मङ्गलादीनि मङ्गलमध्यानि मङ्गलान्तानि च शास्त्राणि प्रथन्ते, वीरपुरुषाणि भवन्ति आयुष्मत्पुरुषाणि च, अध्येतारश्च वृद्धियुक्ता यथा स्युः - इति वृद्धिसूत्रस्थभाष्यादिस्मृतिसिद्धकर्तव्यताकं ग्रन्थादौ कृतं मङ्गलं शिष्यशिक्षायै ग्रन्थतो निबध्नन् प्राचीनग्रन्थैरगतार्थतां विषयप्रयोजनसम्बन्धाधिकारिणश्च सूचयन् चिकीर्षितं प्रतिजानीते - मुनित्रयमिति श्लोकेन । इयं वैयाकरणसिद्धान्तकौमुदी विरच्यत इत्यन्वयः । इयमिति वाक्यावलिर्विवक्षिता । भाविन्या अपि तस्याः बुद्ध्या विषयीकरणादियमिति प्रत्यक्षवन्निर्देशः । व्याकरणमधीयते विदन्ति वा वैयाकरणाः, तेषां सिद्धान्ताः एते शब्दाः साधव इति निश्चितार्थाः, तेषां कौमुदी {इव कौमुदी} चन्द्रिका । अत्यन्तसादृश्यात्ताद्रूप्यव्यपदेशः । चन्द्रिका हि तमो निरस्यति । भावान् सुखं प्रकाशयति । दिनकरकिरणसम्पर्कजनितं संतापमपगमयति । एवमियमपि ग्रन्थरूपवाक्यावलिः अज्ञानात्मकं तमो निरस्यति, मुनित्रयग्रन्थभावाननायासं प्रकाशयति । अतिविस्तृतदुरूह भाष्यकैयटादिमहाग्रन्थपरिशीलनजनितं चित्तसन्तापं च शमयतीति अत्यन्तसादृश्याद्युज्यते चन्द्रिकातादात्म्याध्यवसायः । विरच्यते - क्रियते । वर्तमानसामीप्याद्वर्तमानव्यपदेशः । किं कृत्वेत्यत आह - मुनित्रयं नमस्कृत्येति । त्रयः अवयवा अस्य समुदायस्य त्र्यं त्र्यवयवकसमुदायः । "सङ्ख्याया अवयवे तयप्" इति तयप् तद्धितः । "द्वित्रिभ्यां तयस्यायज्वा" इति तस्यायजादेशः । मुनीनां त्रयमिति षष्ठीसमासः । त्रयाणां मुनीनां समुदाय इति यावत् । यद्यपि मुनिशब्दस्य त्रिशब्दस्य चाभेदान्वये त्रिशब्दस्य मुनिशब्दसापेक्षत्वात् असामर्थ्यात्तद्धितानुपपत्तिः, तथापि त्रयोऽवयवा अस्य समुदायस्य त्रयम् इति प्रथमं व्युत्पाद्यम् । अत्र त्रिशब्दस्य मुनिशब्दमनपेक्ष्यैव समुदायेऽन्वयान्नास्त्यसामर्थ्यम् । ततो मुनीनां त्रयमिति मुनिशब्दः समुदायेऽन्वेति, तस्य प्रत्ययार्थतया प्रधानत्वात् । न तु मुनिशब्दस्य त्रयशब्दैकदेशभूतत्रिशब्देनाभेदान्वयः, "पदार्थः पदार्थेनान्वेति न तु तदेकदेशने" इति न्यायात् । ततश्च मुनिशब्दत्रिशब्दयोः परस्परवार्तानभिज्ञयोरेव शब्दमर्यादया समुदायेऽन्वये सति पश्चात्सङ्ख्यायाः परिच्छेदकत्वस्वभावतया त्रित्वस्य परिच्छेद्यपर्यालोचनायां सन्निहितपदान्तरोपस्थितत्वान्मुनय एव परिछेद्यतया सम्बध्यन्ते - त्रयाणां मुनीनां समुदाय इति । सोऽयं पार्ष्टिकान्वयः अरुणाधिकरण (पू०मी० ३ / २ / ४) न्यायविदां सुगम इत्यलं विस्तरेण मुनित्रयमिति कर्मणिद्वितीया । "नमःस्वस्ति" इति चतुर्थी तु न, कारकविभक्तेर्बलीयस्त्वस्य वक्ष्यमाणत्वात् । नमस्कृत्य - अञ्जलिशिरः संयोगादिव्यापारेण तोषयित्वेत्यर्थः नमस्करोतेरञ्जलिशिरःसंयोगादिरूपव्यापारमात्रार्थकत्वे अकर्मकत्वापत्त्या द्वितीयानुपपत्तेः । ननु प्राचीनेषु प्रक्रियाकौमुद्यादिग्रन्थेषु वैयाकरणसिद्धान्तानां सङ्ग्रहात्तैरेव ग्रन्थैः चरितार्थत्वात् किमनेन ग्रन्थेनेत्यत आह - तदुक्तीः परिभाव्य चेति । तस्य मुनित्रयस्य उक्तयः तदुक्तयः = सूत्रवार्तिकभाष्यात्मकग्रन्थरूपवाक्यावलयः, ताः परिभाव्य च = सम्यगालोच्य चेत्यर्थः । भूधातोः स्वार्थिकणिजन्ताद्रूपम् । चुरादौ हि "भुवोऽवकल्कने" इत्यत्र ण्यन्तभूधातोश्चिन्तनार्थकत्वमपि वक्ष्यते मूलकृतैव । न च "अनादरः परिभवः परीभावस्तिरस्क्रिया" इति कोशविरोधः शङ्क्यः, कोशस्य अण्यन्तभूधातुविषयत्वात् "परौ भुवोऽवज्ञाने" इति सूत्रेण तिरस्कारार्थे वर्तमानादण्यन्तात्परिपूर्वकभूधातोर्भावे घञ परिभावशब्दस्य व्युत्पत्त्यवगमात् । एवं च तदुक्तीरिति तच्छब्दस्य बुद्धिस्थपरामर्शित्वात्प्राचां प्रक्रियाकौमुदीप्रसादादिकृतां उक्तीस्तिरस्कृत्येत्यर्थ इति व्याख्यानं क्लिष्टत्वादुपेक्षितम् । अनेन स्वग्रन्थस्य मुनित्रयग्रन्थानुयायित्वं, प्राचीनप्रक्रियाकौमुद्यादिग्रन्थानां तद्विरुद्धत्वं च सूचितम् । तच्च प्रौढमनोरमायां स्वयमेव मूलकृता प्रपञ्चितमेव । वैयाकरणसिद्धान्तकौमुदीत्यन्वर्थसञ्ज्ञया वैयाकरणसिद्धान्ताः प्रतिपाद्यत्वेन विषयाः । अनायासेन तदवगमः प्रयोजनम् । तस्य ग्रन्थस्य च | जन्यजनकभावः सम्बन्धः । वैयाकरणसिद्धान्तजिज्ञासुरधिकारीति सूचितम् ।।अथ वैयाकरणसिद्धान्तान्निरूपयिष्यन् व्याकरणशास्त्रस्य मूलभूतानि चतुर्दशसूत्राणि पठति - अइउणित्यादिना। नन्विमानि सूत्राणि मुनित्रयग्रन्थबहिर्भूतत्वादप्रमाणमित्यत आह - इति माहेश्वराणि सूत्राणीति। महेश्वरादागतानि माहेश्वराणि। "तत आगतः" इत्यण्। महेश्वरादधिगतानीति यावत्। यदुक्तं पाणिनिशिष्यप्रणीतशिक्षायाम् - "येनाक्षरसमाम्नायमधिगम्य महेश्वरात्। कृत्स्नं व्याकरणं प्रोक्तं तस्मै पाणिनये नमः ॥" इति । एतच्चतुर्दशसूत्रव्याख्यायां नन्दिकेश्वरकृतायां काशिकायामप्युक्तं - "नृत्तावसाने नटराजराजो ननाद ढक्कां नवपञ्चवारम्। उद्धर्तुकामः सनकादिसिद्धानेतद्विमर्शे शिवसूत्रजालम् ॥" इति । अत्र ननादेत्यन्तभावितण्यर्थो नदधातुः। ढक्कां नादयामासेत्यर्थः । नवपञ्चवारं चतुर्दशकृत्वः । एतच्छिवढक्कोत्थितं वर्णजालं शिवसूत्रजालतया विमर्शे जानामीत्यर्थः । आर्षस्तङ् । एवं च महेश्वरेण प्रोक्तानि माहेश्वराणीति निरस्तम्। एतेन माहेश्वरत्वादेतेषां सूत्राणां नाऽप्रामाण्यमित्युक्तं भवति। नन्वेवमपि अनर्थकवर्णराश्यात्मकानामेषां सूत्राणां वैयाकरण-सिद्धान्तप्रकाशने उपयोगाभावादिह तदुपन्यासो व्यर्थ इति आह - अणादिसञ्ज्ञार्थानीति । अण् आदिः यासां ताः अणादयः, अणादयश्च ताः सञ्ज्ञाश्च अणादिसञ्ज्ञाः ताः अर्थः प्रयोजनं येषां तानि अणादिसञ्ज्ञार्थानि। अनर्थकवर्णराशित्वेऽपि एषां सूत्राणां व्याकरणशास्त्रगतव्यवहारोपयोग्यणादिसञ्ज्ञासु उपयोगान्नानर्थक्यमिति भावः । कथमेषां सूत्राणामणादिसञ्ज्ञार्थत्वमित्यत आह - एषामन्त्या इत इति। एषामुदाहृतसूत्राणाम् अन्त्याः अन्ते भवाः णकारादिवर्णाः इत्सञ्ज्ञकाः प्रत्येतव्या इत्यर्थः। लण्सूत्रे अकारश्चेति। इत इत्यनुषज्यते। तच्च एकवचनान्ततया विपरिणम्यते। लण्सूत्रे लकारात्परः अकारश्च इत्सञ्ज्ञकः प्रत्येतव्य इत्यर्थः। अनन्त्यत्वात्पृथक्प्रतिज्ञा। ननु लण्सूत्र एव अकारस्य इत्सञ्ज्ञकत्वे हयवरेत्यादौ पुनः पुनरकारोच्चारणस्य किं प्रयोजनमित्यत आह - हकारादिष्वकार उच्चारणार्थ इति। हकारादीनां सुखोच्चारणार्थं पुनः पुनरकारपाठ इत्यर्थः । अन्यथा ह्यूवर् इत्येवं क्लिष्टोच्चारणापत्तेरिति भावः। अथवा अचं विना हलामुच्चारणाभावात् पुनः पुनरकारपाठो हकाराद्युच्चारणार्थ इत्येव व्याख्येयम्। अत एव "उच्चैरुदात्तः" इति सूत्रे भाष्यम् - "नान्तरेणाचं व्यञ्जनस्योच्चारणं भवति" इति। अत्र च इदमेव अकारस्य पुनः पुनरुच्चारणं ज्ञापकम्। एवं च "वर्णात्कार:" इति कारप्रत्यये सति ककार इत्यादि (सिध्यति)। वाक् इत्याद्यवसानेषु वृक्ष इत्यादौ संयुक्तवर्णेषु च पदान्ते "चोः कुः" इत्यादिविधिबलात् "हलोऽनन्तराः संयोगः" इत्यादिशास्त्रबलाच्च नायं नियम (इत्यपि बोध्यम्) इत्यलम्। ननु चतुर्दशसूत्र्यां णकाराद्यन्तवर्णानाम् इत्सञ्ज्ञा प्रतिज्ञाता - "एषामन्त्या इत" इति। तदनुपपन्नम्। तेषां हि "हलन्त्यम्" इति सूत्रेण इत्सञ्ज्ञा वक्तव्या। तच्च सूत्रं हल्पदार्थावगमोत्तरमेव प्रवृत्तिमर्हति। हल्सञ्ज्ञा च हलिति सूत्रे लकारस्य इत्सञ्ज्ञायां सत्याम् "आदिरन्त्येन सहेता" इति सूत्रेण वाच्या। हलिति सूत्रे लकारस्य इत्सञ्ज्ञा च "हलन्त्यम्" इति सूत्रेण वाच्या। एवं च हलिति सूत्रे लकारस्य इत्सञ्ज्ञायां सत्याम् "आदिरन्त्येन" इति हल्सञ्ज्ञसिद्धौ "हलन्त्यम्" इति सूत्रप्रवृत्तिः । "हलन्त्यम्" इति सूत्रेण हल्सूत्रे लकारस्य इत्सञ्ज्ञायाम् "आदिरन्त्येन सहेता" इति हल्सञ्ज्ञा-सिद्धि: - इत्येवं "हलन्त्यम्", "आदिरन्त्येन" इत्यनयोः परस्परसापेक्षत्वेन अन्योन्याश्रयत्वादबोधः। एवं च हल्संज्ञा-मनुपजीव्यैव हल्सूत्रे लकारस्य केनचित् सूत्रेण इत्सञ्ज्ञामबोधयित्वा "हलन्त्यम्" इति हलामित्सञ्ज्ञाबोधनं पाणिनेरयुक्तमित्याशङ्कय हल्संज्ञामनुपजीव्यैव हल्सूत्रे लकारस्य इत्सञ्ज्ञां विधातुं "हलन्त्यम्" इति सूत्रं द्विरावृत्य प्रथमसूत्रमुपक्षिपति – हलन्त्यम् ॥
munitrayam iti — A maṅgala performed at the beginning of a work has its
obligatory character established by smṛti, such as the Bhāṣya passage on the
vṛddhi-sūtra (A 1.1.1): "Śāstras that have a maṅgala at their beginning, a
maṅgala in their middle, and a maṅgala at their end become widely known, come
to have heroic men and long-lived men, and [are studied] so that their
students may be endowed with vṛddhi [flourishing]." Setting such a maṅgala
down in the text itself for the instruction of his pupils, and at the same
time indicating that [his subject] is not already exhausted by the older
works, as well as [the work's] subject-matter (viṣaya), purpose (prayojana),
relation (sambandha), and qualified student (adhikārin), [Bhaṭṭoji] announces
what he intends to do — with the verse munitrayam.
The syntactic construal (anvaya) is: iyaṃ vaiyākaraṇasiddhāntakaumudī
viracyate — "this Vaiyākaraṇa-siddhānta-kaumudī is composed." By iyam
("this") the series of sentences [that will constitute the work] is intended.
Although that [series] is still future, it is referred to as iyam, as if
perceptually present, because it has [already] been made an object of [the
author's] awareness.
Vaiyākaraṇas are those who study, or who know, vyākaraṇa. Their siddhāntas
are the settled conclusions "these words are correct (sādhu)." The kaumudī of
those [siddhāntas] — [that is, what is] like a kaumudī — is moonlight
(candrikā); the designation of the work as identical in nature with it is due
to extreme similarity. For moonlight dispels darkness; it illuminates things
pleasantly; it removes the burning heat produced by contact with the rays of
the sun. In the same way this series of sentences in the form of a book
dispels the darkness that is ignorance; it illuminates without effort the
contents of the works of the three munis; and it allays the mental burning
produced by poring over such vast and impenetrable great works as the Bhāṣya,
Kaiyaṭa, and the rest. Hence, because of the extreme similarity, the
determinate identification (adhyavasāya) of the work with moonlight is
justified.
viracyate — is made. [The present tense is used] by the designation of
what is [merely] near to the present as present (vartamāna-sāmīpya).
"Having done what?" — to this he says: munitrayaṃ namaskṛtya. That
collection of which the parts (avayava) are three is trayam, a collection
having three parts: the taddhita tayap [is added] by "saṅkhyāyā avayave
tayap" (A 5.2.42), and by "dvitribhyāṃ tayasyāyaj vā" (A 5.2.43) ayac is
substituted for it [i.e., for taya]. munīnāṃ trayam is a genitive (ṣaṣṭhī)
compound — in effect, "the collection of three munis." Although, if the word
muni and the word tri were construed as identical in reference
(abhedānvaya), the taddhita would be unjustified — since the word tri, being
dependent (sāpekṣa) upon the word muni, would lack syntactic competence
(asāmarthya) — nevertheless one must first derive trayam by itself as "that
collection of which the parts are three"; here the word tri construes with
the collection without any dependence upon the word muni, so there is no
asāmarthya. Thereafter, in munīnāṃ trayam, the word muni construes with the
collection, since that [collection], being the meaning of the pratyaya, is
the predominant element; the word muni does not construe in identity with the
word tri, which is a mere part of the word traya — by the maxim "a
word-meaning construes with a word-meaning, not with a mere part of one
(padārthaḥ padārthenānveti na tu tad-ekadeśena)." And so, when the word muni
and the word tri — each, by the strict law of words (śabda-maryādā), wholly
unacquainted with the other — have [each] construed with the collection,
afterwards, since number is by its nature a delimiter (paricchedaka), when
one considers what is to be delimited by the three-ness, it is the munis —
presented [to the mind] by the neighboring word — that come to be connected
as the thing delimited: "a collection of three munis." This is the mediated
construal (pārṣṭika anvaya), easily grasped by those versed in the reasoning
of the aruṇādhikaraṇa (Pūrvamīmāṃsā 3.2.4) — enough of elaboration. In
munitrayam the accusative (dvitīyā) [is used] to express the object
(karman); the dative [that would follow] from "namaḥsvasti-" (A 2.3.16) does
not [apply], because it will be stated [later in this work] that a
kāraka-vibhakti is stronger [than an upapada-vibhakti].
namaskṛtya — the sense is "having gratified [them] by the activity of
joining the palms, [bowing] the head, and so on"; for if namas-karoti meant
nothing more than the activity of joining the palms, [bowing] the head, and
so on, it would follow that the verb is intransitive, and the accusative
[in munitrayam] would then be unjustified.
Objection: since the siddhāntas of the grammarians are already collected in
the older works such as the Prakriyā-kaumudī, and the need is met by those
very works, what is the use of this work? To this he says: tad-uktīḥ
paribhāvya ca — the utterances of that triad of munis, i.e., the series of
sentences constituting the works consisting of sūtra, vārttika, and Bhāṣya;
having paribhāvya them, that is, having considered them thoroughly. It is a
form of the root bhū ending in the svārthika ṇic [a causative affix adding
no new meaning]. For in the Curādi [class], under "bhuvo 'vakalkane," the
author of the base text will himself state that the root bhū with ṇic also
has the sense of reflecting (cintana). Nor should a conflict with the
lexicon — "anādaraḥ paribhavaḥ parībhāvas tiraskriyā" [listing parībhāva
among words for contempt] — be suspected, for the lexicon concerns the root
bhū without ṇic: the word parībhāva [there] is understood to be derived with
ghañ, in the sense of the action (bhāva), from the un-ṇic root bhū preceded
by pari, occurring in the sense of contempt by the sūtra "parau bhuvo
'vajñāne." And therefore the explanation according to which — the word tat
referring to what is present in the mind — tad-uktīḥ [parībhāvya] would mean
"having set at naught (tiraskṛtya) the utterances of the ancients, the
authors of the Prakriyā-kaumudī, the Prasāda, and the rest," is passed over
as strained. By this [phrase] it is intimated both that his own work follows
the works of the three munis and that the older works such as the
Prakriyā-kaumudī are in conflict with them; and that has been elaborated by
the author of the base text himself in the Prauḍhamanoramā.
By the self-explanatory (anvartha) title Vaiyākaraṇa-siddhānta-kaumudī, the
siddhāntas of the grammarians [are shown to be] the subject-matter (viṣaya),
as that which is to be expounded; effortless understanding of them is the
purpose (prayojana); the relation (sambandha) between that [understanding]
and the work is that of thing-produced and producer (janya-janaka-bhāva);
and it is intimated that the qualified student (adhikārin) is one who
desires to know the siddhāntas of the grammarians.
Now, intending to expound the siddhāntas of the grammarians, [Bhaṭṭoji]
recites the fourteen sūtras that are the foundation of the science of
grammar, with [the passage] beginning a i u ṇ. Objection: these sūtras,
standing outside the works of the three munis, are without authority
(apramāṇa). To this he says: iti māheśvarāṇi sūtrāṇi — Māheśvara means
"come from Maheśvara," with the [taddhita] aṇ by "tata āgataḥ" (A 4.3.74);
that is, obtained from Maheśvara. As is said in the Śikṣā composed by
Pāṇini's pupil: "Homage to that Pāṇini who, having obtained the inventory of
sounds (akṣara-samāmnāya) from Maheśvara, proclaimed the entire grammar."
This is also stated in the Kāśikā composed by Nandikeśvara, a commentary on
the fourteen sūtras: "At the close of the dance, the king of the lords of
dance [Śiva], desiring to uplift Sanaka and the other siddhas, sounded his
ḍhakkā drum nine-plus-five times; this web of Śiva-sūtras I discern upon
reflection." Here the root nad in nanāda has the causative sense included
within it (antarbhāvita-ṇyartha): the meaning is "he caused the ḍhakkā to
resound." "Nine-plus-five times" means fourteen times. The sense is: "this
web of sounds, arisen from Śiva's ḍhakkā, I know (vimarśe = jānāmi) as the
web of Śiva-sūtras"; the ātmanepada ending (taṅ) is an ārṣa [archaic,
seers'] usage. And by this the [rival explanation] "māheśvara because
proclaimed (prokta) by Maheśvara" is set aside. Hereby it is stated that
these sūtras are not without authority, precisely because they are
Māheśvara.
Objection: even so, since these sūtras, consisting as they do of heaps of
meaningless sounds, are of no use in expounding the siddhāntas of the
grammarians, citing them here is pointless. To this he says:
aṇādi-sañjñārthāni — those of which aṇ is the first are aṇ-ādi; being
both aṇ-ādi and saṃjñās, [they are] aṇādi-saṃjñās; those whose purpose
(artha, i.e., prayojana) these are, are aṇādi-sañjñārthāni. The idea is:
although they are heaps of meaningless sounds, these sūtras are not useless,
because they serve for the saṃjñās aṇ and the rest, which are of use in the
operations belonging to the science of grammar.
How do these sūtras serve the saṃjñās aṇ and the rest? To this he says:
eṣām antyā itaḥ — of these sūtras [just] cited, the finals — the sounds
standing at the end, ṇ and the rest — are to be recognized as bearing the
saṃjñā it: such is the sense. laṇ-sūtre 'kāraś ca — [the word] it is
supplied by anuṣaṅga, and it is transformed so as to end in the singular;
the sense is that in the laṇ sūtra the a following the l is also to be
recognized as an it. Because it is not final, it is declared separately.
Objection: if the a in the laṇ sūtra alone is an it, what is the purpose of
uttering a again and again in hayavaraṭ and the rest? To this he says:
hakārādiṣv akāra uccāraṇārthaḥ — the repeated reading of a is for the
easy utterance of h and the others; otherwise, the idea is, there would
result a strained utterance of the form h-y-v-r. Or rather it should simply
be explained thus: since there is no uttering of hal sounds without an ac,
the repeated reading of a is [required] for the [very] utterance of h and
the rest. Hence the Bhāṣya on the sūtra "uccair udāttaḥ" (A 1.2.29): "there
is no utterance of a consonant without an ac." And here it is precisely this
repeated utterance of a that is the jñāpaka [indicatory evidence of that
principle]. And so, when the suffix kāra [is added] by [the vārttika]
"varṇāt kāraḥ," [forms] such as ka-kāra [are established]. [It should also
be understood that] this rule does not [hold] at the end of a pada, in
[word-]finals such as vāk, and in conjunct sounds such as in vṛkṣaḥ — by
force of injunctions such as "coḥ kuḥ" (A 8.2.30), and by force of teachings
such as "halo 'nantarāḥ saṃyogaḥ" (A 1.1.7). Enough.
Objection: in the fourteen-sūtra [inventory] the it-saṃjñā of the final
sounds ṇ and the rest has been declared — "their finals are it (eṣām antyā
itaḥ)." That is untenable. For their it-saṃjñā must [in fact] be taught by
the sūtra "hal antyam" (A 1.3.3); and that sūtra can come into operation
only after the meaning of the word hal has been understood; and the saṃjñā
hal must be taught by the sūtra "ādir antyena sahetā" (A 1.1.71) — [which
can operate only] when the l in the sūtra hal [the last Śivasūtra] has the
it-saṃjñā; and the it-saṃjñā of the l in the sūtra hal must [itself] be
taught by "hal antyam." Thus: only when the l in the sūtra hal has the
it-saṃjñā is the saṃjñā hal established through "ādir antyena," and [only
then] does the sūtra "hal antyam" come into operation; and [conversely] only
through the sūtra "hal antyam" does the l in the hal sūtra receive the
it-saṃjñā, whereby the saṃjñā hal is established through "ādir antyena
sahetā" — in this way "hal antyam" and "ādir antyena," being mutually
dependent, involve mutual reliance (anyonyāśraya), and so no understanding
arises. Having thus raised the objection that it was improper of Pāṇini to
teach the it-saṃjñā of the hals by "hal antyam" without [first] having
taught, by some sūtra and without relying on the saṃjñā hal, the it-saṃjñā
of the l in the hal sūtra — in order to prescribe the it-saṃjñā of the l in
the hal sūtra without relying on the saṃjñā hal, [Bhaṭṭoji] takes up the
first sūtra by reading "hal antyam" twice over (dvir āvṛtya): hal
antyam.