, so Kaiyata explains. And if we can take samartha secondarily to mean samarthnm, we may as well take it to mean secondarily samartht and samarthe. Thus different case-endings will be included. Kaiyata's interpretation, in spite of the fact that it was based on Ksil( on P.2.1.1 and followed by Bhattoji Dksita, cannot be accepted, because vacandt never means vykhynt. Kaiyata is quite aware of the fact that Patafijali's explanation differs from his own. Patanjali thinks that the Vrttlka: siddham tu samarthnm etc. is a rephrasing of P.2.1.1, as is, in fact, Ktyyana's intention. But the plural form samarthnm will not of itself include other numbers than plural and other cases than the genitive. Therefore, Patafijali gives his elaborate explanation in Bhsya No. 139. Kaiyata's opinion is that this elaborate explanation is not required. The assumption of secondary meaning for the word samarthah in P.2.1.1 will take care of everything. Now Kaiyata's problem is what to do with Patanjali's explanation. To solve this problem he divides Patanjali into two persons, a siddhnn and a s'iddhntyekadesin.31* The siddhntin Patanjali agrees with Kaiyata, or rather the other way round, in saying that the word samarthah is to be interpreted in a secondary sense to mean samarthnm. The siddhntyckadcs'in Patanjali is of the opinion that samarthnm is a rephrasing of samarthah and tries to solve the difficulties connected with this view in the Bhsya Nos. 133-139. That Kaiyata intends to make such a division is quite clear from the two short comments he makes: haras tu ptho 'yam hi matv (on Bhsya No. 134) and sarvam etad vcanifyam hi matv: 'considering that all this pertains to the new formulation' (on Bhsya No. 138). Kaiyata does not comment on the Vrttika: elcasesanirdesd v. From his point of view the Vrttika is superfluous, the other numbers and cases being covered by his interpretation of samarthah. This relieves him of the task to explain the word v in this Vrttika. He need not bother whether ekascsanirdesd v refers to the word samarthah in P.2.1.1 or to samarthnm in the new formulation given in Vrttika XVIII. (e) Ngesa does not explicitly show approval or disapproval of Kaiyata's interpretation. In his comment on the words evam api: 'even so' (on Bhsya No. 134) he points out that the word v in Vrttika XIX in Patanjali's explanation is left unexplained. Bhsya No. 134 states the difficulty that the form samarthnm would not include the singular samarthasya nor the dual samarthayoh. To remove this difficulty Vrttika XIX states: 'or because (the 314. See fn. 7.

Samarihhnlka

141

form samarthnm) is mentioned in cJ?asesa (representing other numbers also). This, at least, is Patanjali's opinion. But the word va: 'or' indicates that this is not the only one possible answer to solve the difficulty. There should be an alternative. The alternative is now supplied by Ngesa, as follows: 1. The plural number in samarthnm is not intentionally used, it is nonrestrictive, i.e. it is not restricted to just plural, but includes singular and dual also. 2. Or the form samarihnm is to be taken as elasesa, and will, therefore, include other (cases and) numbers also. (f) Neither of the three explanations given successively by Patanjali, Kaiyata and Ngesa is satisfactory. As stated before, according to Ktyyana's style, Vrttika XIX should be an alternative answer to Vrttika XVII. There arc two difficulties in thus connecting the Vrttilcas XVII and XIX. 1. The singular form samarthah cannot be taken as ciasesa. 2. Elasesa cannot be formed of words in different cases. A way out of these difficulties, while yet adhering to Ktyyana's style, can be suggested as follows: ad 1. In the rules following after P. 2.1.1 we do not want the plural or dual of the word samarthah. Even if plural or dual were required we could use the singular as non-committal number. We will retain the elasesa-forms ghatau: *two jars', ghath: '(more than two) jars' if we want to convey a particular number to the exclusion of other numbers. By retaining the e/fasesa-forms samarihnm or samarthah we would limit the application of P.2.1.1 to expressions where three or more semantically connected words occur. Since such a limitation is not desired here, the singular is retained as a non-committal ekasesa-iorm which will represent all numbers as required by the subsequent rules. ad 2. Ktyyana states that elasesa cannot be formed of words ending in different cases by saying: 'since (it involves) contradiction in meaning*. This may be taken to imply that ekasesa of words ending in different cases is allowed, when no contradiction in meaning ensues. The word samarthah in P.2.1.1 which is to be supplied in the subsequent rules requires different case-endings as suiting to its construction in each particular rule. This would involve contradiction, if all different case-forms were to be presented together m each subsequent rule. But each rule will only select one case-form as is suitable to its construction. Of these different case-forms of the word samartha, efyasesa is formed. The resulting ekasesa-iorm is the word samarthah. The question of contradiction in meaning does not arise m P.2.1.1, because the different case-forms included under the

142

Mahbhsya (R2.1.1)

heading samarthah are not construed with a governing word in that rule. P.2..1 merely states that the word samariha is to be continued. Formation of elasesa is meant to indicate that, instead of using the same word twice or more times, its sing1^ mention will represent all. In offering the possibility of elaesa for the form samarthah Ktyyana means to say that separate mention in the genitive or ablative or locative is not necessary. The mention of the genitive plural form samarthnm in Vritika XVIII limits the application of the rule P.2.1.1 to a particular case and number. In opposition to this the nominative singular is not committed to any number or grammatical case. See Mbh. Vol. I, p. 133, lines 11-13, where Patanjali states that wherever a word in the nominative is used to indicate bare-stem-notion only, we are free to choose whatever case-ending we want. See also Kaiyata on this passage. The nominative case does not express more than the bare-stem-notion samariha. See further Note (51) on abhedalIaivasamJhya and Mbh. Vol. I, p. 95, line 25 elavacanam uisargah Iarisyat *a general rule will be formed (to say that) singular (is used without committment to any number)'. We are also not certain that an e/fasesa-form does not occur in the singular. Patanjali takes the word dvtrvacane in P. 1.1.59 (Mbh. Vol. 1, P. 156, lines 18-19) as an e/fasesa-form, even if it occurs in the singular and has two different meanings. (g) The whole discussion of the commentators on P.2.1.1 starting from Ktyyana's rephrasing is based upon the assumption that in this rule the word padavldh'h is vidheya: 'predicate' and that samarthah is uddcsya: 'subject*. Once the rule is analysed like this there is no other possibility to extract sense out of it but to change the word samarthah into samarthnm. But once the word samaxrthah is taken as v'idheya and padavidh'h as uddesya the rule comes to mean: yatra padavidhih talra samarthah iti adhikriyale: *where an operation concerning finished words is prescribed, there the word samarthah: "semantically connected" is to be supplied'. Thus the rephrasing as well as the ensuing discussion in the Bhsya to interpret the word samartha becomes futile. 136. (Bhsya : Objection) Even so, (the condition samarthah) would be effective from six (words) onwards only, because ekasesa: 'retaining of one (only)' is found to be fully applicable where six or more (words) are concerned. Nagesa:315 (On) 'from six . . . onwards'. By not taking into account the Icapinjaldhikarananyya: 'principle with regard to the topic of the partridges'. Note (123): Singular (samarthah) plus dual (samarthas ca samarthas ca) plus plural (samarthas ca samarthas ca samarthas ca) makes s:x. Ngesa refers to the discussion on the Jciminimlmmsstra 11.1.38 bahuvacanena sarvaprpter 315. P. 341:

Samarthhrtika

43

vikalpah syt: 'in using plural number, option should be there to take any number (from three onwards)', The problem is to determine the number of partridges in the statement kapinjaln labheta: 'one should kill partridges', where the plural form is used. According to the purvapalsin the plural refers to any number from three onwards, but, according to the siddhntin, plural is restricted to three objects. The notion 'three' will occur earlier to our nrnd than that of *four' etc. By killing three partridges we can comply with the injunction, we need not go for more. There is no authority to abandon the idea of 'three*. In the case of the plural form samarthnm also, we should restrict ourselves to three samartha-words. Therefore, Ngesa says, Pataiijali by mentioning a minimum number of six, does not take into account the kap Actually, Ngesa misses the point. Pataiijali does not explain elasesa by saying that samarthasya, samarthasya, samarthasya makes samarthnm, but saying samarthasya. samarthayoh, samarthnm. If we take the plural samarihnm as elasesa for singular, dual and plural, the nrnimum number of objects represented will be six, just as in the case of kapinjaln the minimum number will be three. The Iapinjalanyya states that the minimum number should be taken and this is exactly what Pataiijali does. 137. (Bhsya : Answer)

Nothing wrong here. A sentence (-meaning) fully applies to each (word) separately, so (the rule 2.1.1) will apply even to one or two words. Note (124): See Vrttlka XII on P. 1.1.1 pratyavayavam ca vlftaparisampteh : 'and because (the meaning of a sentence) is fully applicable to each constituent part'. Pataiijali illustrates this by the sentence: 'Devadatta, Yajnadatta and Visnumitra have to be fed.' We do not say: each of them individually. But the meaning of the root bhuj- applies to each of them individually. The example for the opposite view, that sentence-meaning fully applies to the whole only, reads: 'The Gargas should be fined 100 coins'. Kings covet gold and (yet) do not fine individually. What Pataiijali means is the idea expressed by a sentence applies to each individual separately or to all individuals collectively. Following the same principle Bhartrhari states that the sentence-meaning adheres to each individual word as well as to the whole sentence. See Vltyapadya II, 18 and 43. . . . . . . 138. (Bhsya : Objection)

Even so, (the condition samarthnm) would not be effective, when (conditioning) words (are mentioned) in the case-endings other (than the genitive). (For instance, a grammatical operation conditioned by) an

144

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

immediately preceding or following (word would not necessarily apply to a word which is) immediately preceded or followed by a word semantically connected (with the word undergoing the grammatical operation).315* Kaiyata:316 (On) 'Even so*. Thinking that all this317 is a rephrasing318 (the prvapaksin) inquires again. (Example for) samartht (padt:) nn atinah.319 (Example for) samarlhe (pade:) Iutsane ca supy agotrdau.320 The Vrtlila: elcascsanirdesd v states that a grammatical operation like compounding, loss of accent etc. applies to one, two or more semantically connected words. These are the words undergoing the operation. The rule 2.1.1 is effective only for the words on which the grammatical operation is performed. That means that words mentioned as a condition for grammatical operations, like padt: 'when preceded by a finished word' (P.8.1.17) and pade: 'when followed by a finished word' (f.i. in P.8.1.28 and P.8.1.69) will not come under the rule P.2.1.1, because they are not themselves operated upon. In P.8.1.28 the condition paddt is continued from P.8.1.17. Patanjali wants to interpret P.8.1.28 as follows: samartht padt atinah parasya tinah anudtto bhavati: 'a finite verb, when preceded by what is not a finite verb and which is semantically connected (with it), is unaccented*. Similarly, P.8.1.69 is interpreted to mean: sagatir agatir apt tin anuditah samarthe subante: *a finite verb, whether it is connected with a word called gati321 or not, is unaccented, when followed by a case-inflected word denoting censure, which is semantically connected with the preceding finite verb'. Patanjali fears that P.2.1.1 will not supply the condition samartha, when words like padt or subante (i.e. pade) are mentioned which do not refer to words undergoing the grammatical operation, but which function themselves as conditions for the application of a grammatical operation to a following or a preceding word. Therefore, Patanjali thinks that a special provision for such cases is required, it seems that Patanjali's fear is without base. Suppose P.2.1.1 does not supply the con315a. Patanjali's short statement samartht samarthe padt pade means that where we have padt, pade we want samartht, samarthe also. But this is not possible, because padt, pade do not refer to a word undergoing a grammatical operation, but to a condition for the operation. 316. P. 341: q^qrftf^ j ^#^Rfa^f*rftT W%\ "J: Tfrq^ft II II 317. Vrttika XVIII. 318. I.e. of the word samarthah in P.2.1.1. 319. P.8.1.28. 320. P.8.1.69 . 321. See P. 1.4.60 ff.

Samarthhnika

145

. dition samariha in the form samartht or samarthc when the grammatical operation is conditioned by word? like padU pade. We.can, however, certainly supply the condition samarthasya with reference to tinah: 'a finite verb* which is to be operated upon. In that case the rules quoted above mean respectively atinantt padt parasya samarthasyq tinantasya anudito bhavati: 'a finite verb semanticially connected with a preceding word which is not a finite verb loses its accent* and samarthasya i\nah anudito bhavatifyutsanesubante pare: *a finite verb semantically connected with a following case-inflected word expressing censure is unaccented*. As, far as the resulting operation is concerned it does not make any difference whether we supply the condition samariha to the conditioning words padt pade322 or to the word tinah which stands for the verbform undergoing grammatical operation. : As for P. 8.1.28 Pijnini does not teach here that a verb occurring at the beginning of a sentence is accented. This rule is only obtained in Pnini's system by applying the samartha-paribhs. When the word samartha is supplied, P.8.28 comes to mean: 'a finite verb is unaccented when preceded by a word which is not a finite verb and which is semantically connected (with it)'. When a verb occurs, at the beginning of a sentence, it may be preceded by what is not a finite verb as the final word of the preceding sentence. But the finite verb would not lose its accent, because the preceding word is not semantically connected with it, since it does not belong to the same sentence. For instance, the finite verb parsi in Rgv. VI, 4.8 stands at the beginning of a sentence and is not semantically connected with the preceding non-finite-verb pathibhth. There are several examples of this kind in the Veda. 139. (Bhsya : Answer)

If (the difficulty is) such, then (the words) samartha and pada are compounded with the word vidhi in such a way that all case-endings (of samartha and pada are represented):323 iVl. (from) samarthasya vidhih (we derive) samarthavidhih: 'operation applicable to (a word which is) semantically connected'. A.2. (from) samarthayor vidhih (we derive) samarthavidhih: 'operation applicable to two (words which are) semantically connected'. A.3. (from) samarthnm vidhih (we derive) samarthavidhih: 'operation applicable to (more than two words which are) semantically connected'. 322. See Note (122) sub C. 323. The wrod sarvavibhaktyanta does not necessarily mean all case-endings. It may be taken to mean as many case-endings as we require. Samsah sarvauibhaktyantah does not mean a compound ending in all case-terminations, but a compound the first member of which ends in all cases required for our purposes. See Mbh. Vol. I, p. 133, line 9, and Kaiyata and Ngesa on that passage. F10

46

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

A.4. (from) samarthd vidhih (we derive) samarthavidhih: 'operation applicable to (a word) which follows directly after (the word) which is semantically connected (with it)'. A.5. (from) samarthe vidhih (we derive) samarthavidhih: 'operation applicable to (a word) which directly preceeds (the word) which is semantically connected (with it)'. B.I. (from) padasya vidhih (we derive) padavidhih: 'operation applicable to an inflected word*. B.2. (from) padayor vidhih (we derive) padavidhih: 'operation appli cable to two inflected words'. B.3. (from) padnrh vidhih (we derive) padavidhih: 'operation applicable to (more than two) inflected words'. B.4. (from) padd vidhih (we derive padavidhih: 'operation applicable to (a word) directly preceeded by an inflected word'. B.5. (from) pade vidhih (we derive) padavidhih: 'operation applicable to a word directly followed by an inflected word'. C.I. (A 1) samarthavidhis ca (A 2) samarthavidhis ca (A 3) samarthavidhis ca (A4) samarthavidhis ca (A 5) samarthavidhis ca (make) : samarthavidhayah. G.2. (B 1) padaindhis ca (B 2) padavidhis ca (B 3>) padavidhih ca (B 4) padavidhis ca (B 5) padavidhis ca (make) : padavidhayah. D. (from) (G 1) samarthavidhayas ca (C 2) padavidhayas ca (we derive) : samarthah padavidhih. The first compound324 shows loss of its final member. A case-ending325 is (added) as one pleases. Kaiyata326: (On) 'the first compound . . . member*. That means that the word vidhih is dropped, because its meaning is understood. That means that the word 324. I.e. samarthavidhayah. 325. Here the emphasis is on the number indicated by the case-ending. 326. P. 341: ^ ifqrrfr ^ T q ^ ^ f i f a I ffl^rrifsrs^frsrjft'r -tr: i

Samarthhnika

147

samartha can only refer to vidhih: 'operation', because (it is only vidhi which) concerns words which are samartha: *semantically connected*. And since the word pada ending in the genitive case, which expresses relation in general, is compounded with the word vidhih, the meaning of another case-ending is implied also, (and) therefore everything is accomplished by the rule327 itself. (on) 'case ending . . . as one pleases*. When it is possible (to choose between) specific and non-committal intention of statement, we opt for noncommittal (and therefore the word samarihah) is put in the nominative case. Note (126): After Patanjali has formed the compounds samarthavidhayah padavidhayah and has dropped the first ~vidha$ah, the problem remains, why Pnini has not formulated the rule as 'samarthah padavidha$ah\ Patanjali's answer is: ydrcchik vihhakth, that means, the singular is regarded as a general number. See Mbh., Vol. I, p. 95, line 25: ekavacanam utsargah k^Vate: 'singular will be made as the general rule (of which dual and plural are exceptions)'. Kaiyata is not satisfied with Patanjali's five way derivation of samarthasya vidhih padasya vidhih. He thinks that Panini's rule means: samarthasya vidhih padasya vidhih, where the genitive case samarthasya and padasya will include other numbers and cases also, because the genitive expresses relationship in general. It is, therefore, not necessary to take samarthavidhayah and padavidhayah as ekasesa-iorms. In Kaiyata's explanation padasya vidhih is represented by padavidhih, whereas the vidhih belonging to samarthasya is actually implied by the word samarthasya, so no need for dropping it arises. Now the problem is, why Pnini has used the nominative case samarihah padavidhih rather than the genitive. Kaiyata's answer is: ydrcchilfi vibhaJ(tih which he takes from Patanjali, although he uses it in a different meaning, namely that the case-ending (not the number) is added as one pleases. Kaiyata says that the nominative case is a non-committal one and is to be preferred to any other case. So, in the end, the stra is to be retained as it is formulated by Pnini, since it accounts for everything. Throughout this passage Kaiyata quietly insists upon his opinion that the new formulation by Ktyyana and the elaborate explanation by Patanjali are not needed. By just resorting to secondary sense (upacra) the stra can be explained so as to cover all numbers and cases required and no change in the formulation is necessary. This is the explanation which Kaiyata tries to impose upon Patanjali's interpretation. As for Patanjali, his concern is to reject Ktyyana's new formulation by a laborious analysis and to retain Pnini's own wording. Ktyyana prefers to read samaxthnm instead oisamarthah, although he suggests ekasesa as an 327. P. 2.1.1.

148

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1) the word

alternative possibility. But all of the commentators stumble over samarthah.

(HERE ENDS THE SECTION IN WHICH THE OBJECTION THAT P.2.U IS MEANINGLESS IS REFUTED) XIII (NOW.STARTS THE SECTION IN WHICH THE QUESTION OF SYNTACTIC AGREEMENT IS EXPLAINED) XX. (Vrltika : Objection) Because semantic connection is lacking there, inclusion should be made in the case of words which syntactically agree.328 140. (Bhsya : Explanation) Inclusion is to be made in the case of words which syntactically agree: (from) virah purusah: 'brave man' (we derive) vrapurush: 'braveman'. But why cannot we make (this form without the help of the special statement i.e. Vrttika XX)? Because semantic connection is lacking (here). How is there no semantic connection? XXI. (Vrttika : Answer) (Semantic connection will be lacking,) if one takes the view that the individual object is the word-meaning. 141. (Bhsya : Explanation) > .

If the individual object is (taken as) the word-meaning, then semantic connection is lacking (there). But if quality is (taken as) the wordmeaning, then semantic connection is there. For '.bravery' is one quality and 'manhood' another . .
1

Kaiyata329: (On) 'in the case of words which syntactically agree*. Some teachers have accepted (the view) that individual object is the word-meaning. Others (say)

328. Words which syntactically agree are to be considered as semanticlally unconnected, see Vrttika XIII and Bhsya No. 121. The word samndhikaran has two meanings: 1. referring to the same object (adhikarana meaning dravya: *object', see also Bhya No. 161), 2. syntactically agreeing (adhikarana meaning vibhakti, i.e. either case-ending or verbal ending). Throughout the following discussion the first meaning is used. The discussion introduced by Ktyyana here has philosophical connotations rather than grammatical ones. 329. P. 341: qTqrffTffsrfr^qf^fcf \ WNWTO 3T*f ^ C T srfwr: I TH

Samarthhnika

149

lfjrti: 'genus' (is the word-meaning). The word guna: 'quality' also refers to genus, as in yasya gunasya bhvd: 'because of the nature of its quality'.330 (And) because of the (following) definition of guna: 'whatsoever is (always) connected331 (and whatsoever) differentiates (and whatsoever) is operative332, this is declared in science to be quality, because of the fact that it (always) depends on something elsa'.333 If with regard to the example given we take the view that individual object is the word-meaning, (then) the two words vtrah purusah denote one single object, and not 'bravery' and 'manhood' (separately). This being so, compounding will not take place, because semantic connection is lacking, since it is impossible (to postulate) here a connection which requires difference (of wordmeanings). For there is no difference (in objects referred to, and so) a special statement (is required). (On) 'But if quality'. 'Bravery' and 'manhood', although located in one and the same individual, are denoted by these (two different words vrah and purusah), so there is a relation which requires difference, that is what (the Bhsya) means to say. 334: P. 341: (On) 'genus*. The word 'genus' refers to the cause of employing (a particular word with reference to a particular object). Note (127): . Relation involves two things related.. If. a word is taken to stand for an individual ' object, then, the expression 'brave man' would refer to only one object, namely 'man*. So we cannot speak of a meaning-relation here. But if we believe that a word stands for quality, we may say that the expression quoted refers to two qualities: 'bravery' and 'manhood'. In this way meaning-relation is possible even though both qualities are situated in the same object. See also Vtttika XIII and Bhasya No. 120.

II ^fa-

TJT

330. 331. 332. 333 333.

1 1 Vrttika 5 on P.5.1.119. I.e. with a substratum. I.e. having purposive function I I.e. on it substratum. Th quotation is from Vkyapadya III, 5. its b t t The

150

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.I)

What Ngesa means to say is that we use a particular word for a particular object, because the object possesses certain qualities. Therefore guna: 'quality' becomes pravrttinimitia: 'cause of employing (a particular word for a particular object)'. (Bhsya: Refutation of the opinion that difference is the reason for semantic connection) (One can) not (say that) semantic connection is there just because difference is there. For Devadatta is different from both cows and horses. But just because of that (one cannot say that) there is semantic connection (between the word 'Devadatta' and the words 'cow' and 'horse'). Kaiyata335: (On) "difference*. Semantic connection arises (between the two meanings) not just because they are different (from each other), but (it arises) when they intend to point out (mutual) assistance. Ngesa336: (On) upalra. Upalra means (here) assistance (given by words) in forming the connection (between the two wordmeanings) through the relation of qualifier and qualified.337 143. (Bhsya : Counterobjection) What difference (do you have in mind when saying) that there would be semantic connection, if we take quality as wordmeaning, and not, if we take individual object (as wordmeaning)? 144. (hsya : Answer to counte,robjection) The difference is this: both (qualities) have the same substratum (i.e. inhere in the same individual object). (But the qualities are different, because) 'bravery' is one quality, 'manhood' another. Kaiyata338: (On) 'both (qualities) have the same.' So by means of these (qualities) the relation of qualifier and qualified is there. 335. P. 342: 336. P. 342: ^ i n ^ f r I 337. To particularize the object endowed with the quality of 'manhood* (i.e. 'man') the assistance of the quality 'bravery' which also resides in that object ('man') is utilised. 338. p. 342: ^ ^ f t f t f o | ro^ranfanfar fNkwfMfarT: H 142.

Samarthhnifya 145. (Bhsya : Answer rejected)

151

Then even to him who accepts individual object as wordmeaning there would be semantic connection, because different qualities are there. Kaiyata339: (On) 'even to him who accepts individual object as wordmeaning*. (Words referring to) even one single object undergo bhedakrya: 'grammatical operation based upon (a relation which requires) difference', because the relation (which exists between two wordmeanings) exists between (two) different qualities. Ngeia340: (On) bhedakrya. (That is) a kind of mutual relation of qualifier and qualified.341 Note (128):

Kaiyata probably means by bhedafyrya a grammatical operation like compounding which requires a relation between different meanings. For this interpretation we have to supply the phrase 'words referring to* in Kaiyata's statement. But Ngesa interprets bhedaltrya as adjective-noun relation. He may have taken the word krya in its literal sense of 'to be produced, to be effected', since the adjective-noun relation is to be effected by, i.e. is produced by a difference (in denoted meanings). Probably Ngesa could not interpret the term bhedakrya in the statement dravyaih bhedabryam labhate to mean 'grammatical operation', because dravya cannot be said to undergo a grammatical operation, but it can be treated as different owing to the difference in the qualities inherent in it. 146. (Bhsya : Answer justified)

For a man who takes individual object as wordmeaning it is impossible to acknowledge help given by qualities (for establishing differentiation within the same object). Kaiyata342: (On) 'it is impossible'. Because quality, although it functions as the cause jbr differentiation, is not denoted by the word.343 339. 340. 341. 342. 343. P. 342: P. 342: See fn. 317. . P. 342: Sf^f^T ?% I ^^cftfW^M'WfT IPTW ^lcil-^Kqifer: II I.e. if one takes dravyai 'individual thing' as wordmeaning.

152 147.

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.) (Bhsya : Answer rejected)

But is it not a fact that (quality is within (the object))? Kaiyata344: (On) 'But is it not so*. Because dravya: 'individual object' and guna: 'quality' are invariably connected. This is what (the Bhsya) means. 148. (Bhsya : Answer justified)

Even when it is within, still it is not apprehended (through the word). When (the word) 'molasses' is said, (the quality of) sweetness is certainly not apprehended, nor (the quality of) pungency, when (the word) 'ginger' is used. Kaiyata345: (On) 'Even when'. Because (the quality) is closely associated with the (individual object), (it can) even when (the quality) is not directly expressed (be considered as being) within, because (the quality) is a cause for differentiation. (On) 'still . . . not apprehended*. That means, (the quality) is not explicitly stated by the word. Ngesa346: Ayam bhvah . . . The idea is this: There are many qualities invariably connected with an individual object. But not all of them are always present (in our mind) through recollection. Therefore, unless (these qualities) are presented through words, it is impossible to say that they differentiate (the individual object). This is what (Kaiyata) means to say. Note (29): What is not expressly denoted by the word cannot help to differentiate tke object. Ngesa interprets the word samnidhi: 'nearness' in the sense of smrti: '(association caused by) remembrance*. 344. P. 342: ^ $fo j gfBirzr ijnT fac^^TTfor: II 345. P. 342: q^cftff | S^fa^fatTr^tfa fcfcfc <Tft!s#*igctW*M'd<: 346. P. 342 : apj i^:-gozpjr pfRf3"fN^ft T^t 'TTT:

Samarthknika 149. (Bhsya : Answer rejected)

153

Then even for him who accepts quality as wordmeaning it is impossible to acknowledge help given by the individual object to the quality? Kaiyata347: (On) 'Even for him who accepts quality as wordmeaning'. That means, if helpfulness of what is not expressly denoted is not accepted. Or, even if helpfulness of what is not expressly denoted is accepted, then (this348) will be the same in both views. 150. (Bhsya : Answer justified) But suppose that he who accepts quality as wordmeaning does acknowledge (help of the individual object to establish semantic connection, what then?). . .. . ; -, :, Ngesa349: (On) In the Bhsya: 'suppose that he . . . does acknowledge*. (Here) we have to supply: 'compounding of words which syntactically agree'. Note (130): According to Ngesa the Bhsya means this: *But suppose that he who accepts quality as wordmean;ng admits compounding of words which syntactically agree*. In. the translation given above the object of pratijriite is upakram (as in Bhsya No. 149). Ngesa takes samsam as the object. Ultimately it comes to the same, because in .admitting upakra :..Jhelp* of qualities, the possibility for a relation is created/which itself forms the* basis for compounding. 151. (Bhsya : Counterargument) . . (Then) why would not the man who accepts the individual object as wordmeaning also acknowledge (help of the ^quality lo establish semantic connection)? 152. (Bhsya : Counterargument rejected)

In this way (it is problematic whether) there would or would not be semantic relation between those two (syntactically agreeing words vrah and purusah). 347. P. 342: TTUTCT^"rfq%rr<[tftf^f | H 348. I.e. the fact that help is required. If we accept this help, smndhikaranya is possible in both views, otherwise not. See also Note (131). 349. P. 342: ^ ^ r f ^ p f t ^ ^ f } WHlfcsFWft: WKlfofa ^ : H

154

Mahbhsya (P.2.I.1)

Note (131): To maintain semantic connection between two syntactically agreeing words the one meaning needs the help of the other meaning, either as an individual object or as a quality. If mutual help is admitted, semantic connection will be there, whether the word denotes quality or individual object. If mutual help is not admitted, there will be no semantic connection, whether the word denotes quality or individual object. 153. (Bhsya : Counterobjection) But where indeed would (the rule visesanarn, visesyena bahulam*50 without causing a problem of semantic connection) apply351 with a word which syntactically agrees? Kaiyata352: (On) 'But where indeed*. That means, if one does not accept help of what is not expressly denoted by a word. Ngesa353: (On) 'With a word which syntactically agrees*. That means a qualifier (word) with a syntactically agreeing qualified (word).354 154. (Bhsya : Counterobjection rejected) Where everything is the same, as in indrah sakrah puruhtah puraihdarah (and) kanduh ko?thah kuswlah. Kaiyata355: (On) 'Where everything*. He thinks that (the word samndhikarana in samndhikaranena samdsah: 'compounding takes place with samndhi^arana 350. P.2.1.57 states that often a qalifier (i.e. adjective) is compounded with a qualified (word, i.e. noun). In P.2.1.57 the word samndhikaranena is continued from P.2.1.49. The word samndhikaranena in the Bksya text refers to compounding prescribed for a word which stands in syntactical agreement. For this compounding reference to two different meanings one of which functions as an apposition to the other is required. Samndhikarana-words, however, have the same reference. See Note (127). 351. I.e. without giving rise to the problem whether we have to acknowledge help of the individual object as wordmeaning or of the quality as wordmeaning. Can an instance be shown where this problem does not arise? 352. P. 342: spr ^ grRffr | q^frsFft^VTT^^TsftcT%&$: II 353. P. 342: ^j*ffJ*?ffST^f>T^^f^T I fMfatf fW^zpTOTfflTf^TW#cftc*Pf:II 354. See P.l.2.42 and P.2.1.57. 355. P. 342-343: q-sr ^f^f^ftf I ^HTR^^^TW'TftTW TOT ^T : ?i

Samarthhnila

15 5

word) means having one adhilarana, i.e. reference to the same object, i.e. with a synonym.356 And then where the cause of employing (a word with reference to a particular object) is identical and also the (object) referred to is the same, there (a case of samndhikarana compound) arises. But how can there be a relation of qualifier and qualified (in indrah salrah etc.)? The answer is that to someone that object is wellknown by some designation, but not so by another designation. Therefore (the designation) which is wellknown will be qualifier and that which is not wellknown will be qualified. Note (132): The words listed in the example are synonyms. The first four of them stand for the name of Indra, the remaining three for 'granary*. The names of Indra are mentioned in AmaraJ^osa I, 41a: indro . . . , 41b: puruhdah puramdarahf 42a: . . . sakrah.3*7 Amarakosa III, 3,40358 lists: . . . fastha . . . Iuslo . . . . but not fyandu which is separately listed359 in another meaning. According to this view of samndhikarana, compounds are only allowed of synonyms, f.i. a (hypothetical) compound like indrasalpah. In the case of synonyms the pravrtiinimitia: 'cause of employing (a word for a particular object)' is, of course, the same. In the expression n/o ghatah: 'black jar' the vcya: '(object) to be referred to' is one, namely 'jar', but there is a difference in pravrtlinimitta. The word nla refers to the object 'jar*, because this latter possesses the quality ntlatva: 'blackness*. The word ghatd refers to the object, because this latter has a particular shape, typical of a pot (ghatatva). But in the case of synonyms there is no difference in pravrttinimitta, nor in vcya. 155. (Bhsya : Counterobjection justified) We cannot form a compound of such (synonymous) words, nor do we receive (any) information (from such a compound) either. Why not? Words are used for the sake of understanding of meaning. I want to convey a meaning, with that intention I use a word. This being so, we should not use a second word359a since meaning has (already) been expressed by one (word).359b Why not? Because (words) are not used to denote meanings which have (already) been expressed by other words. Kaiyata360: ; (On) 'not . . . of such*. That means, because (synonyms) are not used together at the same time, and because there is no meaning-relation.361 356. See fn. 360. The word adhikarana stands for vcya: 'referent'. 357. Amara's Nmalingnusanam, ed. by H. D. SHARMA and N. G. Poona 1941, p. 14. 358.. Ibid., p. 279. ... 359. Ibid., p. 206. 359a. I.e. a synonym of the first word. 359b. I.e. the first word. 360. P. 343: 361. See Note (127).
SARDESAI,

156 Note (133):

Mahbhsya (P.2..1)

If it is not known to which object the word 'Indra' refers, we may explain by saying that * Indra' has the same meaning as 'akra'. What is conveyed by the word * Indra' in this case is the word-form i-n-d-r-a only, and it does not stand for any object. The statement indrah sakrah usually points out that the first word indrah is synonymous with the second word sakrah. They are not used in language together to convey additional information. We can use them together when they differ in imaginative association and poetic values. But in that case they cease to be synonyms of each other. 156. (Bhsya : Objection)

Then (do you mean to say that) the following compound is not allowed: bhrtyabharanlya: 'servant'? Kaiyata362: Bhrtyabharamya. The idea is that this is usage accepted by scholars. Note (134): Bhrtya and bharamya are synonyms, meaning 'servant'. 157. (Bhsya : Answer)

These two (words are) not synonyms. In the example given one; (word) is (derived by means of) a krtya(-suffix) in the meaning 'possible,363, the other in the meaning 'worthy of'.364 Bhrtya (means) 'capable of being maintained'. Bharatiya means 'worthy of being maintained'. (From) bhrtyah bharanyah: 'capable of being maintained as well as worthy to be maintained' (we derive) bhrtyabhararuyah. Kaiyata365: (On) 'These . . . not*. That means that they have different meanings, because there is a difference in associative features. Note (135): The features associated with bhrtya and bharanfya are respectively sak^atva and arhatva. Theoretically the difference in meaning between these two words is this that the first word expresses the capability of the master to maintain a servant, and the second word the worthiness of the servant to be maintained 362. P. 343: ^zr^oftir ^ftf | 3fer ^PT ftP^ST^ ^ T T T : II TC 363. P.3.3.172.C 364. P.3.3.169. 365. P. 343:

Samarthhnika

157

by the master. The compound bhrtyabharanya is not a dvandva, but a karmadhraycLy because reference is to one and the same object. Compounding is possible, because a relation of qualifier and qualified can be maintained between bhrtya and bharanfya. 158. (Bhsya : Objection) If (you argue like this), then (syntactic agreement) should be wherever there is something in common and (wherever is) some difference. Then it would allso be here: (from) darsanlyy mt: 'mother of a beautiful (daughter)', (we derive) darany mt: 'beautiful mother'.366 Here also (there is) something in common and there is some difference. But what is that? Existence and difference. Kaiyata367: (On) 'beautiful mother*. That means, if compounding is made by appealing to something in common, although difference is (also) there, then, just as compounding is made by appealing to something in common368 in the case of vlrapurusah: 'brave-man', although Jravpa: 'individual object' is not expressly denoted, in the same way here also compounding369 would result, because existence is the common thing.370 But will not genitive compounding result here, because it is prescribed by the later rule?371 This is not the case. The prohibition samndhikaranena na: '(compounding does) not (take place) with (a word) in syntactic agreement'372 would apply. If one would object: what opportunity is there for the rule373, ithtn our answer is that) no desired agreement could be made.374 Also treatment as a masculine form as conditioned by the last member of a compound which stands in syntactic agreement (with the first member) would be applicable.37^ 366 The actual compound-form would be darsanxyamt. The Bhya mentions only the uncompoundd form, but Kaiyata says the compound can be formed. 367. P. 343 : j^pftrrr TfT^f I *fr Hfir ^ Tifa%tftfR*rrfac*rSTCT: ftflt ^ T :M * T ^ I T ^ T 368. I.e. the common substratum in which the qualities inhere. ; 369. In darany mt. 370. Existence is the common thing for mother and daughter, even if it is not expressly denoted. 371. The later rule is P.2.2.8, with respect to P.2.1.57 which covers all cases. ' 372. P.2.2.11. 373. I.e. what opportunity is there for P.2.2.8, since P.2.2.11 will always overrule it? 374. The presupposition being, that this interpretation of the word samndhikarana is accepted. 375. This treatment would apply to the first member even in the case of a genitive tatpuma, according to P.6.3.42,

158 Note (136):

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

In the example given, there cannot be syntactic agreement, because the words concerned refer to two different objects. But according to the view just stated, syntactic agreement should be there, because a common feature is there as well as diffrence. If we accept this, the form darsariiyamt would result in thte meaning 'mother of a beautiful daughter*. The common feature is declared to be existence, that is, of mother and beautiful daughter. Difference is also there, the mother being different from her beautiful daughter. The compound would be a kofmadharctya in the form darsamyamt, according to P.6.3.42. Its analysis showing syntactic agreement is darsanty mt. Its meaning would be that of a genitive iatpurusa, namely, darsamyyh ml. 159. (Bhsya : Answer)

There is no instance where existence and difference are not there. Still it is stated: samndhikaranena: '(compounding takes place) with (a word) which stands in syntactic agreement'.376 In that (statement the term samndhikaranena) will be understood as '(with a word which syntactically agrees) in a higher degree'. Where we will have syntactic agreement in a better (way), (there only we will form a compound of syntactically agreeing words). But where (do we have) a better syntactic agreement? Where everything is common: existence, difference and individual object. Note (137): Summary: The compound vtrapurusah is a samndhlkarana compound. The question is how to account theoretically for its formation. Compounding can only take place on the basis of a semantic connection between two different meanings. A samndhikarana-compound, the constituents of which stand in syntactic agreement, i.e. refer to one and the same thing, must also show the connection between two different meanings. It is thought that clarification of the nature of wordmeaning might be helpful to lead us out of the impasse. Is the individual object to be taken as wordmeaning, or rather the quality? The conclusion is that, in fact, both views are required, if we want to justify a samnadhilarana compound. We will have to say that a samndhiIarana. compound refers to one and the same object through difference in qualities. The object functions as the common location of different qualities. In the case of vtrapurusa the individual object 'man' provides us with the common location and the qualities 'bravery* and 'manhood* represent two different meanings. 376. P.2.1.57.

Samarthhnika

159

In Bhsya Mo. 158 the compound darsamyamt is proposed in the sense of 'mother of a beautiful daughter*. The difficulty here is that two individual objects, mother and daughter, are referred to. The question arises whether we can form the compound by taking existence as the common substratum, i.e. by viewing the different individuals in their aspect of existence as one object, not in their aspect of individuality. The answer given in Bhdsya No. 159 is in the negative. Existence is too common a link and makes, in fact, the statement samndhikaranena superfluous. In accepting existence as the connecting link between different meanings we could form samanadh'tfyarana compounds everywhere naturally. No special statement would be required. We cannot, of course, dispense with existence, because it is the presupposition of connection and difference. But for forming samndhikarana compounds existence as the common factor will not be sufficient. We need something more specific than this. Therefore, we will take the statement samndhikarancna to mean samndhikaranatarena377 or sdhfyas samndhiffaranena: 'more syntactically agreeing* The syntactic agreement in this true sense occurs where the different qualities reside in the same object. Therefore, to establish syntactic agreement reference to the same object by the two wordmeanings in question is needed together with reference to existence and to the different qualities. This Bhsya should not be taken to mean that 'existence* is required for forming samndhikarana compounds. But when individuality is taken into account, existence, even if it is taken into account, will not harm the formation. In any case the compound darsanyamat in the sense proposed here is not allowed. 160. (Bhsya : Another answer)

Or rather, by the word samndhikaranena: *(compounding takes place) with (a word) which stands in syntactic agreement' that connecting link is referred to which (sometimes) is common and (sometimes) not. But this (existence can) not (be taken as) the connecting link, (because) there is no instance in which it is not there. Kaiyata378 (On) 'But this . . . not*. Since existence is everywhere, it cannot be taken as a connecting link, because we cannot get away from it. The first answer379 377. See Mbh. Vol. I. p. 331, lines 17-18: abhirpya kany dey: 'the girl should be given to a handsome (bridegroom)'. This is what every father wants to do naturally. Therefore, abhirpa must be taken to mean abhirpatama : 'most handsome'. 378: P. 343: ^ ^ ' f srfa* 379. I.e. the one given in Bhsya No. 159.

160

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

accepts the fact that (existence) may be the connecting link (and points out that it is not so here) by taking (the term samndhifyarancna to mean Vith a word which is syntactically connected) in a higher degree', because (samndhil(aranena) is considered as a restatement showing emphasis.380 The second answer points out that existence cannot be taken as the cause for saying (that two different objects are) one, because it is common to everything. Note (138): \

From the expression mlah ghatah: 'black jar' we can derive a compound, because mlatvam: Slackness' is not invariably connected with ghataivam: 'jarness*. When the property nllatvam resides in the jar, we will form the compound tilaghatah,, otherwise not. The use of the qualifying term m/a aims at the elimination of other qualifiers, like *red\ * white', etc.381 But we cannot justify smndhikaranya: *syntactic agreement', which involves a relation of qualifier and qualified by taking 'existence' as a common basis in which different qualities reside. 'Existence' as a common basis is too .^common, it cannot serve as a common basis for two different qualities. It would destroy the function of the adjective as a differentiating word. ': 161. (Bhsya : Another answer)

Or rather, to say sqmndhikaranena: '(compounding takes place) with (a word) which stands in syntactic agreement' amounts to saying samnadravyena: '(compounding takes place) with (a word) denoting the same object'. For in daily usage (the word) dravya is used in the meaning of adhikarana. For instance, (in the expressions) ekasmin dravye vyuditam: 'there is a dispute about dravya: "thing" as a single entity'; ekasminn adhikarane vyuditam: 'there is a dispute about adhikarana: "thing" as a single entity'. Similarly, in grammar, in the rule vipratisiddham cnadhikaranava382 we understand (the word anadhikaranava) as adravyav. 380. The word punhsruty in Kaiyata's comments is not uncommon wherever Patafijali says prakarsagati. Punahsruti literally means 'restatement'. It is used with regard to a common practice which is accepted without a rule to that effect. If still a rule or statement is made to that effect, it means that it is to be taken emphatically. See fn. 385. .381. For a more elaborate discussion on this point see S. D. Jos HI, 'Adjectives and Substantives as a Single Class in the 'Parts of Speech', Publications of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, University of Poona, Poona 1966, "'-' pp. 26-27: * ' '' 382. P.2.4.13V The rule states that dv an dva-compounds consisting of words having opposite meanings take optionally singular, except when they denote concrete things.

Samarthhnika

161

Kaiyata383: (On) 'Or rather*. The inquiry was whether the word adhikarana stands for meaning (in general, like 'existence') (and) the answer is that it means dravya: *object*. In the expression daranyyh mt: 'mother of a beautiful daughter', however, (we understand) a difference in objects (referred to). But (if) existence (is considered as) the referent then, since it is common (to both mother and the beautiful daughter) there would be sameness (of location). Note (139): Adhikarana stands for an individual object as the common location of qualities residing in it, not just for a general wordmeaning384 like 'existence' considered as the common location of qualities. In darsamyyh mt the word mtr denotes both: the individual object 'mother' and 'existence', and darsamy again denotes the individual object 'beautiful daughter' and 'existence'. The common location of qualities is now mother and daughter as well as any other individual object viewed from the point of existence. The present Bhsya points out that samndhikarana does not refer to 'existence' as the common location of the qualities 'motherhood' and 'daughterhood' and consequently prohibits the formation of the compound. 162. (Bhsya : Objection) Even so, (still) the following rule must necessarily be stated: samndhikaranam asamarthavad bhavati: '(a word) which stands in syntactic agreement is treated as not semantically connected'. Why? Because (we have) such (forms) as sarpih klakam: 'black ghee', yajh pitakam: 'Yajurveda drunk (and vomited)'.385 Kaiyata386: (On) * sarpih klalam'. To prevent change of s into 5 according to the rule isusoh smarthye387 a special rule must be formulated. Consequently, compounding of syntactically agreeing words like virapurusahi 'brave-man' would not take place either. This is what (the Bhsya) means. 383. P. 344: 3 ^ %fr ^ f a ^ T ^ ^ s f a ^ T ^ f a <T*pWt 5 i 384. See Vkyapadya, II 119, quoted in fn. 118. 385. This expression probably refers to the story in the Vi^ttupurna III 5, 1-29. According to this story Yjnavalkya had first swallowed the Yajurueda and was then commanded by Vaisampyana to vomit it up. Pita means *drunk, swallowed'. The suffix -ka must be explained as svrthe, see P.2.28-33. Pltaka can hardly mean 'yellow' here, because no reference to a yellow branch of the Yajurveda is known. 386. P. 344: nM 387. P.8.3.44 states that ? is optionally substituted for the visarga of words ending in -if and -us, when the words concerned are semantically connected. F. 1

162 Note (140):

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

The expression sarpih Jcalafyam and yajuh ptafyam contain words in syntactical agreement. Since these words are also semantically connected with each other, P.8.3.44 would apply and the visarga would be optionally changed into s. This change, however, is not desired, because the accepted usage has visarga. Therefore, a special statement is required to invalidate the condition smarlhyc in P.8.3.44 for words in syntactic agreement. Only in this way optional change of s into s can be avoided. But once this special rule samndhikaranam asamarthavad bhavati is stated, it will prevent compounds like vrapurusa* where the condition samartha is needed. 163. (Bhsya : Counierobjection)

If we state the special rule samndhikaranam asamarthavad bhavati: '(a word) which shows syntactic agreement (with another word) is treated as not semantically connected' (,then) no change of s into s would take place (in the expressions) sarpis ply ate: 'ghee is drunk' (and) yajus kriyate: c Yajus is made'.388 164. (Bhsya : Counter objection rejected)
388a

This (would be the case, only if syntactic agreement) is not expressed by a (finite) verb. Kaiyata389: (On) *not expressed by a finite verb*. By the word dhtu: 'root' a suffix accompanied by a (verbal) root is expressed (here). Therefore, when the object-relation etc. is expressed (by a verbal ending), then (there will) necessarily (be) semantic relation.389a This is the meaning (of the Bhsya text). Note (141): y4samar//ia-treatment only applies when syntactic connection is not expressed by a finite varb, but in some other way. 165. (Bhsya : Summing up)

And when we look at the matter in this way, inclusion should be 388. The meaning of the word yajus is not clear. 388a. I.e. the special rule quoted above will only apply when syntactic agreement is not formed with a finite verb. 389. P. 344: ^ - ^ j ^ - j f j ^ { ^ ^ f ^ . ^-^ ^ ^ 3 ^ ^ . , 389a. Because the term dhtu refers to a finite verb,

Samarlhahmia

163

made of words which stand in syntactic agreement3891*, (so that from) virah purusah: 'brave-man' (we may derive) tnrapurusah: 'brave-man'. Why (is this inclusion necessary)? Because (words like these) are asamartha: 'not semantically connected'. XXII. (Vrttika : Answer) Or (inclusion need) not (be made), on the authority of the rule.389c 166. (J5/ispa : Explanation)

Or (inclusion need) not be made. Why not? On the authority of the rule. In cases like this389d compounding will take place on the authority of the rule. Authority of which rule? (The rule) samnamadhyamadhyamavr ca.390 Kaiyata391: (On) 'Or . . . not*. That means asmarthyam: 'treatment as not semantically connected' (mentioned) in the statement392 is overruled on account of (this) rule.393 But in the expression virah paean: 'cooking hero' (Patanjali) considers that compounding cannot take place394, because (the compound vuapacan) could not express the same meaning (as that of the uncompounded expression)395, when (syntactic agreement) is expressed by a verbal form; or because of (the device) bahulam.396 Note (141A): P.2.1.58 prescribes that the case-inflected words prva . . . vira are compounded with syntactically agreeing words; for instance, from prvah vaiyIaranh: 'foremost grammarian' we derive prvavaiyaltaranah. The compound cannot be formed, if syntactically agreeing words are treated as asamartha, because P.2.1.1 prohibits compounding of asamartha words. The consequence is

389b. I.e. for compounding of words which syntactically agree a special statement is necessary, since the general statement samndnikaranam asamarthavad bhavati prohibits their compounding. 389c. I.e. the rule which allows us to form such compounds. 389d. I.e. in virah puruah etc. 390. Patanjali quotes P.2.1.58 by abbreviation. See further Note (142). 391. P. 344: ^ gfj^- j 392. Samndhikaranam asamarthavad bhavati, see Bhya No. 162. 393. P.2.1.58. 394. I.e. by P.2.1.58. 395. This does not mean that vrapacan has another meaning than virah paean. It is simply not used. 396. The word bahulam is used in P.2.1.57 to prevent such a compound. Consequently, virah paean cannot be quoted as an instance of P.2.1.58.

164

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

that P.2.1.58 becomes redunant. This cannot be. Therefore we must assume that this gives us a clue to understand that the statement samndhikaranam asamarihavad bhavati does not apply, when compounding of samndhilcarana words is especially prescribed. XXIII. {Vrttika : Extension of the scope of objection and answer)

Also in the case of (compounds where) verbal forms have been elided. 167. (Bhsya : Explanation)

Also in the case of (compounds where) verbal forms have been elided397 inclusion should be made. ( Examples : ) niskausmbih : 'departed from KauimbF; nirvrnasih: 'departed from Vrnas'. (Other explanation:) Also in the case of (compounds where) verbal forms have been elided (inclusion should not be made). Why not? Just because of the authority of the rule (compounding will take place). Authority of which rule? (The rule) kugatiprdayah.398 Kaiyata399: (On) 'Also in the case of . . . which are elided'. This Vrttika intends to renew the statement (na v) vacanaprmnyt.400 But the author of the Bhsya, for the sake of more detailed explanation, loaches inclusion and cancellation by forming two different sentences (out of what was originally one sentence).401 By the word lchyta: Verbal form' verbal forms like krnta etc. are also included. (On) niskausmbih. (Patenjali) considers that there102 is no semantic connection between the first and the last member. Because preverbs are always connected with a verb, they do not enter into relation with (a word denoting) object. 397. See Note (81). 398. P.2.2.18 states that the word ku, the particles called gati and pra etc. enter into a compound with other words ending in the nominative. 399. P. 344:

400. Vrttika XXII. I.e. the word ca in this Vrttika refers to na v in Vrttika XXII and not to upasamkhynam in Vrttika XX. 401. This procedure is called vkyabhcda, for which see Note (59). The two different sentences are luptkhytesu ca kartavyam and luptkhytesu ca na kartavyam. 402. NameJy, luptkhytesu ca,

Samarthhrka

165

Note (142): The Vrttika is explained twice by Patanjali and therefore repeated in the Bhdsya. In the first explanation the word ca in the Vrttika refers back to Vrttika XX and in the second explanation to Vrttika XXII. According to the latter explanation no special rule for inclusion of compounds where verbal forms have been elided is needed. That is to say, the Vrttika: luptlchytesa ca (upasaml(hyanam) is not required, because compounding of words like nisl?ausmbih can be justified by P.2.2.18, which states that pra etc. are compounded with semantically connected words. In nisfyausmbih, analysed as nislrntah Icausmbhyh, the verbal form krnta, with which the preverb nir is semantically connected, is understood. See Vrttika XIV on P.2.2.24: prdibhyo dhtujasya v: '(compounding) of what originates from a verbal root following after pra etc. (is to be stated as a bahuvnhi and) optional (elision of the last member should be stated as well)'.403 In nislausmbih, no semantic connection exists between nir and kausmb. Since P.2.2.18 cannot be applied in absence of semantic connection between the first and second member of the compound, a special rule, which allows this kind of compounding is necessary. Now Patanjali says that a special rule to this effect is not necessary, because we can justify the compounds niskausmbih prcryah etc. by P.2.2.18. These compounds are analysed as niskrntah kausmbyh: 'departed from Kausmb* and pragath cryah: 'advanced teacher*. The elision of the verbal forms l^rnta, gala etc. is not prescribed here by a special rule as it is prescribed in the case of the bahuvrhi compounds by Vrttika XIV on P.2.2.24. Pnini assumes that the compounds prcryah and niskausmbih as a whole denote the meanings 'advanced teacher* and 'departed from Kausmb, without adding the words gala, krnta and subsequently dropping them. But according to the condition samartha (P.2.1.1) we cannot derive them from nir + kausmb and pra + crya, when these words are not semantically connected. Therefore P.2.2.18, which prescribes these compounds without making provision for semantic connection in the form of supplying the meanings krnta, gta, etc. and for subsequently dropping these meanings, becomes redundant. Since we cannot give any example for P.2.2.18 where the semantic connection between the two members is direct, without supplying meanings like krnia, gta etc., we will have to assume that P.2.2.18 is effective even when semantic connection between the two members is shown by understood meanings like Jranta, gta etc. Therefore, Patanjali says that no special rule, i.e. Vari'ka XXIII, for the inclusion of these compounds is necessary. See Note (81). 403. In the case of tatpurusas this Vrttika does not prescribe elision of verbal forms like krnta, but states that preverbs are compounded with the following word to denote the sense krnta etc. This indicates that preverbs are not semantically connected with a following member in the compound, unless verbal forms like krnta are supplied. See Vrttika III and IV on P.2.2.18.

166 168.

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1) (Bhsya : Answer rejected)

There is another purpose in stating this rule.404 Which? (Examples:) surj: 'good king'; atirj; 'excellent king3. Note (143): In prdi (P.2.2.18) the words su and ati are included. In compounds formed with these words no verbal form is elided and semantic relation exists between the members of the compound without a verbal form being supplied. Therefore, we cannot say that P.2.2.18 would be vyartha: 'redundant*. Since it has a scope where semantic connection exists between the first and the second member of the compounds like surj, atirj etc., it would not be applicable in examples like niskausdmbUi where the semantic connection is lacking. To include these cases we will have to make a special rule luptkhytesu ca (Vdrttika XXIII). 169. (Bhsya : Intention of the answer) We do not say: 'on the authority of a statement in the form of a stra which is provided with a gloss'. What then? (We say:) 'on the authority of a statement in the form of Vrttikas (namely:) siddharn tu kvnsvatidurgativacant405 (and) prdayah ktrthe.406 Note (144): Bhsya 169 points out that by the statement vrttisutravacanaprmnyt we do not mean that P.2.2.18 will be redundant, because we know that it (P.2.2.18) has a scope in the examples surj and atirj, where we find semantic connection between the two members without supplying the meanings fyranta, gta etc. But the statement vrttisvttravacanaprmnyt refers to the Vrttikas HI and IV on P. 2.2.18. Vrttika IV, prdayah ktdyarthe, prescribes compounding of pra etc. with a word ending in the nominative, in the past participle meaning gata etc. According to this Vrttika* the compound prcryah is analysed as pragatah caryah. In the compound prcryah we cannot show that the constituents pra and acryh are semantically connected, unless the meaning gttah is understood or supplied. Now this Bhsya makes it clear that Vrttika IV on P.2.2.18 will be redundant, unless we assume that the semantic connection is effected through the supplied meaning gatah etc. Since, in fact, this Vrttika assumes compounding where the meaning of a verbal form like gata etc. is supplied or understood, the special rule luptkhytesu ca (Vrttika XXIII) to this effect is not necessary. 404. P.2.2.18. 405. Vrttika III on P.2.2.18 says: *but it (i.e. compounding) is achieved on account of the special rule concerning (the words) ku, an, su, ati, dur and (the particles called) gati\ 406. Vrttika IV on P.2.2.18 says: 'pra etc. (are compounded with a semantically connected word) in the sense of past participle'.

Samarthahni^a

167

Patanjali refers to Pnini's Astdhyyl by the name Vrtiislra. See KIELHORN'S Mbh. Vol. 1, P. 424, line 21 on P. 2.2.24. Ngesa interprets vrttistra as vrttiyufytam siram: 'rule provided with a gloss*. He also notes another reading: vrttih stravacanaprmnyt: 'compounding (takes place) on the authority of a statement in the form of a stra*. This reading occurs in many mss., see the Nirnaya-Sgar Press ed. of Patanjali's Vykatana- Mahbhsya, Vol. II, Bombay 1912, p. 345, note 1. The KIELHORN-ABHYANKAR ed. (Vol. I., p. 371, line 18) reads vrttistra. XXIV. (Vrttika : Another answer) Or (compounding is achieved) because of tadarthagati: '(implicit) understanding of its meaning'. 170. (Bhsya : Explanation) Or also, this is achieved because of tadarthagati: '(implicit) understanding of its meaning'. (The compound tadarthagati may be derived as follows:) (from) tasya arthasya (we derive) tadarthasya: 'of the meaning of that'; (from) tadarthasya gatih (we derive) tadarthagatih : 'understanding of its meaning'; (from tadarthagatih we derive) tadarthagateh : 'because of understanding of its meaning'. The meaning of (the word) which is semantically connected with (the word) kausmb, that meaning is expressed407 by (the preverb) nir. Or rather (the compound tadarthagati is derived as follows:) (from) sah art hah (we derive) tadarthah: 'that meaning'; (from) tadarthasya gatth (we derive) tadarthagatih: 'understanding of that meaning'; (from tadarthagatih we derive) tadarthagateh : 'because of understanding of that meaning'. The meaning which is semantically connected with (that of) the word kausmb, that (meaning) is expressed by (the preverb) nit. Kaiyata408: (On) 'its meaning'. The meaning which we understand from the word krnla is implied by the word nir, because it is semantically connected with (the meaning) belonging to action409 (,and) through this (implied meaning) a semantic relation between the first and the last member (of the compound) is (established). (On) 'that meaning'. (The second derivation given by Pataiijali) shows that (the preverb) nir itself has the meaning of nislpnta, when compounding is concerned. 407. 'Expressed', that means here, according to Kaiyata, 'implied'. 408. P. 345: ^ r p ^fo \ : II ^ r ^fafff II 409. As expressed by the verb kram-.

168 Note (\45):

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

In the compounds prcryah and niskausmbih the words gala and krnia respectively are not elided, so the Vrttika says. The first interpretation given by Patanjali suggests that the meaning of these words is implied in the meaning of the compound-members. Through this implied meaning the semantic connection between the first and the second member is maintained. The second interpretation, starting from atha v: 'or rather', says that nir in the compound stands for nisfyrnta and pra for pragata. Here the meaning of krnta and gala is not implied, but actually expressed by nir and pra, when they form part of the compounds nisfyausambih and prcryah. (HERE ENDS THE SECTION IN WHICH THE QUESTION OF SYNTACTIC AGREEMENT IS EXPLAINED) XIV (NOW STARTS THE SECTION ON THE PROPER NUMBER OF CONSTITUENT WORDS IN A COMPOUND) 171. (Bhsya But wherever the question is) time or rather cation.410 : Question) is a possibility to form a compound out of many (words, whether in such a case two words are compounded at a (compounding takes place) without (such a) specifi-

Kaiyata411: (On) 'But where*. Where the first and second member of a compound specifically stated as in (the rule) dvifiy srita . . . 412, there is no possibility many words (to be compounded). But where specification is not made, as the rules) anekam anyapadrthe^ (and) crthe JvanJvafo414, there (this)

are for (in doubt

410. I.e. restriction concerning number. 411. P. 345: 3f2r qif \ Z T fafr ffa^trn^ 3 W *WT fg^ftxTT f ^ f a 5 T P P

412. P.2.1.24 states that a word in the accusative is compounded with srita: 'resorted to' etc. 413. P.2.2.24 states that two or more words form a compound denoting a different thing. See Note (59). 414. P.2.2.29 states that several words form a dvandva in the meaning of ca: 'and', See Note (59).

Samarthahmla

169

arises: If the phrase sup sup (saha samasyate)415 is continued, then compounding should take place of two words at a time, because (here)416 the number is intentionally used. If it is discontinued, then as many words may be compounded as we may want to compound in the sense of anyapadrtha : 'different thing* and of ca: 'and'.417 But (one might object) that (compounding) should take place of many words, since the word ancka: 'two or more' is mentioned.418 Otherwise il419 would be meaningless. (The answer is that) this is not so. The word anela is mentioned for the sake of the designation upasarjana*20, which is meant for shortening (of vowels) in words like citragu: 'having brindled cows'. But if it is argued that the designation upasarjana is justified, because the members of the compound are used in one and the same case-ending, then the word anea is understood to have the purpose of discontinuing (the conditioning phrase) sup sup. Therefore, compounding of many words would be justified. Note (146): P. 1.2.43 prescribes that what is referred to by a word mentioned in the nominative case in rules concerning compounding receives the designation upasarjana. In order to have the designation upasarjana for more than one word in a ka/iuvr/ii-compound the word anekam: 'two or more' is mentioned in the nominative case in P.2.2.24. In a bahuvfihi both members will, therefore, be called upasarjana. In thefca/mvr/if-compoundcitragu the vowel of the word go: 'cow' has been shortened by P. 1.2.48. The shortening is only allowed, if go is upasarjana. But the designation upasarjana may very well apply by P. 1.2.44. This rule prescribes the designation upasarjana for the word which always will stand in the same case in the meaning-analysis of the compound. If that case-ending is invariably the same, the constituent will receive the designation upasarjana. For instance, when we analyse the compounds ms^ausambih, nislausambim, nislausmbin, the paraphrase will be fausmbyh nisrantah, fcausmbyh nislcrntam,fausambyhniskrntena. Since kausmbyh appears in the same case-ending throughout, the constituent kausmbl will be called upasarjana. In the case of citraguh both members will invariably appear in the same case-ending, when analysis is made. Therefore, both constituents will be called upasarjana. In the ka/iuvn/ii-compound citragu both members will always stand in the 415. See Note (25). The phrase means that an inflected word is compounded with an inflected word. 416. In sup sup. 417. I.e. as bahuvrhi and as dvandva. 418. In P.2.2.24. 419. I.e. the word aneka. 420. P.l.2.43.

170

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

nominative case when the compound is analyzed.421 Therefore we do not need the word anekam in P.2.2.24 to give the name upasarjana to the constituent member go. What then is the purpose of the word anekam in P.2.2.24? Its purpose is to discontinue the condition sup supy i.e. discontinuation of the instrumental sup. Consequently, there will be no restriction for the number of words to be compounded. Compounds of more than two words at a time are allowed. But still the half-condition sup will continue in P.2.2.24. It is to be construed with anekam, which gives us the meaning that two or more case-inflected words form a bahuvrl/ir-compound in the sense of a different thing. 172. (Bhsya : Question about the difference between the two alternatives).

But what difference is here (between these two alternatives as far as compounding is concerned)? XXV. (Vruila: Shortcoming in the first alternative) If a compound is (to be made) of two words at a time, then (the word) aneka: two or more' should be mentioned in (the rule prescribing) dvandva.*22 (Bhsya: Explanation) If two words (only) are compounded at a time, then (the word) aneka should be mentioned in (the rule prescribing) dvandva. (Then the rule) should read crthe dvandvah anekam: ctwo or more words (are compounded to make) a dvandva in the sense of ca\ "and"', so that (compounding) would take place here also: plaksanyagrodhakhadirapalsh: 'Ficus infectoria and Ficus Indica and Acacia Catechu and Butea frondosa'. Ngesa423: Bhsye . . . In the Bhsya, by the statement: '(the word) aneka: "two or more** should be mentioned in (the rule prescribing) dvandva\ bahuvrhi is aso included. Note (147): If we consider that the singular in the statement sup sup is intentionally used, only two words can be compounded at a time and we cannot form a dvandva or bahuvrhi of many words at a time. Therefore, a special statement in the form 421. When a bahuvrhi is formed of words ending in the nominative case (samndhikaranabahuvrhi), then the compound-constituents are called niyatavibhaktika or ekavibhaktika: 'having the same case-termination'. 422. P.2.2.29. 423. P. 345:

Samarthhnika

1 71

of anefyam: 'two or more' is necessary in the rules prescribing bahavrlhi- and dvanJva-compounds. If, on the other hand, compounding is allowed of more than two words at a time, we can dispense with aneJam. 174. (Bhsya : Criticism rejected)

Nothing wrong here. In this case also two words will be compounded at a time. Note (148): The compound will be formed as indicated in Bhsya No. 1 76. In this way two words are compounded at a time. XXVI. (Vrttikai Criticism justified) If (one would say that) compounding will take place of two words at a time (only), (then the answer is that this is) not (so), because in many there is no two-ness.424 175. (Bhsya : Explanation) If (one would say that) compounding will take place of two words at a time (only), (then the answer is that this is) not (so). Why not? Because in many there is no two-ness. Kaiyata425: (On) 'because . . . notion of two'. But (one might object) in *many* we find 'two' also. For instance (the sentence:) 'out of these brahmins bring two*. This being the case, (then even) when reference is to many, only one designation dvandva applies to plaJ^sa and nyagrodha (at a time). A second (designation dvandva) applies to khadira and palsa (at a time). Again, a third will 424. That means, when we have many, i.e. more than two words to be compounded, we cannot compound them at a time, because according to the statement sup sup only two words can be compounded. This Vrttika and Bhya No. 175 do not prohibit formation of compounds in pairs of two words at a timewhich is allowed by sup supbut they prohibit the formation of a compound consisting of many words at the same time. Kaiyata and Ngesa commenting on this Bh?ya state that formation in pairs is not allowed either. But Bhya No. 176 shows how we can form a dvandva-compouna by making combinations of two words at a time. 425. P. 346: ^ fe^TT3Tf% I ^ *f* A

172

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

apply to the group of dvandvas.42G This objection does not hold good. Even if in many' two are (also) there, yet when we want to express four (words) together, each word in its turn will have four meanings.427 Therefore, two (words only) cannot be compounded, because it is impossible to form a compound (of just two words) in the sense of 'conjunction'. This is what is conveyed by this (passage). Ngesa428: (On) *because "many" excludes the notion of two*. It means that when we have 'many' in our mind (we do not say that this group consists of two), because the constituents (which make up the group) cannot be considered as being two. When a man has three sons we do not say that he has two. If this is so, then the statement that compounding takes place of two words is inconsistent. This is the idea. Note (149): Summary: The question put in the Bhsya No. 171 is how to form compounds out of many, i.e. out of more than two words? The statement sup sup*29 forbids it. Still we find bahuvrlhls and dvandvas consisting of many words. The possibility for bahuvnh's to be formed of many words is specifically stated by the word anelam: 'two or more' in P.2.2.24. This word suspends the validity of the statement sup sup with regard to bahuvnhis. Bhsya No. 1 73 says that ane\am should be read for the same reason in the rule prescribing Jvanc/va-compounds (P.2.2.29). Bhsya No. 1 74 states that we can dispense with the word anekam, because compounds of more than two words can always be built up in pairs: From A -f- B we derive AB; from AB + C we derive ABC, etc. Thus the statement sup supd could be maintained without exception. Bhsya No. 75 makes an objection against this procedure of forming compounds consisting of many words. We cannot form a compound, when we have many words. The reason is given in a somewhat cryptic phrase: na bahusu dvitvam asti: 'in many there is no two-ness'. It simply means that, when we want to form a compound of more than two words at a time, we cannot do so, because more than two words cannot be covered by the phrase sup sup, which allows compounding of two words only. So when the Bhsya says that in 'many' the notion of two is absent, this means that the phrase sup sup which stands for 426. I.e. the combination of the first and the second dvandua. 427. Each member of the compound denotes the meaning of the whole. See fn. 429, 428- P. 346: rg-q- fRcmTT3Tff 1 *% 1 *<&&% cf^^fe^TKTOfe^: I t gift: ^*mr ffir c3jf3T*Fi%fa ww: n 429. See Note (25).

Samarthhnika

173

two only excludes 'many*. The question of the formation of compounds in pairs out of many words is not raised here at all According to Kaiyata this BKs$a means that plurality is not built up in pairs successively. To his opinion, 'two' excludes 'many*, but the reverse will not be true. 'Many' may be built up in pairs. Then how to justify the Bhsya which, as Kaiyata understands it, prohibits pair-wise compounding? This is why Kaiyata appeals to the principle of sahavivaks.*30 When we want to form a dvandva of f.i. four words together at the same time, there is no use in making groupings of two within the compound. This may create doubts with regard to the syntactic functions of the groupings. One might think that their syntactic function is different from that of the whole (see the example in fn. 430). Ngesa, as appears from the example he gives, understands the Bhsya to mean: when we have many, we do not say we have two. Although 'many' includes 'two*, we do not say 'two*, when there are 'more than two', because 'two' excludes 'many*. In this manner 'many' excludes 'two', for the sake of precision. The reason why the Bhsya prohibits compounding of two words, when there are many, as it does, according to Ngesa's understanding must be asmarthya. Ngesa thinks that Kaiyata essentially refers to the principle of asmarthya, when he mentions sahavivaks. According to Ngesa, the member A (of a dvandva consisting of four words indicated as A, B, C and D) cannot be compounded with B, because between A, on the one hand, and C and D, on the other, there exists meaning-interdependence. Therefore, A cannot be compounded with B. The statement spelsam asamartham bhavati (see Bhsya No. 26) forbids it.431 176. (Bhsya : Objection rejected) Analysis (of the compound) is not necessarily to be made in this way: plaksas ca nyagrodhas ca khadiras ca palsas ca. How then? Analysis will

430. The question of sahavivaks: 'desire to convey meanings simultaneously' is discussed by Patanjali in the context of ekasesa, see Mbh. Vol. I, p. 238, lines 17-18. Application of ekasesa is based on sahavivaks. Ngesa on sahavivaksym ekasesh {Mbh. Vol. I, p. 238, line 2) defines sahavivaks as sarvesdm arthnm sarvaih sabdair yugapad bodhanecch: 'desire to convey all me ings by all words simultaneously'. In this view each member of the compound has the meaning of the whole. Patanjali does not use the term sahavivuks with regard to dvandva. But whatever is true of ekasesa is true of dvandva also. When we make the ekasesa-orm brhamanbhym we do not construe each of the constituents with a different verb (see Note (122) sub b). Similarly, when we say ghatapatau naya dehi ca: 'bring the jar and the cloth and give (them to somebody)' this does not mean 'bring the jar and give the cloth'. Both objects are to be construed with each verb. 431. Ngesa seems to have forgotten that this applies to subordinate members in a compound. In a dvandva there are no subordinate members. Therefore meaninginterdependence cannot make members of a dvandva-compound asamartha: 'unfit to enter into semantic connection'.

174

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

(also) be made as follows: (from) plaksas ca nyagrodhas ca (we derive) plaksanyagrodhau] (from) khadiras ca palsas ca (we derive) khadirapalsau; (from) plaksanyagrodhau ca khadirapalsau ca (we derive) plaksanyagrodhakhadirapalsh. Kaiyata432: (On) 'Analysis will . . . as follows*. It means that (now the speaker) will want to combine two (words) at a time, but not four together. Ngesa433: (On) *two (words) at a time*. Since the other (words) are not (yet) in our mind, therefore, the (first) two words have no requirement of (the next words). Note (150): Bhsya No. 175 says that compounding of many words at a time cannot take place without the word aneka being mentioned in the rule concerned, because the statement sup sup prohibits it. The present Bhsya allows compounding of many words, when we proceed by making combinations of two at a time. In commenting on Bhsya No. 1 75 Kaiyata says that, when we are to make a compound of many words, we cannot proceed by making combinations of two at a time, because the principle of sahavwals forbids it. In his comment on Bhsya No. 1 76 Kaiyata says that we can proceed by making combinations of two words at a time, if the speaker's sahavivafys is each time restricted to two words only. Ngesa, in commenting on Bhsya No. 1 75 denies the possibility of making two-word-combinations, when there are many words to be compounded, because the two words to be compounded lack semantic connection, as they show meaninginterdependence with the other words to be compounded. In commenting on the present Bhsya Ngesa says that we can proceed by making "two-by-two" combinations, if at the time of the first combination the other words to be compounded are not yet present in our mind. 177a. (Bhsya : Objection justified)

Then we cannot form the compound hotrpotrnestodgtrah. The form hot-pot-nest-udgtrah would result. 432. P. 346: r^ 433. P. 346: gtftfff : ^"|% j 3T^crr?Rfe^c^T?r <Wt: tfnsrfa ^T^l II

Samarthhnika Kaiyata434:

175

(On) 'hotrpotrnestodgtrali, If a compound is formed of many (words at the same time), then (substitution by) dnAN will apply to one (word) only, (namely that word) which is followed by the final member, occurring at the end of all (members of the compound). But if two (words) at a time are compounded, (substitution by an AN will apply to all members of the compound) with the exception of one.435 Also, in the example given, the word udgtrah has a (penultimate) long vowel on the authority of Patanjali's usage. Otherwise it should not be so, because the mention of napir etc.436 has a restrictive purpose.437 Note (151): P. 6.3.25 prescribes substitution by anAN for final -r of a word expressing relationship through study or blood, when it is directly followed by the last member in a dvandva compound. If we form a compound of all four words simultaneously, the word nestr only would take substitution by nAN, because it is directly followed by the last member udgtr and the form hotrpoirnestodgatrah will result. If we form the compound two by two, the word hoir will be immediately followed by the final member, potr, and nestr by udgtr. If the two dvandvas thus formed are themselves compounded, the word polr will be immediately followed by nestodgtrau. So, finally, all members would take substitution for their final -r by dnAN with the exception of udgtr. The resulting form is hotpotnestodgtrah. But the form hotrpotrnestodgtrah is also desired. This, however, would not result unless we form it of four words at a time "Two-by-two" combination will not give it. 177b. (Bhsya : Counterobjection) But (do you mean to say that) this should not be so? 177c. (Bhsya : Counterobjection rejected) (No), but it must be so, if analysis is made^like this: (from) hot ca potd ca (we derive) hotpotrau; (from) nest ca udgt ca (we derive nestodgtrau; (from hotpotrau ca nestodgtrau ca (we derive) hotpotnestodgtrah. But (if we have to make internal groupings like this) we cannot make the form hotrpotrnestodgtrah. 434 P. 346: ^ j ^ ^ ^ y ^ - p r ^ r |

435. I.e. the final member. 436. In P.6.4.11. 437. The word udgtr is not included in the list given in P.6.4.11.

176

Mahbhsya (P.2..1)

XXVII. (Vrttila : Another shortcoming) Also prohibition of samsnta: 'change taking place at the end of a compound'. 178. (Bhsya : Explanation)

Also prohibition of samsnta should be stated (as a rule). (Example) : vktvaksrugdrsadam: 'speech, skin, wooden ladle and stone'. Otherwise the form vktvacasrugdT?adam would result. Kaiyata438: (On) 'Also prohibition of samsnta . If the designation dvandva (applies) to two words at a time, then samsnta would take place in each (resulting) dvandva. This is what (the Bhsya) means. Even if we follow another method of compounding, samsnta should take place in each internal dvandva, just like the substitute an AN.4 Yet, since compounding is not formed of more than two words (at a time), a form in which only one samsnta takes place would never occur.440 Note (152): P.5.4.106 prescribes the samsdn/a-sumx TaC, if the dvandva ends in a pa'atal, t, s or h. The compound can be formed in five ways. We will call its four members A, B, C and D. Samsnta will be indicated by', so B* means: samsnta occurring in B. I. Groupings of two by two: a) A,+ B makes AB*; AB' + C makes AB'C; AB'C + D makes AB'CD'. b) A + B makes AB'; C + D makes CD*; A B ' + CD' makes AB'CD'. c) B + C makes BC; EC + D makes BCD'; ABCD\ d) C-f-D makes CD*\ B + CD' makes BCD'; ABCD'. 438. P. 346: t: il 439. See analysis I a below. 440. See analysis I.d in Note (152). ^ A + BCD' A + BCD' makes makes

Samarthhnika II. Four words at a time. a) A + B + C - f D makes ABCD\

111

What Kaiyata in his comment on the present Bhsya means to say is that, if we insist on groupings of two by two, the form ABCD' will not result. But even then this form can be made, as is shown in the above analysis (I.d) and as is also pointed out by Patanjali in the next Bhsya. 179. (Bhsya : Objection rejected) Nothing wrong here. Here also there will be compounding (starting) with the subsequent member, as follows: (from) sruk ca df$ac ca (we derive srugdT?adam; (from) tvak ca srugdTSadatfri ca (we derive) tvaksrugdrsadam; (from) vk ca tvaksrugdrsadam ca (we derive) vktvaksrugdrsadam. Note (153): 180. (Bhsya : First objection reaffirmed) If so, then we cannot form (the compound) hotTpotrnestodgtrah.**1 Note (154): Unless we form the compound by combining four words at a time, the form hotrpotrnestodgtrah will not result. The difference with the previous analysis is that substitution by nAN takes place in the preceding member. All groupings of two give the form A'B'CD, where A' means: substitution by nAR taking place in the member called A, as follows: I. Groupings of two by two: a) A+B makes A'B; A'B+C makes A'B'CD. b) A + B makes A'B; C + D makes C D ; A'B + C D makes A'B'CD. c) B -f C makes B'C; B'C + D makes A'B'CD. d) C + D makes C D ; B + C D makes A'B'CD. II. Four words at a time a) A + B + C + D makes ABCD. Patanjali says that since the word arnica: *two or more' is not mentioned in P.2.2.29 (crthe dvandvah) we are forced to compound two words at a time. 441. See Bhsya No. 177a. F. 12 B'CD; B'CD; A + B'CD A + B'CD makes makes A*BfC; A'B'C+D makes

1 70

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

This will invariably give the form A'B'C'D. The alternative form ABCD, which is desired too, can only be obtained by compounding four words at a time. 181. (Bhsya : Another objection)

Also in the following cases: If compounding of two words (only) at a time (is allowed), we cannot form (the compounds:) susksmajatakesena: 'by one having the hair made up of very thin tresses'; sunatjinavsas: 'by one having a cloth of deerskin which hangs down very deep'442; samantasitirandhrena: 'by one having white fissures on all sides'. Kaiyata443: (On) 'susksmajatakesena. The analysis is susthu skmh jatah I?esh asya: 'whose hair is made up of very thin tresses'. If the word aneka is not mentioned444, or, (even) if mentioned, it is understood (to be there) for the sake of the designation upasarjana4*5, and if the statement sup sup is continued, then a bahuvrhi of many (words) would not result here. Ngesa446: (On) susthu sksmah. On the authority of the Bhsya (the word) jata ending in -a is used in the masculine as a synonym for ghana : 'thick* or for jata : 'matted hair*. yadyapl suksmah . . . Although (in making the following analysis:) (from) slsmh, jatah (we derive) sksmajatah; (from) s<ksmajath Iesh (we derive) sksmajata\esah; (from) susthu sksmajatakesh yasya (we derive) sus!(smajatakesah and we will have the desired accent even in 'twoword* compounding as a bahuvrhi (s/sksmajatalcesah). Yet in this view

442. The meaning 'hanging down very deep' is given in MONIER MONIERWILLIAMS, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Oxford, 1899, s. r. sunata, with reference to this passage. V. ABHYANKAR, Vykarana-Mahbhya, Mla ni Marthi Bhasntara, Vol. II, Poona 1963 (Sake) p. 258, translates : kamvlele ktade : 'tanned leather'. 443. P. 347: ^
M

444. In P.2.2.24. 445. For this and for the following sup sup see Kaiyata on Bhsya No. 171. 446. P. 347: W^M'WI^I^^I'^is?^' jf'SFfft ^TTIzft S S T q 3T | T T TW

firft^II

Samarihhnika

179

(i.e. 'two-word' compounding, right-side analysis) excellence (denoted by su) will not literally qualify sksma: 'thin' (because su qualifies sksmajatakesa as a whole). And, therefore, compounding of several (i.e. more than two) words at a time is desired. Moreover, the desired accent (susksmajatakcsah) will not be achieved, because ('two-word' compounding, right-side analysis) would cause the last syllable of the uttarapada (i.e. sksmajatakesh) to be accented, according to the rule nansubhym (P.6.2.172). But what we want is the accent on su by (the rule prescribing) original accent of the first member (P.6.2.1). This is just a hint.446* Note (155): If we take jata to mean ghana, the compound would mean: 'having (a) thick (bunch of) hair made up of very thin hairs'. The compounds mentioned here are bahuvrhis containing more than two constituent words. Out of the three compounds mentioned, susksmajatakcsah will serve as an example for analysis. I. If we form a bahuvfihx of four words, P.6.2.1 applies and the desired accent (i.e. udtta on the first syllable su) is obtained. P.6.2.172 does not apply, because the final member -fceiaTi is not immediately preceded by su. There is no question of internal fatymrusa-construction, so P. 6.1.22 3 cannot apply. II. If, however, we insist on compounding two words at a time we have to resort to ^armaJ/iraija-construction first. This can be achieved in two ways, either by starting from the first member of the compound ('left-side' analysis), or by starting from the subsequent member ('right-side' analysis).447 A. Kaiyata gives the 'left-side' analysis as follows: 1. (Karmadhraya:) (from) mlcsmajatah ; suksms cxm jats ca (we derive)

2. (Karmadhraya:) (from) susthu sksmajatah (we derive) susk~ smajatah. The accent here is according to P.6.1.223; 3. (Bahuvnhi:) (from) susksmajath k^sah yasya (we derive) susv>k~ smajatakcsah. When we form the bahuvfhi of two words (in stage 3), its first member is susksmajatd. Its original accent will fall on the last syllable of the first member. This is not desired. 446a. By adding iti dik the Sanskrit commentators mean that the whole of the preceding passage must be taken as a short statement for guidance, not as a detailed explanation. Further investigation should be carried out. 447. See Note (20).

180

Mahbhsya (P.2..)

B. Patanjali's solution was to form a bahuvrihi of four words (anelam, P.2.2.24) at the same time. Su then becomes prvapada: 'first member' and it will have the desired accent by P.6.2.1. Patanjali says that, if we form 'twoword' compounding, we will not have the desired accent susksmajatal(esah. Kaiyata explains this by applying 'two-word' compounding, left-side analysis in which suslsmajata becomes prvapada. Its original accent, which according to P.6.1.223 falls on the final syllable, would be retained by P.6.2.1. This is not desired. In order to have the desired accent it is necessary to form a bahuvrihi of four words.

Ngesa first points out that by applying 'two-word' compounding, right-side analysis, su will become prvapada again. Its original accent would be retained by P.6.2.1 and so Patafijali's insistance on 'four-word' compounding could not be justified. The accent which Patanjali wants to achieve by adopting 'fourword' compounding at a time, can be achieved by 'two-word' compounding, rght-side analysis. But then Ngesa says that even in 'two-word' compounding, right-side analysis, the desired accent is not obtained, because P.6.2.1 is overruled by P.6.2.1 72. The accent will fall on -esah, as follows: (from) sksms cm jats ca (we derive) slcsmajath; (from) sksmajats crrii Iesas ca (we derive) sulsmajataleh,; (from) susthu sfysmajatakesah yasya (we derive) susfasmajatakesah. The form su-suksmajatakesah will have antodtta: *udtta on the final syllable' according to P.6.1.223. But P.6.2.1 supersedes P.6.1.223. The accent on the first syllable by P.6.2.1, is again overruled by P.6.2.172. Thus in 'two-word' compounding, right-side analysis, the form susksmajatakesh will be antodiia by 6.2.1 72, which is not desired. C. Patanjali deals with the problem of accentuation in Bhsya No. 195. There a bahuvrihi of four words is formed first and subsequently internal ta/purusa-construction. The accent of the internal construction, i.e. antodtta on susuksmajataes by P.6.1.223, would prevail over thefca/iuvrt/H-accentby Vrttilia XXXI. This is not desired. The accent caused by the internal construction made after forming a compound of four words at a time will be the same as we have it in 'two-word' compounding, right- and left-side analysis. Therefore, there will be no difference as far as accentuation is concerned, between 'two-word' compounding and internal construction made after 'four-word' compounding. Thus, if internal construction is allowed, we will not have the des'red accent. Yet Patanjali says that 'four-word' compounding gives the desired accent. This can only mean that he does not assume internal construction in these cases. He is right in doing so, because Pnini has not specially prescribed it, as he did in the case of numerals and direction-indicating words by the rule P.2.1.51.448 See further summary in Note (20). 448. The word diksamkhye is continued in this rule from P.2.1.50,

Samarthhnilca 182. (Bhsya : Second alternative accepted)

181

Then let us have (the alternative) 'without specification'.449 XXVIII. (Vdrttika : Objection) If (a bahuvnhi) is formed without specifification, (then) there is a possibility for more than two words (to be compounded at a time) in a bahuvnhi, 183. (Bhsya : Explanation)

If (a bahuvnhi) is formed without specification (of the number of constituent words,) (then) there is a possibility for more than two words (to be compounded at a time) in a bahuvnhi. If this is the case, what difficulty will we have? XXIX. (Vrttilca : Shortcomings pointed out) In this case we have difficulty in (explaining) the accent, the change occurring at the end of a compound (and) treatment (of a feminine form) as masculine. 184. (Bhsya : Explanation)

In this case we have difficulty in (explaining) the accent, the change occurring at the end of a compound (and) treatment (of a feminine form) as masculine. (Examples for) accent: prvaslapriyah: 'who likes the eastern chamber'; aparalpriyah: 'who likes the western chamber'. So much for accent. (Examples for) change occurring at the end of a compound: pnncagavapriyah: 'who likes five cows'; pancandvapriyah: 'who likes five ships'. So much for change occurring at the end of a compound. (Examples for) treatment (of a feminine form) as masculine: khdiretarasamyam: 'change produced in (the sacrificial apparatus) consisting of a different sacrificial vessel which is made out of khdinwood'; rauravetarasamyam', 'change produced in (the sacrificial apparatus) consisting of a different sacrificial vessel which is made out of the hide of a Rum deer'.450 449. That is, without specification regarding the number of constituents to be compounded at a time: either two only or all of them together. See Bhnsya No. 171. 450. The words khdiretarasamyam and rauravetarasamyam seem not to attested. Their literal meaning would be as indicated here.

182 Note (156):

Mahbhsya (P.2.I.)

I. On prvaslpriyah. If a bahuvrhi of three words is allowed, the analysis will be prv sl priy asya. Here the word prva will have udtta on ths first syllable, according to the Phitslra II, 6 svngasitm adantnm: *names of parts of the body and pronouns ending in -a (have udtia on the first syllable)'.451 According to P.6.2.1 the first member of a bahuvrhi retains its accent. This would give an undesired accentuation. If ka/iuvrz/n-compounding of three Words at the same time is not allowed, we first have to form a tatpurusa (i.s. karmadhraya) of two words: (from) prv sl (we derive) prvslf and then again combine two words, in a bahuvrhi: (from) prvsl priy yasya (we derive) prvaslpriyah. Here prvsl as a tatpurusa has udtia on the last syllable by P.6.1.223. This accent is retained in the bahuWlhi-compound, by P.6.2.1, which is desired. When priya follows, the preceding vowel is not shortened, by P.6.3.34. II. On pancagavapriyah. If kafcuvn/ii-compounding of three words at a time is allowed, the analysis will be panca gvah priyh asya. Here the suffix TaC cannot be added to the word go (P.5.4.92), because go does not occur at the end of a compound. The resulting form would be pancagopriyah. By the same reasoning the form pancanaupriyah would be produced. These forms are not desired. If *three-word* bahuvrhi-compounding is not allowed, we have to combine two by two: (from) panca + go + TaC (we derive) pancagavam; (from) pancagavam priyam yasya (we derive) pancagavapriyam.*52 This gives the desired forms. III. On hadiretaraamyam. If ta/iuvr/if-compounding of three words at a time is allowed, the analysis will be Ihadir itar samy asya. Here fyhdiri will not be treated as masculine, because it is not directly followed by the final member samy (P.6.3.34). The form Itar only will be substituted by the masculine form itara according to P.6.3.34. The resulting form would be khdiniarasamy, which is not desired. If o/iuvr/i-compounding of three words at the same time is not allowed, we have to combine two by two: (from) itar samy (we derive) itarasamy; (from) khdirl itarasamy yasya (we derive) khdiretarasamy.453

451. G. V. DEVASTHALI, Phitstras of Sntanava, University of Poona, 1967, p. 56. 452. Compare the analysis of rjagavksram given in Note (112). The only difference is that rjagav is feminine, whereas pancagavam, being a dvigu, is neuter (P.2.4.17). 453. Treatment as masculine requires syntactical agreement, according to P.6.3.34. The form khdiritarasamy, when analysed as khdiryh itar samy yasya h a different meaning, namely 'having a sacrificial vessel different from the khdiri-wood one'.

Samarihhnika

183

The example khdiretarasamyam shows taddhita-formation with the suffix aN in the meaning tasya vikrah: *a product made out of that'.454 IV. The desired forms are respectively:

I. prvaslapriyah, II. pancagavapriyah, pancanvapriyah, HI. fyhdiretar samyam, XXX. (Vdrttika : Answer) Or (the difficulty pointed out in Vrttika XXIX does) not (arise), because of (internal) tatpurusa-(foration) of the constituent words. 185. (Bhsya : Explanation)

Or there is no difficulty here. Why not? Because (an internal) tatpurusa is formed of constituent words. In the example given, the part455 has the designation tatpurusa. (Therefore) change occurring at the end of a compound and treatment as masculine based on that (designation) will be there. Kaiyata456: (On) *no\ In soms cases, when a bahuvrhi is formed out of three words (at a time), there will be internal taipurusa (formation) of two words by the rule taddhitrthottarapada (samhre ca).457 There is no conflict between the designations bahuvrhi and tatpurusa, although they are mentioned in the section el(asamjn: *(out of several designations mentioned in this section458) one designation (is to be applied)*, because they have different fields of application.459 In the example khdiretarasamyam, when tatpurusa is formed in order 454. P.4.3.134. 455. I.e. the internal construction. 456. P. 347: ^ %fo , ^ ^ -wmj q^TT <*fft$ f^ 51ft: f^ ^ %fare:1faziX^ src^ft'^rRR ^fefafir^rcr srf^ft nfer 1 1 457. P.2.1.51 states that, when a final member (i.e. a third word) standing in syntactic agreement follows, the preceding words are compounded as a karmadhraya, when the first word is either a direction^indicating word or a numeral. 458. P. 1.4.1 - P.2.2.38. 459. The designation tatpurusa is applicable to the internal construction (i.e. the part) and the designation bahuvrhi to the whole.

184

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

to justify treatment as masculine, the bahuvrihi is formed out of two words400 namely, Ihadif (and) itarasamyy and not out of three words. Since the (taddhita-) suffix is added in the sense of 'product', the prohibition (of treatment as masculine) according to the rule vrddhinimitiasya (ca taddhitasyraktavikre*61) does not apply.462 Ngesa463: (On) 'In some cases'. In some cases104 tatpurusa is formed after the formation of the bahuvnht*65, in other cases466 first tatpurusa is formed (and) then bahuvnhi467, in this way (Kaiyata) shows the difference in the fields of application.468 Note (157): The words na v in Ktyyana's Vrttilas occur in two contexts with different meanings: (1) where Pataiijali interprets them as na v Iartavyam: *or (the rule proposed need) not (be made)', see f.i. Vdrttika XXII on P.2.1.1, (2) where Pataiijali interprets them as na v esa dosah: 'or (the difficulty pointed out in the previous Vrttika does) not (arise)', see f.i. Vrtlika XXX

460. In the last case khdiri cannot be changed into the masculine form khdira, since it is not directly followed by samy as the final member. What kaiyata means is this: we first form a (non-internal) tatpurusa (i.e. karmadhraya) as follows : from khdir -j- itar we derive khdira -}- itar; from khdira -\itar we derive khdiretar. Subsequently we may form a 'two-word' bahuvrihi as follows : from khdiretar samy yasya we derive khdiretarasamy. But in 'three-word' bahuvrihi compounding the word itar will change into itara because it is followed by the final member (P.2.1.51). If now internal tatpurusa (karmadhraya-) construction is made between khdiri and itar, this would change khdiri into khdira for the same reason. This change is probably not accepted by Kaiyata, because P.2.1.51 allows internal construction, where the first member is a direction-indicating word or a numeral. 461. P.6.3.39 states that a feminine form which is derived by means of a taddhita suffix causing vrddhi of the stem does not take the masculine form. But exception is made, when the feminine form means 'dyed with' or 'product of*. 462. I.e. does not apply on account of the word araktavikra : 'excluding words in the sense of rakta : "dyed with" and vikm : "product of". 463. P. 347: ^ f r STfW fft 464. I.e. in the examples under I and II. 465. Because the designation tatpurusa prescribed by P.2.1.51 is restricted to compounds the first member of which is either a direction-indicating word or a numeral. 466. In the example under III. 467. Because treatment as masculine cannot be applied to the word khdiri, unless it enters into the tatpurusa (karmadhraya) construction with itar, 468. I.e. of both designations. See fn. 459.

Samarthhrk

185

on P.2.1.1. Where Ktyyana has used the words na va, Patanjali will repeat these words in his Bhsya. Otherwise Patanjali will say nafyartaryam;naisa dosah. The designations tatpurusa and bahuvnhi come under the rule P. 1.4.1 which states that out of several designations only one is accepted, namely the one that is para: 'belonging to a later rule' (see P. 1.4.2) or the one that is anavaksa: 'without scope (elsewhere)', that means, 'special' (see Siddhntakaumudn on P. 1.4.2). 186. (Bhsya : Objection)

What about accent? Kaiyata469: (On) 'What about accent?' In the words prvaslpriyah etc. bahuvnhiaccentuation would apply, because it is specially prescribed.470 Note (158): According to Vrttika XXVIII bahuvrhis can be formed of three words at a time. But after forming such a tripadabahuvrhi the internal construction can be made as a tapurusa by P.2.1.51. As far as samsnta: 'change occurring at the end of a compound' and purhvadbhva: 'treatment as masculine' are concerned, there is no conflict betweenta/pumsa-designationwhich is applicable to the part andfcaftuvn/n-designationwhich is applicable to the whole. Therefore, operations based on both designations are applied. But in the case of svara: 'accent' there is a conflict. When the bahuvnhi is first formed of three words at a time, as follows : A + B + C makes ABC, and then internal tatpurusa is formed, as follows: in [ABC] (A + B) makes [(AB)C], two different accentuations would result: 1. The &afcuvrt/-accent will fall on the first syllable of A. 2. The accent prescribed by the general rule P. 6.1.22 3 will fall on the final syllable of B in the internal tatpurusa (AB) of [ (AB)C]. We cannot retain both accents at the same time, because P.6.1.158 prohibits two uJa-accents for one word. The question is now, which accentuation prevails. Kaiyata thinks thatfca/ruvr/n-accentuationwill take precedence, because it is prescribed by a special rule. But the desired accentuation is udtta on the final syllable of the internal construction prvasl, by P.6.1.223. 469. P. 348 : ^ : ^srjrrf^1 ( 470. By P.6.2.1.

Mahbhsyia (P.2.1.1)

XXXI. (Vrttika : Answer) The accent of this (word prvaslpriyah) falls on the last syllable471, because of vipratisedha: 'conflict'.472 187. (Bhsya : Explanation)

Should we accentuate the last syllable (or) retain the original accent of the first member, that is the question. (The answer is that) the last syllable is accentuated, in accordance with (the procedure adopted in the case of) vipratisedha: 'conflict5. Kaiyata473: (On) 'because there is . . . conflict*. The word vipratisedha here stands for conflict as such.474 The reason for the (prevalence of the) accentuation of the last syllable, however, is either antarangatva: 'the fact that its application requires a sequence of grammatical units which lies within the sequence of grammatical units required by another operation,475 or nimittisvarabaltyastva: *the fact that the accent of the conditioned (form) is stronger (than that of the conditioning form)'.476 Note (159): Accentuation of the last syllable of the internal construction requires tatpumsaconstruction. Andtafpurusa-constructionrequires combination of two words only, whereas the ka/iuvri/ii-accentuation requires the combination of three words. In this case the accentuation based on theta/purusa-constructionis anlaranga. Therefore it prevails over the accent based on bahuvrhi- construction which is bahiranga. See Paribhs No. L in the Paribhsendusekhara. 471. I.e. of the internal tatpurusa- construction ending in -sl. 472. Here 'conflict' is mentioned as a reason for a particular accentuation. Conflict' in itself can, of course, not be that reason. What is meant is that in the conflict of two different accentuations, the accentuation of the final syallable prevails over the accentuation of the first syllable. So vipratisedha comes to mean : 'prevalence in case of a conflict'. 473. P. 348: fcT$rf^-rfc% I faffaWf f ^ f t m ^ ^ T ^ R t 474. And not for the conflict mentioned in P.I.4.2 (paravipratiedha). See next Bhya. 475. For the meaning of the term antaranga see F. KIELHORN, The Paribhcendusekhara of Ngojibhatta, Part II (sec. ed. by K. V. ABHYANKAR), Bhardarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona 1960, p. 222, and nt. 1. See also Kaiyata on Bh$ya No. 106. 476. See Bhsya No. 190 and Note (162).

Samarthhni^a

187

An operation or a rule becomes antaranga which requires a sequence of grammatical units which lies within the sequence required by another operation or rule (called bahiranga). The tafpurusa-accentuation requires the sequence AB, whereas the bahuvrhi requires the sequence ABC. 188. (Bhsya : Answer rejected) (This term) vipratisedha: 'conflict' does not fit here. (Because) it is stated: vipratisedhe param, (kryam) : 'in case of a conflict the later rule (prevails)'.477 (Here,) however, (the rule which prescribes) accentuation of the last syallable478 comes first, (and the rule which prescribes retainment) of the original accent of the first syllable479 comes last. Note (160): The term vipratisedha, when taken to refer to P. 1.4.2, does not fit here, because it would justify accentuation of the first member, as prescribed by the later rule, i.e., the rule which comes later in the Astdhyyi than the other rule in question. What we want is accentuation of the last syllable of the internal construction. For this the earlier rule should apply. 189. (Bhsya : Intention of the answer) We do not say paravipratisedha: 'conflict according to the rule vipratisedhe parath kryam'.**0 What then? Antarangauipratisedha: 'conflict according to the antaranga-rule' .481 Kaiyata482: (On) antaranga . . .Because according to the rule anudttam padam efyavarjamU8S there cannot be two accents (for one word) and because there is no relation where the one prevails over the other484, since they are applicable to different spheres485, (the principle of) antarangatvam acts as a criterion in determining the priority (of P.6.1.223), since it requires (only an internal) part.486 477. P.l.4.2. 478. P.6.1.223. See fn. 471. 479. P.6.2.1. 480. P.l.4.2. 481. Paribhc No. 38, the Paribhsendusekhara F. KIELOHRN, part II, p. 185. 482. P. 348: ST^r^frT I ^

of Ngojibhatta ed. by

: II 483. P.6.1.158. 484 I.e. P.6.2.1 as the special rule does not prevail over P.6.1.223 as the general rule. 485. P.6.1.223 applies to the part-construction as a tatpurua, whereas P.6.2.1 applies to the whole as a bahuvrhi.. 486. As compared to P.6.2.1 which requires the whole.

188 Note (161):

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

The prvapal(sin objects that P.6.2.1, being a special rule formulated for a fca/iuvri/n-compound only, should prevail over the general rule P.6.1.223 which applies to any compound, even if the latter rule is antaranga, because the special rule (apavda) prevails over what is antaranga (see Paribhs No. 38, The Parlbhsendusekhara of Ngojibhatta ed. F. KlELHORN, Part II p. 185). The siddhntin answers that the special rule P.6.2.1 does not supersede the general rule P.6.1.223. There is no conflict between these rules, because they are neither simultaneously applicable nor do they require the same grammatical sequence for their application. The rule P.6.1.223, which applies to the internal tafpuruscr-construction, has a possibility of taking effect after the special rule P.6.2.1, which is applicable to the wholefoa/iuvn/n-compound,has taken effect. Since these rules do not apply to the same sphere, i.e. to the same grammatical sequence, there is no conflict between the rules. They do not stand either in the relation of special and general rule. Therefore P. 6.1.223, which is antaranga, will supersede P.6.2.1, according to the Paribhs No. 50. XXXII. (Vrttilta: Another reason for the answer)

Or (accentuation of the last syllable prevails487), because the accent of the nimittin: 'conditioned (form)' is stronger. 190. (Bhsya : Explanation)

Or rather a rule should be made to the effect that the accent of the nimittin: 'the conditioned (form)' is stronger than the accent of the nimitta: 'conditioning (form)'. But what is the conditioning (form) and what is the conditioned (form)? (Here) the bahuvnhi- compound is the conditioning (form) and the (internal) tatpurusa (compound) is the conditioned (form). Kaiyata488: Since the principle of anlarangatva is inconclusive (here), because the accent which is aniaranga is overruled even by an accent which is bahiranga,489 when it (i.e. 487. I.e. accentuation of the last syllable in the internal construction of parts oi the compound prevails over retainment of the original accent of the first syllable of the bahuvnhi-compound as a whole. 488. P. 348 : spcK^lfr srfaftrcj^ 3"f^|Wlft" ^^T 3 STT T* c

489. For the meaning of the term bahiranga see fn. 475.

Samarthhmka

189

the bahiranga-siccent) is satisista*90, therefore he states another reason. (On) 'because the accent of the . . . conditioned (form) is stronger*. After the bahuvnhi has been formed, the (internal) tatpurusa, which depends on the final member forming part of the bahuvfihu should be formed out of (its) two (preceding parts). Therefore, the bahuvnhi becomes the condition (for the internal ta/purusa-construction). Note (162): When we form the tripadabahuvrihi: prv sl priy paspa, the bahuvnhi becomes the condition of thetafpurusa-construction,because tatpurusa is prescribed, when a final member (uttarapada) follows, according to P.2.1.51. The ta'purusa is, therefore, the conditioned form (nimittin). The tatpurusaaccent is nimittisvara, the ka/iu vrt/n-accent is nimittasvara: 'accent of the conditioning form*. The nimitlhvara is uddtta on the last syllable of the internal construction. The nimittasvara is the original accent of the bahuvnhi on the first syllable. In the compound prvaslpriyah the accent of the internal tatpurusaconstruction comes later than that of the bahuvrihi, because, as is obvious, the /a/purusa-construction is only made after the bahuvrhi-compound has been formed. 191. (Bhsya : Objection) Then (do you mean to say that) a rule should be made to this effect: the accent of the conditioned (form) is stronger than the accent of the conditioning (form)? 192. (Bhsya : Answer) (No,) it should not be made. XXXIII. (Vrttika : Answer justified) But the rule regarding the accent of (the word) ekasitipdd: 'having one white foot' gives (us) a clue for the fact that the accent of the conditioned (form) is stronger. 490. For satisista (written as one word) see Siddhntakaumudl No. 3648 : satisistasvarabaKyastvam anyatra vikaranebhyah: 'the "satisista"-accent over (the other accents) excluding the vikaranas : "verbal infixes'". See also Ksik on P.6.1.158. The term satisista means 'which is prescribed (and takes place), when (something else) is (already) there', i.e. that which comes later in the process of formation, but which could not occur, unless something else is already there. For instance3 in deriving the verbform cinutas we proceed as follows : (1) ci + tas (P.3.4.78), (2) ci +nw + tas, because nu is a vikarana. The accent of tas prevails over that of the satisista. In this example the accent of nu does not prevail over that of tas, because nu is a vikarana. The accent of tas prevails over that of the root cl

190 193.

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1) (Bhsya : Explanation)

The fact LS that (Pnini) reads the word ekasitipd: 'having one white foot' in the list beginning with yuktrohin: 'who mounts a yoked (animal)'491, (and) by that fact the teacher gives (us) a clue that the accent of the conditioned (form) (i.e. the internal tatpurusa: ekasiti) prevails over (that of) conditioning (form). Kaiyata492: (Oh) ekasitipd. The word is read in the yuktrohin-list for the sake of udtta-accentuation of the first member. And the word e\a has udtta on the first syllable, because it ends in a./V493, or because (the rule) svngastim (adantnm)*9* applies (when we consider it as an underived word). If we (first) make here a tripadabahuvfhi: 'a bahuvrihi formed out of three words at a time' and (subsequently internal) tatpurusa (of two members), then the fact that (the compound) has udtta on the first syllable is established by (the rule) bahuvrhau pralrty (prvapadam) .495 Therefore496 it gives us a clue to this effect.491 Note (163): If we first form ekasitipd as a bahuvrihi of three words at a time, and subsequently the internal /a/purusa-construction ekasiti is formed by P.2.1.51, then question is whether to retain the bahuvrihi-accent (i.e. the original accent, udiia, of the first member) by P.6.2.1, or have udtta on the final syllable of the internalta/purusa-constructionby P.6.1.223. The two resulting forms would be respectively ekasitipd and ekasitipd. In case two different accent-rules apply, we learn from Vrttika XXXII that the accent of the conditioned form (i.e. the internal tatpurusa: ekasiti) prevails over the accent of the conditioning form (i.e. the bahuvrihi: ekasitipd). Vrttika XXXIII points out that Vrttika XXXII is not an independent statement or a rule but its authority can be deduced from the special mention 491. Ganastra on P.6.2.81. 492. P. 348:

493. According to the Undisntra : inbhkpsalyatimarcibhyah kan (No. 323, SiddHntakautnud p. 539) the word eka is derived from the root i- by means of the suffix kaN, where N indicates udtta on the first syllable, accoding to P.6.1.197. 494. Phitstra II, See fn. 451. 495. P.6.2.1. 496. Because inculsion of the word ekasitipd in the yuktrohin-Mst has no purpose. 497. Namely, that the nimittisvara will prevail

Samarthhnika

191

of the word ekasitipd in the $uktrohin-list. Suppose this last Vrtka does not exist, then the accent of the conditioning form would prevail over that of the conditioned form. The result would be ekasitipd which shows the desired accent. But this word ekasitipd has been listed in the yuktrohin-Mst (No. 15, under P.6.2.81), in order to have udtta on the first syllable. The assumption is that, unless the word is listed here, it will have udtta on the last syllable of the internal1 construction ekasiti. This assumption will only be correct, if the accent of the conditioned form (i.e. the tatpurusa) is considered to be stronger than that of the conditioning form (i.e. the bahuvnhi). Therefore, to justify the inclusion of ekasitipd in the yaktrohin-Ust we must accept that the nimittisvara is stronger than the nimitiasvara. 194. (Bhsya : Clue rejected)

But who is compelled to read the word ekasitipd in the yuktrohinlist? What you think is that (the word) is read (in the list) when you make the following (meaning-analysis) : (from) ekah sitih: 'one white* (we derive) ekasitih: 'one-white'; (from) ekasitih pdah yasya: 'having a one-white foot' (we derive) ekasitipd. But this is not (the proper analysis here). We will make the meaning-analysis in this way: (from) ekah sitir esu: 'who have one white' (we derive) te ime ekasitayah: 'those same are one-whites'; (form) ekasitayah pdh yasya: 'whose feet are one-whites' (we derive) ekasitipd. Even if meaning-analysis is made (as suggested by you) in the following way: (from) ekah sitih (we derive) ekasitih; (from) ekasitih pdah yasya (we derive) ekasitipd, still reading (this word in the yuktrohin-list) does not serve any purpose.498 The accent (prescribed) by the rule499 will prevail here.500 Kaiyata501: (On) 'But who'. What (the Bhsya) means is that, since the (desired) accent is achieved anyway, the word (ekasitipd) need not be read.50? Therefore it does not offer a clue. (That is to say,) prevalence of the accentuation of the conditioned (form) should be directly stated by a rule, and cannot be established by a clue. 498. Because its accent can be achieved in other ways, see fns. 493 and 494. 499. P.6.2.29 states that under certain conditions the first member of a dvigucompound retains its accent. See fn. 526. 500. Namely over other possibilities of accentuation, i.e. over P.6.1.223. 501. P. 348: ^ : t^^f^f | snfo mv& fo^r^rf^ T qrst * STT^ %&W: \ c 502. Namely, in the yuktrohin-list.

192 Note (164):

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

In determining the accent of the word kasitipd we find three possibilities:

( 1 ) Suppose we take the word as a tripadabahuvnhi. Subsequently, we form internal construction as a latpurusa. The question is whether to retain the fca/mvrtfci-accentuation or the accentuation of the internal ta/purusa-construction. In order to make the tafpumsa-accentuation prevail, the rule nimittisvarabalyativd va {Vrttika XXXII) is stated. But this internal latpurusa: elasitih will be dvigu (see under (2). Consequently, the tatpurusa- (i.e. dvigu-) accent according to P.6.2.29, which is a special rule, will prevail over the (internal) ta/purusa-accent by P.6.1.223, which is a general rule. Therefore the desired accent (kasitipd) will be achieved anyway, and there is no need to read the word ekasiti in the yuktrohin-list. Nor can it be assumed, as Vrttika XXXII does, that the inclusion of ekasiti in this list, gives us the clue that the accent of the conditioned word is stronger than the accent of the conditioning word. Whether we accept this clue (Jnpala) or not, does not make a difference for the desired accentuation of kasitipd. Jnpalca will not make the inclusion of kasitipd in the yuktrohin-\\st purposeful. The desired accent can be established independently. (2) Suppose we first form the latpurusa: ekasitih and subsequently the bahuvrlhi kasitipd. Even in this case it is not necessary to include kasitipd in the pu/f<ro/im-list, because P.6.2.29 states that the first member of a dvigucompound (a subdivision of tatpurusa) retains its accent, if the second member ends in -i, -u, -r, -I. When subsequently the bahuvrihi is formed, the compound will still have udila on the first syllable according to P.6.2.1. (3) Suppose we first make the inside502a construction as a bahuvnhi (as el?ah sitih esu) : 'who have one white' and subsequently the 'three-word* bahuvnhis kasitipd. The accent will fall on the first member of the inside bahuvrihi, by P.6.2.1. This accent is not changed when, afterwards, we form the whole as a hahuvnhi.503 In this way the desired accent is obtained and there is no need for a special statement (i.e. Vrttika XXXII). Even if the vrttika were there, we cannot apply it because there is no nimitti-nimitta-relation between the two bahuvrhis. Since in all three possibilities the accent will fall on the first syllable of ckasitipd, as is desired, there is no reason to include this word in the yuktrohin-list. In brief the argument is as follows: Ktyyana formulates the Vrttika: mmitiisvarabalfyastvd v. Then he rejects his own Vrttika by saying that we can justify the desired accent by taking a clue from Panini*s procedure itself. Patanjali rejects this latter suggestion, because the word kasitipd cannot give us a clue. And therefore, Patanjali says, a special rule is required. 502a. See fn. 503. For the original accentuation see Kaiyata on Bhsya No. 193.

Samarthhnika 195. (Bhsya : Another objection)

193

Then the designation tatpurusa would apply to this (internal) pait (-construction) of the (following) bahuvnhis: susuksmajatakesena, sunatjinavsas, samantasitirandhrena.50* What is wrong with that? According to the (Vrttika) tasyntodttatvam iripratisedht505 (the compounds just mentioned) would have udtta on the final syllable506, because of conflict.507 Note (165): See Note (155) where the resulting difference in accentuation is shown, when first the tatpurusa (karmadhraya) sufasmajataltesh is formed and then fca/iuvr/n-construction of the whole. In the present argument first a bahuvrthi is formed of four words at a time and subsequently internal tatpurusa (karmadhraya). Now the rule P.6.1.223, which overrules P.6.2.1 according to Vrtu'ka XXXI, will apply. This gives the undesired accentuation smlcsmajatakesh. But what we want is dyudita: ssksmajatakcsah by P.6.2.1. Therefore a special statement to reject the ia/purusa-construction is required, except where P.2.1.51 is applicable. This is explained in the following Bhsya. 196. (Bhsya : Answer)

Nothing wrong here. This (Vrttika)509 is not formulated as a special rule sanctioning tatpurusa (-compounding) as a part of a bahuvnhi. Then what (purpose does it serve)? Where we have (already) a special rule sanctioning tatpurusa (-compounding) as a part of a bahuvnhi, there (Vrttika XXXI states that) 508a the last syllable only509 will be accented, because of conflict.51*
. . - . . > ' K a i y a t a
5 1 1

'

'

..

"

'

'

'

ftrtasr %fa ^THTR: II

F.13

194

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

be a difficulty.512 But since (internal) taipurusa is prescribed (only) for directionindicating words and for numerals, when they are followed by the final member (of the compound), there is no difficulty.513 Note (166): Not every 'three-word' bahuvnhi allows internal part-construction as a tatpurusa. This is restricted to a case where the first member represents a directionindicating word or a numeral (like elasitipd) when followed by the uttarapada. Therefore, in a bahuvnhi like sus^smajatakesah we cannot form internal tatpurusa-construction. 197. (Bhsya : Objection) But for this also there is (a rule), isn't it? Which? Visesanaih visesyena bahulam: 'a qualifier (-word) is variously compounded with the (word it) qualifies'.514 198. (Bhsya : Answer) There will be no (internal /uZ/mrttSfl-construction),515 because of (the word) bahulam: Variously'. Kaiyata516: (On) 'because of (the word) bahulam*. If compounding takes place of a whole, the part does not take a different designation517, because of the word bahulam517*, unless a (special) rule is made (to that effect). Ngesa518: (On) 'because of (the word) bahulam*. This means: 'because of (the word bahulam) which has the meaning "somewhere something totally different (takes 512. The internal tat purusa formed after the formation of the bahuvnhi will have an accent on the final syllable, which is not desired. 513. Because the compounds susksmajatakesah etc. do not come under P.2.1.51. therefore the internal construction cannot be regarded as a tatpurusa. 514. P.2.2.57. 515. The rule P.2.2.57 cannot justify the designation tatpurusa for a part of a bahuvrlhicompound, because the word bahulam implies that in that rule P.2.2.57 is not always effective. 516.P. 349: ^ ^ v ^ f ^ f \ 517. I.e. different from the designation belonging to the whole. 517a. The word bahulam in P.2.2.57 implies that the internal construction between a qualifier and a qualified word is not necessarily formed everywhere. 518. P. 349: ^g-cy^ffl-fxf^ j ^pcr^?qf%cr^rfcpf: I 3R?T

-!

Samarthhnika

\ 95

place)".519 By this (statement) it is also indicated that this (word bahulam) rejects the application of (rules) which amplify520 and which are meant to give a restriction with regard to the word which is to be placed first (in a compound). Otherwise their521 nature would be violated.522 By this (statement) Kaiyata is refuted, who, while commenting on (the words) mahatfast**sritah52*, states that, after the formation of a tatpurusa of three words, an (internal) compound (-construction) of two words is formed by the rule sanmahat (paramottamot^rstah pjyamnah) ,524 Note (167): In this context the word bahulam meaning kvadd anyai eva: 'somewhere something totally different' suggests that we are not supposed to apply P.2.2.57 for forming internal construction, i.e. 'two-word* compounding as an internal tatpurusa in a 'three-word' bahuvrlhu Therefore the internal construction mahJcasta in the 'three-word* compound mahat^astasritah as proposed by Kaiyata cannot be admitted. The word bahulam suggests that the internal construction is allowed, if it is prescribed by P.2.1.51. The rule P.2.2.57 and the rules which give an amplification of P.2.2.57 do not form the internal construction independently. 199. (Bhsyta : Another objection)

Then the designation tatpurusa will apply to this part (adhikasasti) of the bahuvrthi: adhikasastivarsh: 'having (a number of) sixty years more'. What is the difficulty here? According to (the Vrttika) tasyntodttatvatfi vipratisedht*2*, (the internal tafpurua) would have udtta on the final syllable, in keeping with (the procedure adopted in the case of) vipratisedha: 'conflict'.526 519. The words kvacid any ad eva form part of a verse in which four meanings of the word bahulam are enumerated. The verse occurs in Srasvata Vykarana, stanza 22. See Nirnaya-Sgar Press ed., Bombay 1944 (Vikramditya samvat) pp. 15-16. See also Laghusiddhntakaumud on P.3.3.113. The word bahulam does not simply mean that the rule, in which it occurs sometimes applies, sometimes optionally applies, sometimes does not apply at all, but means also that something else which is not mentioned in the rule may take place. 520. I.e. which give an amplification of P.2.2.57. 521. I.e. the amplificatory nature of these rules. 522. I.e. these rules are not supposed to teach something new which is not taught by P.2.2.57. ; 523. See Kaiyata on Bhsya No. 16, sub lib. 524. P.2.1.61. This internal construction is not .allowed, because the word bahulam prohibits the internal construction, unless it is sanctioned by P.2.1.51. 525. Vrttika XXXI. 526. See fn. 472.

196 Kaiyata527:

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

(On) adhikasastivarsh. When we make a iripadabahuvnhi: 'bahuvrihicompound of three words at the same time*; (and when) according to (the Vrltika) adhikagrahanam cdlulci: 'also (the word) adhika should be included (in the numerals) when (the following suffix) is not elided*528, (the word) adhika receives the designation samlhyd: *numeral*; (and) when (internal) latpurusa of two-members is formed, according to (the rule) taddhitdrihoitarapada(samhre ca)52Q, then (the compound) will have uddtta on the final syllable.530 This is what (the Bhdsya) means. The word adhika has uddtta on the first syllable, because it ends in Note (168): According to Vdrttika XXXI the internalta/purusa-constructionadhikasasti of the 'three-word* ka/iuvr/n-compound adhilasastivarsa will have uddita on the final syllable by P.6.1.223. But the accent desired is the original accent of the first syllable by P.6.2.1 (adhikasastivarsh). 200. (Bhdsya t Objection refuted) No difficulty here. According to (the rule) iganata {kdlakapdlabhagdlasarvesu) dvigau532, the (original) accent (of the first member) will prevail here.533 201. (Bhdsya : Another objection) Then what about the compound which does not end in ik5Z4y like adhikasatavarsah; 'having one hundred years more'. 527. P. 349:

528. Vrttika VIII on P. 1.1.23. The complete Vrttika reads adhikagrahanam cluki samsottarapadavrddhyartham : 'the word adhika shoud be considered a numeral for trie sake of compounding, (see P.2.1.51), and for the sake of vrddhi for the final member (of a -.compound) (see Pi7.3.15), when the following suffix is not elided (see P.5.1.28). 529. P.2.1.51. 530. This is not desired. 531. P.5.2.73 is a niptanastra, which derives the word adhika by adding the suffix kaN to adhi. 532. P.6.2.29 states that in a dvigu-compound the first member retains its original accent when its final member ends in i i <--. 533. According to P.6.2.1 the original accent on-the' first syllable is retained. According to Vrttika XXXI this accent is superseded by that of the internal tatpurusa. According to P.2.2.29 the accent on the first syllable is restored again. 534. Ik is the pratyhra : 'comprehensive designation' for the vowels i, u, r, I.

Samarthhnika Note (169):

197

In the compound adhilasalavarsah which is analysed as adhikam satam varsni yasya, the internal tatpurusa {adhikasata) does not end in -i, -u, -r, -I. Therefore P.6.2.29 cannot be applied. Hence Vrttika XXXI: tasyntodttatvam vipratisedhdt will apply and the compound will have udtta on the final syllable of the internal tatpurusa. This (adhilasatvarsa) is not desired. We want dhilasatavarsa, according to P.6.2.1. 202. (Bhsya: Appropriateness of a previous objection pointed out535)

But here also, in the form adhikasastivarsah change at the end of a compound536 would occur, according to (the Vrttika) dacah prakarane samkhyys tatpurusasyopasamkhyanam nistrimsdyartham.5*6* Note (170): The compound nistrimsa means nirgatni trimsatah: '(years) which have passed beyond thirty*.537 It is considered to be a tatpurusa according to the Vrtilca nirdayah krntdyarthe pancamy: 'the words nir etc. (are compounded) with (a word in) the ablative, in the sense of "passed beyond" etc.'.538 From nistrimsai + DaC we derive nistrimsa by P.6.4.143. Similarly, the internal construction adhikasasti will be a tatpurusa by P.2.1.51. Since it ends in a numeral the abovequoted Vrttika would apply and adhikasasti will take DaC. From adhikasasti + DaC we will have adhikasasta, which is an undesired form. 203. (Bhsya: Objection rejected)

No difficulty here. This (Vrttika) is (conditioned) in such a way (that it applies to a word which is) preceded by an indeclinable. Note (]7)): The rule which prescribes DaC applies only, if the first word is an indeclinable. See Patanjali's statement avyayder iti vaktavyam: 'It should be stated that (this Vrttika applies to a word which is) preceded by an indeclinable'.539 But adhika is not an indeclinable. 535. I.e. the objection stated in Bhya No. 199: 'Then the designation tatpurusa will apply to this part . . . . of the bahuurihi . . /. 536. I.e. at the end of the internal compound-construction adhikasasti 536a. Vrttika I on P.5.4.73 states that in the section on the samsanta-sufiix DaC, inclusion is to be made of a tatpurusa which ends in a numeral, for the sake of nistrimsa etc. 537. See SiddhntakaumucR no. 853 on P.5.4.73. 538. Mbh. Vol. I, p. 416, line 539. Mbh. Vol. II, p. 439, line 16.

IW 204.

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1) (Bhsya: Objection)

But why (is) this (Vrttika conditioned) in such a way (that it applies to a word which is) preceded by an indeclinable? 205. (Bhsya: Answer)

So that it would not apply here: gotrimsat: 'thirty cows', gocatvrimsat: 'forty cows'.1540 Note (172): If DaC had been applied the forms would read gotrimsh, gocaivrimsah. But the first member of these compounds is not an indeclinable. Therefore DaC does not apply. 206. (Bhsya: Objection)

Then the designation bahuvnhi would apply according to (the rule) sawkhyayvyaysanndurdhikasaihkhyah samkhyeye.Ho* Kaiyata541: (On) *Then the designation*. The idea is that in (the form) adhil^asastivarsa also we have a difficulty.542 If we make a Iripadabahuvnhi: 'bahuvnhi of three words at the same time*, (then) bahuvnhi (-designation) would apply (to the inside part adhikasasti) by (the rule) samkhyayvyaya (~sanndrdhikasamkhyh samkh^eye)543 which, being the later rule, supersedes (the rule) iaddhitrthottarapada (samhre ca)su (which prescribes internal) tatpurusa of two words. And therefore there is a possibility (to apply the samsn/a-suffix) DaC, according to (the rule) bahuvrlhau sam^hVQVe (daj abahugant) .545 540. To render the genitive sense of this compound in English the translation 'one score and ten of cows' and 'two scores of cows' might be preferable. 540a. P.2.2.25 states that an indeclinable, (the words) sanna, adra, adhika and a numeral (are compounded) with a numeral in the sense of 'object to be counted' (and the compound is called bahuvfihi). 541. P. 349: ^ f ^ T ^ f r \ Tftwfcwfffr it* 1% ^ : I i TOW 542. I.e. adhikaasti will also be taken as an inside bahuvnhi- construction. 542a. For the difference between 'inside* and 'internal' construction see fn. 558. 543. P.2.2.25. 544. P.2.1.51. See also P.l.4.2. 545. P.5.4.73. When a bahuvnhi stands for 'object to be counted' the suffix DaC will be added, except when the words bahu or gana occur at the end of that bahuvnhi.

Samarthhnita Nagesa546:

199

(On) 'in (the form) adhikasastharsa also*. In (the word) adhikasatavarsah also there will be difference in accentuation, because (the suffix) DaC applies.547 Note (173): If a numeral stands for samkhyeya: "(object) to be counted', then the (inside) compound {adhikasasti) would be considered as a bahuvnhu according to P.2.2.25. The argument is as follows: A. Adhikasastivarsa as a bahuvnhi with internal tatparusa: ( 1 ) The accent will fall on the last syllable of the internal construction by P.6.1.223 which, according to Vrttika XXXI, prevails over P.6.2.1. This latter rule prescribes retainment of the original accent on the first member (see Bhsya No. 199). (2) A (1) is denied. The accent will be on the first syllable, because the internal latpurusa happens to be a dvigu (see Bhsya No. 200). (3) Then DaC will apply, because it is prescribed for tatpuusa ending in a numeral (Vrtiika I on P.5.4.73, see Bhsya No. 202). (4) A (3) is denied. The suffix DaC is restricted to compounds the first member of which is an indeclinable (see Bhsya No. 203). B. Adhikasastharsa as a bahuvrhi with inside bahuvnhi: ( 1 ) Inside construction can be made as a hahuvnhi, if we take the numeral as 'object to be counted* (see Bhsya No. 206). (2) If bahuvnhu then DaC, which is not desired here. C. The relation of this argument with the topic under discussion is as follows: This section is concerned with the number of words to be compounded at a time, whether two or more. If more, then why not form bahuvnhis of three words? Patanjali explains that m this case the inside construction in the word adhikasastivarsa will be bahuvnhi by P.2.2.25. Then DaC will necessarily come in by P.5.4.73 and the result is an undesired form. D. Conclusion: In order not to have DaC which gives the form adhikasastavarsa we will opt for the internal fqfpurtia~construction, i.e. dvigu. See A(2), A(4) and the following Bhsyas. . ' 546. P. 349: 547. Inside bahuvrxhi would give the accentuation adhikasatdvarah by P.6.1.163, whereas the tripadabahuvrxhi without inside construction would have the accent on the first syllable (ddhikasatavarah) by P.6.2.1. See Note (169).

200 207. (Bhsya: Answer)

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

We will not take the numeral to represent (the object) to be counted. How (can that be done)? Meaning-analysis will be made in the following way: adhik sastir varsnm asya: 'who has a threescore of years more'. Kaiyata548: (On) *not . . . the numeral'. So as to have only (the form) adhikasastivarsa we adopt the avyavika-principle.549 Therefore, (when we accept) meaninganalysis as adhik sastir varsni yasya (we will have to say that) this550 is used as an uncompounded expression only. Note (174): The objection was that in a tripadabahuvrihi the inside construction adhikasasti would be a bahuvfihi by P.2.2.25. The suffix DaC would apply and the resulting form would be adhilasastavarsa. The answer was (Bhsya No. 206) that P.2.2.25 will apply if we adopt the analysis adhil sastih valsant y asya, where sasti stands for the object to be counted. Instead of this analysis Patanjali now adopts adhik sastih varsnm asya. Here P.2.2.25 does not apply, because the numeral does not stand for the object to be counted, but for number only, and, consequently, the question of applying the suffix DaC does not arise.550a However, the difficulty concerning the analysis adhil sastih varsni yasya, which will result in an undesirable compound-form, is not solved. That is to say, the question why we cannot adopt this analysis is not answered. It is only said that the alternative analysis will produce the desired form. Kaiyata tries to put this right by appealing to the avyavika - principle. This principle says that the word vika is derived by adding the taddhita-sufiix aN to the word avila, in the sence of aver mmsam: * sheep's meat*. That means the suffix aN is added to the word aW/fa, when the meaning of this latter word is analysed as aver mmsam. But the word avi in aver mmsam cannot itself serve as a base for the formation of the word vika. It was argued that the suffix DaC would be applied - which is undesirable - to the inside construction adhikasasti in adhikasastivarsah, when the meaning of this latter form is analysed as adhik sastih varsni yasya. Hence we have 548. P. 349: ^ ^TTfafiT I ^ f a ^ f e 5 ^ ^ N *T TT 549. Mbh. Vol. II, p. 240, lines 3-4. For the explanation of this principle see Note (174). 550. I.e. adhik sastih varsni yasya. 550a. It might be advisable at this point to read first Note (175) where the whole argument is summarized.

Samarthhnilca.

201

to assume that the uncompounded wordgroup adhik sasth varsni yasya is not turned into the compound adhikasastivarsah, but it is used as an uncompounded wordgroup only according to this ovpavi^a-principle. In his comment on the next Bhsya Kaiyata will perform the same trick on the alternative analysis adhik sastih varsnm asya (see Kaiyata on Bhsya No. 209). P.2.2.24 will apply and DaC will be there. Thus the form adhikasastivarsa cannot be derived from either analysis. 208. (Bhsya: Objection justified)

Since that rule551 is discarded, therefore (the designation bahuvrihi) will apply according to the preceding (rule).552 But how is that rule discarded? On account of (the Vrttika) asisyah saihkhyottarapaddfy sathkhyeyrthbhidhyitvt: '(the designation bahuvrihi, which is prescribed for a compound) having a numeral as its last member, need not be taught, because (the compound as a whole conveys the meaning) of 'object to be counted'.558 Kaiyata554: (on) 'according to the preceding'. Because according to (the analysis) adhik sastir yesm varsnm (asy a) : 'possessed of a number of sixty more years'555 the years are the object to be counted, (the designation) hahuvfhi would apply556 according to (the rule) anekam anyapadrthe.557 And because the bahuvrihi would convey the sense of 'object to be counted* we would have to add (the suffix) DaC also, which is based on that (bahuvrthidesignation) and so we would have undesirable result. That is to say, to 551. P.2.2.25. 552. P.2.2.24. See fn. 558. 553. Vrttika IV on P.2.2.25. A numeral as a constituent of a bahuvrihi-compound stands for sarhkhy: 'number', whereas the bahuvrihi as a whole signifies 'object to be counted'. This latter is considered as the anyapadrtha. Therefore P.2.2.24 will cover also the cases which come under P.2.2.25. See Note (175) sub 3 and 4. The reading of this Vrttika as given by KIELHORN ABHYANKAR, Vol. I, p. 428, line 5 cannot be correct. The context only allows saihkhyeyrthbhidhyitvt, and the text should be emended in this way. 554. P. 350 : cr^pjj-% j 3rfsnf>T f : STFsftfcT II 555. Yem indicates that adhik ?a$tih is to be an internal whereas (asya) indicates that the whole is a bahuvrihi also. The awkward translation given tries to render the genitive construction. The meaning is, of course, 'sixty years older'. 556. Namely to the inside construction adhikaasti. See Note (175) and fn. 558. 557. P.2.2.24.

202

Matibhsva (P.2.1.1)

express the meaning of 'possessing years' bahuvrvhi (compounding) would take place again (of the whole) having an inside bahuvrthi as its part.558 209. (Bhsya: Objection rejected)

That rule559 being discarded we will take the numeral to represent '(object) to be counted'. In this case meaning-analysis will be made in the following way: adhik sastir varsny asya: cwho has sixty years more'. Kaiyata560: (On) 'being discarded'. And according to the av;yavia-principle the expression adhify sastir varsnm asya will occur only as an uncompounded word-group.561 210. (Bhsya: Objection reaffirmed)

In any case, we will not get rid of (the undesired form) adhikasastavarsak.562 Why not? Because that rule563 is discarded and (because) this (alternative possibility of) meaning-analysis: adhik sastir varsnm asya is (very much) there. Kaiyata564: Not taking into consideration the avpavi^a-principle (Patanjali) says: 'in this case'. Note (175). The analysis adhik sastih varsni yasya cannot serve as a base for the inside compounding of adhfy and sastih according to P.2.2.24, since no additional meaning (anyapadrtha) in the form of 'having, possessing* can be found for the inside construction. Here sasti already expresses that idea, because sasti represents 'object to be counted, numbered object' 558. This inside bahuvrhi is to be distinguished from an internal bahuvrhi (part-) construction which is made after the whole compound has been formed. The inside bahuvrhi mentioned here is formed before the bahuvrhi as a whole is formed of three words. See fn. 33 and Note (20), analysis la and lib. 559. P.2.2.25. 560. P. 350: jr^fT^ZTr^f ^% j 4o4ffait>r*ii5<T ^fnfiT qftdcfafalWiffir UKI*lr 561. See Note (175) and (174). 562. Here the suffix DaC has been applied which is undesired. 563. P.2.2.25. It means that in the analysis adhik satih varnm asya the rule P.2.2.24 will apply and as a consequence DaC will come by P.5.4.73. 564. P. 350:

Samarthhnika

203

Since no anyapadrtha can be added to this, we cannot apply P.2.2.24 to form a compound of adhik and sastih. Since no inside - construction can be made, we will have tripadabahuvrhi-compoxmdmg of adhika sasti and vars. This will give the correct form adhikasastivarsah. In the alternative analysis adhik sastlh varsnm asya the word sasti does not by itself express anyapadrtha, because it stands for number (samlhy) only, and not for numbered object. Therefore we can form here an insidefca/iuvr/n-constructionof adhik and sastih. But then the suffix DaC will apply by P.5.4.73 and the result is the undesired form adhikasastavarsa. Kaiyata, reasoning from his avpavi/fa-principle, says that the word-group adhik sastih in adhik sastih varsnim asya is used as an uncompounded group only and can never be turned into a compound. Therefore, no undesired form will result. Summary : ( 1 ) For the form adhikasastivarsa two possibilities present themselves: of meanings-analysis

A. adhik sastih varsni yasya, where sastih and varsni stand in syntactic agreement and therefore sasti represents numbered object. B. adhik sastih varsnm asya, where sastih and varsnm stand in a genitive relation and therefore sasti represents number only. (2) Both A and B are meaning-analyses of a &a/iuvr/-compound. The question is whether an inside ta/?uvn/i/-construction of adhik and sastih can be prevented, so as not to have the undesired form adhikasastavarsa by the necessary application of P.5.4.73. The rules concerned for fca/iuvr/H-compounding here are P.2.2.24 which is a general rule and P.2.2.25 which is a special rule, i.e. a rule which applies to a special case of bahuvrihi-compounding. (3) According to P.2.2.24 a bahuvfvhi expresses anyapadrlha: 'meaning of another word' which is not denoted by the constituent members of the compound taken separately. This additional meaning is usually rendered as 'having, possessing, connected with' (yukta) etc. (4) According to P.2.2.25 the word adhika is compounded with a numeral, when this latter represents samkhyeya: '(object) to be counted, (object) connected with number'. The resulting compound is called bahwrhi (5) The question is now, what does the word sasti in ddhikasastbarsa represent: number (samkhy) or object connected with number (samkhyeya) ? The answer to this question will decide whether we will be able to make an insidefca/juvrt/ii-constructionof adhik and sasti, either by P.2.2.24 or by P.2.2.25.

204

Mahbhsya (P.2.I.)

(6) P.2.2.24 applies only if the possibility of anyapadrlha is there. Therefore, P.2.2.24 can apply to form the inside ta/iuvri/n-construction only, if we suppose that sasti stands for number. In that case anyapadrtha: 'object to be counted' would be there to be expressed by the bahuvnhi compound. P.2.2.25 can apply to form the inside bahuvnhi only, if we suppose that sasti stands for numbered object. In this case anyapadrtha is so to speak, already represented by the word sasti It already expresses the idea of *having, possessing' in the form of 'object having a particular number*. So we cannot apply P.2.2.24. (7) It should be remembered that in both cases, whether we apply P.2.2.24 or P.2.2.25 to form the inside bahuvnhu the suffix DaC will necessarily come in by P.5.4.73. If bahuvnhu then DaC. This will produce an undesired form, adhikasastavarsa. In order not to have the undesired form, we have to find a means to prevent the application of DaC. In order to prevent the application of DaC we have to find a means to exclude the formation of an inside bahuvnhi (8) At this point a complication is introduced into the argument. It is stated in the Vrttika IV on P.2.2.25 that for the formation of the samkhyeya bahuvnhi, P.2.2.25 is not necessary at all. We can manage by P.2.2.24 and we will discard P.2.2.25. When we apply P.2.2.24 the two possibilities of meaning-analysis as shown under (i) A and B remain as they are. (9) P.2.2.24, being the only rule to be taken into account, will only apply to analysis (1) B, where sasti stands for number and where consequently, anyapadrtha can be added. The result is an inside bahuvnhu application of DaC and an undesired form. (10) P.2.2.24, being the only rule to be taken into account, cannot apply to analysis ( 1 ) A, where sasti stands for numbered object. Consequ'sntly, there will be no inside bahuvrlhu no DaC and we will have a desired form by applying tripadabahuvnhi according to P.2.2.24. (11) What happens if we do not discard P.2.2.25 by P.2.2.24. Now there are two rules to be taken into account. It is already explained what happens if we apply P.2.2.24 only (see sub 9 and 10). Therefore, we will restrict our attention to P.2.2.25, the possibilities of analysis remaining as they are. (12) P.2.2.25, being the rule to be taken into account, will only apply to analysis ( 1 ) A, where sasti stands for object connected with number. The result is an inside bahuvnhu application of DaC and an undesired form. (13) P.2.2.25, being the rule to be taken into account, cannot apply to analysis ( 1 ) B, where sasti stands for number. Consequently, there will be no inside bahuvrlhu no DaCt and we will have a desired form by applying tripadabahuvnhi according to P.2.2.24.

Samarthhnika

205

(14) Conclusion: We will succeed in establishing the required form adhikasastivarsah by means of tripadabahuvrhi in case (a) we discard P.2.2.25 and adopt the analysis ( 1 ) A adhia sastih varsni asya, (b) we take into account P.2.2.25 and adopt analysis (1) B adhik sastih varsnm asya. (15) Since there is no criterion which would make us necessarily to choose one of the analyses to prevent one of the rules from applying, Patanjali says that we cannot get rid of the undesired form. If we are free to choose any analysis we will have the form with inside fca/i uvri/ii-construction and the application of the suffix DaC. (16) Kaiyata provides that criterion. It is the avpav$a-principle according to which we are not supposed to choose an analysis which leads to an undesired formation. Patanjali in Bhsya No. 210 says that the alternative analysis in each case lead to an undesired result and this cannot be prevented. Therefore Kaiyata comments that Patanjali does not take into account the avi?avi7ea~principle. 211. (Bhsya: Objection rejected)

But with regard to what has been said: 'we cannot form (the compound) adhikasastivarsa565 (we answer that) we can form it. How? Because that rule566 is discarded and (because) we adopt this meaninganalysis: adhik sastir varsny asya. Kaiyata567: Taking into consideration the avpav^a-principle (Patanjali) says: 'But with regard to what has been said*. That rule568 is discarded, because (the object) to be counted (sam/f/rpepa) becomes an];apadrtha,569 because so far as compounding (vrtti) is concerned, even the numerals" dasa: 'ten* etc. express number (samkhy) only, on the authority of the statement 565. See Bhasya No. 210: 'In any case, we will not get rid of (the undesired form) adhikasatavarah\_ . _ 566. P.2.2.25. 567. P. 350: ^q-^qTT^W^-ZTfr ^PTfaf" I 568. P.2.2.25. 569. I.e. the different meaning not denoted by the constituent members of the bahuvnhi compound. See Not (175). " ' 570. P. 1.4.2 2 states that the dual is used to denote the number ftwo'? and the singular to denote the number 'one',

206 Note (176)

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.1)

Up to the number 10 (inclusive) the numerals stand for samkhyeya: '(object) connected with, counted by, possessing number'.571 Consequently, when we want to make afca/iuvri/'-compoundwith one of these numerals, we cannot apply P.2.2.24, because we cannot add anyapadrtha. In order to have a fca/iuvr/H-compound formed with any of the numerals 1-10, the rule P.2.2.25 is especially formulated. Once P.2.2.25 is formulated as containing the term samlhya it will apply to numerals in general and therefore to the present case adhil sastih, to form a bahuvrlhi compound. In the present case: adhil sastih application of P.2.2.25 will lead to the undesired formation adhi^asastavarsa. Since P.2.2.25 is especially formulated for samlhya how can Pataiijali assume that it is discarded? Kaiyata says that even for the numerals 1-10 the rule P.2.2.25 is not necessary. The numerals 1-10 also represent samfyhya. This we get on the authority of the use of the words dvi and e/fa in P. 1.4.22 which stand for the numbers 'two' and 'one' respectively, and not for two objects or one object. So even to these numbers anyapaddrtha can be added, that is, P.2.2.24 can be applied and we can comfortably discard P.2.2.25. We can say now that P.2.2.24, being the only rule to be taken into account, will not apply to form the inside bahuvnhi : adhil^asasti in adhilasasti-varsa, because we adopt the meaning-analysis adhil sastih varsni asya, where sasti stands for object connected with number. Since there is no other rule to be taken into account than P.2.2.24 and since P.2.2.24 does not apply, we will make a tripadabahuvrhi and have the desired form adhikasastivarsa without intervention by the suffix DaC. 212. (Bhsya: Objection)

But we cannot form (the compound) adhikasatavarsah.572 Kaiyata573: (On) 'But . . . adhilcasa'avarsah*. When we form a tripadabahuvrhi : adhlham sa'am varsny asya: 'who has one hundred years more* (and form 571. See Note (175). See Amara's Nmaingnussanam ed. by H. D. SHARMA and H. G. SARDESAI, Poona, 1941, p. 218, Stanza 83: . . . . samkhyh samkhyeye hy dasa trisu: 'numerals up to 10 stand for '(object) to be counted' (and) are used in three genders. 572. The argument returns to Bhsya No. 201, which raises an objection that had not been answered: 573. P. 350:

Samarlhhnika

207

internal) tatpurusa according to (the rule) iaddhitrthotlarapada(samhre ca)57i (then the internal compound) will have udtta on the last syllable, whereas udtta on the first syllable is desired. Note (177) The argument goes as follows : We cannot apply P.2.2.25 to form the inside bahuvmhi: adhil sasth, because the rule is discarded. We cannot a Pply P.2.2.24, because we analyse adhikasastharsah as adhik sastih varsni asya. Therefore no inside bahuvrhi can be made nor can the suffix DaC be applied. But we can form an internal (not 'inside'575) tatpurusa (dvigu) construction of adhil and sastih by P.2.1.50. This will give the desired form. There is no question of DaC now, because this suffix is restricted to bahuvnhi. It will also give the desired accent. P. 6.1.22 3 which prescribes accentuation of the final member (adhif?asasti) is ruled out by P.6.2.29.,576 and the form, as is desired, reads dhikasastvarsa. Patanjali now says, that even if internal tatpurusa (dvigu) construction gives the desired result in adhikasastivarsa, it will not do so in adhikasataVarsa. In this form the final syllable of the internal construction will be accentuated (adhikasald-) by P.6.1.223. Here P.6.2.29 cannot overrule P.6.1.223, because the numeral sata does not end in 'u\. Therefore, to prevent this undesired accent by P.6.1.223 a special provision is necessary, namely, to list this word in the yuktrhMlst.677 213. (Bhsyax Answer)

In this case some special provision has to be made. Kaiyata578: (On) 'In this case some special provision has to be made*. The word adhikasatavarsa should be listed in the yuktrohm- list559, so that it could have the accent on the first syllable. 574. P.2.1.51. 575. See fn. 558. 576. See fns. 526 and 528. 5777 See fn. 491. 578. P. 350: c^fifjsf XT^" ^f^f \ ^Tf^TTt^TTf^^f^^rgr^^cr^ sn^TTTTT^ff *: II 579. ee fn. 491 See Bhsya No. 193 and Kaiyata on that

208 Ngesa580:

Mahbhsya (P.2.1.)

The final view is that with regard to dvandva and bahuvrlhi no specification (of the number of constituent words is given).581
(HERE ENDS THE SECTION ON THE PROPER NUMBER OF CONSTITUENT

W R S IN A COMPOUND). OD
(HERE ENDS THE FIRST hnika IN THE Vykaranamahbhsya OF THE

FIRST SECTION OF THE SECOND CHAPTER, COMPOSED B THE REVERED Y

M S E PATASTJALI). AT R

580. K 350: rf = f 581. See Bhsya No. 182. The outcome of the discussion is that in dvandva and bahuvfhi-compounds no restriction is put on the number of words to be compounded at a time,

INDEX OF SANSKRIT AND ENGUSH WORDS

INDEX OF SANSKRIT WORDS The following index contains Sanskrit words that have been defined or discussed in the Translation, Notes, and Introduction. The words in the foot-notes which occur in the Devangar script in the text, are transliterated here in the Roman script. The dash before or after or on both the sides of the indexed word respectively shows whether the remaining member of a compound is before or after or on both the sides of the indexed word. Free numbers refer to the pages; numbers preceded by V refer to the foot-note numbers. Roman numbers refer to the pages of the introduction. Words are listed in the order of the Sanskit syllabary. kya, 81 ni 32. anelagrahana, 168n411. aksasaunda, 19. anelartha, 82n134. agamala, 48. anaikntlka, 188n488. agamakatva, 42, 43, 47, 48. antarbhta, 84n140, 85. agatu 144. antarbhiasvrtha, 58n85. ajahatsvrth, xi, xvii, 9, 10, 51, 75, antaranga, 100, 186, 187, 188. 81. antarangatva, 186, 186n473, 187. adhtvabhihita, 162n389. antarangavipratisedha, 187. adhikarana, 155, 160, 161. antodtta* 180. adhikasatavarsa, 197, 207. anyapadrlha, 186n411, 201 n55 3, adhikasastavarsa, 202, 203, 204. 202, 203. adhikasastivarsa, 195, 196, 197, 41n58. 199; 200/201, 205, 206, 207. aparaslpriya, 181. adhikra, v, xvii, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, apavda, 188. 16, 17, 121. 130, 130n287, 131. adhikra~Y\i\e, 5. - .apavdatva, 157n367, 85n469. apunrgcya, 44, 48. adhikrasvarita, 8. anapumsaka, 44, 49. aprvavacana, 193n511. anavalsa, 185. aprasiddha, 154n355. anavasth, 68n109. apsucara, 61. aniyatapaurvparya, 5 6n81. abuddhisthatva, 1 74n433. anudtta, 11 7n242, 144, 145. abhidheyavcin, 161 n383. anuvrttu 131. abhihita, 84n140, 85. aveka, 169, 171, 172, 174, 177. abhcdavivaks, 146n326. 21T

212

Index of Sanscrit Words

abhedaikatvasamkhy, 58n85, 59, 60. knks-, 54n77, 111n209. artha, 90. fe-ri, 28, 29n42, 148n329, 149, 149n334. arthabheda, 57n82, 125n272. ksepa, 2n4a, 69n 111. arthavisesa, 125n2 72. ksiptalva, 167n408. arthbhidhna, 65 n 101. akhta, 110, 112, 113, 118, 119, arthntara, 128n278. 164xi399. arthvadhrctna, 70n115. mantrhanighla, 109n197. ardhapasu, 62. itaretarayoga, 68n109, 69. aZufc 61. uitarapada, 24. avayavadvralca, 36n49. uttarapadalopin, xv, 139, 146n326. avayavrthnvita, 51n72. utsarga, 1 42. avcya, 153n347, 154n352. uc/d/ta, 22, 116, 180, 189, 192. avntarapada, 21n34. uddesya, xvi, 1, 112n216, 136, 142. avntarapadalvcty 115n232. udbhiasarhbandha, 52n75. avibhga, 58n85. upakra, 150, 15On342. avrf, 73. upakraka, 34n47. avyaltbhidhna, 61n95. upakrakatoa, 153n347, 154n352. , 108. upalcaryatva-, 34n47. vika-, 200, 201, 203, 205. upacra, 135n301, 147. a, 200n548, 202n560. upapada, 14, 16. asrddhabhojin, 44, 48. upapada- relationship, xiii. asvahita, 18. upapadavibhal(t'u 12. asatyaprakriy, 75 n 125. upasarga, 164n399. asamariha, 42n62, 45n66, 46, 47, upasarjana, 169. 48, 49, 104, 105, 123, 133n297, 134, 163. upasarjanapaday 33n45, 58n85. asamarthavaU 123n266. upasarjanasam jn, 168n411, 1 78n443. asamarthasamsa, 44, 48. upasarjanlbhta, 78n 129. asamarthbhidhyin, 15n28. upasarjambhiasvriha, 9, 63n98. asdhutva, 41n58. upasthiti 131n290. asmartfipa, 129n284, 163. updhi, 156n365. asri;aTfij&aspa, 44, 48. ubhayadhlsthnatva, 83n138. ahn'u 91.

Index of Sanscrit Words eka, 109, 119. ekatin, U99, 117n241, 118, 119, 122. ekatva, 86. 113n226. a", 31n43. a, 142. e/eavafcpa, 1 19n248. ekavibhakt'u 168n4i 1. ekavibhaktika, 170n421. cl(avibhal(titva, 73n120. elaavisayatva, 115n232. ekasitu 191. ckasitipd, 190, 191, 192. efaiea-, 137, 138, 141, 142, 143, 147, 173n430. ekasesamrdesa, 137, 140, 144. eJ(asamjndhil(ra, 183n456. ekc, 118. kartrpradhna, 110, 113. karman, 3, 4, 16.

213

karmadhraya, 22, 117n247, 118, 157, 179. karmapradhna, 108n196. karmasaktu 87nl45. karmasdhana, 3n5, 133n297. kastasrita, 17. *w*a, 12, 87nl45, 88, 94 95, 108. ' kraka- relationship, xiii. krakavibhakitu 12. krakaviesana, 107, 108. ^frpa-, 92n154. kryadarsana-, 92nl54. kryasabda, ix, x, xi. kryasahdapaksa, 74n 121.

kryasabdika, 74, 74n122. eknupurvlta, 115n232. kimodana, 36, 37. ekrtha, 82n134, 86, 108n196. klrikna, 18. ekrthat, 54n77. kumbhakra, 15, 16. ekrthaiva, 52n74. fr, 12, 14. ekrthlbhva, v, vi, vii, viii, xi, xii, xvii, 8n17, 9n18, 34, 39, 51n72, 54, krtakrya, 81 ni 32. 86, 91, 95, 100, 101, 102, 125n Iflrdvrttu x. 273. ^ramena anvlhyna, xi. aikapadya, 73n120. Iriyapradhna, 110. aikasvarya, 73n120. Tinypradhnatva, 107n192, 113. QiiQ.rth})o.t 86. kriyviseana, 41n58, 107, 108. aupagava, 75, 77. Japinjalanyya, 143. kapinjaldhikarananyya, 142. karana, 136n305. fyhdiretarasamya, 181, 182, 183. khdiretaraamy, 184n460. khdintarasamy, 182.

214

Index of Sanscrit Words tripada, 196n527. tripadabahuwlhu 21n34, 185, 189, 190, 192, 196, 198, 199n547, 200, 203, 204, 206. traividyavyavahra, 72n11 7. dasyubhaya, 19. draina, 28, 29, 148n329, 152, 161. dravyapadrthika, 151 n339. Jravpamfra, 71. dravyavcin, 1 61 n383. dvandva, xvii, 65, 67, 98, 101, 102, 104, 172, 173, 175. JvanJva-compound, 160n382. dvihprayoga, 115n232. dvirvacana, 142. dvisamsaprasanga, 127, 128. dhtu, 162. dhtwrttu xiii. nagarakra, 15. nansamsa, 44n63. narakasrita, 1 7. nnkraka, 93, 94, 95n160, 96, 97, 106. nnlcrakatva, 95, 96n 161. nighia* xii, xiv, 123. nityadarsana-, 92n154. m'fpapafcsa, x. m'Jpasabda, ix, x, xi. nityasabdapaksa, 74n12l. nityasabdavdipaksa, 75n125. nityasambandha, 152n344. nimi^a, 188, nww'Hdsvara, 189, 191n501.

gamaka, vii, 42n62, 44, 47, 48, 49. gamal(atva, vii, 44n63, 48, 50. gamakatvgamakatva, 5 On71. gima, 69n1I1, 136, 148n329, 150, 152. gunalva, 31n43, 149n329. gunapadrthika, 15 3n34 7. girnapradhnabhva, 83n137. gunapradhnabhia* 82n135. gunavaU 108n196. gunin, 69n111. gosucara, 61. gohita, 18. gaurava, 7, 68n109. grahailcatva-, 1 37. grahailcatvanyaya, 136. ghrtaghata, 79. campakaputa, 80. crtfuz, 65, 168n411. corabhaya, 19. jahatsvrih, xi, xvii, 9, 10, 51, 75, 75n125, 76, 78, 78n129. /ati, 114. 49, 191n501, 192. / , 21, 22, 24, 98, 101, 102, 104,' 184n463, 187, 188, 189. iaddhita, 13, 14, 15, 127. taddhitavrtti xiii. tannimitta, 12. (m, 114. -tlnanlacctya-,, 111 n208. tinantasamha, 111 n209. tulyajyatva, 101 ni 71. tailaghata, 79.

Index of Sanscrit Words

215

paryya, 154n355. nimittin, 188. paryyatva, 75n125. nimitti-nimitia- (relation), 192. paryudsa, 45n65. nimiitisvara, 189, 190n497. pdtaliputraka, 36, 37. nimittisvarabalyastva, 186, 192. pt/ia, 135n303. niyatapaurvparya, 56n81. a pratanirya, 80n132. niyatavibhaktik > 1 70n421. prrthya-, 130n287. niyama, 4, 45n65, 46, 49. niyamrihatva, 1 75n434. pumvadbhva, 157n367, 183n456, 185 mW/ia, 120n25.1. punahsrutu 160n380. nispannatva, 133n297. pn>anipta-, 194n518. naityasabdika, 74, 74n122. pancakaprtipadikarthapaksa, 13n24. prvapafysin, ii, 3. prvapaksyeltadesin, im8. pancagavapriya, 181, 182. prvapada, 180. pancanvapnya, 181. prvapadaprafartisvara, 178n446. a, 3, 144, 145. prvapadottarapada, 168n411. rya, 3, 4, 14. padavidhi, vii, xv, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, prvaslpriya, 181. 182, 185n469, 186, 189. 17, 124, 132, 134, 135, 140, 146, 147. prthagartha, vii, viii, 51n72, 54. parataniratva, 149n329. prthagarthatva, viii, 52n74, 53n76, ' 54n77. paratva, 157n367. prthagupasthitu 90n152. paravipratisedha, 187. prthagbhva, 94. parasparasamsrsta, 90. prakarsa, 159n378. parasparasamsrstartha-, 90n 152. prakarsagatu 160n380. parasparpes, 25n37. prakarsapratyaya, 103n174. parngavadbhva* 4. prakriyntara, 1 76n438. pariganana, 133n297. paribhs, v, xi, xvii, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, prakrtisvara, 2On31. 10, II, 12, 16, 17, 130, 131. prakrtyartha, 69n111, 69n113. / e , 5, 7, 8. pratividhna, 16n29. y 46, 49. pratisedhavacana, 121 n25 5. parihra, 159n3 78. pratyayrtha, 69n113. -patyanuyoga, 1 7n30. a, 83n138. parypti-, 112n219.

26

Index of Saml(rit Words Ehsya-Vrttilca, 55n78. bHinnavalya, 120n251. bfiirmavisayaiva, 115n232, 183n456. bfjmnartha, 156n365. bhinnopasthiti-, 90n152. bhrtyabharoTitya, 156, 157.

a, 52n75, 80n132, 81, 149n :329, 157n367. bdakaiva, 152n346. 355, 155. bHedakrya, 151, 151n340. prasna, 2n4a. bHedapaksa, 81 ni 32. prasajyapratiscdha, 45 n65. bledahetu, 151n342. prasiddha, 154n355. btkdpoha, 58n85. prtipadika, 13, 29, 31. bhedbhedavivalsa, 146n326. prtipadikrthat 58n85, 83, 84n140, malliltputa, 80. 85. mqhakastasnta* 25, 26. prdhnya, 33n45, 34, 129n284. ma/iv/fpa-relationship, xiii. p/uta, xiv, 117n244. Mmaihsaka, 49. bafoasiva, 191n501. Mpnams, 32, 46, 136n305. bahiranga, 100, 186, 188. yaJrcchik, 146n326, 147. bahulagrahana, 163n391. a. 124, 203. bahulam, 22, 163, 195, 195n524. a, 111, 123n266, 124. bahuvrhu xvii, 66, 67, 117n247, a, 89. 118, 169, 170, 172, 179, 180, 184n463, 185, 188, 189, 192, yrigapaiprayoga, 155n360. 194. yusmadasmaddesa, xii, 123n266. bahavrhisvara, 185n469. ysmaddydea, 120n251. bdhyabdhakabhva, 73. pcgavibhga, 66. bdhyabadhakabhvbhva, 187n482.-pogTjat, 54n77, 111n2O9. fc/ipa, 100n169. rjagavasvapurusa, xiv, 98. bhyasambandhi-, 100n169. rjagan, xiv. buddhistha, 1 72n428. rafagavlsvra, xiv, 125, 126. brhmanakambala, 19, 61. bhvasadhana, 3n5. rfagavyasvapurusa, xiv. rjagoksra, xiv, 126, 128.

pratyhra, 196n534. pradhna, 136. pradhnaiva, 31n43. pradhnrtha, 78nl29. pradhnrthbhidhyin, 33n45. prapancrtha, 164n399. prayoganiyama, 5 7n84. pravrttinimitta, 149n334, 150, 154n

Index of Sanskrit Words rjagosvapurusa, xiv.

217

vidVii-rule, 7,8. vidhisabda, 133n297. ^ fjadhenuksira, xv. vMcja/xv, 1, 112n216, 133, 136, rjadhenvasvaksra, xv. 142. rjapurusa, v, vii, 19, 34, 53, 55, vidhyartha, 45n65, 46. 56, 58, 63, 75, 77, 84, 133. vtnii;oga, 130n287, 131. rauravetarasamya, 181. vipratisedha-, 186, 186n473, 187, 195. laksanaikacaksuska, 50, 50n71. vibhaktu 147. u-, 68, 68nlO9. a, 7, 68, 68n109. linga, 7n16. lokavyavahra, 72n 11 7. ^i^a, 115. kikavlya-, 106nl80. vacana, 135n3O1, 140. vacanaprmnya, 164, 166. varnavidhi, xv, 132. varssuja, 61. va'foa, vi, xiv, 108n196, 112, 119, 122, 123. vfyaparisampti, 143. vfyyabhcda, 66, 68. vfyasamjn, 112. vcakamtra, 111 n209. vcanifca, 65n101, 144n316, 191n501. vc\;a, 155n356. vrtta, 92n154. vrttika, 199. vfJi, v, 3, 7, 45, 46, 147. vibhaklividhna, 4. vibhajya anvlchyna, xi. virodha-, 186n473. visista, 35n48. vfiistr//ia, 53n76, 54n77. viiesana, 107, 108, 109. visesanatva, 78n129, 154n355. visesanavisesyatva, 20n31. viscsanavisesyabhva, 150n336, 154n355. visesanasaihbandha, 63n98. visesanpeksy 3 3n45. visesyatvacchedaka, 35n48. visesyalva, 154n355. visapavive^a, 184n463. virapurusa, xvi. vrkabhaya, 19. vr. vi, 9n19, 37n53, 39, 51n72, 73, 74n122, 75n123. vrttivisaya, 2O5n267. vrttistra-, 166, 167. vrddhavyavahra, 7On115. tu 114. a, 113n226. ffre^a, 36n5O.

218

Index of Sanskrit Words

v$apel?sf v, vi, xi, xvii, 8n17, 37n53, samal(altsa~, 1 14n228. 39, 87n144, 91, 95, 100, 101, samakaksatva, 83n139. 102, 125n273. samanlasilirandhra, 1 78, 193. v^abhicra. 62n97, 159n378. samartha, v, vi, vii, 1, 5, 7, 11, 13, vyartha, 166. 17, 39, 44, 45, 49, 50, 132, 134, 137, 141, 142, 165. vyavadhna, 56n81. samarthatara, 104. vyavasih-, 187n482. samarthataraiva, 103n174, 104. vyavahra, 71, 72. samartha-paribhs, xii, xiv, 124, 145. vpdtona, 135, 139, 140. samarthavacana, 51. saktu 87n145, 88, 88n146. samarthavidhu 145, 146, 147. sankulkhanda, 18. samarthdhikra, 16. sabdaprayoga, 60n93. sabdrthasambandha> 70n 115. samarthbhidhyin, 15n28. samna, 119. sistaprayoga, 156n362. samnatva, 15 9n3 78. irutf, 159n378. samsarga, 80n132, 81. samsargtbheda, 149n329. samsargibhcdaka, 149n329. samsrstrtha, 89. sam/ii, 132. sakraka, 108. sa<vdd/iaa, 36, 37. 5aga</, 144. sam/n;a\ 28n40, 2O1n553, 203, 205. sarhkhynat 205n567. stfthJtA^ejKi. 202, 203, 205, 205n567, 206. sathkhyeya-bahuvnhu 204. sangatrtha, 89. sarhghta, 87n142. sarhjn, 154n355. satfirsta, 188n488, 189, 189n490. a, 159n378. rhnW/ii, 152, 152n345. samnavkya, xii, 106, 117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124. samnavkydhikra, 122, 123n266. samnavyapadesa, 159n378. samndhikarana, xvi, 36n50, 123, 148n328, 153n349, 154n350, 155, 157, 157n374, 158, 159, 160. samndhikarana~re\2Lt\omhip, xiii. samndhikaranasamsa, 161 n386. samsa9 74, 134. smsa-relationship, xiii. samsnta* 1 76. samsntodttatva, 196n527, 206n573. samhra, 68n109, 69. samudya, 36n49. samudyasaihbandha, 37n53, 103n174. samudyasmarlhya* 102n 1 72, 103n174, 104, 105. samudyrtha, 51n72. sampreksitrtha, 89.

Index of Sanskrit Words

219

smarthyhnu 78n129. sambaddhrtha, 89. sarhbandha, 90, 103n174. smnyanirdesa, 2 7n38. sambandhin, 98nl64. siddhntin% iii, 3n9. sambandhisabda, 37n53. siddhntyeladcsin, ii, 3n9. sarhbandhisabdatva-, 37n53, 42n66. -suptvhantacaya, 111n208. sarvavibhaktyanta, 145n323. subanta, 144. savisesana, 108. subantacaya-, 111 n208. sav^pdra, 149n329. simatjinavsas, 178, 193. sahavivaks, 173, 173n430, 174. susksmajatakesa, 178, 180, 193. sahavivaksita, 171 n42 5. strsaunda, 19. slcanltsvayava, 108n 196. smrt 152. sdhana, 107nl91. svarabheda, 57n52. 41n58, 42n60, 44n63, 45n66. svarajjitavpa, 7. 103n1 76, 107n191, 136n305. ^ ^ sdhyasdhanabhva, 106n180. sdhvasdhusamkara, 72n11 7. speksa, 34, 39. speksat, 1 74n433. speksatva, 35n48. smarthtya, v, vi, xii, xiv, xvii, 8, 46, 167n408. samarthyvighta, 78n129. *
7 5VaritoguTia, 131.

svbhavika, 65n101. ivrAa. 79n130, 81n132. svrthatyga, 78n129. hnu 90n150, 91. hotpotnesfodgtr, 1 74, 1 75. hoirpotrnestodgdtr, 174, 175.

INDEX OF ENGLISH WORDS counter example, 18. daily usage, 72. adjective, 35. denominative, 8, 13. adverb, 107. derivational process, 15. derived, 74, 92. aggregation, 64. descriptive aspect (of grammar), associative features, 156. 74nl21. bare-stem notion, 84, 85, 86, 100, 142. descriptive grammar, x. beginning-to-end, x. designation, 121, 122. bottom-to-top, x, xi. difference, 150, 157. capacity, 88. differentiation, 80, 81. case-inflected, 28, 30, 31, 145. disappearance, 5 5. commission, 130. economy, 68. communication, 71, 72. emergence of single meaning, vii, 9nl8. compatibility, 54. endogenous, 100. compound, 41, 42, 50, 51, 53, 54, end-to-beginning, xi. 55, 56, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 73, enumeration, 44, 46. 74, 98. compounded expression, 42. enumerative, 47. compound-form, 20, 79. example, 18. compound-formation, 15, 23. existence, 15 7. compounding, 4, 10, 23. exogenous, 100. compound-whole, 24. expletive, 111. condition, 67. external correlative, 100. conditioned, 186, 188, 189, 191. external indicator, 91. conditioning, 186, 188, 189. extra-ilinguistic situation, 71. conjunction, 64, 65, 67. finished, 1, 1 n 1. connection, 55, 56, 58, 64, 90, 120. formulation, 139. constituent, 20. four-word, 180. context, 70. gender, 136. correct, 42, 45, 48, 72. general implied meaning, 71. correlative, 38, 39, 42. general meaning, 70. accentuation, 21. accent, 56, 57, 58, 62, 73, 74.

Index of English Words generality, 59.

221

internal, 198n542a. internal bahuvrihu 202n558. generated, 15, 75. generative aspect of grammar, 74n121. internal construction, 21, 23, 180, 183n459, 184n460, 185, 189. generative grammar, ix, ixn22, x. 194n513, 195, 199. generic feature, 29. interpretative, 5. generic notion, 29. interpretative rule, 130. generic sense, 30, 32. intervention, 55 ,56. genitive relationship, xiii. language-communication, 71. genus, 114, 149. left-side, 23, 24, 179, 180. gesture, 72. left-side analysis, 21. grammar, 72 lexical, 71. grammatical features (of compound), main meaning, 83. vin. main member, 33, 35, 38, 76, 79. grammatical operation, 1, 3. mark, 6. group, 30, 32. marker, 7. immediate sequence, 18. ' meaning, 52, 53, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 68, 69, 71, 72, 76, 77, 82. implication, 36 meaning-analysis, 16, 200, 203. implied, 168. meaning-connection, 103. incompatible, 77, 78. incorrect, 44, 48, 72 independent relation, 36. indirectly connected, 124. individual, 28. 30, 32, 114. individual object, 148, 152, 157. inflectional suffix, 54, 60. inseparable, 33, 52. inside, 198n542a. inside bahuvrihu 199n547, 2O2n558, 203, 204, 205. inside-construction, 199n547, 200, 201n556, 202, 203. integration, x, xi, 73, 74, 78, 81. interdependence, 38. meaning-interdependence, v, 8, 9, 10. 11, 12, 39, 50, 57, 73, 88, 94, 99, 101, 174. meaning-relation, 88. monosyllabic, 118. natural, 92. negative, 49. negative compound, 44, 46. negative particle, 44. nominal stem, 83. nominative, 84. non-appearance, 52. non-apprehension, 60,

222

Index of English Words referent, 155n356. regressus ad infinltum, 68, 69. relation, 36, 80, 90. rephrasing, 140, 142, 144. requirement, 38, 54, 87. restriction, 4, 45. restrictive adjective, 35. restrictive character, 47. restrictive enumeration, 49. right-side, 23, 24, 39, 179, 180. section-heading, 5, 6, 121, 122, 123, 132. segment, 76. self-contained, 52, 101. semantically unconnected, 33, 34. semantic connection, v, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 37,50,51, 78,80, 81, 87, 88, 99, 148, 150, 166. semantic features (of compound), viii. semantic principle, 39. sentence, 106, 107n187, 108, 109, 111, 115, 121, 122. sentence-definition, 122. single integrated meaning, v, xi, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 33, 39, 50, 51. 55, 57,58,64,65, 73,88,99, 101. singular, 30, 32. singular number, 59, 71. specific, 147. speech-community, 66, 67. speech-sound, 51. stem, 69, 70. stem-meaning, 70n114. stem-suffix-relationship, xiii. subject, 32, 136, 137, 142.

non-committal, 27, 59, 60, 141, 147. non-differentiation, 45. non-disappearance, 55, 57, 62, 63. non-integration, 73. non-technical, 106, 116. number, 58, 61, 63, 136. objection, 2n4a. one-to-one correspondence, 72. operation, 1. operational way, 29. operator, 87, 88, 94, 106, 108. outside qualifier, 36. outside word, 34, 35, 37, 38. partidle, 65. particularity, 59. particular meaning, 70, 71. partitive-relationship, xiii. pattern-congruency, 101. phoeme, 76. phonological operation, xv. predicate, 32, 133, 136, 137, 142. predicate phrase, 31, 112, 113. predominant, 34, 78, 79. preverb, 89, 90, 165. preverb-verb-relationship, xiii. principal, 119, 136. proviso, 7. qualified, 33, 34, 35, 41, 46, 53, 78. qualifier, 33, 34, 52, 54, 58, 63, 79. qualifier-qualified relation, 54. qualifying, 33, 35, 40, 41, 63, 64. quality, 69. question, 2n4a.

Index of English Words subject-phrase, 31. 112, 113. subordinate, 34, 58, 59, 63, 119. subordinate meaning, 83. subordinate member, 35, 38, 59, 63, 76, 77, 78, 79. subsidiary, 136. suffix, 69, 70. synonym, 76, 155. syntactic agreement, 36n56, 157, 158, 159, 160, 163. syntactically connected, 160. syntactic function, 1 73. syntactic level, vii. syntactic operation, vii, xv. three-or-more-word, 27, 32. three-word, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 39, 184, 192, 194, 195, 196. transformed, 74.

223

two-word, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 39, 179, 180, 195. unaccented, 62. uncompounded expression, 38. uncompounded word-group, 33, 41, 43, 50, 53, 54,55, 56, 58, 61. 62, 63, 64, 65, 74, 78, 82. underived, 74. usage, 66. word-combination, 1 74. word-composition, 9, 11, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 59, 60, 80, 92, 137n308. word-formation, 8, 9S19. word-group, 109. word-integration, 13 7n 3 08. word-intervention, viii. word-meaning, 53, 54, 55. word-order, viii, 55, 56.