Premabase · Vyākaraṇa-mahābhāṣya · Adhyāya 0 · Pada 1
Show
VṛttiSanskritHindiEnglishTranslator notes
Edition
PhilologicalStudy
Study decode
Phrases
Script
IASTदेवनागरीবাংলা
MBH paspaśā 10.2
← paspaśā 10.1paspaśā 11 →
Vṛtti Patañjali
atha kam punaḥ padārtham matvā eṣaḥ vigrahaḥ kriyate siddhe śabde arthe sambandhe ca iti .
Now (atha), again, holding which padārtha (word-referent) in mind is this analysis (vigraha) made — 'when the word is established, and the meaning, and the relation' (siddhe śabde arthe sambandhe ca)?
अथ, किस पदार्थ को मानकर यह विग्रह किया जाता है — “सिद्धे शब्दे अर्थे सम्बन्धे च” — इस प्रकार?
ākṛtim iti āha .
He says: 'the ākṛti (the generic form).'
“आकृति को (मानकर)” — ऐसा (आचार्य) कहते हैं।
kutaḥ etat .
Whence this?
यह किससे (सिद्ध होता है)?
ākṛtiḥ hi nityā .
For the ākṛti is eternal.
क्योंकि आकृति नित्य है।
dravyam anityam .
The dravya (individual substance) is non-eternal.
द्रव्य अनित्य है।
atha dravye padārthe katham vigrahaḥ kartavyaḥ .
Now (atha), when the dravya is the padārtha, how is the analysis to be made?
अथ यदि द्रव्य ही पदार्थ हो, तो विग्रह किस प्रकार करना चाहिए?
siddhe śabde arthasambandhe ca iti .
'When the word is established, and the meaning-relation' (siddhe śabde arthasambandhe ca).
“शब्द के तथा अर्थ-सम्बन्ध के सिद्ध होने पर” — इस प्रकार।
nityaḥ hi arthavatām arthaiḥ abhisambandhaḥ .
For the connection of meaning-bearing words with their meanings is eternal.
क्योंकि अर्थवान् (शब्दों) का अपने अर्थों के साथ अभिसम्बन्ध नित्य है।
atha vā dravye eva padārthe eṣaḥ vigrahaḥ nyāyyaḥ siddhe śabde arthe sambandhe ca iti. dravyam hi nityam ākṛtiḥ anityā .
Or rather (atha vā), precisely when the dravya is the padārtha is this analysis proper — 'when the word is established, and the meaning, and the relation'. For the dravya is eternal, the ākṛti non-eternal.
अथवा द्रव्य के ही पदार्थ होने पर यह विग्रह न्याय्य है — “सिद्धे शब्दे अर्थे सम्बन्धे च” — इस प्रकार; क्योंकि द्रव्य नित्य है, आकृति अनित्य।
katham jñāyate .
How is that known?
यह कैसे जाना जाता है?
evam hi dṛśyate loke .
For thus it is seen in the world.
क्योंकि लोक में ऐसा ही देखा जाता है।
mṛt kayā cit ākṛtyā yuktā piṇḍaḥ bhavati .
Clay, joined with some ākṛti, becomes a lump (piṇḍa).
मिट्टी किसी आकृति से युक्त होकर पिण्ड होती है।
piṇḍākṛtim upamṛdya ghaṭikāḥ kiryante .
Crushing the lump's ākṛti, small pots (ghaṭikās) are made.
पिण्ड की आकृति को मर्दित करके घटिकाएँ बनाई जाती हैं।
ghaṭikākṛtim upamṛdya kuṇḍikāḥ kriyante .
Crushing the small-pot ākṛti, bowls (kuṇḍikās) are made.
घटिका की आकृति को मर्दित करके कुण्डिकाएँ बनाई जाती हैं।
tathā suvarṇam kayā cit ākṛtyā yuktam piṇḍaḥ bhavati .
So too gold, joined with some ākṛti, becomes a lump.
उसी प्रकार सुवर्ण किसी आकृति से युक्त होकर पिण्ड होता है।
piṇḍākṛtim upamṛdya rucakāḥ kriyante .
Crushing the lump's ākṛti, rucakas (neck ornaments) are made.
पिण्ड की आकृति को मर्दित करके रुचक बनाए जाते हैं।
rucakākṛtim upamṛdya kaṭakāḥ kriyante .
Crushing the rucaka ākṛti, kaṭakas (bracelets) are made.
रुचक की आकृति को मर्दित करके कटक बनाए जाते हैं।
kaṭakākṛtim upmṛdya svastikāḥ kriyante .
Crushing the kaṭaka ākṛti, svastikas are made.
कटक की आकृति को मर्दित करके स्वस्तिक बनाए जाते हैं।
punaḥ āvṛttaḥ suvarṇapiṇḍaḥ punaḥ aparayā ākṛtyā yuktaḥ khadirāgārasavarṇe kuṇḍale bhavataḥ .
The gold lump, brought back again, joined again with yet another ākṛti, becomes a pair of earrings of the colour of khadira embers.
फिर लौटाया हुआ (गलाकर पुनः पिण्ड किया गया) सुवर्णपिण्ड पुनः दूसरी आकृति से युक्त होकर खदिर-अङ्गार के समान वर्णवाले दो कुण्डल हो जाता है।
ākṛtiḥ anyā ca anyā ca bhavati dravyam punaḥ tad eva .
The ākṛti becomes now one and now another; the dravya, however, is that very same thing.
आकृति अन्य-अन्य होती जाती है, किन्तु द्रव्य वही रहता है।
ākṛtyupamardena dravyam eva avaśiṣyate .
By the crushing of the ākṛti, the dravya alone is left over.
आकृति के मर्दन से द्रव्य ही शेष रह जाता है।
ākṛtau api padārthe eṣaḥ vigrahaḥ nyāyyaḥ siddhe śabde arthe sambandhe ca iti .
Even when the ākṛti is the padārtha, this analysis is proper — 'when the word is established, and the meaning, and the relation'.
आकृति के भी पदार्थ होने पर यह विग्रह न्याय्य है — “सिद्धे शब्दे अर्थे सम्बन्धे च” — इस प्रकार।
nanu ca uktam ākṛtiḥ anityā iti .
But surely (nanu ca) it was said, 'the ākṛti is non-eternal'!
ननु, यह तो कहा जा चुका कि “आकृति अनित्य है” — इस प्रकार।
na etat asti .
That is not so.
यह (बात) नहीं है।
nityā ākṛtiḥ .
The ākṛti is eternal.
आकृति नित्य है।
katham .
How?
किस प्रकार?
na kva cit uparatā iti kṛtvā sarvatra uparatā bhavati .
It does not, on the ground that it has ceased somewhere, cease everywhere.
कहीं (किसी एक द्रव्य में) निवृत्त हो गई — इस कारण से वह सर्वत्र निवृत्त नहीं हो जाती।
dravyāntarasthā tu upalabhyate .
But (tu) it is apprehended as residing in another dravya.
वह तो अन्य द्रव्य में स्थित उपलब्ध होती है।
atha vā na idam eva nityalakṣaṇam dhruvam kūṭastham avicāli anapāyopajanavikāri anutpatti avṛddhi avyayayogi iti tan nityam iti .
Or rather (atha vā), this alone is not the mark of the eternal — 'that is eternal which is fixed, unchanging at its summit (kūṭastha), unwavering, not altering by loss or accretion, not subject to origination, growth or decay'.
अथवा, नित्य का लक्षण केवल यही नहीं है — “ध्रुव, कूटस्थ, अविचालि, अपाय-उपजन-विकार से रहित, अनुत्पत्ति-अवृद्धि-अव्यय से युक्त — वही नित्य है” — इस प्रकार।
tat api nityam yasmin tattvam na vihanyate .
That too is eternal in which the tattva (essential nature) is not destroyed.
वह भी नित्य है जिसमें तत्त्व का हनन नहीं होता।
kim punaḥ tattvam .
But what, again, is tattva?
तत्त्व फिर क्या है?
tadbhāvaḥ tattvam .
Being that very thing (tadbhāva) is tattva.
उसका (उस रूप में) भाव ही तत्त्व है।
ākṛtau api tattvam na vihanyate .
In the ākṛti too the tattva is not destroyed.
आकृति में भी तत्त्व का हनन नहीं होता।
atha vā kim naḥ etena idam nityam idam anityam iti .
Or rather (atha vā), what is it to us — 'this is eternal, this is non-eternal'?
अथवा, हमें इससे क्या कि “यह नित्य है, यह अनित्य है” — इस प्रकार?
yat nityam tam padārtham matvā eṣaḥ vigrahaḥ kriyate siddhe śabde arthe sambandhe ca iti .
Whichever is eternal, holding that as the padārtha this analysis is made — 'when the word is established, and the meaning, and the relation'.
जो नित्य है उसी को पदार्थ मानकर यह विग्रह किया जाता है — “सिद्धे शब्दे अर्थे सम्बन्धे च” — इस प्रकार।
katham punaḥ jñāyate siddhaḥ śabdaḥ arthaḥ sambandhaḥ ca iti .
But how, again, is it known that the word, the meaning and the relation are established?
किन्तु यह कैसे जाना जाता है कि शब्द, अर्थ और सम्बन्ध सिद्ध हैं — इस प्रकार?
lokataḥ .
From the world (from ordinary usage).
लोक से।
yat loke artham upādāya śabdān prayuñjate .
Because in the world, taking up a meaning, people employ words.
क्योंकि लोक में (लोग) अर्थ को लेकर शब्दों का प्रयोग करते हैं।
na eṣām nirvṛttau yatnam kurvanti .
They make no effort at the production of these.
इनकी निष्पत्ति में यत्न नहीं करते।
ye punaḥ kāryāḥ bhāvāḥ nirvṛttau tāvat teṣām yatnaḥ kriyate .
But those things that are to be produced — for them, effort is indeed made at their production.
किन्तु जो भाव कार्य (बनाए जाने योग्य) होते हैं, उनकी निष्पत्ति में तो यत्न किया जाता है।
tat yathā .
As, for instance.
जैसे —
ghaṭena kāryam kariṣyan kumbhakārakulam gatvā āha kuru ghaṭam .
One who is going to do a job with a pot, having gone to the potter's house, says: 'Make a pot.'
घट से कार्य लेने की इच्छावाला कुम्भकार के कुल में जाकर कहता है — “घट बनाओ।”
kāryam anena kariṣyāmi iti .
'I shall do a job with it.'
“इससे मैं कार्य करूँगा” — इस प्रकार।
na tadvat śabdān prayokṣyamāṇaḥ vaiyākaraṇakulam gatvā āha .
Not so one who is going to employ words: he does not go to the grammarian's house and say —
उसी प्रकार शब्दों का प्रयोग करने को उद्यत (व्यक्ति) वैयाकरण के कुल में जाकर नहीं कहता —
kuru śabdān .
'Make words.'
“शब्द बनाओ।”
prayokṣye iti .
'I shall employ them.'
“मैं (उनका) प्रयोग करूँगा” — इस प्रकार।
tāvati eva artham upādāya śabdān prayuñjate .
In just that much, taking up a meaning, they employ words.
इतने में ही अर्थ को लेकर शब्दों का प्रयोग कर लेते हैं।
Translator notes mūla-only construal · not shown in the reading edition
  • Dialectic construal: s1 opens the question (holding WHICH padārtha in view is the vārttika's phrase analysed as three separate locatives?); s2 answers 'the ākṛti', s3 challenges it, s4-s5 give the reason (ākṛti eternal, dravya non-eternal). s6-s8 take the other horn: if dravya is the padārtha, the analysis must be recast as two locatives (śabde, arthasambandhe), since only the word and its relation to meaning are eternal. s9 opens a second alternative (atha vā): dravya IS the padārtha and the original three-fold analysis stands, because dravya is eternal and ākṛti non-eternal — s10-s21 are the demonstration from clay and gold. s22 counters that the original analysis works even with ākṛti as padārtha; s23 (nanu ca) objects with the earlier claim, s24-s28 reply that the ākṛti is eternal (it ceases only locally, and is found residing in another dravya). s29-s33 (atha vā) widen the definition of 'eternal' so that the ākṛti qualifies. s34-s35 (atha vā) dismiss the whole question: whichever is eternal is the padārtha meant. s36 opens a new question — how is the establishedness of word, meaning and relation known? — answered s37 'from the world', with s38-s47 the potter analogy.
  • mbh.0.1.10.2.s13: source reads 'kiryante', evidently for 'kriyante' (as in s14, s16-s18); rendered 'are made'.
  • mbh.0.1.10.2.s18: source reads 'upmṛdya' for 'upamṛdya'; rendered as the latter.
  • mbh.0.1.10.2.s29: rendered literally. The sentence is elliptical: 'na idam eva nityalakṣaṇam ... iti tan nityam iti' — the string of adjectives is the rejected (too narrow) definition of nitya, and the alternative definition follows only in s30. I have not supplied a connective the Sanskrit does not have.
  • mbh.0.1.10.2.s47: 'tāvati eva' rendered literally as 'in just that much'. What the locative is governed by is not clear to me from the passage alone; the sense seems to be that no separate act of production intervenes, but the connection to s44-s46 is left as the Sanskrit leaves it.
  • Glossary proposal: ākṛti (generic form/configuration), dravya (individual substance), padārtha (word-referent), vigraha (analytic resolution of a phrase/compound) — kept transliterated per docs/MBH-TRANSLATE.md §2.
  • द्वन्द्व-निर्धारण (dialectic construal): s1 प्रश्न उठाता है — किस पदार्थ को मानकर ‘siddhe śabde arthe sambandhe ca’ का विग्रह किया गया? s2–s5 पहला पक्ष: आकृति पदार्थ है, क्योंकि आकृति नित्य और द्रव्य अनित्य। s6–s8 प्रतिपक्षी का प्रश्न (‘atha dravye padārthe…’) और उसका उत्तर — तब विग्रह द्विपद (‘siddhe śabde arthasambandhe ca’) होगा। s9–s21 दूसरा विकल्प (‘atha vā’): द्रव्य ही पदार्थ, क्योंकि मृत्तिका/सुवर्ण के दृष्टान्त में आकृति बदलती है, द्रव्य वही रहता है। s22–s33 आकृति-पक्ष का पुनरुद्धार: ननु-आक्षेप (s23) और उसका खण्डन (s24–s28), फिर नित्यत्व-लक्षण का पुनर्निर्वचन (s29–s33) जिससे आकृति भी नित्य सिद्ध हो। s34–s35 तीसरा विकल्प (‘atha vā’): नित्य-अनित्य के विवाद से हमें प्रयोजन नहीं; जो नित्य हो वही पदार्थ। s36–s47 नया प्रश्न: शब्द-अर्थ-सम्बन्ध की सिद्धता कैसे ज्ञात हो? उत्तर — लोक से, कुम्भकार-दृष्टान्त द्वारा। मैं निश्चयपूर्वक नहीं कह सकता कि s22 से आगे का पक्ष सिद्धान्त है या केवल विकल्प-प्रदर्शन; भाष्य तीनों विकल्पों को खुला छोड़ता है और किसी एक का वरण स्पष्ट रूप से नहीं करता।
  • s13 में मूलपाठ ‘kiryante’ है (सम्भवतः ‘kriyante’ का लेखन-दोष); मैंने ‘बनाई जाती हैं’ ही रखा। इसी प्रकार s18 में ‘upmṛdya’ (= upamṛdya)।
  • s19 में वचन-विषमता है: ‘suvarṇapiṇḍaḥ’ एकवचन, किन्तु क्रिया ‘bhavataḥ’ द्विवचन (kuṇḍale के अनुरूप)। मैंने शब्दशः ही रखा है।
  • s27 ‘na kva cit uparatā iti kṛtvā sarvatra uparatā bhavati’ — ‘kṛtvā’ का अन्वय शिथिल है; मैंने ‘इस कारण से’ के रूप में लिया। अन्य अन्वय भी सम्भव है।
  • s29 का वाक्य दीर्घ और अध्याहार-बहुल है; ‘na idam eva nityalakṣaṇam … iti tan nityam iti’ — मैंने इसे ‘नित्य का लक्षण केवल यही नहीं है कि…’ के रूप में शब्दशः रखा है। ‘anutpatti avṛddhi avyayayogi’ का पदच्छेद स्रोत में विसन्धि-रूप में है।
  • s47 ‘tāvati eva’ — ‘इतने में ही’; किसका परिमाण अभिप्रेत है यह भाष्य स्पष्ट नहीं करता, अतः शब्दशः रखा।
Vṛtti — decoded
Patañjali
s1avataranika
atha kam punaḥ padārtham matvā eṣaḥ vigrahaḥ kriyate siddhe śabde arthe sambandhe ca iti .
athanow — opening a fresh question on the phrase just quoted indeclinable transition particle
kam punaḥ padārthamwhich padārtha — which sort of word-referent? acc. sg. masc.; kam is the interrogative, punaḥ presses the question a step further
matvāholding in view, having taken it to be — gerund of √man; its unexpressed agent is the one who framed the phrase, and padārtham is its object
eṣaḥ vigrahaḥ kriyateis this analytic resolution made nom. sg. masc. subject with 3 sg. pres. passive of √kṛ
siddhe śabde arthe sambandhe ca iti"the word being established, and the meaning, and the relation" three locatives absolute coordinated by ca, quoted by iti as the phrase under analysis
atha — now; kam punaḥ padārthaṁ matvā — holding which padārtha in view; eṣa vigrahaḥ kriyate — is this vigraha made; siddhe śabde arthe sambandhe ca iti — namely "the word being established, the meaning, and the relation". matvā is subordinate to kriyate, its object padārtham; the iti-clause is in apposition to vigrahaḥ.
A new question opens. The phrase siddhe śabde arthe sambandhe ca has been resolved into three separate locatives. The question is what kind of referent you have to assume for that resolution to hold. Not what the words mean, but what has to be eternal for them to mean it.
vigraha is the technical term for spelling out a compressed phrase or compound into its parts. What is at stake is whether siddhe governs three items separately (word, meaning, relation) or only two; the answer turns on which of them can be called eternal. padārtha here is the referent of a word, not "category" in the Vaiśeṣika sense.
s2reply
ākṛtim iti āha .
ākṛtimthe ākṛti — the generic form, the shape shared by all the individuals acc. sg. fem., the object of matvā carried over from s1
iti āhaso he says iti closes the one-word reply; āha 3 sg. with unnamed subject
ākṛtim [matvā] iti āha — "holding the ākṛti [in view]", he says. The accusative is governed by the matvā of s1, which is not repeated.
The first answer: the referent assumed is the ākṛti, the form. The reply is a single word, and it works only because the gerund matvā from the previous sentence is still in force. Patañjali does not say who is answering.
s3objection
kutaḥ etat .
kutaḥon what ground? — where does that come from? interrogative adverb of source, -tas suffix
etatthis — the answer just given nom. sg. neut., subject of a verbless sentence
kutaḥ etat — whence this? A verbless challenge; etat picks up the whole of s2.
The challenge. Grant nothing; say where the answer comes from. This is the standing form of demand for a reason in the bhāṣya.
s4reply
ākṛtiḥ hi nityā .
ākṛtiḥthe ākṛti, the form nom. sg. fem.
hifor — marking the ground being supplied causal particle, second in the sentence
nityāis eternal nom. sg. fem. adjective, predicate of a verbless sentence
ākṛtir hi nityā — for the ākṛti is eternal. hi marks this as the answer to kutaḥ.
The ground for taking the form as the referent. Only what is eternal can be said to be already established, and the form is eternal. The word siddha in the phrase is doing the work here.
s5reply
dravyam anityam .
dravyamthe dravya — the individual thing, the concrete substance nom. sg. neut.
anityamis not eternal nom. sg. neut., predicate; hi is not repeated but the sentence continues s4's reason
dravyam anityam — the dravya is non-eternal. Paired with s4 as the second half of one reason; no connective is expressed.
The other half of the same reason. Individual cows come and go, so the individual cannot be what is "already established". Note that the whole argument for this pairing will be reversed at s9.
s6objection
atha dravye padārthe katham vigrahaḥ kartavyaḥ .
athanow — taking up the other horn indeclinable opening an alternative supposition
dravye padārtheif the dravya is the referent — the individual thing being taken as the padārtha locative absolute, two nouns in agreement, no participle expressed
katham vigrahaḥ kartavyaḥhow then is the analysis to be made? katham interrogative; kartavyaḥ gerundive nom. sg. masc. agreeing with vigrahaḥ
atha — now; dravye padārthe — the dravya being the padārtha; kathaṁ vigrahaḥ kartavyaḥ — how is the vigraha to be made? The locative absolute states the hypothesis under which the question is asked.
The opposite supposition. Suppose you say the referent is the individual thing. Then the resolution into three eternal items cannot stand, since one of them is not eternal. So how do you cut the phrase instead?
s7reply
siddhe śabde arthasambandhe ca iti .
siddhe śabde arthasambandhe ca iti"the word being established, and the meaning-relation" — two items, not three two locatives absolute joined by ca; artha-sambandhe is a tatpuruṣa, contrast the two separate locatives arthe sambandhe of s1
siddhe śabde arthasambandhe ca iti — the answer is given as a quoted re-cutting of the phrase. artha and sambandha are compounded into one locative instead of standing as two.
The answer is not a sentence but a re-cutting. Fold artha and sambandha into a single compound, artha-sambandha, and you get two locatives instead of three. Then only the word and its tie to meaning are being called eternal, and the thing itself is left out of the claim.
This is the whole technique of the passage. The same string of syllables yields two different vigrahas depending on where you break it, and which break you take is decided by what you are willing to call eternal. Grammatical analysis and metaphysical commitment are being made to answer to each other.
s8gloss
nityaḥ hi arthavatām arthaiḥ abhisambandhaḥ .
nityaḥ hifor it is eternal nom. sg. masc. predicate agreeing with abhisambandhaḥ; hi marks the reason
arthavatāmof things that have meaning — of meaningful words gen. pl. of arthavat, the -vat possessive suffix
arthaiḥwith their meanings instr. pl., the associate governed by abhi-sam-bandha
abhisambandhaḥthe tie, the connection nom. sg. masc., the subject
arthavatām arthair abhisambandhaḥ — the connection of meaningful [words] with their meanings; nityo hi — is indeed eternal. The genitive is possessive with abhisambandhaḥ, the instrumental marks what the connection is with.
Why the two-item cutting works. The link between a meaningful word and what it means is itself permanent, whatever happens to the individual things. So the word and the word-meaning tie can both be called established even if the thing cannot.
s9alternative
atha vā dravye eva padārthe eṣaḥ vigrahaḥ nyāyyaḥ siddhe śabde arthe sambandhe ca iti. dravyam hi nityam ākṛtiḥ anityā .
atha vāor else — a second reading offered without withdrawing the first atha vā regularly introduces a suspended alternative in this text
dravye eva padārtheprecisely when the dravya is the referent locative absolute as at s6, with eva restricting it
eṣaḥ vigrahaḥ nyāyyaḥthis analysis is the proper one nyāyya, a gerundive-shaped adjective from nyāya, nom. sg. masc.
siddhe śabde arthe sambandhe ca iti"the word being established, and the meaning, and the relation" — the three-way cut of s1 quoted; three separate locatives again
dravyam hi nityamfor the dravya is eternal hi supplying the reason
ākṛtiḥ anityāthe ākṛti is not eternal nom. sg. fem.; the paired claim, with no connective expressed
atha vā — or else; dravye eva padārthe — precisely with the dravya as padārtha; eṣa vigraho nyāyyaḥ — this vigraha is proper; siddhe śabde arthe sambandhe ca iti — namely the three-locative one; dravyaṁ hi nityam ākṛtir anityā — for the dravya is eternal and the ākṛti not.
A complete reversal, and it is offered as an alternative, not as a correction. s4–s5 said the form is eternal and the thing is not. Here the thing is eternal and the form is not, and the original three-way cut stands after all. The bhāṣya does not say which of the two positions it holds; it argues both.
Note the shape of the argument as a whole. The vigraha is not being derived from a settled metaphysics; rather, several metaphysics are tried and each is shown to support some cutting of the phrase. By s34 the bhāṣya will say the choice does not matter.
s10objection
katham jñāyate .
katham jñāyatehow is that known? 3 sg. pres. passive of √jñā with the interrogative adverb katham
kathaṁ jñāyate — how is it known? The subject is the claim just made, unexpressed.
The same demand for grounds as at s3, in a different form. The claim that the individual thing is the permanent one is counter-intuitive and needs evidence.
s11reply
evam hi dṛśyate loke .
evamin this way — as the illustration about to be given shows adverb pointing forward, unusually, rather than back
hifor causal particle
dṛśyate lokeit is seen in ordinary experience 3 sg. pres. passive of √dṛś; loke loc. sg., the field of observation
evaṁ hi dṛśyate loke — for it is seen thus in the world. evam is cataphoric, taken up by the clay and gold examples of s12–s19.
The evidence offered is observation, not scripture and not inference from a rule. What people can watch happening is admitted as proof here, exactly as ordinary usage was admitted as proof of what a word means.
s12example
mṛt kayā cit ākṛtyā yuktā piṇḍaḥ bhavati .
mṛtclay nom. sg. fem. of mṛd
kayā cit ākṛtyā yuktājoined with some form or other instr. sg. fem. of the indefinite kā cit with ākṛti; yuktā nom. sg. fem. participle agreeing with mṛt
piṇḍaḥ bhavatibecomes a lump nom. sg. masc. predicate with bhavati; the gender shifts to that of the predicate noun
mṛt kayācid ākṛtyā yuktā — clay, joined with some form; piṇḍo bhavati — becomes a lump. The instrumental marks what the clay is combined with.
The first stage of the clay demonstration. Clay by itself is just clay; put a form on it and you have a lump. The lump-ness is the form, and the clay is what the form is on.
s13example
piṇḍākṛtim upamṛdya ghaṭikāḥ kiryante .
piṇḍākṛtim upamṛdyacrushing out the lump-form gerund of upa-√mṛd with its accusative object; piṇḍa-ākṛti is a tatpuruṣa
ghaṭikāḥ kiryantesmall pots are made nom. pl. fem. with a 3 pl. pres. passive; the source spells kiryante, evidently for kriyante as in s14 and s16–s18
piṇḍākṛtim upamṛdya — having crushed the lump-form; ghaṭikāḥ kriyante — small pots are made. The gerund's agent is the same unexpressed potter who is the agent of the passive verb.
The form is destroyed and a new one takes its place. The clay is not destroyed; it is the same clay throughout. That is what the argument needs.
s14example
ghaṭikākṛtim upamṛdya kuṇḍikāḥ kriyante .
ghaṭikākṛtim upamṛdyacrushing out the small-pot form same construction as s13
kuṇḍikāḥ kriyantebowls are made nom. pl. fem. with 3 pl. pres. passive
ghaṭikākṛtim upamṛdya kuṇḍikāḥ kriyante — having crushed the small-pot form, bowls are made.
A second turn of the same wheel. Each stage kills a form and keeps the material. The repetition is the argument, not decoration.
s15example
tathā suvarṇam kayā cit ākṛtyā yuktam piṇḍaḥ bhavati .
tathāso too — a second case of the same pattern adverb of comparison, opening the parallel series
suvarṇamgold nom. sg. neut.
kayā cit ākṛtyā yuktamjoined with some form or other yuktam nom. sg. neut. agreeing with suvarṇam
piṇḍaḥ bhavatibecomes a lump as at s12
tathā suvarṇaṁ kayācid ākṛtyā yuktaṁ piṇḍo bhavati — so too gold, joined with some form, becomes a lump.
The same demonstration run again on a second material. Two materials make the point look like a general fact about matter and form, not a quirk of clay.
s16example
piṇḍākṛtim upamṛdya rucakāḥ kriyante .
piṇḍākṛtim upamṛdyacrushing out the lump-form
rucakāḥ kriyanterucakas — neck-ornaments — are made nom. pl. masc. with 3 pl. pres. passive
piṇḍākṛtim upamṛdya rucakāḥ kriyante.
Gold in the first shape. The names of the ornaments do not matter to the argument; what matters is that they are three different shapes of the one gold.
s17example
rucakākṛtim upamṛdya kaṭakāḥ kriyante .
rucakākṛtim upamṛdyacrushing out the rucaka-form
kaṭakāḥ kriyantebracelets are made nom. pl. masc.
rucakākṛtim upamṛdya kaṭakāḥ kriyante.
Second shape. The chain is longer for gold than for clay, which lets the next sentence add a return to the starting point.
s18example
kaṭakākṛtim upmṛdya svastikāḥ kriyante .
kaṭakākṛtim upmṛdyacrushing out the bracelet-form the source spells upmṛdya for upamṛdya, as at s13, s14, s16, s17
svastikāḥ kriyantesvastikas are made nom. pl. masc.
kaṭakākṛtim upamṛdya svastikāḥ kriyante.
Third shape. Three forms have now been destroyed and the gold has lost nothing.
s19example
punaḥ āvṛttaḥ suvarṇapiṇḍaḥ punaḥ aparayā ākṛtyā yuktaḥ khadirāgārasavarṇe kuṇḍale bhavataḥ .
punaḥ āvṛttaḥ suvarṇapiṇḍaḥthe gold lump, brought back round again āvṛttaḥ past passive participle nom. sg. masc. agreeing with suvarṇapiṇḍaḥ
punaḥ aparayā ākṛtyā yuktaḥjoined once more with yet another form instr. sg. fem.; aparā "another, a further one"
khadirāgārasavarṇeof the colour of khadira embers bahuvrīhi khadira-aṅgāra-savarṇa, nom. dual neut. agreeing with kuṇḍale
kuṇḍale bhavataḥbecome a pair of earrings nom. dual neut. with 3 dual pres. of √bhū
punar āvṛttaḥ suvarṇapiṇḍaḥ — the gold lump brought back again; punar aparayā ākṛtyā yuktaḥ — joined again with another form; khadirāṅgārasavarṇe kuṇḍale bhavataḥ — becomes earrings the colour of khadira embers. The masculine subject takes a dual neuter predicate, which is normal when the predicate names what the subject turns into.
The gold goes back to being a lump and out again as something new. That is the point of punaḥ āvṛttaḥ — the cycle is reversible, and the material survives every turn of it. The colour detail is there to make the earrings vivid, not to add an argument.
s20conclusion
ākṛtiḥ anyā ca anyā ca bhavati dravyam punaḥ tad eva .
ākṛtiḥ anyā ca anyā ca bhavatithe form is now one thing and now another anyā … anyā with repeated ca is the idiom for "one after another, different each time"
dravyam punaḥthe thing, however punaḥ here adversative, "on the other hand", not "again"
tat evais that very same one nom. sg. neut. with eva restricting it to identity
ākṛtir anyā cānyā ca bhavati — the form becomes now one, now another; dravyaṁ punas tad eva — the dravya, on the other hand, is that same thing. punaḥ sets the two clauses against each other.
The reading of the demonstration. Across all those changes the shape kept being replaced and the stuff kept being the same. So on the evidence, the individual thing is the persistent item and the form is the perishable one.
s21conclusion
ākṛtyupamardena dravyam eva avaśiṣyate .
ākṛtyupamardenabecause the form is crushed out — when you destroy the form instr. sg. of the tatpuruṣa ākṛti-upamarda; instrumental of cause or means
dravyam eva avaśiṣyateit is the thing alone that is left over 3 sg. pres. passive of ava-√śiṣ; eva excludes the form from what remains
ākṛty-upamardena — by the crushing of the form; dravyam eva avaśiṣyate — the dravya alone remains. The instrumental gives the operation whose residue is being named.
The sharpest form of the claim. Take away the shape and something is still there; there is nothing you can take away that leaves the shape standing alone. That asymmetry is the argument for calling the thing eternal.
s22alternative
ākṛtau api padārthe eṣaḥ vigrahaḥ nyāyyaḥ siddhe śabde arthe sambandhe ca iti .
ākṛtau api padārtheeven when the form is the referent locative absolute as at s6 and s9; api concessive, "even"
eṣaḥ vigrahaḥ nyāyyaḥthis analysis is the proper one as at s9
siddhe śabde arthe sambandhe ca iti"the word being established, and the meaning, and the relation" the three-locative cut, quoted again
ākṛtāv api padārthe — even with the ākṛti as padārtha; eṣa vigraho nyāyyaḥ — this vigraha is proper. api concedes the case that s9 had argued against.
Now the three-way cut is defended on the other hypothesis too. The upshot is that this particular cutting survives whichever of the two you pick as referent — which is why the question can eventually be dropped at s34.
s23objection
nanu ca uktam ākṛtiḥ anityā iti .
nanu cabut surely — pressing an admission already on the record nanu with ca is the standard formula for an objection from something conceded earlier
uktamit was said past passive participle, nom. sg. neut., used impersonally
ākṛtiḥ anityā iti"the form is not eternal" quoted by iti; the words of s9
nanu ca uktam — but surely it was said; ākṛtir anityā iti — "the ākṛti is non-eternal". The quotation is the object of uktam.
The objection is made out of the bhāṣya's own earlier words. You said yourself the form is perishable; you cannot now let it serve as the established referent. nanu ca always marks this kind of "you already granted…".
s24reply
na etat asti .
na etat astithat is not so literally "this does not exist"; the standing formula of flat denial
na etad asti — this is not the case. etat refers to the quoted claim of s23.
The denial is flat and gives no reason yet. What is being denied is the claim of s9, which the bhāṣya had itself put forward. Positions here are held provisionally.
s25reply
nityā ākṛtiḥ .
nityā ākṛtiḥthe form is eternal predicate adjective first, subject second; the reversed order carries the emphasis
nityā ākṛtiḥ — eternal is the ākṛti. Word order marks nityā as what is being asserted against s9.
The counter-claim stated bare. We are back at s4. The bhāṣya has now asserted both that the form is eternal and that it is not, in the same unit, and has not yet said how both can stand.
s26objection
katham .
kathamhow so? interrogative adverb standing as a whole sentence
katham — how? A one-word demand for the reasoning behind s25.
A one-word demand for the argument. Three times now the text has refused to let a claim pass without grounds.
s27reply
na kva cit uparatā iti kṛtvā sarvatra uparatā bhavati .
nait does not — negation governing bhavati at the end
kva cit uparatāhaving stopped somewhere, in one place indefinite adverb kva cit with uparatā, past passive participle nom. sg. fem. agreeing with the unexpressed ākṛtiḥ
iti kṛtvāon the ground that — for that reason iti kṛtvā is the fixed idiom "taking it that…, on that ground"; it quotes the clause before it as the alleged reason
sarvatra uparatā bhavaticome to be stopped everywhere sarvatra adverb of place; bhavati 3 sg. pres. with the participle as predicate
kvacid uparatā iti kṛtvā — on the ground that it has ceased in one place; na sarvatra uparatā bhavati — it does not thereby become ceased everywhere. na governs bhavati, not the iti kṛtvā clause.
The defence of the form's permanence. Smash one pot and the pot-form has gone from that clay, but it has not gone from the world. Local destruction is not destruction. That is exactly what the clay demonstration failed to distinguish.
iti kṛtvā is worth learning as a unit. It marks the reason someone is treating as sufficient, and it is regularly used, as here, in a sentence that denies the reason is sufficient.
s28reply
dravyāntarasthā tu upalabhyate .
dravyāntarasthāstanding in another thing bahuvrīhi-flavoured tatpuruṣa dravya-antara-sthā, nom. sg. fem. agreeing with the unexpressed ākṛtiḥ
tubut — setting this against the "somewhere it has ceased" adversative particle, second position
upalabhyateit is found, it is met with 3 sg. pres. passive of upa-√labh
dravyāntarasthā tu upalabhyate — but it is apprehended as residing in another dravya. tu marks the contrast with the local cessation of s27.
The positive half of the reply. The form did not merely fail to be destroyed everywhere; it is actually observed elsewhere, sitting in some other lump of clay. Observation was the evidence for the other side too, at s11. Both sides here appeal to what is seen.
s29alternative
atha vā na idam eva nityalakṣaṇam dhruvam kūṭastham avicāli anapāyopajanavikāri anutpatti avṛddhi avyayayogi iti tan nityam iti .
atha vāor else — a further line, again not cancelling what precedes as at s9
na idam eva nityalakṣaṇamthis is not the only mark of what is eternal eva restricting idam; nityalakṣaṇam a tatpuruṣa, nom. sg. neut.
dhruvam kūṭastham avicālifixed, unchanging at its peak, unwavering three nom. sg. neut. adjectives; kūṭastha literally "standing on the summit"
anapāyopajanavikārinot altering by loss or accretion bahuvrīhi an-apāya-upajana-vikārin, nom. sg. neut.; apāya "going away", upajana "coming on"
anutpatti avṛddhi avyayayogibound up with no origination, no growth, no decay an-utpatti-a-vṛddhi-a-vyaya-yogin, nom. sg. neut.; the source writes the members separately
iti tat nityam iti"— that is what is eternal" the inner iti closes the list of marks, the outer iti closes the whole quoted definition
The construal adopted here: atha vā — or else; na idam eva nityalakṣaṇam — this alone is not the criterion of the eternal, namely [the definition] "that is eternal which is dhruva, kūṭastha, avicāli, unaltering by loss or accretion, tied to no origination, growth or decay". The double iti is awkward and the sentence is elliptical: the string of adjectives is the too-narrow definition being refused, and the wider one arrives only in s30. An alternative construal would take na … eva as "this is not the only", i.e. as leaving the strict definition standing alongside a second; the words admit both and the bhāṣya does not decide.
A different way out of the deadlock. Instead of arguing about whether the form perishes, question the standard being used. The strict definition of "eternal" is quoted and refused as the sole criterion. The sentence is compressed and its connection to what follows is not spelled out; the wider criterion only comes in the next sentence.
This is the passage where the unit's argument changes level. Up to here the dispute was about facts (does the form survive?); from here it is about the definition of the term (what does nityam have to mean?). Note that the strict definition quoted is not attributed to anyone.
s30definition
tat api nityam yasmin tattvam na vihanyate .
tat api nityamthat too is eternal api adding a second class to those already called eternal
yasminin which — loc. sg. of the relative yad, correlated with tat
tattvam na vihanyateits being just what it is is not destroyed 3 sg. pres. passive of vi-√han
tad api nityam yasmiṁs tattvaṁ na vihanyate — that too is eternal in which the tattva is not destroyed. Relative-correlative, tat … yasmin; the locative marks the subject in which the tattva persists.
The wider criterion. Something counts as eternal if what makes it that thing is never destroyed — even if its instances come and go. This weakens "eternal" from unchangingness to persistence of nature, and that is precisely what will let the form qualify.
s31objection
kim punaḥ tattvam .
kim punaḥand what, then, is — interrogative kim with punaḥ pressing for a further explanation
tattvamtattva, thingness nom. sg. neut., the term just used and now queried
kiṁ punas tattvam — but what is tattva? A verbless question directed at the term introduced in s30.
The new criterion used a technical word, so the word gets challenged. Nothing is allowed to do argumentative work here until it has been defined.
s32definition
tadbhāvaḥ tattvam .
tadbhāvaḥbeing that — a thing's being the very thing it is tatpuruṣa tad + bhāva, nom. sg. masc.
tattvamis what tattva means nom. sg. neut.; a verbless naming sentence, and the definition is offered as an etymology of the word
tad-bhāvas tattvam — the state of being that is tattva. The gender clash (masc. subject, neut. predicate) is normal in a naming sentence where the predicate quotes a word-form.
The definition is given by taking the word apart. tattva is tat plus tva, "that-ness": a thing's being that thing. It is offered as a derivation, and the derivation is the whole of the definition.
Defining a technical term by resolving it into its stem and suffix is a grammarian's move, and it is worth noticing that it counts as an answer here. The vigraha technique of s1 is now being applied to a word rather than a phrase.
s33conclusion
ākṛtau api tattvam na vihanyate .
ākṛtau apiin the form too loc. sg. fem.; api extends the criterion of s30 to this case
tattvam na vihanyatewhat makes it what it is is not destroyed the phrase of s30 repeated verbatim, which is what makes this an application rather than a new claim
ākṛtāv api tattvaṁ na vihanyate — in the ākṛti too the tattva is not destroyed. The locative answers to the yasmin of s30.
The criterion is applied and the form passes. Smash all the pots you like; being-a-pot-shape is not thereby abolished. So the form is eternal on the wider definition, and the objection of s23 is answered without conceding the clay demonstration.
s34alternative
atha vā kim naḥ etena idam nityam idam anityam iti .
atha vāor else — a third line, again suspended alongside the others as at s9 and s29
kim naḥ etenawhat is this to us? — what do we gain by it? instr. sg. neut. etena with kim, the idiom "what use is X?"; naḥ gen./dat. pl. "for us"
idam nityam idam anityam iti"this is eternal, this is not eternal" the two quoted claims are what etena refers back to
atha vā — or else; kiṁ naḥ etena — what have we to do with this; idaṁ nityam idam anityam iti — namely with saying "this is eternal, this is non-eternal". The iti-clause is in apposition to etena.
The whole dispute is set aside. The grammarian does not need to settle which of the two is eternal, because his analysis works either way — as s9 and s22 between them have shown. This is a claim about what the discipline needs, not about what is true.
s35conclusion
yat nityam tam padārtham matvā eṣaḥ vigrahaḥ kriyate siddhe śabde arthe sambandhe ca iti .
yat nityamwhichever is eternal nom. sg. neut. relative clause, correlated with tam
tam padārtham matvātaking that as the referent acc. sg. masc. with the gerund of √man, echoing s1 word for word; the correlative tam takes the gender of padārtham
eṣaḥ vigrahaḥ kriyatethis analysis is made
siddhe śabde arthe sambandhe ca iti"the word being established, and the meaning, and the relation" the three-locative cut, quoted a fourth time
yan nityam — whatever is eternal; taṁ padārthaṁ matvā — holding that as the padārtha; eṣa vigrahaḥ kriyate siddhe śabde arthe sambandhe ca iti. The sentence is s1 with the interrogative kam replaced by the relative-correlative yat … tam.
The answer to the question of s1, and it answers it by refusing to name a candidate. Whatever turns out to be eternal is what the phrase presupposes. The three-way cut stands; which metaphysics underwrites it is left open, and the bhāṣya leaves it open deliberately.
The closing sentence is built by substituting a relative for the interrogative of the opening sentence. That is the formal sign that the question of s1 is being treated as answered, even though no candidate has been named.
s36avataranika
katham punaḥ jñāyate siddhaḥ śabdaḥ arthaḥ sambandhaḥ ca iti .
katham punaḥ jñāyatebut how is it known? 3 sg. pres. passive with katham; punaḥ marks a fresh question, not a repetition
siddhaḥ śabdaḥ arthaḥ sambandhaḥ ca iti"the word, the meaning and the relation are established" the locatives of the analysed phrase now restored to the nominative as a plain statement; siddhaḥ agrees with the nearest subject
kathaṁ punar jñāyate — how, again, is it known; siddhaḥ śabdo 'rthaḥ sambandhaś ca iti — that the word, the meaning and the relation are established? The quoted clause is the content of jñāyate.
A new question, and a more basic one. Everything so far assumed that these three are established. Now the assumption itself is put to the question. Watch the case shift — the phrase that was quoted in the locative all through the unit is now restated in the nominative as a claim to be proved.
s37reply
lokataḥ .
lokataḥfrom ordinary usage — from the world ablative-sense -tas suffix on loka; a one-word answer
lokataḥ — from the world. Elliptical for "it is known from the world".
The answer in one word: from what people actually do. This single word carries a great deal, and it is what the following unit will attack — if the world is the authority, why have a grammar at all?
lokataḥ is the hinge between this block and the next. The whole dharma-niyama argument of the following unit exists to answer the objection that this word invites.
s38gloss
yat loke artham upādāya śabdān prayuñjate .
yatin that, inasmuch as — yat introducing a clause of ground rather than a relative pronoun agreeing with anything
lokein the world, in ordinary life loc. sg.
artham upādāyahaving a meaning in view, taking up something to say gerund of upa-ā-√dā with its accusative object
śabdān prayuñjatepeople employ words 3 pl. pres. middle of pra-√yuj; the agent is unexpressed and general
yal loke artham upādāya śabdān prayuñjate — inasmuch as, in the world, people employ words having taken up a meaning. yat gives the ground for lokataḥ.
The unpacking of "from the world". People who want to say something simply say it. The meaning is already there to be conveyed, and the words are already there to convey it.
s39gloss
na eṣām nirvṛttau yatnam kurvanti .
nathey do not —
eṣām nirvṛttauat producing them — at bringing these words into being gen. pl. eṣām with the loc. sg. nirvṛttau, "in the matter of their production"
yatnam kurvantimake any effort acc. sg. with 3 pl. pres. of √kṛ
na eṣāṁ nirvṛttau yatnaṁ kurvanti — they make no effort at the production of these. The locative is the sphere in which the effort would be made; the genitive depends on nirvṛttau.
The evidence for "established" stated negatively. Nobody manufactures a word before using it. That absence of effort is the proof: you do not make what is already there.
s40gloss
ye punaḥ kāryāḥ bhāvāḥ nirvṛttau tāvat teṣām yatnaḥ kriyate .
ye punaḥ kāryāḥ bhāvāḥwhereas things that have to be produced kāryāḥ gerundive nom. pl. masc.; punaḥ adversative, setting this class against words
nirvṛttau tāvatat their production, at least tāvat limiting the claim to that stage
teṣām yatnaḥ kriyateeffort certainly is made gen. pl. correlative to ye; 3 sg. pres. passive of √kṛ
ye punaḥ kāryā bhāvāḥ — but those entities which are to be produced; teṣāṁ nirvṛttau tāvad yatnaḥ kriyate — for them effort at least is made at the production. Relative-correlative ye … teṣām.
The contrast class. For things that must be made, effort at making them is exactly what you see. So the absence of such effort in the case of words tells you which class words fall into. tāvat concedes that effort may be made about words in other respects — just not at producing them.
s41example
tat yathā .
tat yathāas for instance the standing formula introducing an illustration
tad yathā — as for example. It governs s42–s46 as a whole.
The illustration is announced. What follows is a small scene, not a rule.
s42example
ghaṭena kāryam kariṣyan kumbhakārakulam gatvā āha kuru ghaṭam .
ghaṭena kāryam kariṣyanintending to get a job done with a pot future active participle of √kṛ, nom. sg. masc.; ghaṭena instr. of instrument
kumbhakārakulam gatvāhaving gone to the potter's household acc. sg. neut. with the gerund of √gam; kumbha-kāra-kula a tatpuruṣa
āhasays 3 sg. perfect of √ah with present sense
kuru ghaṭam"make a pot" 2 sg. imperative of √kṛ with its accusative object
ghaṭena kāryaṁ kariṣyan — one who will do work with a pot; kumbhakārakulaṁ gatvā — having gone to the potter's house; āha — says; kuru ghaṭam — "make a pot". Both participle and gerund qualify the unexpressed subject of āha.
The scene with the pot. A man who needs a pot has to have one made first. Making comes before using, and he has to go somewhere and ask.
s43example
kāryam anena kariṣyāmi iti .
kāryam anena kariṣyāmi iti"I shall get my work done with it" 1 sg. future of √kṛ; anena instr. sg. referring to the pot; iti closes the quoted speech
kāryam anena kariṣyāmi iti — "with it I shall do the work", thus [he says]. The quotation continues that of s42.
The second half of what he says, giving his reason. The order matters — first have it made, then use it.
s44example
na tadvat śabdān prayokṣyamāṇaḥ vaiyākaraṇakulam gatvā āha .
na tadvatnot so, not in that way -vat suffix of comparison on tad, "like that"; na negates the whole following clause
śabdān prayokṣyamāṇaḥone who is about to use words future middle participle of pra-√yuj, nom. sg. masc., matching the kariṣyan of s42
vaiyākaraṇakulam gatvā āhagoes to the grammarian's household and says the phrasing of s42 repeated with kumbhakāra replaced by vaiyākaraṇa; both are under the negation
na tadvat — not in that manner; śabdān prayokṣyamāṇo vaiyākaraṇakulaṁ gatvā āha — does one about to use words go to the grammarian's house and say. The na governs āha, and with it the gerund.
The negative half of the analogy, built by swapping one word. Nobody commissions words from a grammarian the way he commissions a pot from a potter. The parallel wording is what carries the point, so the reader must hear s42 behind it.
The analogy maps thus — the potter is the grammarian, the pot is the word, and commissioning is production. Where it stops is precisely at the grammarian's job. The bhāṣya does not say here what the grammarian does do if not manufacture words; that comes in the next block, with the restriction for the sake of dharma.
s45example
kuru śabdān .
kuru śabdān"make words" 2 sg. imperative with acc. pl. object, matching kuru ghaṭam at s42 — the words nobody actually says
kuru śabdān — "make words". Still governed by the negation of s44.
The commission nobody places. The sentence is grammatical and perfectly sayable; the point is that it is never said.
s46example
prayokṣye iti .
prayokṣye iti"I shall use them" 1 sg. future middle of pra-√yuj, matching kariṣyāmi at s43; iti closes the unspoken quotation
prayokṣye iti — "I shall employ them", thus. The counterpart of s43, and equally under the negation.
The second half of the request nobody makes. The illustration is now complete on both sides, positive and negative.
s47conclusion
tāvati eva artham upādāya śabdān prayuñjate .
tāvati evain just that much — with only so much as is already there loc. sg. neut. of tāvat with eva; what the locative depends on is not expressed
artham upādāyataking up a meaning the gerund of s38 repeated
śabdān prayuñjatepeople employ words the clause of s38 repeated verbatim, closing the argument where it began
The construal adopted here: tāvaty eva — with just that much [i.e. with the words as they already stand, no act of production intervening]; artham upādāya śabdān prayuñjate — taking up a meaning, people use words. What tāvati is governed by is not stated. An alternative would read it as a locative absolute, "that much being the case", i.e. drawing the conclusion from the potter scene. I adopt the first and flag that the connection to s44–s46 is left implicit.
The conclusion, which is s38 said again after the illustration has done its work. Nothing is produced; people just take a meaning and speak. So word, meaning and relation are all already established — which is what s36 asked for. The sentence is elliptical and its exact link to the potter scene is not spelled out.
← paspaśā 10.1paspaśā 11 →