Prakaraṇa 65 · SK 2773–2828
लकारार्थप्रकरणम्
lakārārthaprakaraṇam · 56 sūtras
SK 2773 · A 3.2.112V
अभिज्ञावचने लृट् ॥ २७७३ ॥
abhijñāvacane lṛṭ
abhijñāvacane lṛṭ — When a word expressing recollection (abhijñā) [is used as upapada], lṛṭ [comes after a root, in the past (bhūte — adhikāra) not of today (anadyatane — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from anadyatane laṅ, SK 2205)].
Rule. When a word that makes recollection (smṛti) known is the upapada, lṛṭ comes after a root. It comes in the sense of the past not of today. An upapada is a word standing beside the verb that the rule names as its condition. Bhaṭṭoji calls this rule an apavāda of laṅ (SK 2205).
Bhaṭṭoji's commentators agree on the time words. "In the past" is the heading bhūte. "Not of today" is carried forward from anadyatane laṅ (SK 2205). One of them glosses abhijñāvacana as "that by which recollection is spoken, that is, made known".
Example.
the past, not of today: "we lived in Gokula"
→ by SK 2205 one expects laṅ: avasāma "we lived"
→ the upapada smarasi "you remember" is present
→ this rule: lṛṭ instead → vatsyāmaḥ
→ smarasi kṛṣṇa gokule vatsyāmaḥ "You remember, Kṛṣṇa, how we lived in Gokula."
Bhaṭṭoji's commentators agree that vatsyāmaḥ here means avasāma, "we lived". They also agree that the whole clause is the object of smarasi: "you remember our living in Gokula". One of them compares paśya mṛgo dhāvati "see, the deer runs", where a whole clause is likewise the object of "see".
Applies when / blocked by. The word need not mean "remember" outright. Bhaṭṭoji says the rule also applies with budhyase "you know", cetayase "you are aware" and the like. By force of context these too can convey recollection. One of his commentators says this is why the sūtra says vacana, "a word that makes known".
Watch out. vatsyāmaḥ looks like "we shall live". In this sentence it reports the past. The lakāra is chosen by the rule, not by the time it usually marks.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
स्मृतिबोधिन्युपपदे भूतानद्यतने धातोर्लृट् स्यात् । लङोऽपवादः । स्मरसि कृष्ण गोकुले वत्स्यामः । एवं बुध्यसे चेतयसे इत्यादियोगेऽपि । तेषामपि प्रकरणादिवशेन स्मृतौ वृत्तिसंभवात् ॥
When a word that makes recollection (smṛti) known is the upapada, lṛṭ comes after a root in [the sense of] the past not of today (bhūtānadyatana). This is an apavāda of laṅ [taught by anadyatane laṅ, SK 2205]. smarasi kṛṣṇa gokule vatsyāmaḥ ('You remember, Kṛṣṇa, [how] we lived (vatsyāmaḥ) in Gokula'). Likewise in connection with budhyase ('you know'), cetayase ('you are aware') and the like as well, because these too can, by force of context and the like, operate in the sense of recollection.
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 480–481अभिज्ञा-॥ भूते इत्यधिक्रियते । ‘अनद्यतने लङ्’ इत्यतः अनद्यतन इति वर्तते । अभिज्ञा स्मृतिः सा उच्यते बोध्यते ऽनेनेति विग्रहस्तदाह—स्मृतिवोधिनीत्यादि ॥—वत्स्याम इति । अवसामेत्यर्थः । पश्य मृगो धावतीत्यत्र वाक्यार्थरूपमृगकर्तृकधावनमिव स्मरसीत्यत्र गोकुलाधिकरणकास्मत्कर्तृकभूतानद्यतनवासो वाक्यार्थः कर्म । कृष्णेति संबोधनं स्मरणक्रियायां विशेषणम् । तथा च पूर्वोक्तनिवासकर्मकं कृष्णसंबन्धकं स्मरणमिति फलितोऽर्थः
Bālamanoramā
अभिज्ञावचने लृट् - अभिज्ञावचने लृट् । अभिज्ञा = स्मृतिः, सा उच्यते बोध्यते अनेनेति विग्रहः । तदाह — स्मृतिबोधिन्युपपदे इति । स्मृतिबोधकपदे समीपे प्रयुज्यमाने सतीत्यर्थः । 'भूते' इत्यधिकृतम् ।अद्यतने ल॑ङित्यतोऽनद्यतने इत्यनुवर्तते । तदाह - भूतानद्यतने इति । लङ इति ।अनद्यतने ल॑ङित्यस्यापवाद इत्यर्थः । स्मरसीति । हे कृष्ण ! गोकुले अवसामेति यत्तत्स्मरसीत्यर्थः । अत्र वाक्यार्थः कर्म । कृतं गोकुलवासं स्मरसीति यावत् । एवमिति । समरसीति पदयोग इव बुध्यसे इत्यादिस्मृतिबोधकपदयोगेऽपि लृडित्यर्थः । ननु बुध्यत्यादेः स्मृत्त्विएन रूपेण स्मृत्यर्थकत्वाऽभावात्कथमिहि लृडित्यत आह — तेषामपीति । पर्यवसानगत्या स्मृतिबोधकत्वात्तद्योगेऽपि लृट् । एतदर्थमेव वचनग्रहणमिति भावः ।
translator notes
- BM: abhijñā = smṛti; abhijñāvacana is 'that by which it is spoken, i.e. made known'; the kaumudī's upapada means a word making recollection known used nearby. 'bhūte' is under adhikāra, and 'anadyatane' is carried forward (anuvartate) from 'anadyatane laṅ'; 'laṅo 'pavādaḥ' means an apavāda of 'anadyatane laṅ'. Followed: the brackets in sutra_en and the reference in the block.
- BM: smarasi = 'you remember that we lived (avasāma) in Gokula, O Kṛṣṇa'; the sentence-meaning is the object (karman), i.e. 'you remember the residence in Gokula that took place'. On budhyase etc.: though budh and the rest do not denote recollection as such, they make recollection known by their final import (paryavasāna), and 'vacana' is used in the sūtra for exactly this. Followed: the past-tense gloss of vatsyāmaḥ and 'a word that makes recollection known'.
- TB, sk.2773.t1 (lemma 'abhijñā-'): 'bhūte' is under adhikāra and 'anadyatane' is carried from 'anadyatane laṅ'; vatsyāmaḥ means avasāma. As in 'paśya mṛgo dhāvati', the sentence-meaning — the living, past and not of today, of which we are agents and Gokula the locus — is the object of smarasi; 'kṛṣṇa' (address) qualifies the act of remembering. Followed (agrees with BM).
SK 2774 · A 3.2.113V
न यदि ॥ २७७४ ॥
na yadi
na yadi — Not when yad [is used: the lṛṭ of abhijñāvacane lṛṭ, SK 2773, does not occur].
Rule. When yad "that" is used, what was just stated does not occur. The lṛṭ of SK 2773 does not come. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators takes yadi in the sūtra as the seventh case of yad: "in connection with yad". The other says that when lṛṭ is barred, the general rule, laṅ, applies.
Example.
the past, not of today: "we ate in the forest", with abhijānāsi "you recall"
→ SK 2773 would give lṛṭ
→ yad is used, so this rule bars it
→ the general rule, SK 2205: laṅ → abhuñjmahi
→ abhijānāsi kṛṣṇa yad vane 'bhuñjmahi "You recall, Kṛṣṇa, that we ate in the forest."
Siddhānta-kaumudī
यद्योगे उक्तं न । अभिजानासि कृष्ण यद्वने अभुञ्जमहि ॥
In connection with yad, what was stated [in the preceding rule, namely lṛṭ] does not occur. abhijānāsi kṛṣṇa yad vane 'bhuñjmahi ('You recall, Kṛṣṇa, that we ate in the forest' — abhuñjmahi, laṅ).
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 481—न यदि । लृटः प्रतिषेधे उत्सर्गो लङ्
Bālamanoramā
न यदि - न यदि ।यदी॑ति सप्तमीति मत्वाह - यद्योगे इति । उक्तं नेति । 'अभिज्ञावचने' इति लृण्न भवतीत्यर्थः । अभिजानासीति । वने अभुञ्जमहीति यत्तस्मरसीत्यर्थः ।
translator notes
- BM takes 'yadi' as a seventh-case word (saptamyanta) of yad, hence 'in connection with yad'; 'uktaṃ na' = the lṛṭ of 'abhijñāvacane' does not occur; the example means 'you remember that we ate in the forest'. Followed: '[namely lṛṭ]' and the gloss.
- TB: when lṛṭ is prohibited, the general rule (utsarga) laṅ [applies]. Followed: the label 'laṅ' on abhuñjmahi. (Our OCR TB reads 'laṭaḥ pratiṣedhe'; NSP p. 471 (scan 0481) prints lṛṭ.)
- textual Our kaumudī reads 'abhuñjamahi'; NSP p. 471 (scan 0481) clearly prints 'abhuñjmahi', the rudhādi laṅ first person plural that the grammar requires (BM's lemma in Wikisource also reads abhuñjmahi). Translated as abhuñjmahi. Mūla: for Ajai's print check.
SK 2775 · A 3.2.114V
विभाषा साकाङ्क्षे ॥ २७७५ ॥
vibhāṣā sākāṅkṣe
vibhāṣā sākāṅkṣe — [In the domain just stated — a word expressing recollection as upapada, the past not of today — lṛṭ occurs] optionally when [the root-meaning] stands in mutual expectancy (sākāṅkṣa).
Rule. In the domain just stated, lṛṭ comes optionally. That domain is a word of recollection as upapada, and the past not of today. The condition is that the root's meaning is in mutual expectancy (sākāṅkṣa). Bhaṭṭoji explains this as the relation of what marks (lakṣaṇa) and what is marked (lakṣya). One of his commentators calls it the relation of what makes known and what is made known.
Example.
two past actions: "we lived in the forest" and "there we grazed the cows"
→ the living is the mark; the grazing is what is marked
→ this rule: lṛṭ, optionally, in both verbs
→ smarasi kṛṣṇa vane vatsyāmas tatra gāś cārayiṣyāmaḥ "You remember, Kṛṣṇa, we lived in the forest; there we grazed the cows."
In the other option, laṅ. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives the forms: vane avasāma, gā acārayāma.
Why is the living the mark? One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says the living is well known, so it makes the other known. The grazing does not at once come to mind, so it is what is made known. The other commentator notes that yad is understood here but not used. So SK 2774 does not touch the sentence.
Applies when / blocked by. The option holds even when yad is used. Bhaṭṭoji says it overrides SK 2774 because it is the later rule (paratvāt). One of his commentators adds that this is why the sūtra was not placed before na yadi. The other cites the Bhāṣya, Patañjali's great commentary on the Aṣṭādhyāyī. It says the option holds with yad and without it.
Recalled here: parokṣe liṭ (SK 2171). Bhaṭṭoji now recalls the rule for liṭ at its place in the Aṣṭādhyāyī, with the form cakāra "he did". He adds a point about the first person (uttama-puruṣa). There, being beyond one's perception comes about through distraction of mind and the like.
supto 'haṃ kila vilalāpa "Asleep, I lamented, it seems."bahu jagada purastāt tasya mattā kilāham "Intoxicated, I spoke much in front of him, it seems."
Why is this needed? One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explains. What "I" refers to is directly perceived, so how can liṭ occur in the first person? Hence the distraction: sleep in the first line, intoxication in the second. "And the like" takes in absorption in something else.
Vārttika: atyantāpahnave liḍ vaktavyaḥ. "liṭ is to be stated in total denial (atyantāpahnava)." One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says the vārttika is for what was not beyond perception.
→ question: kaliṅgeṣv avātsīḥ "You stayed among the Kaliṅgas?"
→ reply: nāhaṃ kaliṅgān jagāma "I never went to the Kaliṅgas."
The denial is total because even the going, the cause of the stay, is denied. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators agree on this. One of them adds that Kaliṅga was a forbidden country. The same commentator adds: one who denies only the going makes no total denial, so laṅ comes: na kaliṅgeṣv agaccham "I did not go among the Kaliṅgas".
Siddhānta-kaumudī
उक्तविषयो लृड्वा स्यात् लक्ष्यलक्षणभावेन साकाङ्क्षश्चेद्धात्वर्थः । स्मरसि कृष्ण वने वत्स्यामस्तत्र गाश्चारयिष्यामः । वासो लक्षणं चारणं लक्ष्यम् । पक्षे लङ् । यच्छब्दयोगेऽपि नयदि SK 2774 इति बाधित्वा परत्वाद्विकल्पः । परोक्षे लिट् SK 2171 चकार । उत्तमपुरुषे चित्तविक्षेपादिना पारोक्ष्यम् । सुप्तोऽहं किल विललाप । बहु जगद पुरस्तात्तस्य मत्ता किलाहम् ॥
In the domain just stated (uktaviṣaya), lṛṭ optionally occurs if the meaning of the root is in mutual expectancy (sākāṅkṣa) through the relation of what is marked and what marks it (lakṣya-lakṣaṇa-bhāva). smarasi kṛṣṇa vane vatsyāmas tatra gāś cārayiṣyāmaḥ ('You remember, Kṛṣṇa, we lived in the forest; there we grazed the cows'). The living is the mark (lakṣaṇa); the grazing is what is marked (lakṣya). In the other case laṅ. Even in connection with the word yad, the option [of this rule] applies, overriding na yadi (SK 2774), because it is the later rule (paratvāt).
parokṣe liṭ (SK 2171): cakāra. In the first person (uttama-puruṣa), being beyond [the speaker's] perception (pārokṣya) comes about through distraction of mind and the like: supto 'haṃ kila vilalāpa ('Asleep, I lamented, it seems'); bahu jagada purastāt tasya mattā kilāham ('Intoxicated, I spoke much in front of him, it seems').
vārttikaअत्यन्तापह्नवे लिड्वक्तव्यः
(vārttika) atyantāpahnave liḍ vaktavyaḥ — 'liṭ is to be stated in [the case of] total denial (atyantāpahnava).'
(वार्तिकम्) ॥ कलिङ्गेष्ववात्सीः । नाहं कलिङ्गान् जगाम ॥
kaliṅgeṣv avātsīḥ ('You stayed among the Kaliṅgas?') — nāhaṃ kaliṅgān jagāma ('I never went to the Kaliṅgas').
Tattvabodhinī
alignment inferredNSP p. 481—वासो लक्षणमिति । प्रसिद्धत्वाज्ज्ञापकमित्यर्थः ॥—चारणं लक्ष्यमिति । सहसा बुद्ध्यनारोहाज्ज्ञाप्यम् ॥—पक्षे लङिति । वने अवसाम । गा अचारयाम ॥—यच्छब्दयोगेऽपीति । अत एव ‘न यदि’ इति योगात्पूर्वं ‘विभाषा साकाङ्क्षे’ इति न कृतमिति भावः ॥—अत्यन्तापह्नव इति । अपह्नवोऽपलपस्तत्र आत्यन्तिकत्वं नामेत्थं यदभियुक्तस्तद्धेतोरप्यपहुतिः ॥ नाहमित्यादि । कलिङ्गो नाम निषिद्धो देशः । ‘अङ्गवङ्गकलिङ्गेषु सौराष्ट्रमगधेषु च । तीर्थयात्रां विना गत्वा पुनःसंस्कारमर्हति’ इति स्मरणात्तस्मिन्देशे त्वया गतं चिरं स्थितमिति केनचित्कश्चिदुक्तः सन्नाह नाहं कलिङ्गाञ्जगामेति । न केवलमवस्थानमेव निषिध्यते किं तर्हि तद्धेतुभूतं गमनमपीति भवत्यत्यन्तापहवः । यदा तु कलिङ्गेष्वगम इत्युक्तः सन्गमनमेवापलपति न तदात्यन्तापहव इति लङेव भवति, न कलिङ्गेष्वगच्छमिति
Bālamanoramā
विभाषा साकाङ्क्षे - विभाषा । उक्तविषये इति । अभिज्ञाबोधिन्युपपदे इत्यर्थः । लक्ष्यलक्षणभावेनेति । ज्ञाप्यज्ञाप्यकभावेनेत्यर्थः । अत्र व्याख्यानमेव शरणम् । स्मरसीति । पूर्वं वने अवसाम, तत्र वने गा अचारयामेति यत्तत् हे कृष्ण ! स्मरसीत्यर्थः । अत्र यदित्यस्य गम्यत्वेऽपि तस्य प्रयोगाऽभावान्न यद्योगः । वासो लक्षणमिति ।चारणस्ये॑ति शेष- । उभयत्रापि लृड्विकल्पः, अभिज्ञावचनयोगस्य अविशिष्टत्वादिति भावः । न च यद्योग एव 'विभाषा साङ्काक्षे' इति विकल्पोऽस्त्विति भ्रमितव्यं,यदि च अयदि चाऽयं विकल्प॑ इति भाष्यात्तदाह — यच्छब्दयोगेऽपीति ।परोक्षे लि॑डिति प्राग्व्याख्यातमपि विशेषविवक्षया स्मार्यते । अहमर्थस्य प्रत्यक्षत्वात् परोक्षत्वाऽभावात्कथमस्य लिट उत्तमपुरुष इत्यत आह — उत्तमपुरुषे चित्तेति । सुप्त इति । सुप्तत्वादहं विललापेत्यर्थः । अत्र स्वापाच्चित्तविक्षेपः । बहु जगदेति । मत्तत्वात्तस्य पुरस्तादहं बहु जगदेत्यर्थः । अत्र उन्मादाच्चित्तविक्षेपः । आदिना व्यासङ्गसङ्ग्रहः । अत्यन्तापह्नवे इति । अपरोक्षार्थमिदम् । कलिङ्गेष्ववात्सीरिति । अतस्त्वं न सहवासयोग्य इति प्रश्नः ।अङ्गवङ्गकलिङ्गेषु सौराष्ट्रमगधेषु च । तीर्थयात्रां विना यातः पुनः संस्कारमर्हति.॑ इति वचनादिति भावः । नाहं कलिङ्गान् जगामेत्युत्तरम् । कलिङ्गशब्दस्य जनपदविसेषवाचित्वाद्बहुवचम् । अत्र तद्देशगमनोत्तरकालिकववासविषयकप्रश्ने कारणीभूतगमनस्यैवापलापादत्यन्तापह्नवो ज्ञेयः । कलिङ्गेष्ववात्सीरित्यत्रअकर्मकधातुभिर्योगे देशः कालो भावः॑ इति कर्मसंज्ञायाः पाक्षिकत्वान्न द्वितीयेति कारकाधिकारे निरूपितम् ।
translator notes
- BM: uktaviṣaye = when a word making recollection known is upapada; lakṣya-lakṣaṇa-bhāva = the relation of what is to be made known and what makes it known (jñāpya-jñāpaka), on which 'explanation alone is the refuge'. The example means 'Kṛṣṇa, you remember that we lived in the forest and grazed the cows there'; yad is understood but not used, so this is not yad-connection; lṛṭ is optional in both verbs, the connection with the abhijñā-word being the same. The option holds even with yad, by the Bhāṣya 'yadi ca ayadi cāyaṃ vikalpaḥ'. Followed: 'domain just stated' and the brackets in sutra_en.
- TB: the living is the mark because it is well known (jñāpaka); the grazing is the marked because it does not at once come to mind (jñāpya). 'pakṣe laṅ' = vane avasāma, gā acārayāma. 'Even with yad': for this very reason 'vibhāṣā sākāṅkṣe' was not placed before 'na yadi'. Followed: 'because it is the later rule'.
- BM: 'parokṣe liṭ', though explained before (SK 2171), is recalled here to make a particular point: since what 'I' refers to is directly perceived, how can liṭ occur in the first person? — hence 'through distraction of mind'. In supto 'ham the distraction is from sleep, in mattā from intoxication; 'and the like' takes in absorption elsewhere (vyāsaṅga). Followed: 'beyond [the speaker's] perception'.
- BM: the vārttika is for the not-beyond-perception case. 'kaliṅgeṣv avātsīḥ' is a question implying 'so you are unfit to associate with', citing 'aṅgavaṅgakaliṅgeṣu … punaḥ saṃskāram arhati'; 'nāhaṃ kaliṅgān jagāma' is the answer; the plural because Kaliṅga names a country; the denial is total because even the going, the cause of the stay asked about, is denied. Followed: the question/answer rendering of k3.
- TB: apahnava is denial; it is total when the cause too is denied. Kaliṅga is a forbidden country. One told 'you went there and stayed long' replies 'nāhaṃ kaliṅgān jagāma', denying the going as well as the stay. But one who, told 'kaliṅgeṣv agamaḥ', denies only the going does not make a total denial, so laṅ alone occurs: na kaliṅgeṣv agaccham. Recorded (agrees with BM).
- translator The two half-lines 'supto 'haṃ kila vilalāpa' and 'bahu jagada purastāt tasya mattā kilāham' are quoted without attribution; no source is assigned here (§13).
- textual Our sk.2775.k3 opens with the editorial tag '(vārttikam)'; NSP p. 471 (scan 0481) marks the vārttika with a sign before 'atyantāpahnave' and has no tag. The tag is not translated; the vārttika label sits on k2.
- textual Ours reads 'uktaviṣayo' (first case); NSP p. 471 (scan 0481, read at enlargement) prints 'uktaviṣaye' (seventh case), and BM's pratīka is 'uktaviṣaye iti'. The English 'In the domain just stated' follows the print. Mūla, for Ajai's Print Check.
SK 2776 · A 3.2.116V
हशश्वतोर्लङ् च ॥ २७७६ ॥
haśaśvatorlaṅ ca
haśaśvator laṅ ca — When ha or śaśvat [is the upapada, in the domain of liṭ], laṅ [occurs] as well [as liṭ].
Rule. When ha or śaśvat is the upapada, laṅ comes in the domain of liṭ. By ca "and", liṭ comes too. The domain of liṭ is the past, not of today and beyond perception (SK 2171).
Example.
the past, not of today, unseen: "he did"
→ by SK 2171 one expects liṭ: cakāra
→ with ha, this rule adds laṅ → akarot
→ iti hākarot or iti ha cakāra "so indeed he did".
In the same way: śaśvad akarot or śaśvac cakāra "he did it again and again".
One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators calls the rule clear and says nothing more.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
अनयोरुपपदयोर्लिङ्विषये लङ् स्यात् । इतिहाकरोच्चकार वा । शश्वदकरोच्चकार वा ॥
When these two are upapadas, laṅ occurs in the domain of liṭ; [by 'ca', liṭ too]. iti hākarot, or cakāra ('so indeed he did'); śaśvad akarot, or cakāra ('he did it again and again').
Bālamanoramā
हशश्वतोर्लङ् च - हशआतोर्लङ् च । स्पष्टम् ।
translator notes
- textual Our kaumudī lacks 'cāl liṭ' after 'laṅ syāt'; NSP p. 471 (scan 0481) prints 'laṅ syāt cāl liṭ' ('and, by ca, liṭ'), which accounts for the alternants cakāra. Supplied in brackets. Mūla: for Ajai's print check.
- BM says only 'spaṣṭam' ('clear'). No TB on this sūtra in the print. Recorded.
- textual Our kaumudī reads 'liṅviṣaye' ('in the domain of liṅ'); NSP p. 471 (scan 0481, read at enlargement) prints 'liḍviṣaye' (no dot on the ḍ; the usual ṅ/ḍ confusion), and the sense requires liṭ, since 'cāl liṭ' gives the alternants cakāra. The English follows the print and the sense: 'in the domain of liṭ'. Mūla, for Ajai's Print Check.
- translator 'In the domain of liṭ' (the print's liḍviṣaye; ours liṅviṣaye, see the textual note) = the past not of today and beyond perception, the domain of parokṣe liṭ (SK 2171); the glosses of the examples are the translator's.
SK 2777 · A 3.2.117V
प्रश्ने चासन्नकाले ॥ २७७७ ॥
praśne cāsannakāle
praśne cāsannakāle — And when [a past action not of today and beyond perception (bhūtānadyatanaparokṣe — carried forward (anuvṛtti) per TB)] is the thing asked about (praśna) and is of near time, [laṅ and liṭ occur].
Rule. When the matter asked about is of near time, laṅ and liṭ both come. This is again in the domain of liṭ: the past, not of today and beyond perception. Bhaṭṭoji glosses praśna as "what is to be asked". One of his commentators says praśna is formed in the sense of the object, hence that meaning.
Example.
a recent past action, asked about: "did he go?"
→ this rule: laṅ or liṭ
→ agacchat kim or jagāma kim "Did he go?"
When the time is not near, only liṭ comes: kaṃsaṃ jaghāna kim "Did he kill Kaṃsa?"
Applies when / blocked by. There must be a question. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives the counter-example jagāma caitraḥ "Caitra went", where only liṭ comes. How recent counts as "near", scholars discuss this.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
प्रष्टव्यः प्रश्नः । आसन्नकाले पृच्छ्यमानेऽर्थे लिड्विषये लङ्लिटौ स्तः ॥ अगच्छत्किम् । जगाम किम् । अनासन्ने तु कंसं जघान किम् ॥
praśna [here] is 'what is to be asked'. When the matter asked about is of near time, laṅ and liṭ occur in the domain of liṭ. agacchat kim, jagāma kim ('Did he go?'). But when it is not near: kaṃsaṃ jaghāna kim ('Did he kill Kaṃsa?') [liṭ only].
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 481—प्रश्ने च-। प्रश्ने भूतानद्यतनपरोक्षे इति वर्तते । प्रश्न इत्यत्र कर्मणि नङित्याह—प्रष्टव्य इति ॥—आसन्नेति । पञ्चवर्षाभ्यन्तरमासन्नकालं पञ्चवर्षातीतं तु विप्रकृष्टकालमित्याहुः ॥ पृच्छ्यमान इति । आसन्नकालिके भूतानद्यतनपरोक्षार्थवृत्तिधात्वर्थे प्रष्टव्ये सतीत्यर्थः । प्रश्ने किम् । भूतानद्यतनपरोक्षे लिडेव । जगाम चैत्रः ॥ लट् स्मे । स्मे इत्यव्ययं भूतकालद्योतकम् ॥—ननौ-। पृष्टस्य प्रतिवचनमिति विग्रहः । समाहारद्वन्द्वे तूभयत्र स्यात् इष्यते च प्रतिवचने एव लट् । तदाह—ननु करोमीति । न च पृष्टग्रहणं व्यर्थं यावता प्रश्नपूर्वकमेव प्रतिवचनं भवतीति वाच्यम् । विरुद्धमपि वचनं प्रतिवचनं वचनाभिमुख्यमपि प्रतिवचनमिति पृष्टग्रहणं कर्तव्यमिति कैयटे स्थितत्वात् ॥—नन्वोः-। भूत इत्येव । पक्षे लुङ् । अनद्यतने तु लङ्
Bālamanoramā
प्रश्ने चासन्नकाले - प्रश्ने चासन्नकाले ।प्रश्ने इत्यनेन प्रश्नविषयो विवक्षित इत्याह — प्रष्टव्यः प्रश्न इति । अर्थे इत्यनन्तरं ‘वर्तमानाद्धातोः’ इति शेषः । प्रयोक्तृदृष्टिपथातिक्रान्तत्वमनासन्नकालत्वम् । वृत्तौ तु पञ्चवर्षातीतकालोऽनासन्नकाल इत्युक्तम् ।
translator notes
- TB: under 'praśne', 'bhūtānadyatanaparokṣe' is carried forward (vartate); praśna is formed with naṅ in the sense of the object (karmaṇi), hence 'what is to be asked'; pṛcchyamāne = when the root-meaning, past not of today and beyond perception and of near time, is to be asked about. Why 'praśne'? jagāma caitraḥ — liṭ only. Followed: the bracket in sutra_en.
- BM: by 'praśne' the object of the question is meant, hence 'what is to be asked'; after 'arthe', 'vartamānād dhātoḥ' ('after a root standing [in that sense]') is to be supplied (śeṣa). Recorded.
- BM: not-near time (anāsannakāla) = having passed beyond the user's range of sight; in the Vṛtti, a time more than five years past. Recorded; the English keeps 'near time' neutral.
- TB: 'they say' (āhuḥ) near time is within five years, beyond five years is remote. Recorded: TB gives the five-year limit, BM its own sight-range criterion and the five-year limit as the Vṛtti's; the English stays neutral (§16).
SK 2778 · A 3.2.118V
लट् स्मे ॥ २७७८ ॥
laṭ sme
laṭ sme — When sma [is used, in the domain of liṭ], laṭ [occurs].
Rule. When sma is used, laṭ comes in the domain of liṭ. Bhaṭṭoji calls this an apavāda of liṭ. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators agree that sma is an indeclinable that makes past time manifest.
Example.
the past, not of today, unseen: "Yudhiṣṭhira sacrificed"
→ by SK 2171 one expects liṭ
→ sma is used; this rule: laṭ → yajati
→ yajati sma yudhiṣṭhiraḥ "Yudhiṣṭhira sacrificed."
Watch out. yajati looks like a present, "he sacrifices". With sma it reports the past.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
लिटोऽपवादः । यजति स्म युधिष्ठरः ॥
An apavāda of liṭ. yajati sma yudhiṣṭhiraḥ ('Yudhiṣṭhira sacrificed').
Bālamanoramā
लट् स्मे - लट् स्मे ।स्मे॑त्यव्ययम् । तद्योगे लिड्विषये लट् स्यादित्यर्थः । यजति स्मेति । स्मशब्दो भूतकालद्योतकः ।
translator notes
- BM: sma is an indeclinable; in connection with it laṭ occurs in the domain of liṭ; sma makes past time manifest (bhūtakāladyotaka). Followed: the bracket in sutra_en and the past-tense gloss.
- TB, printed under sk.2777.t1 (lemma 'laṭ sme'): sma is an indeclinable that makes past time manifest. Recorded (agrees with BM).
- textual Our kaumudī reads 'yudhiṣṭharaḥ'; NSP p. 471 (scan 0481) prints 'yudhiṣṭhiraḥ'. Translated as Yudhiṣṭhira. Mūla: for Ajai's print check.
SK 2779 · A 3.2.119V
अपरोक्षे च ॥ २७७९ ॥
aparokṣe ca
aparokṣe ca — And when [the past action not of today] is not beyond perception (aparokṣa), [laṭ occurs when sma is used — 'laṭ sme' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2778; the kaumudī gives only 'smayoge … laṭ', the source rule is the translator's identification].
Rule. laṭ with sma comes also when the past not of today is not beyond perception (aparokṣa). Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "in the past not of today, laṭ comes when sma is used".
Example.
the past, not of today, seen by the speaker: "father said so"
→ by SK 2205 one expects laṅ
→ sma is used; this rule: laṭ → bravīti
→ evaṃ sma pitā bravīti "Thus father said."
One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators glosses the sentence as "father spoke thus".
Siddhānta-kaumudī
भूतानद्यतने लट् स्यात् स्मयोगे । एवं स्म पिता ब्रवीति ॥
In the past not of today [that is not beyond perception], laṭ occurs when sma is used. evaṃ sma pitā bravīti ('Thus father said').
Bālamanoramā
अपरोक्षे च - अपरोक्षे च । एवं स्मेति । पिता एवमुक्तवानित्यर्थः ।
translator notes
- BM glosses the example as 'father spoke thus' (evam uktavān). Followed. No TB on this sūtra in the print.
- translator The kaumudī gives the result ('bhūtānadyatane laṭ syāt smayoge'); the identification of 'laṭ sme' (SK 2778) as the source of the anuvṛtti is the translator's.
SK 2780 · A 3.2.120V
ननौ पृष्टप्रतिवचने ॥ २७८० ॥
nanau pṛṣṭaprativacane
nanau pṛṣṭaprativacane — When nanu [is used] in the reply of one who has been asked, [laṭ occurs in the past (bhūte); 'anadyatana' and 'parokṣa' no longer carried forward].
Rule. In the reply of one who has been asked, when nanu is used, laṭ comes in the past. Bhaṭṭoji notes that "not of today" (anadyatana) and "beyond perception" (parokṣa) have ceased (nivṛtta). They are no longer carried forward. So the rule speaks of the past in general.
Example.
question: akārṣīḥ kim "Did you do it?"
→ the reply tells of the past: "I did"
→ the reply uses nanu; this rule: laṭ → karomi
→ nanu karomi bhoḥ "Why, I did, sir!"
One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says karomi here means akārṣam "I did".
Applies when / blocked by. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators notes that the laṭ comes in the reply only, not in the question. He also explains why the sūtra must say pṛṣṭa "of one who has been asked". Every reply follows a question, so the word seems redundant. But Kaiyaṭa, a commentator on the Bhāṣya, holds that even a statement that contradicts another is a prativacana, a "reply". So the word pṛṣṭa is needed.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
अनद्यतनपरोक्ष इति निवृत्तम् । भूते लट् स्यात् । अकार्षीः किम् । ननु करोमि भोः ॥
'Not of today' (anadyatana) and 'beyond perception' (parokṣa) have ceased [to be carried forward] (nivṛtta). laṭ occurs in the past. akārṣīḥ kim ('Did you do [it]?') — nanu karomi bhoḥ ('Why, I did, sir!').
Bālamanoramā
ननौ पृष्टप्रतिवचने - ननौ पृष्ट । निवृत्तमिति । व्याख्यानादिति भावः । अकार्षीः किमिति प्रश्नः । ननु करोमीत्युत्तरम् । अकार्षमित्यर्थः । नन्विति संबोधने ।
translator notes
- BM: 'nivṛttam' rests on the explanation (vyākhyāna) [of the tradition]. akārṣīḥ kim is the question, nanu karomi the answer, meaning akārṣam ('I did'); nanu is used in address (saṃbodhana). Followed: 'I did' for karomi.
- TB, printed under sk.2777.t1 (lemma 'nanau-'): the analysis is pṛṣṭasya prativacanam ('the reply of the one asked'); as a samāhāra-dvandva [laṭ] would occur in both [question and reply], but laṭ is wanted in the reply only. 'pṛṣṭa' is not redundant although every reply presupposes a question: Kaiyaṭa holds that even a contradicting statement, or one merely addressed to a statement, is a prativacana, so 'pṛṣṭa' must be stated. Followed: 'the reply of one who has been asked'.
SK 2781 · A 3.2.121V
नन्वोर्विभाषा ॥ २७८१ ॥
nanvorvibhāṣā
nanvor vibhāṣā — When na or nu [is used — in a reply to a question, cf. SK 2780 (translator's inference) —, laṭ occurs] optionally [in the past (bhūte — supplied (śeṣa) per BM)].
Rule. When na "no" or nu "surely" is used, laṭ comes optionally in the past. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators reads nanvoḥ as "of na and nu" and supplies "in the past". Bhaṭṭoji's examples are again a question and its replies.
Example.
question: akārṣīḥ kim "Did you do it?"
→ with na: na karomi (laṭ) or nākārṣam (luṅ) "No, I did not."
→ with nu: ahaṃ nu karomi (laṭ) or ahaṃ nv akārṣam (luṅ) "I did, surely."
Applies when / blocked by. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says what comes in the other option. It is luṅ, as in the examples. But in the past not of today it is laṅ.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
अकार्षीः किम् । न करोमि नाकार्षम् । अहं तु करोमि । अहं न्वकार्षम् ॥
[With na or nu, laṭ optionally in the past:] akārṣīḥ kim ('Did you do [it]?') — na karomi, nākārṣam ('No, I did not'); ahaṃ nu karomi, ahaṃ nv akārṣam ('I did, surely').
Bālamanoramā
नन्वोर्विभाषा - नन्वोर्विभाषा । न नु अनयोर्द्वन्द्वः । तदाह — नशब्दे नुशब्दे चेति । लड्वा स्यादिति 'भूते' इति शेषः । अकार्षीः किमिति प्रश्नः । न करोमि, नाकार्षमित्युत्तरम् । अहं नु करोमि, अहं न्वकार्षमिति च ।तर्के नु स्या॑दित्यमरः ।
translator notes
- BM: 'nanvoḥ' is a dvandva of na and nu; it glosses 'with the word na and with the word nu' and 'laṭ optionally', with 'bhūte' to be supplied (śeṣa). akārṣīḥ kim is the question; na karomi / nākārṣam and ahaṃ nu karomi / ahaṃ nv akārṣam are the answers; it cites Amara 'tarke nu syāt' (nu in reasoning). Followed: the bracketed lead of the block (also the Wikisource SK's reading; see the textual note) and the 'bhūte' bracket in sutra_en.
- TB, printed under sk.2777.t1 (lemma 'nanvoḥ-'): 'bhūte' holds (ity eva); in the other case luṅ (NSP p. 471, scan 0481: our OCR TB has laṅ); but in the past not of today, laṅ. Recorded.
- textual BM's pratīkas 'naśabde nuśabde ca' and 'laḍ vā syāt' have no counterpart in our kaumudī, nor in NSP p. 471 (scan 0481), where the examples follow the sūtra directly. The Wikisource SK (uttara-3/0028) does print 'naśabde nuśabde ca laḍ vā syāt |' before the examples, exactly as BM's pratīkas presuppose: an edition difference, not a corruption in ours (ours = NSP). Not supplied in the block beyond the bracketed lead, which rests on BM's pratīkas and the Wikisource SK.
- textual Our kaumudī reads 'ahaṃ tu karomi'; NSP p. 471 (scan 0481) clearly prints 'ahaṃ nu karomi', which the sūtra (on nu) requires and BM's lemma confirms. Translated as nu. Mūla: for Ajai's print check.
- translator The bracket 'in a reply to a question, cf. SK 2780' in sutra_en is the translator's, inferred from the question-and-answer examples; no commentator states an anuvṛtti of 'pṛṣṭaprativacane'.
SK 2782 · A 3.2.122V
पुरि लुङ् चास्मे ॥ २७८२ ॥
puri luṅ cāsme
puri luṅ cāsme — When purā [is used, in the past not of today (anadyatane — carried forward (anuvṛtti) by frog's leap, as the kaumudī states; the source, anadyatane laṅ, SK 2205, is identified in the translator's note)], luṅ [optionally occurs], and [by 'ca', laṭ], but not when sma [is used].
Rule. With the word purā "formerly", in the past not of today, luṅ comes optionally. By ca, laṭ comes too. But not when sma is used. In the other option, the lakāra comes as it would otherwise. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators agree what that means: liṭ if the action is beyond perception, otherwise laṅ.
The words "not of today" ceased at SK 2780. Bhaṭṭoji says they come back here by the frog's leap (maṇḍūkapluti). One of his commentators says that this rests on the explanation of the tradition alone. The same commentator explains the form of the sūtra: puri is the seventh case of the indeclinable purā, with its ā lost.
Example.
the past, not of today: "formerly students lived here"
→ with purā, by ca: laṭ → vasantīha purā chātrāḥ
→ this rule: luṅ → avātsuḥ
→ the other option, not beyond perception: laṅ (SK 2205) → avasan
→ the other option, beyond perception: liṭ (SK 2171) → ūṣuḥ.
Applies when / blocked by. Why "not with sma"? Bhaṭṭoji gives yajati sma purā "he sacrificed formerly". He gives only the form. Its laṭ is the one SK 2778 gives with sma, and luṅ does not come.
One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators notes that this sūtra closes the second quarter of the third book of the Aṣṭādhyāyī. Bhaṭṭoji ends with a heading for what follows: it is taught "while bhaviṣyati 'in the future' is carried forward". The same commentator names the source, bhaviṣyati gamyādayaḥ (SK 3171).
Siddhānta-kaumudī
अनद्यतग्रहणं मण्डूकप्लुत्याऽनुवर्तते । पुराशब्दयोगे भूतानद्यतने विभाषा लुङ् चाल्लट् नतु स्मयोगे । पक्षे यथाप्राप्तम् । वसन्तीह पुरा छात्राः । अवात्सुः । अवसन् । ऊषुर्वा । अस्मे किम् । यजति स्म पुरा । भविष्यतीत्यनुवर्तमाने ॥
The mention of 'not of today' (anadyatana) is carried forward (anuvartate) by the frog's leap (maṇḍūka-pluti). In connection with the word purā, in the past not of today, luṅ optionally occurs, and by 'ca' laṭ, but not in connection with sma. In the other case, [the lakāra] as otherwise obtained (yathāprāptam). vasantīha purā chātrāḥ ('Formerly students lived here' — laṭ); avātsuḥ [luṅ]; avasan [laṅ]; or ūṣuḥ [liṭ]. Why 'not with sma' (asme)? yajati sma purā ('he sacrificed formerly' — laṭ by laṭ sme, SK 2778, not luṅ).
[What follows is taught] while 'in the future' (bhaviṣyati) is being carried forward (anuvartamāne).
Tattvabodhinī
alignment inferredNSP p. 481—पक्षे यथाप्राप्तमिति । लुङ्लटोरभावपक्षे लङ्, पारोक्ष्ये तु लिडित्यर्थः ॥—भविष्यतीति । ‘भविष्यति गम्यादयः’ इति सूत्रात्
Bālamanoramā
पुरि लुङ् चास्मे - पुरि लुङ् चास्मे ।अस्मे इति च्छेदः । पुरेत्याकारान्तमव्ययम् । पुरीति तस्य सप्तम्येकवचनम् । आत इति योगविभागादाल्लोपः । मण्डूकप्लुत्येति । अत्र व्याख्यानमेव शरणम् । चाल्लडिति । तथा च लुङ् लट् च वेति फलितम् । पक्षे इति । एतदुभयाभावपक्षे इत्यर्थः । यथाप्राप्तमिति । अनद्यतनपरोक्षभूते लिट् । परोक्षत्वाऽविवक्षायां तु लङित्यर्थः । 'अभिज्ञावचने ' इत्यारभ्य एतदन्ता विधयस्तृतीयस्य द्वैतीयीकाः । अथ तृतीयस्य तार्तीयीका विधयो वक्ष्यन्ते । भविष्यतीत्यनुवर्तमाने इति । 'भविष्यति गम्यादयः' इति सूत्रादिति भावः ।
translator notes
- BM: 'asme' is the word-division; purā is an indeclinable ending in ā; puri is its seventh-case singular, with loss of the ā by a split of the rule (yogavibhāga) of 'ātaḥ'. On 'maṇḍūkaplutyā': 'explanation alone is the refuge'. 'cāl laṭ': so the net result is 'luṅ and laṭ, optionally'. pakṣe = when neither of the two; yathāprāptam = liṭ in the past not of today beyond perception, and laṅ when being beyond perception is not intended. Followed: the bracketed lakāra labels on the examples.
- TB: pakṣe yathāprāptam = in the absence of luṅ and laṭ, laṅ; but liṭ when [the action is] beyond perception. 'bhaviṣyati' is from 'bhaviṣyati gamyādayaḥ'. Followed (agrees with BM).
- BM: the rules from 'abhijñāvacane' to this one belong to the second pāda of the third adhyāya; rules of the third pāda follow. 'bhaviṣyati' is carried from 'bhaviṣyati gamyādayaḥ' (SK 3171). Followed: the second paragraph.
- textual Our kaumudī reads 'anadyata-grahaṇam'; NSP p. 471 (scan 0481) prints 'anadyatana-grahaṇam'. Translated as anadyatana. Mūla: for Ajai's print check.
- translator The note '— laṭ by laṭ sme, SK 2778, not luṅ' on yajati sma purā is the translator's reading of the counter-example; the kaumudī gives only the form.
- translator The kaumudī names the frog's leap but not the rule it leaps from, and BM says only that explanation is the refuge. The source 'anadyatane laṅ' (SK 2205) is the translator's identification, supported by TB on SK 2773 (sk.2773.t1, NSP p. 471): 'anadyatane laṅ ity ataḥ anadyatana iti vartate'.
SK 2783 · A 3.3.4V
यावत्पुरानिपातयोर्लट् ॥ २७८३ ॥
yāvatpurānipātayorlaṭ
yāvatpurānipātayor laṭ — When the nipātas yāvat and purā [are used], laṭ [occurs, in the future — 'bhaviṣyati' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from bhaviṣyati gamyādayaḥ, SK 3171, as stated under SK 2782].
Rule. When the nipātas yāvat and purā are used, laṭ comes in the future. Bhaṭṭoji says these two particles convey certainty. One of his commentators calls the rule an apavāda of luṭ and the rest.
Example.
the future: "he will surely eat"
→ one expects lṛṭ (SK 2193) or luṭ (SK 2185)
→ the nipāta yāvat or purā is used; this rule: laṭ → bhuṅkte
→ yāvad bhuṅkte, purā bhuṅkte "he will surely eat".
Applies when / blocked by. The words must be nipātas. Bhaṭṭoji gives two counter-examples.
yāvad dāsyate tāvad bhokṣyate "he will eat as much as he will be given". One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explains. This yāvat is formed with the affix vatup, in the sense of measure, so it is not a nipāta. laṭ does not come.karaṇībhūtayā purā yāsyati "he will go by means of the city". Here purā is the third case of pur "city", not the particle. Bhaṭṭoji adds "serving as instrument" to bring this out, one of his commentators says.
The other commentator adds a counter-example for the future not of today, with luṭ: yāvad dātā tāvad bhoktā.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
यावद्भुङ्क्ते । पुराभुङ्क्ते । निपातावेतौ निश्चयं द्योतयतः । निपातयोः किम् । यावद्दास्यते तावद्भोक्ष्यते । करणीभूतया पूरा यास्यति ॥
yāvad bhuṅkte ('he will surely eat'); purā bhuṅkte. These two nipātas convey certainty. Why 'nipātas'? yāvad dāsyate tāvad bhokṣyate ('he will eat as much as he will be given'); karaṇībhūtayā purā yāsyati ('he will go by means of the city', purā being the instrument).
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 481—यावत्पुरा-। लक्षणप्रतिपदोक्तपरिभाषाऽनित्येति निपातग्रहणेन ज्ञाप्यते ॥ यावत् भुङ्क्त इति । निश्चितं भोक्ष्यते इत्यर्थः ॥—यावद्दास्यत इति । अनद्यतनभविष्यति तु यावद्दाता तावद्भोक्तेति प्रत्युदाहर्तव्यम्
Bālamanoramā
यावत्पुरानिपातयोर्लट् - यावत्पुरा । यावत् पुरा इति द्वे पदे । अनयोः प्रयुज्यमानयोर्लट् स्यादित्यर्थः । लुडादेरपवादः । निश्चयं द्योतयत इति ।यावत्तावच्च साकल्येऽवधौ मानेऽवधारणे॑इत्यमरः । यावद्दास्यते तावद्भोक्ष्यते इति । यत्परिमाणकं तत्परिमाणकमित्यर्थः ।यत्तदेतेभ्यः परिमाणे वतु॑बिति वतुबन्तत्वेन निपातत्वाऽभावान्न लडिति भावः । करणभूतयेति ।पुरा यास्यती॑ति प्रत्युदाहरणान्तरम् । पुर्शब्दस्य पुरेति तृतीयान्तमिदम् । तत्स्फोरणाय करणभूतयेत्युक्तम् ।
translator notes
- BM: yāvat and purā are two words; when they are used, laṭ occurs — an apavāda of luṭ and the rest. On 'certainty' it cites Amara: yāvat and tāvat [are used] in totality, limit, measure and ascertainment. In yāvad dāsyate tāvad bhokṣyate the sense is 'of whatever quantity … of that quantity'; yāvat there ends in vatup by 'yattadetebhyaḥ parimāṇe vatup', so it is not a nipāta and laṭ does not occur. 'purā yāsyati' is a further counter-example: purā is the third-case word (tṛtīyānta) of pur, and 'karaṇībhūtayā' ('serving as instrument') is said to bring this out. Followed: the bracket in sutra_en and the glosses.
- TB: the word 'nipāta' makes known (jñāpaka) that the paribhāṣā on lakṣaṇa-pratipadokta [forms] is not invariable (anitya). yāvad bhuṅkte means 'he will certainly eat'. For the future not of today, however, the counter-example to be given is yāvad dātā tāvad bhoktā [in addition to the kaumudī's lṛṭ counter-example]. Recorded.
- textual Our kaumudī reads 'pūrā yāsyati'; NSP p. 471 (scan 0481) prints 'purā yāsyati', the third-case form of pur that BM explains. Translated as purā. Mūla: for Ajai's print check.
SK 2784 · A 3.3.5V
विभाषा कदाकर्ह्योः ॥ २७८४ ॥
vibhāṣā kadākarhyoḥ
vibhāṣā kadākarhyoḥ — When kadā or karhi [is used, laṭ occurs] optionally [in the future — 'bhaviṣyati laḍ vā' supplied (śeṣapūraṇa) per BM; by anuvṛtti, 'laṭ' from SK 2783 and 'bhaviṣyati' from SK 3171 — the translator's identification of the sources].
Rule. When kadā or karhi "when?" is used, laṭ comes optionally in the future. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says what comes otherwise: luṭ and lṛṭ, as they would apply.
Example.
the future: "when will he eat?"
→ with kadā or karhi, this rule: laṭ → kadā bhuṅkte, karhi bhuṅkte
→ the other option: lṛṭ → bhokṣyate
→ or luṭ → bhoktā.
Applies when / blocked by. karhi is itself taught for time not of today. So may karhi take the general future lṛṭ, karhi bhokṣyate? Scholars discuss this.
How can this laṭ, given for the future in general, alternate with luṭ, whose field is narrower? One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators answers. Some sūtras, this one among them, are read into anadyatane luṭ (SK 2185) as the desired forms require. So laṭ also comes in the field of luṭ.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
भविष्यति लड् वा स्यात् । कदा कर्हि वा भुङ्क्ते । भोक्ष्यते । भोक्ता वा ॥
In the future, laṭ optionally occurs. kadā bhuṅkte, or karhi bhuṅkte ('When will he eat?') [laṭ]; bhokṣyate [lṛṭ]; or bhoktā [luṭ].
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 481–482— विभाषा-। ननु ‘अनद्यतनेर्हिलन्यतरस्याम्’ इत्यनद्यतने किमोर्हिल्विहितस्ततश्च कर्हियोगे लुटैव भाव्यमिति कथमुदाह्रियते कर्हि भोक्ष्यत इति । अत्राहुः । भविष्यत्सामान्ये भोक्ष्यते इति लृट् । कर्हियोगे तु अनद्यतनावगतिर्लक्षणयेति ॥—भोक्तावेति । ननु भविष्यत्सामान्येऽयं लड्विहितस्तस्य लुटा सह कथं विकल्पो विषयभेदादिति चेत् । अत्राहुः । ‘अनद्यतने लुट्’ इत्यत्र ‘विभाषा कदा’- इत्यादीनि कानिचित्सूत्राणीष्टानुरोधेनानुवर्तन्ते तेन लुड्विषयेऽपि लड् भवति न त्वनद्यतने लुटा लड् बाध्यत इति ॥—किंवृत्ते-। किमा वृत्तं किंवृत्तम् । केचित्तु यद्यपि कदाकुत्रेत्याद्यपि किंवृत्तं तथापि तत्र गृह्यते अनभिधानात् । तेन कदा भोजयिष्यसीत्यादौ भविष्यति लड् नेत्याहुः
Bālamanoramā
विभाषा कदाकर्ह्योः - विभाषा कदाकर्ह्योः ।भविष्यति लड्वा स्या॑दिति शेषपूरणम् । लडभावपक्षे लुटलृटौ यथाप्राप्तम् । तदाह — कदा कर्हि वा भुङ्क्ते भोक्ष्यते भोक्ता वेति । न च कर्हियोगे लडभावपक्षे लुडेवोचितो, नतु लृट् ।अनद्यतने र्हिलन्यतरस्या॑मिति र्हिलन्तकर्हियोगविरोधादिति वाच्यं, लृडुदाहरणस्य कदायोगमात्रविषयत्वादित्याहुः ।
translator notes
- BM: 'bhaviṣyati laḍ vā syāt' fills out the sūtra (śeṣapūraṇa); where laṭ is absent, luṭ and lṛṭ as otherwise obtained. Followed: the bracket in sutra_en and the lakāra labels.
- BM: Objection: with karhi, in the absence of laṭ, only luṭ is proper, not lṛṭ, since karhi ends in rhil, taught for the not-of-today by 'anadyatane rhil anyatarasyām' (SK 1969). Reply: the lṛṭ example (bhokṣyate) concerns kadā alone, 'they say'. Recorded; the English keeps the kaumudī's undivided list.
- TB raises the same objection to karhi bhokṣyate but answers differently ('atrāhuḥ'): bhokṣyate is lṛṭ in the future in general, and with karhi the not-of-today sense is understood by lakṣaṇā. Recorded: BM and TB disagree on how karhi … bhokṣyate is justified; the English stays neutral (§16).
- TB on 'bhoktā vā': Objection: this laṭ is taught for the future in general, so how can it alternate with luṭ, whose domain differs? Reply ('atrāhuḥ'): into 'anadyatane luṭ' (SK 2185) some sūtras, 'vibhāṣā kadā-' and others, are carried forward as the desired result requires, so laṭ also occurs in luṭ's domain and is not blocked by luṭ in the not-of-today. Recorded.
- translator BM says only that 'bhaviṣyati laḍ vā syāt' fills out the sūtra (śeṣapūraṇa). Treating this as anuvṛtti, with laṭ from SK 2783 and bhaviṣyati from 'bhaviṣyati gamyādayaḥ' (SK 3171, the source BM names under SK 2782), is the translator's.
SK 2785 · A 3.3.6V
किंवृत्ते लिप्सायाम् ॥ २७८५ ॥
kiṃvṛtte lipsāyām
kiṃvṛtte lipsāyām — When a form of kim (kiṃvṛtta) [is used] and a desire to obtain (lipsā) [is conveyed, laṭ occurs optionally in the future — 'vibhāṣā' and 'laṭ' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2784, 'bhaviṣyati' from SK 3171 — the translator's identification of the sources; the kaumudī gives only the result 'bhaviṣyati laḍ vā syāt'].
Rule. When a form of kim (kiṃvṛtta) is used, and the speaker shows a wish to obtain (lipsā), laṭ comes optionally in the future. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators glosses kiṃvṛtta as "what is formed by the word kim". Bhaṭṭoji's gloss is "in the future, laṭ optionally".
Example.
a hungry man asks: "whom will you feed?"
→ a form of kim: kam, kataram, katamam "whom, which of the two, which of the many"
→ the wish to obtain food is shown; this rule: laṭ → bhojayasi
→ the other option: lṛṭ bhojayiṣyasi, or luṭ bhojayitāsi
→ kaṃ kataraṃ katamaṃ vā bhojayasi "Whom, which of the two, or which of the many will you feed?"
One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says to supply "[me,] hungry and wanting food".
Applies when / blocked by. There must be a wish to obtain. Without it, laṭ does not come: kaḥ pāṭaliputraṃ gamiṣyati "Who will go to Pāṭaliputra?"
Watch out. Which words count as "a form of kim"? Scholars discuss this. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators reports the view of the Vṛtti, an older running commentary on the Aṣṭādhyāyī. On that view only the case-forms of kim count, with its forms in -tara and -tama (kataraḥ, katamaḥ). Then with kadā the laṭ comes by SK 2784, not by this rule. That commentator himself rejects the restriction. He follows the Bhāṣya on the sūtra yadvṛttān nityam, and takes every form of kim, kadā included. The other commentator reports some who leave out kadā, kutra and the like, for want of usage.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
भविष्यति लड्वा स्यात् । कं कतरं कतमं वा भोजयसि भोजयिष्यसि भोजयितासि वा । लिप्सायां किम् । कः पाटलिपुत्रं गमिष्यति ॥
In the future, laṭ optionally occurs. kaṃ, kataraṃ or kataman vā bhojayasi ('Whom, which of the two, or which of the many will you feed?') [laṭ]; bhojayiṣyasi [lṛṭ]; or bhojayitāsi [luṭ]. Why 'when a desire to obtain [is conveyed]'? kaḥ pāṭaliputraṃ gamiṣyati ('Who will go to Pāṭaliputra?').
Bālamanoramā
किंवृत्ते लिप्सायाम् - किंवृत्ते लिप्सायां । किंशब्देन वृत्तं निष्पन्नं किंवृत्तमित्यभिप्रेत्य आह — विभक्त्यन्तमिति लड्वेति । लडभावे तु लुट्लृटौ यथाप्राप्तम् । किंवृत्तशब्देन विभक्त्यन्तडतरडतमान्तानामेव ग्रहणमिति वृत्तिः । तेन कदादियोगे भविष्यति लट् । ‘यद्वृत्तान्नित्यम्’ इति सूत्रभाष्यरीत्या तु किंवृत्तानां सर्वेषां कदेत्यादीनामपि ग्रहणमिति युक्तम् । कं कतरं कतमं वेति ।क्षुधितमन्नलिप्सुमिति शेषः ।
translator notes
- BM: kiṃvṛtta = 'what is formed (vṛtta) by the word kim'; where laṭ is absent, luṭ and lṛṭ as otherwise obtained. BM then reports the Vṛtti's view (iti vṛttiḥ) that kiṃvṛtta takes in only the case-inflected forms of kim and those ending in ḍatara and ḍatama, so that with kadā etc. laṭ occurs in the future [i.e. by SK 2784, not by this rule]; but, following the Bhāṣya's practice on the sūtra 'yadvṛttān nityam', it is right (yuktam) that all kiṃvṛttas, kadā and the rest included, are taken. With kaṃ kataraṃ kataman vā, '[me,] hungry and wanting food' (kṣudhitam annalipsum) is to be supplied. Followed: 'a form of kim' (neutral between the two views) and the three pronouns; the lipsā is the questioner's.
- TB, printed under sk.2784.t1 (lemma 'kiṃvṛtte-'): kiṃvṛtta = what has come about with kim. Some (kecit) hold that although kadā, kutra and the like are also kiṃvṛtta, they are not taken here, for want of usage (anabhidhāna), so in kadā bhojayiṣyasi etc. laṭ does not occur in the future. Recorded: this disagrees with BM, who with the Bhāṣya on 'yadvṛttān nityam' takes kadā and the rest as included; the English 'a form of kim (kiṃvṛtta)' decides neither way (§16).
- textual Our BM block sk.2785.b1 has lost a line by eye-skip (grahaṇam … grahaṇam): it reads '…ḍataraḍatamāntānām eva grahaṇam iti yuktam', which makes BM endorse the restriction it in fact reports and rejects. Wikisource BM (uttara-3/0029) has the full text: '…ḍataraḍatamāntānām eva grahaṇam iti vṛttiḥ | tena kadādiyoge bhaviṣyati laṭ | yadvṛttān nityam iti sūtrabhāṣyarītyā tu kiṃvṛttānāṃ sarveṣāṃ kadetyādīnām api grahaṇam iti yuktam'. The BM note follows Wikisource; our source layer is left as it is.
- textual BM's pratīka 'vibhaktyantam' has no counterpart in our kaumudī, nor in NSP p. 472 (scan 0482), which reads only 'bhaviṣyati laḍ vā syāt'. The Wikisource SK (uttara-3/0029) does print 'kiṃvṛttaṃ vibhaktyantam |' before 'bhaviṣyati laḍ vā syāt', as BM's pratīka presupposes: an edition difference, not a corruption in ours (ours = NSP). Not supplied in the block.
- translator The sources of the anuvṛtti in sutra_en ('vibhāṣā' and 'laṭ' from SK 2784, 'bhaviṣyati' from SK 3171) are the translator's identification; neither the kaumudī nor BM or TB names them.
SK 2786 · A 3.3.7V
लिप्स्यमानसिद्धौ च ॥ २७८६ ॥
lipsyamānasiddhau ca
lipsyamānasiddhau ca — And when accomplishment [of an end] through what is sought (lipsyamāna) [is understood, laṭ occurs optionally in the future].
Rule. laṭ comes optionally in the future when an end is understood to be gained through what is sought (lipsyamāna). Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: when heaven and the like is gained through food and the like that is sought.
Example.
the future: "he who will give food will go to heaven"
→ heaven is gained through the food given; this rule: laṭ → yo 'nnaṃ dadāti sa svargaṃ yāti
→ the other option, lṛṭ → yo 'nnaṃ dāsyati sa svargaṃ yāsyati
→ or luṭ → yo 'nnaṃ dātā sa svargaṃ yātā.
Bhaṭṭoji gives the three in one sentence. One of his commentators says they are construed pair by pair, as above.
Applies when / blocked by. Wherever an end is gained through something sought, a wish to obtain is present. So would SK 2785 not already give laṭ? Bhaṭṭoji's commentators agree that this rule is for sentences without a form of kim. Bhaṭṭoji's example has none.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
लिप्स्यमानेनान्नादिना स्वर्गादेः सिद्धौ गम्यमानायां भविष्यति लड्वा स्यात् । योऽन्नं ददाति दास्यति दाता वा स स्वर्गं याति यास्यति याता वा ॥
When the accomplishment of heaven and the like through food and the like that is being sought is understood, laṭ optionally occurs in the future. yo 'nnaṃ dadāti, dāsyati or dātā vā, sa svargaṃ yāti, yāsyati or yātā vā ('He who will give food will go to heaven': dadāti … yāti [laṭ], dāsyati … yāsyati [lṛṭ], dātā … yātā [luṭ]).
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 482—लिप्स्यमान-। लिप्स्यमानसिद्धौ लिप्सायाः सत्त्वात्पूर्वेण सिद्धेऽप्यकिंवृत्तार्थमिदमिति ध्वनयन्नुदाहरति—योऽन्नमिति
Bālamanoramā
लिप्स्यमानसिद्धौ च - लिप्स्यमानसिद्धौ च । लड्वेति । पक्षे यथाप्राप्तम् । लिप्स्यमानसिद्धौ लिप्सायाः सत्त्वेऽप्यकिंवृत्तार्थमिदमिति मत्वोदाहरति — योऽन्नमिति । योऽन्नं ददाति स स्वर्गं याति, योऽन्नं दास्यति स स्वर्गं यास्यति, योऽन्नं दाता स स्वर्गं यातेत्यन्वयः ।
translator notes
- BM: laṭ optionally; in the other case as otherwise obtained. Although desire to obtain (lipsā) is present where accomplishment through the sought thing is understood, this rule is for cases without a form of kim (akiṃvṛtta). The construal is pairwise: yo 'nnaṃ dadāti sa svargaṃ yāti, yo 'nnaṃ dāsyati sa svargaṃ yāsyati, yo 'nnaṃ dātā sa svargaṃ yātā. Followed: the paired lakāra labels.
- TB: since lipsā is present where there is lipsyamānasiddhi, [laṭ] would follow from the previous rule; the example hints that this rule is for the non-kiṃvṛtta case. Recorded (agrees with BM).
SK 2787 · A 3.3.8V
लोडर्थलक्षणे च ॥ २७८७ ॥
loḍarthalakṣaṇe ca
loḍarthalakṣaṇe ca — And [after a root] in the sense of what marks (lakṣaṇa) the meaning of loṭ, [laṭ occurs optionally in the future].
Rule. Take a root standing in a sense that marks the meaning of loṭ. After it, laṭ comes optionally in the future. The meaning of loṭ is urging (praiṣa) and the like. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives the reason. loṭ is taught by loṭ ca (SK 2194), which carries forward the senses of SK 2208.
Example.
two actions: Kṛṣṇa's eating, and the urging "graze the cows"
→ the eating marks the time of the urging
→ after bhuj "eat", this rule: laṭ → bhuṅkte
→ kṛṣṇaś ced bhuṅkte tvaṃ gāś cāraya "When Kṛṣṇa eats, you graze the cows."
In the other option Bhaṭṭoji names luṭ and lṛṭ. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators give the sentences: kṛṣṇaś ced bhoktā, kṛṣṇaś ced bhokṣyate, tvaṃ gāś cāraya.
Bhaṭṭoji's commentators agree on the sense: "at meal time, you must graze the cows". One of them calls Kṛṣṇa's eating the delimiter of the urging, which is the meaning of loṭ in cāraya.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
लोडर्थः प्रैषादिर्लक्ष्यते येन तस्मिन्नर्थे वर्तमानाद्धातोर्भविष्यति लड्वा स्यात् । कृष्णश्चेद्भुङ्क्ते त्वं गाश्चारय । पक्षे लुड्लृटौ ॥
After a root standing in the sense by which the meaning of loṭ — urging (praiṣa) and the like — is marked (lakṣyate), laṭ optionally occurs in the future. kṛṣṇaś ced bhuṅkte tvaṃ gāś cāraya ('When Kṛṣṇa eats, you graze the cows'). In the other case, luṭ and lṛṭ.
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 482—लोडर्थ-। लोडर्थस्य लक्षणमिति षष्ठीतत्पुरुषः । कृष्ण भोजनं लोडर्थस्य गोचारणप्रैषस्य लक्षणम् । भोजनकाले गोचारणं त्वया कर्तव्यमित्यर्थः ॥—पक्षे लडिति । कृष्ण इति । भोक्ता कृष्णश्चेद्भोक्ष्यते त्वं गाश्चारयेत्यर्थः ॥ लिङ् चोर्ध्व-। कालाट्ठञ् । ‘तद्धितार्थोत्तरपद’ इत्यत्र ‘दिक्संख्ये’ इत्यनुवर्तनादिह समासो दुर्लभ इत्याशङ्कायामाह-निपातनादिति
Bālamanoramā
लोडर्थलक्षणे च - लोडर्थलक्षणे च । लोडर्थः प्रैषादिरिति ।विधिनिमन्त्रणामन्त्रणाधीष्टसंप्रश्नप्रार्थनेषु॑ इत्यनुवृत्तौलोट् चे॑ति लोड्विधानादिति भावः । कृष्णश्चेदिति । कृष्णभोजनकाले त्वं गाश्चारयेत्यर्थः । अत्र कृष्णभोजनं लोडर्थस्य गोचारणप्रैषस्य लक्षणम्, परिच्छेदकमिति यावत् । पक्षे लुट्लृटाविति । कृष्णश्चेद्भोक्ता, भोक्ष्यते वा, त्वं गाश्चारयेत्युदाहार्यम् ।
translator notes
- BM: the meaning of loṭ is urging and the like, because loṭ is taught by 'loṭ ca' (SK 2194) with 'vidhinimantraṇāmantraṇādhīṣṭasaṃpraśnaprārthaneṣu' (SK 2208) carried forward. The example means 'at the time of Kṛṣṇa's eating, you graze the cows': Kṛṣṇa's eating is the mark, i.e. the delimiter (paricchedaka), of the urging to graze the cows, which is loṭ's meaning. pakṣe: kṛṣṇaś ced bhoktā, bhokṣyate vā, tvaṃ gāś cāraya is to be given as example. Followed: 'When Kṛṣṇa eats'.
- TB: loḍarthalakṣaṇa is a sixth-case tatpuruṣa, 'the mark of loṭ's meaning'; Kṛṣṇa's eating is the mark of the urging to graze cows: 'at meal time you must graze the cows'. On 'pakṣe': kṛṣṇaś ced bhoktā / bhokṣyate, tvaṃ gāś cāraya. Recorded (agrees with BM).
- translator The kaumudī's 'lakṣyate yena tasminn arthe' paraphrases the compound as 'that by which [loṭ's meaning] is marked'; TB's sixth-case tatpuruṣa analysis yields the same sense.
SK 2788 · A 3.3.9V
लिङ् चोर्ध्वमौहूर्तिके ॥ २७८८ ॥
liṅ cordhvamauhūrtike
liṅ cordhvamauhūrtike — When [it is] later than a muhūrta (ūrdhvamauhūrtika), liṅ [occurs optionally in the future], and [by 'ca', laṭ, after a root standing in the sense that marks loṭ's meaning — 'loḍarthalakṣaṇe' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2787, as the kaumudī's gloss supplies it; BM construes ūrdhvamauhūrtike with loḍarthalakṣaṇe].
Rule. When the time is later than a muhūrta, liṅ comes, and by ca laṭ. Both are optional, in the future, after a root in the sense that marks the meaning of loṭ. Bhaṭṭoji explains the word ūrdhvamauhūrtika: "what occurs after a muhūrta". By nipātana (the form is fixed by the sūtra's own wording) it is a compound, with vṛddhi in its second member. One of his commentators construes "later than a muhūrta" with "marking the meaning of loṭ".
Example.
the future, after a muhūrta: "if the teacher comes"
→ this rule: liṅ → āgacchet, or laṭ → āgacchati
→ the other option: lṛṭ → āgamiṣyati, or luṭ → āgantā
→ muhūrtād upari upādhyāyaś ced āgacchet … atha tvaṃ chando 'dhīṣva "If the teacher comes after a muhūrta, then you study the Veda."
Applies when / blocked by. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators agree that the word takes the taddhita affix ṭhañ by kālāṭ ṭhañ (SK 1381). They raise a doubt: the usual compound rule does not allow this compound. Hence Bhaṭṭoji's "by nipātana". One of them adds that one would expect vṛddhi on the first member. So "vṛddhi of the second member" is also by nipātana.
Watch out. SK 2818 has the same words, liṅ cordhvamauhūrtike, but is a different sūtra in a different place. Do not confuse the two.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
ऊर्ध्वं मुहूर्ताद्भवः ऊर्ध्वमौहूर्तिकः । निपातनात्समासः उत्तरपदवृद्धिश्च । ऊर्ध्वमौहूर्तिके भविष्यति लोडर्थलक्षणे वर्तमानाद्धातोर्लिङ्लटौ वा स्तः । मुरूर्तादुपरि उपाध्यायश्चेदागच्छेत् । आगच्छति । आगमिष्यति । आगन्ता वा । अथ त्वं छन्दोऽधीष्व ॥
ūrdhvamauhūrtika = what occurs (bhava) after (ūrdhvam) a muhūrta. By nipātana [in this sūtra] there is the compound and vṛddhi of the second member (uttarapada). When later than a muhūrta (ūrdhvamauhūrtike), in the future, after a root standing in the sense that marks loṭ's meaning, liṅ and laṭ optionally occur. muhūrtād upari upādhyāyaś ced āgacchet [liṅ], āgacchati [laṭ], āgamiṣyati [lṛṭ] or āgantā vā [luṭ], atha tvaṃ chando 'dhīṣva ('If the teacher comes after a muhūrta, then you study the Veda (chandas)').
Bālamanoramā
लिङ् चोर्ध्वमौहूर्तिके - लिङ् चोध्र्वमौहूर्तिके ।ऊध्र्व॑मिति विभक्तिप्रतिरूपकमव्ययम् । ऊध्र्वं मुहूर्ताद्भव इति विग्रहः । केचित्तुऊध्र्व॑मिति द्वितीयान्तम्,अकर्मकधातुभिर्योगे॑ इति कर्मत्वादित्याहुः । ऊध्र्वमौहूर्तिक इति । ऊध्र्वमुहूर्तशब्दाद्भवार्थे कालाट्ठञिति भावः । ननु तद्धितार्थेत्यत्र दिक्सङ्ख्ये इत्यनुवृत्तेः समानाधिकरणाधिकाराच्चात्र कथंसमास इत्यत आह — निपातनादिति । पूर्वपदे आदिवृद्धिमाशङ्क्य आह — उत्तरपदवृद्धिश्चेति । निपातनादित्यनुषज्यते । ऊध्र्वमौहूर्तिके इति । मुहूर्तादूध्र्वकालीने इत्यर्थः । इदं च लोडर्थलक्षण इत्यत्रान्वेति । लिङ्लटाविति । चाल्लट् समुच्चीयत इति भावः । वा स्त इति । पक्षे लुट्लृटौ यथाप्राप्तम् । छन्द इति । वेदमित्यर्थः । इति तृतीयस्य तृतीये भविष्यतीत्यधिकारस्था लविधयः । अथाऽस्मिन्नेव तृतीयपादे कतिपयान्विधीनाह —
translator notes
- BM: ūrdhvam is an indeclinable resembling a case-form; the analysis is 'ūrdhvaṃ muhūrtād bhavaḥ'; some take ūrdhvam as a second-case word (dvitīyānta), as karman by [the vārttika] 'akarmakadhātubhir yoge…'. ūrdhvamauhūrtika has [the taddhita ṭhañ] by 'kālāṭ ṭhañ' (SK 1381) in the sense 'occurring'. Objection: in 'taddhitārthottarapadasamāhāre ca' (SK 728) 'dik-saṃkhye' is carried forward, and samānādhikaraṇa is under adhikāra, so how is there a compound? Hence 'by nipātana'. Expecting initial vṛddhi on the first member, it says 'and vṛddhi of the second member', 'by nipātana' being continued. Followed: 'what occurs after a muhūrta'.
- BM: ūrdhvamauhūrtike = at a time after a muhūrta, and this is construed with 'loḍarthalakṣaṇe'; 'ca' adds laṭ; in the other case luṭ and lṛṭ as otherwise obtained; chandas = Veda. Followed: the lakāra labels, 'Veda (chandas)', and BM's construal as named in sutra_en; k1 keeps the kaumudī's locatives side by side without attaching ūrdhvamauhūrtike to either.
- TB, printed under sk.2787.t1 (lemma 'liṅ cordhva-'): [the suffix is] ṭhañ by 'kālāt'; on the doubt that a compound is hard to get here because 'dik-saṃkhye' is carried into 'taddhitārthottarapada-', it says 'by nipātana'. Recorded (agrees with BM).
- textual Our kaumudī reads 'murūrtād upari'; NSP p. 472 (scan 0482) prints 'muhūrtād upari' (the same block has muhūrtād bhavaḥ). Translated as muhūrta. Mūla: for Ajai's print check.
SK 2789 · A 3.3.131वर्तमानविधानातिदेशः
वर्तमानसामीप्ये वर्तमानवद्वा ॥ २७८९ ॥
vartamānasāmīpye vartamānavadvā
vartamānasāmīpye vartamānavad vā — In [a time] near the present, [suffixes occur] optionally as [they do] for the present.
Rule. In a time near the present, suffixes come optionally as they do for the present. Bhaṭṭoji makes the scope wide. Take every suffix taught from vartamāne laṭ (SK 2151) up to uṇādayo bahulam (SK 3169). Each comes, under the same condition, in a past or future near the present. One of his commentators adds that only the past and the future can be near the present.
Bhaṭṭoji explains the word: sāmīpya means just samīpa "near", with the affix ṣyañ in its own sense.
Example.
question: kadā āgato 'si "When did you come?"
→ the coming is just past
→ this rule: laṭ, as for the present → ayam āgacchāmi "Here I come", that is, "I have just come"
→ the other option: luṅ → ayam āgamam.
question: kadā gamiṣyasi "When will you go?"
→ the going is just ahead
→ this rule: laṭ → eṣa gacchāmi "Here I go", that is, "I am about to go"
→ the other option: lṛṭ → gamiṣyāmi.
Bhaṭṭoji's commentators agree that ayam "here" and eṣa "this one" make the nearness manifest. One of them says ayam points to the speaker's look of one just arrived: sweat, girded loins and the like.
Applies when / blocked by. "The same condition" matters. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives an instance: śānan, taught after pūṅ and yaj, comes only after those roots. The time must be near. The same commentator's counter-example: kadā āgato bhavān "when did you come?" — asmān māsāt pūrvasmin māse āgaccham "I came in the month before this one". He adds that the Bhāṣya rejects this sūtra. The present can be laid upon what is near it, as one calls the bank near the Gaṅgā "the Gaṅgā".
Siddhānta-kaumudī
समीपमेव सामीप्यम् । स्वार्थे ष्यञ् ।वर्तमाने लट् SK 2151 इत्यारभ्य उणादयो बहुलं SK 3169 इति यावद्येनोपाधिना प्रत्यया उक्तास्ते तथैव वर्तमानसमीपे भूते भविष्यति च वा स्युः । कदा आगतोऽसि । अयमागच्छामि । अयमागमम् । कदा गमिष्यसि । एष गच्छामि गमिष्यामि वा ॥
sāmīpya is just samīpa ('near'): ṣyañ in its own sense (svārthe). Whatever suffixes have been taught, under whatever qualifying condition (upādhi), beginning with vartamāne laṭ (SK 2151) and as far as uṇādayo bahulam (SK 3169), those same [suffixes], under that same [condition], optionally occur in a past or a future near the present. kadā āgato 'si ('When did you come?') — ayam āgacchāmi ('Here I come', i.e. I have just come) [laṭ]; ayam āgamam [luṅ]. kadā gamiṣyasi ('When will you go?') — eṣa gacchāmi ('Here I go', i.e. I am about to go) [laṭ], or gamiṣyāmi [lṛṭ].
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 482—वर्तमान-॥ स्वार्थे ष्यञिति । अस्मादेव सामीप्य इति निर्देशात्ष्यञि सिद्धे ‘चतुर्वर्णादिभ्यः’ इति वार्तिकं प्रपञ्चार्थमित्याहुः । न चात्र ‘पूरणगुण’- इति निषेधात्षष्ठीसमासो न प्राप्नोतीति वाच्यम् । अनेनैव निर्देशेन तन्निषेधस्यानित्यत्वाभ्युपगमात् । तेन बुद्धिमान्द्यमित्यादि सिद्धम् ॥—येनोपाधिनेति । धातुविशेषाद्युपाधिना । तथाहि पूङ्यजोः शानन्विहितः स ताभ्यामेव धातुभ्यां भवति न तु धात्वन्तरात् । तच्छीलादिविशिष्टे कर्तरि ‘अलंकृञ्’- इत्यारभ्य ‘भ्राजभास’- इति ये इष्णुजादय उक्तास्तेऽपि कृञादिभ्यो धातुभ्यस्तस्मिन्नुपाधौ सत्येव भवन्ति । कदा आगतोऽसीति भूतकालेन प्रश्नवाक्यं, आगच्छामीत्युदाहरणे भूतकालाभिव्यक्तयेऽयमिति प्रयोगस्त्विदानीमेवागममिति वर्तमानसमीपभूतकालद्योतनाय । तेन ह्यागमनाविनाभूतं यद् रूपं धूली-धूसरताप्रस्वेदादियुक्तं तत्प्रतिनिर्दिश्यते । एवं कदा गमिष्यसीति भविष्यत्कालेन प्रश्नवाक्यम् । गच्छामीत्युदाहरणे भनाऽविनाभूतं यत् रूपं परिकरबन्धादियुक्तं तत्प्रतिनिर्दिश्यते । न च कदेति प्रश्ने उत्तरवाक्ययोः कालानुपादानादसंगतिः शङ्कया । उत्तरत्रायमेवशब्दाभ्यामिदानीमिति कालावगमात् । सामीप्ये किम्, कदा आगतो भवान् । अस्मान्मासात्पूर्वस्मिन्मासे आगच्छम् । एतच्च सूत्रमाकरे प्रत्याख्यातम् । गङ्गासमीपे गङ्गात्वारोपवद्वर्तमानसमीपे वर्तमानत्वारोपसंभवात्
Bālamanoramā
वर्तमानसामीप्ये वर्तमानवद्वा - वर्तमानसामीप्ये । स्वार्थे ष्यञिति । अस्मादेव निर्देशाच्चतुर्वर्णादेराकृतिगणत्वाद्वेति भावः । इत्यारभ्येति । तृतीयस्य द्वितीयेवर्तमान ल॑डित्यारभ्य आपादसमाप्तेःउणादयो बहुल॑मिति तृतीयपादादिमसूत्रात्पाग्वर्तमानाधिकारः । तस्मिन्नधिकारे येन विशेषणेन याभ्यः प्रकृतिभ्यो वर्तमाने प्रत्यया विहितास्ते सर्वे तेनैव विशेषणेन ताभ्यः प्रकृतिभ्यो वर्तमानसमीपकाले भूते भविष्यति च वा भवन्तीत्यर्थः । अत्र भूते भविष्यति चेत्यार्थिकं, तयोरेव वर्तमानसामीप्यसत्त्वात् । कदा आगतोऽसीत्यगतं प्रति प्रश्नः । अयमागच्छामित्युत्तरम् । अव्यवहितपूर्वकाले आगतवानस्मीत्यर्थः । वर्तमानसमीपकाले भूते लट् ।अय॑मित्यनेन आगमनकालीनं प्रस्वेदपरिकरबन्धादियुक्तं रूपं निर्दिश्यते इदानीमागमनं सूचयितुम् । आगममिति । वर्तमानवत्त्वाऽभावे भूते लुङ् । कदा गमिष्यसीति गमनात्प्राक् प्रश्ने, एष गच्छामीत्युत्तरम् । अव्यवहितोत्तरकाले गमिष्यामीत्यर्थः । 'एष' इति तु अयमितिवद्वयाख्येयः । वर्तमानकालसमीपे भविष्यति लट् । गमिष्यामि वेति । वर्तमानवत्त्वाऽभावे भविष्यति लृट् ।
translator notes
- BM: ṣyañ in its own sense comes from this very usage, or because caturvarṇādi is an open class (ākṛtigaṇa). The 'present' (vartamāna) adhikāra runs from 'vartamāne laṭ' in the second pāda of the third adhyāya to the end of that pāda, before 'uṇādayo bahulam', the first sūtra of the third pāda; under it, whatever suffixes are taught after whatever bases in the present with whatever qualification all occur after those bases with that qualification in a past or future near the present. 'Past and future' is implied (ārthika), as only they can be near the present. Followed.
- BM: kadā āgato 'si is a question to one who has arrived; ayam āgacchāmi the answer, meaning 'I have arrived in the immediately preceding time' — laṭ in the past near the present; 'ayam' points to his arriving appearance, sweat, girded loins and the like, to suggest the arrival is just now; āgamam is luṅ for the past where present-treatment is absent. eṣa gacchāmi answers kadā gamiṣyasi, meaning 'I shall go in the immediately following time' — laṭ in the future near the present; gamiṣyāmi is lṛṭ where present-treatment is absent. Followed: the glosses and lakāra labels.
- TB: since ṣyañ is established by this very usage 'sāmīpya', the vārttika 'caturvarṇādibhyaḥ' is for elaboration, 'they say'; nor is the sixth-case compound [vartamāna-sāmīpya] barred by the 'pūraṇaguṇa-' prohibition, this very usage showing that prohibition to be non-invariable (anitya), whence buddhimāndya etc. 'yenopādhinā' = by the qualification of a particular root etc.: e.g. śānan, taught after pūṅ and yaj, comes only after those roots; iṣṇuc and the rest, taught from 'alaṅkṛñ-' to 'bhrāja-bhāsa-' for an agent of a particular habit etc., come after those roots only under that condition. ayam and eṣa make the near-past or near-future time manifest. Recorded (agrees with BM).
- TB: why 'near'? kadā āgato bhavān — asmān māsāt pūrvasmin māse āgaccham. This sūtra is rejected (pratyākhyāta) in the Ākara [the Bhāṣya], since the present can be superimposed on what is near the present, as Gaṅgā-ness on what is near the Gaṅgā. Recorded.
SK 2790 · A 3.3.132V
आशंसायां भूतवच्च ॥ २७९० ॥
āśaṃsāyāṃ bhūtavacca
āśaṃsāyāṃ bhūtavac ca — When hope (āśaṃsā) [is expressed, suffixes optionally occur in the future] as for the past, and [as for the present — 'vartamānavat' and 'vā' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2789, per the translator's note; 'vartamānasāmīpye' is not carried forward, as the kaumudī states].
Rule. When hope (āśaṃsā) is expressed, suffixes come optionally as for the past, and as for the present, in future time. Bhaṭṭoji says "near the present" is not carried forward here. One of his commentators defines āśaṃsā as the wish to obtain something desired, not yet obtained. There is no such wish for the past, so the time is the future. The other commentator says the same: the hope is present, but its object, the rain, lies in the future.
Example.
a hope about the future: "if the god rains, we shall sow grain"
→ as for the past: luṅ → devaś ced avarṣīt, dhānyam avāpsma
→ as for the present: laṭ → devaś ced varṣati, dhānyaṃ vapāmaḥ
→ the other option: lṛṭ → devaś ced varṣiṣyati, dhānyaṃ vapsyāmaḥ.
Bhaṭṭoji gives all three in one sentence. One of his commentators construes them pair by pair, as above. Both the rain and the sowing are objects of the hope, he says, so both take luṅ. He takes deva "the god" as Parjanya, the rain-god.
Applies when / blocked by. Bhaṭṭoji cites a maxim: sāmānyātideśe viśeṣānatideśaḥ. When the general is extended, the particular is not. Only the general past, luṅ, is extended. So laṅ and liṭ, taught for particular pasts, do not come. Without hope, the future is ordinary: one of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives gamiṣyati "he will go".
Watch out. avarṣīt and avāpsma look past: "it rained", "we sowed". In this sentence they speak of a hoped-for future.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
वर्तमानसामीप्य इति नानुवर्तते । भविष्यति काले भूतवद्वर्तमानवच्च प्रत्यया वा स्युराशंसायाम् । देवश्चेदवर्षीत् वर्षति वर्षिष्यति वा । धान्यमवाप्स्म वपामो वप्स्यामो वा । सामान्यातिदेशे विशेषानतिदेशः । तेन लङ्लिटौ न ॥
'Near the present' (vartamānasāmīpye) is not carried forward. In future time, suffixes optionally occur as for the past and as for the present, when hope (āśaṃsā) [is expressed]. devaś ced avarṣīt, varṣati or varṣiṣyati vā, dhānyam avāpsma, vapāmaḥ or vapsyāmaḥ vā ('If the god rains, we shall sow grain': avarṣīt … avāpsma [luṅ, as for the past], varṣati … vapāmaḥ [laṭ, as for the present], varṣiṣyati … vapsyāmaḥ [lṛṭ]). When the extension (atideśa) is of the general, the particular is not extended (sāmānyātideśe viśeṣānatideśaḥ); so laṅ and liṭ do not [occur].
Tattvabodhinī
alignment inferredNSP p. 482—आशंसायाम्-। आशंसनमाशंसा अप्राप्तस्य प्राप्तुमिच्छा । आशंसायां वर्तमानत्वेऽपि तद्विषयस्य वर्षादेर्भविष्यत्कालसंबन्धाद्भविष्यतीत्युक्तम् । आशंसायां किम् । गमिष्यति
Bālamanoramā
आशंसायां भूतवच्च - आशंसायां भूतवच्च । नानुवर्तते इति । अत्र व्याख्यानमेव शरणम् । अप्राप्तस्य प्रियस्य् प्राप्तीच्छा आशंसा । सा च भविष्यद्विषयैव । भूते इच्छाविरहात् । तदाह — भविष्यति काले इति । देवश्चेदिति । देव = पर्जन्यः, अवर्षीच्चेद्धान्यमवाप्स्म । वर्षति चेद्वपामः । वर्षिष्यति चेद्वप्स्याम इत्यन्वयः । भूतवद्भावाद्भविष्यति लुङ् — अवर्षीदिति अवाप्स्मेति च भवति । वपधातोर्लुङि उत्तमपुरुषबहुवचने अवाप्स्मेति भवति । वृष्टिवापयोरुभयोरप्याशंसाविषयत्वादुभयत्रापि लुङ् । वर्तमानवत्त्वपक्षे तु लट् । तदुभयाऽभावे तु लृट् । ननु भूतवत्त्वपक्षे लङ्लिटावपि कुतो न स्यातामित्यत आह — सामान्यातिदेशे इति । भूतत्वसामान्ये विहितस्याऽतिदेशादनद्यतनभूतत्वविशेषविहितयोर्लङ्लिटोर्नाऽतिदेश इत्यर्थः । एतच्च भाष्ये स्पष्टम् ।
translator notes
- BM: 'not carried forward' rests on explanation alone. āśaṃsā = the wish to obtain something desired not yet obtained; it concerns only the future, there being no wish for the past — hence 'in future time'. deva = Parjanya; the construal is pairwise: avarṣīc ced dhānyam avāpsma, varṣati ced vapāmaḥ, varṣiṣyati ced vapsyāmaḥ. By past-treatment luṅ in the future: avarṣīt, and avāpsma, the luṅ first person plural of vap; luṅ in both because both rain and sowing are objects of the hope; laṭ under present-treatment; lṛṭ where neither. Followed: the paired lakāra labels.
- BM on 'sāmānyātideśe': what is extended is what is taught for the past in general, not laṅ and liṭ, which are taught for the particular past not of today; this is clear in the Bhāṣya. Followed.
- TB: āśaṃsā is the wish to obtain what is not obtained; though the hope itself is present, its object, the rain etc., is connected with future time, hence 'in the future'. Why 'āśaṃsāyām'? gamiṣyati. Recorded (agrees with BM).
- translator The kaumudī states only that 'vartamānasāmīpye' is not carried forward, and then gives the result ('bhūtavad vartamānavac ca pratyayā vā syuḥ'). That 'vartamānavat' and 'vā' come by anuvṛtti from SK 2789 is the translator's reading; 'vartamānavat' could equally be brought in by the sūtra's 'ca'.
SK 2791 · A 3.3.133V
क्षिप्रवचने लृट् ॥ २७९१ ॥
kṣipravacane lṛṭ
kṣipravacane lṛṭ — When a word meaning 'quickly' (kṣipra) [is the upapada, in the preceding domain — hope (āśaṃsā), carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2790 per BM and TB — in the future], lṛṭ [occurs].
Rule. When a word meaning "quickly" (kṣipra) is the upapada, lṛṭ comes. This holds in the domain of the preceding rule, when hope is expressed. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators agree that vacana "a word for" brings in the synonyms of kṣipra. They call this rule an apavāda of SK 2790.
Example.
a hope about the future, with a word for "quickly"
→ SK 2790 would allow past-like or present-like forms
→ this rule: lṛṭ only → yāsyati, vapsyāmaḥ
→ vṛṣṭiś cet kṣipram āśu tvaritaṃ vā yāsyati, śīghraṃ vapsyāmaḥ "If the rain comes quickly, swiftly, speedily, we shall sow promptly."
Applies when / blocked by. Why does the sūtra name lṛṭ, when "not" (na) could have been said? Bhaṭṭoji answers: so that lṛṭ comes in the field of luṭ as well. One of his commentators explains. "Not" would only cancel the past-like and present-like forms. Then for a time after today, luṭ would still come. Naming lṛṭ makes it the only lakāra, even there. Bhaṭṭoji's example: śvaḥ śīghraṃ vapsyāmaḥ "Tomorrow we shall sow promptly." "Tomorrow" is not of today, yet luṭ does not come.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
क्षिप्रपर्याये उपपदे पूर्वविषये लृट् स्यात् । वृष्टिश्चेत्क्षिप्रमाशु त्वरितं वा यास्यति । शीघ्रं वप्स्यामः । नेति वक्तव्ये लृङ्ग्रहणं लुटोऽपि विषये यथा स्यात् । श्वः शीघ्रं वप्स्यामः ॥
When a synonym of kṣipra is the upapada, in the preceding domain [i.e. when hope is expressed], lṛṭ occurs. vṛṣṭiś cet kṣipram, āśu or tvaritaṃ vā yāsyati, śīghraṃ vapsyāmaḥ ('If the rain comes quickly / swiftly / speedily, we shall sow promptly'). Where [just] 'na' could have been said, lṛṭ is mentioned so that it occurs in the domain of luṭ as well: śvaḥ śīghraṃ vapsyāmaḥ ('Tomorrow we shall sow promptly').
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 482—क्षिप्रवचने-। वचनग्रहणं स्वरूपग्रहणनिरासार्थम् । तदाह-क्षिप्रपर्याय इति ॥—पूर्वविषय इति । आशंसायामित्यर्थः । तेन पूर्वलकारापवादोऽयम्
Bālamanoramā
क्षिप्रवचने लृट् - क्षिप्रवचने लृट् । वचनग्रहणात्क्षिप्रपर्याये इति लभ्यते । तदाह — क्षिप्रपर्याये इति । पूर्वविषये इति । आशंसायामित्यर्थः ।आशंसायां भूतवच्चे॑त्यस्यापवादः । ननुक्षिप्रवचनेने॑त्येतावतैव आशंसायां क्षिप्रपर्याये उपपदे भविष्यति न भूतवन्न वर्तमानवदिति लाभाल्लृङ्गहणमनर्थकमित्यत आह — नेति वक्तव्ये इति ।क्षिप्रवचने ने॑त्युक्तेसामान्यातिदेशे विशेषानतिदेशः इति न्यायेन भविष्यत्सामान्ये विहितस्य लृट एव निषेधः स्यान्नतु लुटः, तस्यानद्यतनभविष्यद्विशेषविधानात् । श्वः शीघ्रं वप्स्यामः इति । अनद्यतनत्वद्योताय श्वश्शब्दः । अत्र न लुडिति भावः ।
translator notes
- BM: from 'vacana' a synonym of kṣipra is obtained; pūrvaviṣaye = āśaṃsāyām; [this rule is] an apavāda of 'āśaṃsāyāṃ bhūtavac ca' (SK 2790). Followed: the brackets in sutra_en and block.
- TB: 'vacana' is mentioned to exclude [taking kṣipra in] its own form (svarūpa) only, hence 'a synonym of kṣipra'; pūrvaviṣaye = āśaṃsāyām; so this is an apavāda of the preceding lakāras. Followed (agrees with BM).
- BM on 'neti vaktavye': Objection: 'kṣipravacane' with 'na' alone would yield, in hope with a kṣipra-synonym as upapada, the future neither as past nor as present, so mentioning lṛṭ is pointless. Reply: with 'kṣipravacane na', by the maxim 'sāmānyātideśe viśeṣānatideśaḥ' only lṛṭ, taught for the future in general, would be negated (niṣedhaḥ), not luṭ, taught for the particular future not of today; but with lṛṭ mentioned, in the stated domain lṛṭ alone occurs and no other lakāra, so that lṛṭ alone is obtained in luṭ's domain too (this last sentence is missing from our BM by omission; Wikisource BM uttara-3/0031: 'lṛḍgrahaṇe tu uktaviṣaye lṛḍ eva syāt, na tu lakārāntaram iti lābhāl luṭo 'pi viṣaye lṛḍ eveti labhyata ity arthaḥ', where the Wikisource OCR prints laḍ- for lṛḍ- throughout, as it does in the kaumudī's 'laḍgrahaṇam'). In śvaḥ śīghraṃ vapsyāmaḥ, śvaḥ marks the not-of-today; luṭ does not occur. Followed: 'in the domain of luṭ as well'.
- textual Our kaumudī reads 'lṛṅgrahaṇam'; the sūtra's lakāra is lṛṭ, so 'lṛḍgrahaṇam' is required. NSP p. 472 (scan 0482) has the ṅ/ḍ pair the scan cannot separate. Translated as lṛṭ. Mūla: for Ajai's print check.
SK 2792 · A 3.3.134V
आशंसावचने लिङ् ॥ २७९२ ॥
āśaṃsāvacane liṅ
āśaṃsāvacane liṅ — When a word expressing hope (āśaṃsā) [is the upapada], liṅ [occurs, in the future].
Rule. When a word expressing hope is the upapada, liṅ comes in the future. Bhaṭṭoji adds: "and not as for the past". One of his commentators reads this as "nor as for the present" too. Both commentators call the rule an apavāda of SK 2790. The one who adds "nor as for the present" names both the past-like and the present-like forms.
Example.
a hope, with the word āśaṃse "I hope"
→ SK 2790 would allow past-like forms
→ this rule: liṅ → adhīyīya
→ gurus ced upeyād āśaṃse 'dhīyīya "If the teacher comes, I hope I may study."
One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators adds prārthaye 'dhīyīya and icchāmo vayam adhīyīmahi.
Applies when / blocked by. With a word for "quickly" as well, which rule wins? Bhaṭṭoji gives āśaṃse kṣipram adhīyīya "I hope I may study quickly". Bhaṭṭoji's commentators agree that liṅ comes, not the lṛṭ of SK 2791, because this rule is later.
Watch out. SK 2790 needs only that hope is expressed. This rule needs a word that means "hope", such as āśaṃse, standing beside the verb.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
आशंसावाचिन्युपपदे भविष्यति लिङ् स्यान्न तु भूतवत् । गुरुश्चेदुपेयादाशंसेऽधीयीय । आशंसे क्षिप्रमधीयीय ॥
When a word expressing hope is the upapada, liṅ occurs in the future, and not [suffixes] as for the past. gurus ced upeyād āśaṃse 'dhīyīya ('If the teacher comes, I hope I may study'). āśaṃse kṣipram adhīyīya ('I hope I may study quickly') [liṅ, even with kṣipra].
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 482–483—आशंसावचने-। भूतवद्वर्तमानवत्प्रत्यययोरपवादः । न भूतवदिति न वर्तमानवदित्यपि बोध्यम् ॥—आशंसेऽधीयीयेति । एवं प्रार्थये अधीयीय इच्छामो वयमधीयीमहीत्यादि ज्ञेयम् ॥—क्षिप्रमिति । क्षिप्रयोगेऽपि परत्वाल्लिङिति भावः
Bālamanoramā
आशंसावचने लिङ् - #आशंसावचने लिङ् । आशंसायाः प्राप्तीच्छाया भूते असंभवाद्भविष्यतीति लभ्यत इति मत्वाह — भविष्यतीति ।आशंसायां भूतवच्चे॑त्यस्यापवादः । तदाह — नतु भूतवदिति । गुरुश्चेदिति । गुरुरुपेयाच्चेत् क्षिप्रमधीयीयेत्याशंसे इत्यन्वयः । क्षिप्रयोगेऽपि परत्वाल्लिङेव, नतु लृडिति भावः ।
translator notes
- BM: since hope, the wish to obtain, is impossible for the past, 'in the future' is obtained; the rule is an apavāda of 'āśaṃsāyāṃ bhūtavac ca' (SK 2790), hence 'not as for the past'. Construal: 'gurur upeyāc cet kṣipram adhīyīya' ity āśaṃse. Even with kṣipra, liṅ occurs, not lṛṭ, because this rule is later (paratvāt). Followed: the bracket '[liṅ, even with kṣipra]'.
- TB: an apavāda of the suffixes [taught] as for the past and as for the present; 'na bhūtavat' is to be understood as 'na vartamānavat' too. Likewise prārthaye 'dhīyīya, icchāmo vayam adhīyīmahi, etc. With kṣipra too, liṅ, because it is later (paratvāt). Recorded: TB extends the kaumudī's 'not as for the past' to 'not as for the present'; the English keeps the kaumudī's wording.
SK 2793 · A 3.3.135अनद्यतनवत् प्रत्ययविधेः प्रतिषेधातिदेशः
नानद्यतनवत् क्रियाप्रबन्धसामीप्ययोः ॥ २७९३ ॥
nānadyatanavat kriyāprabandhasāmīpyayoḥ
nānadyatanavat kriyāprabandhasāmīpyayoḥ — [The suffixes] are not as for non-today time (anadyatana) when continuity of the action (kriyāprabandha) or proximity (sāmīpya) [is understood].
Rule. When continuity of the action (kriyāprabandha) or proximity (sāmīpya) is understood, the suffixes are not as for time not of today. Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: when continuity (sātatya) or proximity of the action is understood, laṅ and luṭ do not come. One of his commentators draws the result: in the past luṅ, in the future lṛṭ.
Example.
continuity, in the past: "as long as he lived he gave food"
→ the giving was not of today; SK 2205 would give laṅ
→ the giving ran on; this rule bars laṅ
→ the general past, luṅ (SK 2218) → yāvajjīvam annam adāt.
continuity, in the future: "as long as he lives he will give food"
→ SK 2185 would give luṭ; this rule bars it
→ the general future, lṛṭ (SK 2193) → yāvajjīvam annaṃ dāsyati.
Bhaṭṭoji defines proximity: no separation by anything of the same kind. One of his commentators gives the point. Some days of the dark fortnight may lie between, but no other full moon. So the last full moon is still "proximate".
→ past: yeyaṃ paurṇamāsy atikrāntā tasyām agnīn ādhita, somenāyaṣṭa "On this full-moon day that has passed he set up the fires; he sacrificed with soma." (luṅ)
→ future: yeyam amāvāsyā''gāminī tasyām agnīn ādhāsyate, somena yakṣyate "On this new-moon day that is coming he will set up the fires; he will sacrifice with soma." (lṛṭ)
One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says "the fires" are the āhavanīya and the others.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
क्रियायाः सातत्ये सामीप्ये च गम्ये लङ् लुटौ न । यावज्जीवमन्नमदाद्दास्यति वा । सामीप्यं तुल्यजातीयेनाव्यवधानम् । येयं पौर्णमास्यतिक्रान्ता तस्यामग्नीनाधित । सोमेनयाष्ट । येयममावस्याऽऽगामिनी तस्यामग्नीनाधास्यते । सोमेन यक्ष्यते ॥
When continuity (sātatya) of the action or proximity is understood, laṅ and luṭ do not occur: yāvajjīvam annam adād dāsyati vā ('As long as he lived he gave food', or '… he will give food'). Proximity (sāmīpya) is non-separation by [anything] of the same kind (tulyajātīyena avyavadhānam) [e.g. no other full-moon day intervening]. yeyaṃ paurṇamāsy atikrāntā tasyām agnīn ādhita, somenāyaṣṭa ('On this full-moon day that has passed he set up the fires; he sacrificed with soma'). yeyam amāvāsyā''gāminī tasyām agnīn ādhāsyate, somena yakṣyate ('On this new-moon day that is coming he will set up the fires; he will sacrifice with soma').
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 483—नानद्यतन । भूतानद्यतने लङ्विहितो भविष्यत्यनद्यतने तु लुट् तौ चानयोरर्थयोर्निषिध्येते तदाह—लङ्लुटौ नेति । एवं च भूते लुङ् भविष्यति तु लृडित्याशयेनोदाहरति—अन्नमदात् दास्यतीत्यादि ॥—अग्नीनिति । आहवनीयादीन्
translator notes
- TB: laṅ is enjoined for the non-today past and luṭ for the non-today future; both are prohibited in these two senses, hence 'laṅ and luṭ do not occur'; so in the past luṅ, in the future lṛṭ — which is why the examples are adāt and dāsyati. agnīn = the āhavanīya and the other fires. Followed: 'anadyatanavat' rendered as non-today time, and the examples read as luṅ and lṛṭ.
- textual Ours reads 'somenayāṣṭa'; the 1915 print reads 'somenāyaṣṭa' (somena + ayaṣṭa, luṅ of yaj), NSP p. 473 (scan). The English follows the print. Mūla — for Ajai's print check.
- textual Ours reads 'amāvasyā'; the 1915 print reads 'amāvāsyā' (NSP p. 473 (scan)). Both spellings are current; the English gives the print's amāvāsyā.
- textual The BM block formerly filed here as sk.2793.b1 carried this sūtra's pratīka but its text is BM on SK 2794 ('bhaviṣyati maryādā…') and SK 2795 ('kālavibhāge… pūrvasūtram iti…'); it was re-filed to sk.2794.b1 and sk.2795.b1 (2026-10-05), its header stub dropped. No BM on SK 2793 itself is present in our source; it is attested in Wikisource BM (uttara-3/0031 tail, 0032 foot): kriyāprabandha = sātatya; 'anadyatanavat' means laṅ and luṭ taught for the non-today past and future; adāt is luṅ with luk of sic by gātisthā-; the sāmīpya gloss (see the BM note); ādhita is luṅ, with i by sthāghvor ic ca and loss of sic by hrasvād aṅgāt.
- BM (Wikisource uttara-3/0032; absent from our source): on 'sāmīpyam': even though some days and nights of the dark fortnight after the full moon intervene, proximity still holds, because there is no intervention by something of the same kind, another full-moon day (paurṇamāsyantareṇa sajātīyena vyavadhānābhāvāt). Followed: 'non-separation by [anything] of the same kind' and the bracketed example.
SK 2794 · A 3.3.136V
भविष्यति मर्यादावचनेऽवरस्मिन् ॥ २७९४ ॥
bhaviṣyati maryādāvacane'varasmin
bhaviṣyati maryādāvacane 'varasmin — In the future, when a limit (maryādā) is stated, with respect to the nearer [part, the suffixes are not as for non-today time (na anadyatanavat) — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2793].
Rule. In the future, when a limit (maryādā) is stated, the suffixes are not as for time not of today for the nearer part. So luṭ does not come; lṛṭ comes. "Not as for time not of today" is carried forward from SK 2793. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators agree that here it means "luṭ does not come".
Example.
a road to be travelled up to Pāṭaliputra, in the future
→ the nearer part: on this side of Kauśāmbī
→ this rule bars luṭ; lṛṭ → pāsyāmaḥ
→ yo 'yam adhvā gantavya ā pāṭaliputrāt tasya yad avaraṃ kauśāmbyās tatra saktūn pāsyāmaḥ "Of this road that is to be travelled up to Pāṭaliputra, in the part on this side of Kauśāmbī we shall drink barley-meal."
Applies when / blocked by. This rule is for cases with no continuity and no proximity; SK 2793 covers those. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators cites the Bhāṣya for "no continuity" and Kaiyaṭa for "no proximity". The other says the limit in this sūtra is one of place; in the next it is one of time. He gives counter-examples, among them these two.
- Not future:
… tatra saktūn apibāma "there we drank barley-meal". - Not the nearer part:
… yat paraṃ kauśāmbyās tatra saktūn pātāsmaḥ "in the part beyond Kauśāmbī we shall drink barley-meal". Here luṭ comes.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
भविष्यति काले मर्यादोक्ताववरस्मिन्प्रविभागेऽनद्यतनवन्न । योऽयमध्वा गन्तव्य आ पाटलिपुत्रात्तस्य यदवरं कौशाम्ब्यास्तत्र सक्तून्पास्यामः ॥
In future time, when a limit is stated, with respect to the nearer division (avarasmin pravibhāge), [the suffixes are] not as for non-today time [i.e. luṭ does not occur]: yo 'yam adhvā gantavya ā pāṭaliputrāt tasya yad avaraṃ kauśāmbyās tatra saktūn pāsyāmaḥ ('Of this road that is to be travelled up to Pāṭaliputra, in the part on this side of Kauśāmbī we shall drink barley-meal (saktu)').
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 483—भविष्यति मर्यादा । अक्रियाप्रबन्धार्थमसामीप्यार्थं चेदं वचनम् । नानद्यतनवदित्यनुवर्तते इत्याह—अनद्यतनवन्नेति । लुडत्र नेत्यर्थः । इह सूत्रे देशकृता मर्यादा उत्तरत्र कालकृता तत्र विशेषं वक्ष्यति—तस्य यदवरमिति । पाटलिपुत्रावधिकमार्गस्य यदवरं कौशाम्ब्याः सकाशादिलर्थः । कौशाम्ब्याः पूर्वमिति यावत् । भविष्यति किम् । योऽध्वा अतिक्रान्त आपाटलिपुत्रात्तस्य यदवरं कौशाम्ब्यास्तत्र सक्तूनपिबाम । मर्यादावचने इति किम् । योऽध्वा गन्तव्यो निरवधिकस्तस्य यदवरं कौशाम्ब्यास्तत्र सक्तून्पास्यामः । अवरस्मिन्निति किम् । योऽध्वा गन्तव्य आपाटलिपुत्रात्तस्य यत्परं कौशाम्ब्यास्तत्र सक्तून्पातास्मः
Bālamanoramā
भविष्यति मर्यादा ।अवरस्मि॑न्निति च्छेदः । अनद्यतनवन्नेति । लुण्नेत्यर्थः ।अक्रियाप्रबन्धार्थ॑मिति भाष्यम् ।असामीप्यार्थं चे॑ति कैयटः । योऽयमिति । कस्मिंश्चिज्जनपदविशेषे वसतः आपाटलिपुत्राद्योऽयं गन्तव्योऽध्वा तस्य अध्वनो मध्यवर्तिन्याः कौशाम्ब्याः यदवरं पूर्वप्रदेशस्तत्र सक्तून् श्वःप्रभृति पास्याम इति योजना । अत्र कौशाम्ब्या इति मर्यादा गम्यते ।अवर॑मित्यनेन अवरत्वं गम्यते । अत्र भविष्यत्यनद्यतने लुण्न, किंतु लृडेवेति भावः ।
translator notes
- TB: this statement is for cases where there is no continuity of action and no proximity; 'nānadyatanavat' is carried forward (anuvartate), hence 'anadyatanavan na', meaning 'luṭ does not occur'. In this sūtra the limit is spatial, in the next temporal. 'tasya yad avaram' = the part of the road whose limit is Pāṭaliputra that lies short of Kauśāmbī, i.e. before Kauśāmbī. Counter-examples: not future — '… tatra saktūn apibāma'; no limit — '… nirvadhikaḥ … pāsyāmaḥ'; not nearer — '… yat paraṃ kauśāmbyās tatra saktūn pātāsmaḥ'. Followed: the anuvṛtti, '[i.e. luṭ does not occur]' and 'on this side of Kauśāmbī'.
- BM (sk.2794.b1): 'avarasmin' is a separate word; 'anadyatanavan na' = 'luṭ does not occur'; the Bhāṣya says the rule is 'for where there is no continuity of action' (akriyāprabandhārtham), Kaiyaṭa adds 'and for where there is no proximity' (asāmīpyārthaṃ ca); in the example the limit understood is Kauśāmbī, and 'avaram' conveys nearness; here in the future luṭ does not occur, only lṛṭ. Followed: '[i.e. luṭ does not occur]'.
- translator TB names Pāṭaliputra as the limit of the road, BM says the limit understood in the example is Kauśāmbī; the English leaves the two place-names as the Sanskrit sets them and does not decide which is the maryādā.
SK 2795 · A 3.3.137V
कालविभागे चानहोरात्राणाम् ॥ २७९५ ॥
kālavibhāge cānahorātrāṇām
kālavibhāge cānahorātrāṇām — And in a division of time (kālavibhāga) [— in the future, when a limit is stated, with respect to the nearer part, the suffixes are not as for non-today time: the whole of SK 2794 carried forward (anuvṛtti) —] provided [the division] is not one of days-and-nights.
Rule. The whole of SK 2794 is carried forward. It holds for a division of time (kālavibhāga) too, provided the division is not one of days and nights. Bhaṭṭoji says the rule is there to make a prohibition where the division is connected with days and nights. There luṭ comes as usual. One of his commentators gives the reason: a limit in time was already covered by SK 2794. (The other, as we saw, takes SK 2794's limit as one of place.)
Example.
a coming year, with the Āgrahāyaṇī full moon as limit
→ the nearer part, a division not of days and nights
→ this rule bars luṭ; lṛṭ → adhyeṣyāmahe
→ yo 'yaṃ vatsara āgāmī tasya yad avaram āgrahāyaṇyās tatra yuktā adhyeṣyāmahe "Of this coming year, in the part on this side of the Āgrahāyaṇī, we shall study, bound by the observances."
One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators glosses āgrahāyaṇī as the full moon of the month Mārgaśīrṣa, and yuktāḥ as "bound by the observances".
Applies when / blocked by. Why "not of days and nights"? Bhaṭṭoji's counter-example: yo 'yaṃ māsa āgāmī tasya yo 'varaḥ pañcadaśarātras tatrādhyetāsmahe "Of this coming month, in the nearer fifteen nights, we shall study." The division is counted in nights, so luṭ comes: adhyetāsmahe.
Bhaṭṭoji says the rule is split off from SK 2794 for the sake of the next rule. This is yogavibhāga, splitting one rule into two. One of his commentators gives the purpose. Only the limit in time is to continue into SK 2796.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
पूर्वसूत्रं सर्वमनुवर्तते । अहोरात्रसंबन्धिनि विभागे प्रतिषेधार्थमिदम् । योगविभाग उत्तरार्थः । योऽयं वत्सर आगामी तस्य यदवरमाग्रहाण्यास्तत्र युक्ता अध्येष्यामहे । अनहोरात्राणां किम् । योऽयं मास आगामी तस्य योऽवरः पञ्चदशरात्रस्तत्राध्येतास्महे ॥
The whole of the preceding sūtra is carried forward (anuvṛtti). This [rule] is for the sake of a prohibition with respect to a division connected with days-and-nights [i.e. there the provision of the preceding rule does not apply]. The splitting of the rule (yogavibhāga) [from the preceding one] is for the sake of the following [rule]. yo 'yaṃ vatsara āgāmī tasya yad avaram āgrahāyaṇyās tatra yuktā adhyeṣyāmahe ('Of this coming year, in the part on this side of the Āgrahāyaṇī [full moon], we shall study, bound by the observances'). Why 'anahorātrāṇām'? yo 'yaṃ māsa āgāmī tasya yo 'varaḥ pañcadaśarātras tatrādhyetāsmahe ('Of this coming month, in the nearer period of fifteen nights, we shall study') [here luṭ occurs].
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 483—कालविभागे च । कालविभागः कालविशेषः । अनहोरात्राणामिति संबन्धषष्ठी ॥—पूर्वसूत्रमिति । तदयमर्थः । मर्यादोक्तौ कालविशेषाद्यदवरं तस्मिन्प्रविभागे भविष्यत्यनद्यतनवन्न, स चेत्कालविभाग अहोरात्रसंबन्धी न चेदिलर्थः । इह कालविभागे सत्यवरस्मिन्ननद्यतनवन्नेत्युक्ते कस्मादित्यपेक्षायामर्थात्कालविशेषादिति लभ्यत इत्येके । केचित्तु कालविभाग इति पञ्चम्यर्थे सप्तमीत्याहुः ॥—उत्तरार्थं इति । ‘परस्मिन्विभाषा’ इति सूत्रे कालमर्यादाया एवानुवृत्तिर्यथा स्यात् । भविष्यतीति किम् । यः संवत्सरोऽतीतस्तस्य यदवरं मासात्तत्र पयोऽपिवाम । मर्यादायामिति किम् । यो निरवधिः समयस्तस्य यदवरं मासात्तत्र पयः पातास्मः ॥—पञ्चदशरात्र इति । नन्वत्र ‘संख्यापूर्व रात्रम्’ इति क्लीवत्वेन भाव्यम् । न च पञ्चदश रात्रयो यस्मिन्पक्षे इति बहुव्रीह्याश्रयणात्पुंलिङ्गः सिद्ध इति वाच्यम् । ‘अहःसर्वैकदेश’ इत्यच्प्रत्ययस्याभावप्रसङ्गादिति चेत् । सत्यम् । अत एव हि भाष्यप्रयोगात्क्लीवत्वं नेत्याहुः
Bālamanoramā
कालविभागे । पूर्वसूत्रमिति ।भविष्यति मर्यादावचनेऽवरस्मि॑न्निति सूत्रमित्यर्थः । ननु कालमर्यादायामपि पूर्वसूत्रेणैव सिद्धमित्यताअह — अहोरात्रेति । तथा च आहोरात्रसंबन्धिनि प्रविभागेभविष्यति मर्यादावचने इत्युक्तविधिर्न भवतीत्यर्थः । ननुभविष्यति मर्यादावचनेऽवरस्मिन्कालविभागे चानहोरात्राणामित्येकमेव सूत्रं कुतो नेत्यत आह — योगविभाग उत्तरार्थ इति । इदमुत्तरसूत्रे स्पष्टीभविष्यति । योऽयं वत्सर आगामीति । कालतो मर्यादायामुदाहरणम् । आग्रहायण्या इति । मार्गशीर्षपौर्णमास्या इत्यर्थः । युक्ता इति । नियमयुक्ता इत्यर्थः । अध्येष्यामहे इति । अत्र न लुट्, किंतु लृडेवेति भावः । पञ्चदशरात्रयुक्ता इति । पञ्चदश रात्रयो यस्य पक्षस्येति बहुव्रीहिः ।अच्प्रत्यन्ववपूर्वादित्यत्र अजिति योगविभागादच्समासान्तः । यद्वापञ्चदशानां रात्रीणां समाहारः पञ्चदशरात्रः ।अहःसर्वैकदेशे॑त्यच्समासान्तः ।सङ्ख्यापूर्वंरात्रं क्लीब॑मिति तुलिङ्गमशिष्यं लोकाश्रयत्वाल्लिङ्गस्ये॑ति वचनान्न भवति ।
translator notes
- BM (sk.2795.b1): since a temporal limit is already covered by the preceding sūtra, Bhaṭṭoji explains the point — in a division connected with days-and-nights the provision of 'bhaviṣyati maryādāvacane…' (SK 2794) does not apply; the split from that sūtra is for the following rule, which will become clear there. āgrahāyaṇī = the full moon of Mārgaśīrṣa; yuktāḥ = 'bound by the observances' (niyamayuktāḥ); here not luṭ but lṛṭ only. pañcadaśarātra is either a bahuvrīhi ('[a fortnight] of fifteen nights') with the samāsānta ac, or a samāhāra with ac by 'ahaḥsarvaikadeśa…'; the neuter is not taught, gender resting on usage. Followed: '[i.e. there the provision of the preceding rule does not apply]', the gloss of āgrahāyaṇī and 'bound by the observances'.
- TB: kālavibhāga = a particular time; 'anahorātrāṇām' is a sixth-case word (ṣaṣṭhyanta) of relation. The meaning: when a limit is stated, in the division nearer than a particular time, in the future, [the suffixes are] not as for non-today time, provided that time-division is not connected with days-and-nights. Some hold that 'from what?' is supplied by sense ('from a particular time'); others that 'kālavibhāge' is a seventh-case word (saptamyanta) in the sense of the fifth. The split is so that only the temporal limit continues into 'parasmin vibhāṣā' (SK 2796). Recorded; the English keeps 'in a division of time' without deciding between the two construals.
- textual Ours reads 'āgrahāṇyāḥ'; the 1915 print reads 'āgrahāyaṇyāḥ' (NSP p. 473 (scan)), as does ours at SK 2796 ('param āgrahāyaṇyāḥ'). The English gives āgrahāyaṇyāḥ. Mūla — for Ajai's print check.
SK 2796 · A 3.3.138V
परस्मिन् विभाषा ॥ २७९६ ॥
parasmin vibhāṣā
parasmin vibhāṣā — With respect to the farther [part, the suffixes are] optionally [not as for non-today time — the two preceding sūtras, SK 2794–2795, carried forward (anuvṛtti) except 'avarasmin'].
Rule. For the farther part, the suffixes are optionally not as for time not of today. So luṭ is optionally barred. Bhaṭṭoji says the two preceding sūtras are carried forward, except the word "nearer" (avarasmin). He calls this an aprāptavibhāṣā, an option for something not otherwise obtained. For the farther part no bar was obtained, so luṭ would come. This rule makes the bar optional. One of his commentators adds that "not of days and nights" still holds.
Example.
a coming year, the part beyond the Āgrahāyaṇī
→ this rule: the bar optional
→ lṛṭ adhyeṣyāmahe or luṭ adhyetāsmahe
→ yo 'yaṃ saṃvatsara āgāmī tasya yat param āgrahāyaṇyās tatrādhyeṣyāmahe, adhyetāsmahe "Of this coming year, in the part beyond the Āgrahāyaṇī, we shall study."
For a division of nights the bar does not apply even here. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives … tasya yat paraṃ pañcadaśarātrāt tatra payaḥ pātāsmaḥ "in the part beyond the fifteen nights we shall drink milk". luṭ comes.
Recalled here: liṅnimitte lṛṅ kriyātipattau (SK 2229). Bhaṭṭoji now recalls the rule for lṛṅ at its place in the Aṣṭādhyāyī. Where there is a cause for liṅ and the action is not accomplished (kriyātipatti), lṛṅ comes. He remarks only that "in the future" still applies to it. His example: suvṛṣṭiś ced abhaviṣyat tadā subhikṣam abhaviṣyat "If there had been good rain, there would then have been plenty of food." One of his commentators glosses atipatti as non-accomplishment. The other notes that the rule was explained under the root bhū, in chapter 44.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
अवरस्मिन्वर्जं पूर्वसूत्रद्वयमनुवर्तते । अप्राप्तविभाषेयम् । योऽयं संवत्सर आगामी तस्य यत्परमाग्रहायण्यास्तत्राध्येष्यामहे । अध्येतास्महे । लिङ्निमित्ते लङ्क्रियातिपत्तौ SK 2229 भविष्यतीत्येव । सुवृष्टिश्चेदभविष्यत्तदा सुभिक्षमभविष्यत् ॥
The two preceding sūtras, except 'avarasmin', are carried forward (anuvṛtti). This is an option for what was not [otherwise] obtained (aprāptavibhāṣā). yo 'yaṃ saṃvatsara āgāmī tasya yat param āgrahāyaṇyās tatrādhyeṣyāmahe, adhyetāsmahe ('Of this coming year, in the part beyond the Āgrahāyaṇī [full moon], we shall study'). 'liṅnimitte lṛṅ kriyātipattau' (SK 2229) ['When there is a cause for liṅ, lṛṅ occurs if the action is not accomplished']: 'bhaviṣyati' ('in the future') applies here as well (ity eva). suvṛṣṭiś ced abhaviṣyat tadā subhikṣam abhaviṣyat ('If there had been good rain, there would then have been plenty of food').
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 483—परस्मिन् । ‘भविष्यत्यनद्यतनवन्न’ इति विकल्पेन निषिध्यते ॥—वर्ज्यमिति । णिजन्तात् ‘अचो यत्’ इति कर्मणि यत् । वर्जमिति पाठे तु ‘द्वितीयायां चे’ ति णमुल् । अनहोरात्राणामित्येव । योऽयं वत्सर आगामी तस्य यत्परं पञ्चदशरात्रात्तत्र पयः पातास्म इलादि ॥—लिङ्निमित्त इति । अतिपत्तिरनिष्पत्तिः
Bālamanoramā
परस्मिन् विभाषा - परसमिन्विभाषा । अनुवर्तते इति । तथा च भविष्यति काले मर्यादोक्तौ परस्मिन् विभागे अनद्यनवद्वेति फलितम् ।लिङ्निमित्ते लृङ् क्रियातिपत्तौ॑ इति व्याख्यातं भूधातुनिरूपणे ।
translator notes
- BM: the result of the anuvṛtti is 'in future time, when a limit is stated, with respect to the farther division, [the suffixes are] optionally not as for non-today time'. 'liṅnimitte lṛṅ kriyātipattau' was explained in the section on the root bhū. Followed: sutra_en.
- TB: 'bhaviṣyaty anadyatanavan na' is prohibited optionally; 'anahorātrāṇām' applies here as well (… tasya yat paraṃ pañcadaśarātrāt tatra payaḥ pātāsmaḥ, etc.); on 'liṅnimitte': atipatti = non-accomplishment (aniṣpatti). Followed: the gloss in the bracket after SK 2229 and the inclusion of 'anahorātrāṇām' in the anuvṛtti.
- TB's pratīka reads 'varjyam' (ṇic-stem + yat in the sense of the object, by 'aco yat'), and it adds that on the reading 'varjam' the form is ṇamul by 'dvitīyāyāṃ ca'. Ours and the 1915 kaumudī (NSP p. 473 (scan)) read 'varjaṃ'. The English 'except' renders either. Recorded.
- textual Ours reads 'liṅnimitte laṅkriyātipattau'; the sūtra cited (SK 2229) is 'liṅnimitte lṛṅ kriyātipattau', and the TB on the same page prints lṛṅ. On the 1915 print the ṛ-sign under the la is not clearly visible (NSP p. 473 (scan)). The English gives lṛṅ. Mūla — for Ajai's print check.
- translator Bhaṭṭoji places 'liṅnimitte lṛṅ kriyātipattau' (A 3.3.139), already given as SK 2229, at its Aṣṭādhyāyī position here, with only the remark that 'bhaviṣyati' still applies; it has no separate SK number in this prakaraṇa.
SK 2797 · A 3.3.140V
भूते च ॥ २७९७ ॥
bhūte ca
bhūte ca — And in the past [too: when there is a cause for liṅ, lṛṅ occurs if the action is not accomplished (kriyātipatti) — the whole of 'liṅnimitte lṛṅ kriyātipattau' (SK 2229) carried forward (anuvṛtti); a heading (adhikāra)].
Rule. In the past too, where there is a cause for liṅ and the action is not accomplished, lṛṅ comes. Bhaṭṭoji says the whole of the preceding sūtra is carried forward. That is liṅnimitte lṛṅ kriyātipattau (SK 2229), recalled under SK 2796. One of his commentators says this rule is a heading (adhikāra).
Applies when / blocked by. The past here is the past in general, today or not, says the other commentator. He places its examples in the seven sūtras that begin with SK 2809. Before those, SK 2798 makes the lṛṅ optional.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
पूर्वसूत्रं संपूर्णमनुवर्तते ॥
The whole of the preceding sūtra ['liṅnimitte lṛṅ kriyātipattau', SK 2229] is carried forward (anuvṛtti).
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 483—भूते च । लिङ्निमित्ते लृङ् स्याद् भूते भविष्यति च क्रियातिपत्तौ । अद्यतनानद्यतनसाधारणं भूतसामान्यमिह ज्ञेयम् । अस्योदाहरणानि ‘उताप्योः समर्थयोलिङ्’ इत्यारभ्य ‘समानकर्तृकेषु तुमुन्’ इति विहाय सप्तसूत्र्यां बोध्यानि । ततः प्राचीनेषु ‘वोताप्योः’ इत्यनेन विकल्पोक्तेः ॥—लृङ् वेति । लिङ्निमित्ते भूत एवायं विकल्पो, भविष्यति तु नित्यमेव लृङ्
Bālamanoramā
भूते च - भूते च । अधिकारोऽयम् । अनुवर्तते इति । तथा च लिङ्निमित्ते लृङ् क्रियातिपत्तौ भूत इति अधिक्रियते इति फलितमिति भावः ।
translator notes
- BM: this is a heading (adhikāra); by the anuvṛtti the result is that 'liṅnimitte lṛṅ kriyātipattau bhūte' is placed at the head. Followed: 'a heading (adhikāra)' in sutra_en and the identification of the preceding sūtra.
- TB: when there is a cause for liṅ, lṛṅ occurs in the past and in the future where the action is not accomplished; the past here is the past in general, common to today and non-today. Its examples are to be found in the seven sūtras beginning with 'utāpyoḥ samarthayor liṅ' (SK 2809), leaving aside 'samānakartṛkeṣu tumun'; in the rules before that, 'votāpyoḥ' (SK 2798) states an option. Followed: 'in the past' left general (not restricted to non-today time).
- translator The 'preceding sūtra' is A 3.3.139, which Bhaṭṭoji cites inside SK 2796 with a reference to SK 2229 rather than numbering it here.
SK 2798 · A 3.3.141वा लृङधिकारः
वोताप्योः ॥ २७९८ ॥
votāpyoḥ
votāpyoḥ — Optionally (vā), up to (ā) 'utāpyoḥ' [SK 2809, not including it: in the past (bhūte), when there is a cause for liṅ, lṛṅ — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2797 and SK 2229; a heading (adhikāra)].
Rule. Bhaṭṭoji divides the words as vā ā utāpyoḥ: "optionally, up to utāpyoḥ". Up to SK 2809 (utāpyoḥ samarthayor liṅ), this is the heading: in the past, where there is a cause for liṅ, lṛṅ comes optionally. The preceding heading, SK 2797, works from SK 2809 on. "This is the distinction," Bhaṭṭoji says.
One of his commentators says the "up to" excludes SK 2809 itself. He raises a doubt: would SK 2797 then have no field? No; it works from SK 2809 up to, not including, SK 2816.
Applies when / blocked by. Both headings work only where liṅ is taught. In rules that teach laṭ and the like there is no cause for liṅ, so no lṛṅ. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says so. The other adds that the option is for the past only. In the future lṛṅ is always obligatory.
Watch out. Bhaṭṭoji's short note lṛṅ prāgvat, "lṛṅ as before", recurs below. It means: obligatory in the future, optional in the past. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators read it this way each time.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
वा आ उताप्योरिति छेदः । उताप्योः - SK 2809 इत्यतः प्राग्भूते लिङ्निमित्ते लृङ् वेत्यधिक्रियते । पूर्वसूत्रं तु उताप्योरित्यादौ प्रवर्तते इति विवेकः ॥
The division [of the words] is vā ā utāpyoḥ. Before 'utāpyoḥ [samarthayor liṅ]' (SK 2809), [the following] is the heading (adhikriyate): 'in the past, when there is a cause for liṅ, lṛṅ [occurs] optionally'. The preceding sūtra [bhūte ca, SK 2797], however, operates in [the rules] beginning with 'utāpyoḥ'. This is the distinction.
Bālamanoramā
वोताप्योः - वोताप्योः । अयमप्यधिकारः । वा आ उताप्योरिति छेदः । भूते इति, लिङ्निमित्ते लृङिति चानुवर्तते । तदाह — उताप्योरित्यतः प्रागिति ।उताप्योः समर्थयो॑रित्यतः प्रागित्यर्थः । नन्वनेनउताप्यो॑रित्यतः प्राग्भूते लिङ्निमित्ते लृङ्वेत्याधिकाराक्रान्तत्वाद्भूतेचेति पूर्वमधिकारसूत्रं निर्विषयमित्यत आह — पूर्वसूत्रं त्विति ।उताप्योः समर्थयोर्लि॑ङित्यारभ्य इच्छार्थेभ्यो विभाषे॑त्यतः प्राक्भूते चे॑ति पूर्वमधिकारसूत्रं प्रवर्तत इत्यर्थः । इमावधिकारौ यत्रलिङ्विधिस्तत्रैव प्रवर्तेते, नतु लडादिविधौ, लिङ्निमित्ताऽभावात् ।
translator notes
- BM: this too is a heading (adhikāra); 'bhūte' and 'liṅnimitte lṛṅ' are carried forward (anuvartate); 'up to utāpyoḥ' means 'before utāpyoḥ samarthayoḥ'. Objection: then the preceding heading 'bhūte ca' would have no scope. Answer ('pūrvasūtraṃ tu'): 'bhūte ca' operates from 'utāpyoḥ samarthayor liṅ' up to before 'icchārthebhyo vibhāṣā…'. Both headings operate only where liṅ is enjoined, not in rules enjoining laṭ etc., since there is then no cause for liṅ. Followed: the anuvṛtti in sutra_en, 'before', and the objection's point in 'however'.
- TB on this unit, printed at the tail of sk.2797.t1 ('—laṅ veti' in the OCR, i.e. lṛṅ vā): this option holds only in the past where there is a cause for liṅ; in the future lṛṅ is always obligatory. Followed: the option is confined to 'in the past'.
- BM at SK 2809 (sk.2809.b1): the āṅ in 'votāpyoḥ' is in the sense of a limit (maryādā), i.e. exclusive. Followed: 'not including it' in sutra_en.
SK 2799 · A 3.3.142V
गर्हायां लडपिजात्वोः ॥ २७९९ ॥
garhāyāṃ laḍapijātvoḥ
garhāyāṃ laḍ apijātvoḥ — When censure (garhā) [is expressed], laṭ [occurs] in connection with api and jātu [in all three times].
Rule. When censure (garhā) is expressed, laṭ comes in connection with api or jātu. Bhaṭṭoji says it comes in all three times. Being the later rule, it blocks luṅ and the others. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators agree, and add a second reason. Otherwise the rule would have no field (anavakāśatva).
Example.
censure, of any time: "you abandon your wife!", "you take up a courtesan!"
→ with api or jātu, this rule: laṭ → tyajasi, ādhatse
→ api jāyāṃ tyajasi, jātu gaṇikām ādhatse — "this is reprehensible."
One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators notes that laṭ stands here even where tyakṣyasi or atyākṣīḥ would fit the time. api and jātu signal the censure, says the other.
Applies when / blocked by. No lṛṅ here. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators agree. The rule teaches laṭ, so there is no cause for liṅ, and SK 2798 does not reach it. They also explain "three times". "In the future" has ceased, and no time is named, so laṭ is taught for time in general.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
आभ्यां योगे लट् स्यात् कालत्रये गर्हायाम् । लुङादीन्परत्वादयं बाधते । अपि जायां त्यजसि जातु गणिकामाधत्से गर्हितमेतत् ॥
In connection with these two [api and jātu], laṭ occurs in [all] three times when censure is [expressed]. Being the later [rule] (paratvāt), this blocks luṅ and the others. api jāyāṃ tyajasi, jātu gaṇikām ādhatse ('api — you abandon your wife! jātu — you take up a courtesan!'): this is reprehensible.
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 483–484—गर्हायाम् । अत्र ‘वोताप्योः’ इति न संबध्यते । वर्तमाने लडुक्तः कालत्रये तु न प्राप्नोतीति विधिरयम् ॥—कालत्रय इति । कालविशेषानुपादानादिति भावः ॥—परत्वादिति । निरवकाशत्वादित्यपि बोध्यम् ॥—अपि जायामिति । त्यक्ष्यसि अत्याक्षीरित्यादिविषयेऽपि त्यजसीत्यादि लडेव प्रयुज्यत इति भावः । एवं यो जायां तत्याज अत्यजत् अत्याक्षीत् त्यक्ता त्यक्ष्यतीत्यादिविषयेऽपि यो जायामपि त्यजति जातु गणिकामाधत्ते इति लडेव कालत्रयलकारापवादतया प्रयोक्तव्यः । लिङ्निमित्ताभावादिह क्रियातिपत्तौ लृङ् न भवति ॥—कालत्रये लकारा इति । परोक्षानद्यतनभूते लिट् । कथं धर्मं तत्यक्थ । भूतानद्यतने लङ् । कथं धर्ममत्यजः भूतसामान्ये लुङ् । अत्याक्षीः । भविष्यत्यनद्यतने लुट् । त्यक्तासि । भविष्यत्सामान्ये लृट् । कथं धर्मं त्यक्ष्यसीत्यादि ॥—अत्रेति । क्रियातिपत्ताविति ज्ञेयम् ॥—किंवृत्ते । लिङ्लृटौ कालत्रये स्तः ॥—नानुवर्तत इति । एवं चास्मिन्विषये निन्दति निन्दिष्यत्यनिन्ददिति कालत्रये लकाराः पक्षे न भवन्तीति भावः ॥—प्राग्वदिति । क्रियातिपत्तौ भविष्यति नित्यं लृङ् भूते वेत्यर्थः ॥—अनवक्लृप्त्यमर्षयोः—। लिङ्लृटावनुवर्तेते तौ च कालत्रये भवतस्तेन सर्वलकाराणामपवादः । किंवृत्तस्यानधिकारादेवाविशेषादुभयोर्भविष्यतीत्यकिंवृत्तेऽपीति न कर्तव्यम् । पूर्वनिपातार्हस्यान्त्याचः परनिपातो यथासंख्यनिवृत्त्यर्थः ॥—लृङ् प्राग्वदिति । भूते वा भविष्यति नित्यमित्यर्थः । नाहं भावयामि चैत्रो हरिमनिन्दिष्यदित्याद्युदाहर्तव्यम् ॥—किंकिलास्त्यर्थेषु—। लिङ्लृटोः प्राप्तयोरिह लृड्ग्रहणाल्लिङ् निवर्तत इत्याशयेनाह—लिङोऽपवाद इति ॥—अस्ति भवतीति । त्वत्कर्तृकं शूद्रागमनमस्तीत्यादिर्थः ॥—लृङ् नेति । लिङो निवृत्तत्वेन तन्निमित्तत्वाभावात् ॥—जातुयदोर्लिङ् । अनवक्लृप्त्यमर्षयोरिति वर्तते । तथाच ‘अनवक्लृप्त्यमर्षयोः’ इति लिङ्लृटोः प्राप्तयोर्वचनमिदं लृटो बाधनार्थम् । तदाह—लृटोऽपवाद इति । अयं कालत्रये ॥—लृङ् प्राग्वदिति । क्रियातिपत्तौ भूते वा भविष्यति नित्यमित्यर्थः । जातु भवान् हरिमनिन्दिष्यदित्याद्युदाहर्तव्यम् । अगर्हायामिदम् । गर्हायां तु जातुयोगे लडुक्तः ॥—यच्चयत्रयोः । ‘अनवक्लृप्त्यमर्षयोः’ इति वर्तते । यथासंख्यमिह नेष्यते । अयमपि लिङ्लृटोरपवादः । योगविभागस्तु उत्तरसूत्रद्वये यच्चयत्रयोरेवानुवृत्तिर्यथा स्यादित्येतदर्थः । क्रियातिपत्तौ लृङ् प्राग्वत् । यच्च यत्र वा त्वमेवमकरिष्यो न श्रद्दधे न मर्षयामीत्यादि ॥
Bālamanoramā
गर्हायां लडपिजात्वोः - गर्हायाम् । अपि जातु अनयोद्र्वन्द्वः । अत्रवोताप्योरिति भूते लिङ्निमित्ते लृङ् वा इत्यधिकारो न संबध्यते । लड्विधानेन तद्विषये लिङ्निमित्ताऽभावात् । कालत्रये इति । वर्तमाने भूते । भविष्यति चेत्यर्थः । भविष्यतीति निवृत्तम् । अतः कालसामान्ये लडिति भावः । परत्वादिति । अनवकाशत्वाच्चेत्यपि द्रष्टव्यम् ।अपि जाया॑मित्यत्र ,जातु गणिका॑मित्यत्र अपि- जातुशब्दौ निन्दाद्योतकौ । तदाह — गर्हितमेतदिति ।
translator notes
- BM: api and jātu form a dvandva. The heading 'votāpyoḥ' (SK 2798: in the past, when there is a cause for liṅ, lṛṅ optionally) is not connected here, since laṭ is enjoined and so there is no cause for liṅ. 'In the three times' = present, past and future; 'bhaviṣyati' has ceased, so laṭ is enjoined for time in general. To 'paratvāt' add 'and because it would otherwise have no scope (anavakāśatva)'. api and jātu indicate censure, hence 'this is reprehensible'. Followed: '[all] three times'; the anavakāśatva point is recorded.
- TB, sk.2799.t1 ('—garhāyām…'): 'votāpyoḥ' is not connected; laṭ is enjoined for the present, and this rule is made because in the three times it would not otherwise be obtained; 'three times' because no particular time is named; to 'paratvāt' add 'because it would otherwise have no scope'. In api jāyām, laṭ alone (tyajasi, etc.) is used even where tyakṣyasi, atyākṣīḥ etc. would be in place, as an apavāda of the lakāras of all three times; with no cause for liṅ, lṛṅ does not occur here in non-accomplishment of the action. Followed: the examples left without a time-reference, since they stand for past and future as well.
SK 2800 · A 3.3.143V
विभाषा कथमि लिङ् च ॥ २८०० ॥
vibhāṣā kathami liṅ ca
vibhāṣā kathami liṅ ca — When kathaṃ ('how') [is construed], liṅ optionally occurs, and [laṭ, by 'ca'; in censure (garhāyām) — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2799; in all three times].
Rule. When katham "how?" is used, liṅ comes optionally, and by ca laṭ. Bhaṭṭoji says "in censure" still applies, and the rule holds in the three times. In the other option come the lakāras proper to each of the three times.
Example.
censure, with katham: "how could you abandon dharma!"
→ this rule: liṅ → tyajeḥ, or laṭ → tyajasi
→ kathaṃ dharmaṃ tyajeḥ, kathaṃ dharmaṃ tyajasi.
One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators glosses tyajeḥ as "you abandoned, will abandon, or abandon". The other lists the lakāras of the other option:
- liṭ:
kathaṃ dharmaṃ tatyaktha; - laṅ:
atyajaḥ; - luṅ:
atyākṣīḥ; - luṭ:
tyaktāsi; - lṛṭ:
tyakṣyasi.
Applies when / blocked by. In non-accomplishment (kriyātipatti), lṛṅ is obligatory in the future and optional in the past. So says Bhaṭṭoji. One of his commentators gives the reason. katham with censure is a cause for liṅ, so SK 2229 applies in the future and SK 2798 in the past. Bhaṭṭoji's sentence: kathaṃ nāma tatrabhavān dharmam atyakṣyat, atyākṣīd vā "How indeed would his honour abandon dharma!" atyakṣyat is lṛṅ; atyākṣīt is luṅ, a past. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators takes the sentence as his example of the obligatory lṛṅ of the future. Which half of the rule the pair shows, scholars discuss this. The same commentator calls tatrabhavān "his honour" an honorific.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
गर्हायामित्येव । कालत्रये लिङ् चाल्लट् । कथं धर्मं त्यजेस्त्यजसि वा । पक्षे कालत्रये लकाराः । अत्र भविष्यति नित्यं लृङ् भूते वा । कथं नाम तत्रभवान् धर्ममत्यक्षत् । अत्याक्षीद्वा ॥
'garhāyām' ('when censure [is expressed]') applies here as well (ity eva). liṅ occurs in the three times, and, by 'ca', laṭ: kathaṃ dharmaṃ tyajeḥ, tyajasi vā ('How could you abandon dharma!'). In the alternative, the lakāras [proper to each] of the three times. Here [in non-accomplishment of the action (kriyātipatti)], in the future lṛṅ is obligatory, in the past optional: kathaṃ nāma tatrabhavān dharmam atyakṣyat, atyākṣīd vā ('How indeed would his honour abandon dharma!', or [with luṅ, past] '… did his honour abandon dharma!').
Bālamanoramā
विभाषा कथमि लिङ् च - विभाषा कथमि । गर्हायामित्येवेति । अनुवर्तत एवेत्यर्थः ।कालत्रये लि॑ङिति शेषपूरणम् । भविष्यतीति निवृत्तमिति । भावः चाल्लडिति । 'समुच्चीयते' इति शेषः । तथा च कथमित्यस्मिन् प्रयुज्यमाने कालत्रये गर्हायां लिङ्लटौ वा स्त इति फलितम् । कथं धर्मं त्यजेरिति । त्यक्तवान् त्यक्ष्यसि त्यजसि वेत्यर्थः ।गर्हितमेतदिति कथंशब्दाद्गम्यते । लटि उदाहरति — त्यजसि वेति । उक्तोऽर्थः । पक्षे इति । विभाषाग्रहणाल्लिङ्लटोरभावपक्षे भूते वर्तमाने भविष्यति च कालत्रये लिट्लङ्लुङ्लट्लुट्लृट इत्यर्थः । अत्रेति । अत्रा = उक्तविषये भविष्यति काले क्रियाया अनिष्पत्तौ गम्यमानायांलिङ्निमित्ते लृङ् क्रियातिपत्तौ॑ इति नित्यमेव लृङ्, कथमो गर्हायाश्च लिङ्निमित्तस्य सत्त्वादित्यर्थः, विशेषविहितत्वादिति भावः । भूते वेति ।वोताप्यो॑रिति भूते लिङ् निमित्ते लृङ् वेत्यधिकृतत्वादुक्तविषये भूतकाले लृङ् वेत्यर्थः । भविष्यति नित्यं लृडित्यत्रोदाहरति — कथं नामेति ।तत्र भवा॑निति समुदायः पूज्यवाची । वेदप्रामाण्याभ्युपगन्तेति यावत् । एवंविधः कथं धर्ममत्यक्ष्यत्, तत्त्यागस्य गर्हितत्वादिति भावः ।
translator notes
- BM: 'garhāyām ity eva' = it is carried forward (anuvartata eva); 'in the three times' is supplied (śeṣapūraṇa), 'bhaviṣyati' having ceased; 'cāl laṭ' = laṭ is conjoined; so when kathaṃ is used, in censure, liṅ and laṭ occur optionally in the three times. tyajeḥ = 'you abandoned, will abandon or abandon'; the censure is conveyed by kathaṃ. 'pakṣe' = where, by 'vibhāṣā', liṅ and laṭ do not occur: liṭ, laṅ, luṅ, laṭ, luṭ and lṛṭ in the three times. 'atra' = in this domain, in the future, when non-accomplishment of the action is understood, lṛṅ is obligatory by 'liṅnimitte lṛṅ kriyātipattau' (SK 2229), since kathaṃ and censure — a cause for liṅ — are present; in the past optional, by the heading 'votāpyoḥ' (SK 2798). tatrabhavān is honorific ('one who accepts the authority of the Veda'). Followed: the anuvṛtti, the three times, the reading of 'pakṣe' and of 'atra', and 'his honour'.
- BM introduces 'kathaṃ nāma…' as the example of 'in the future lṛṅ is obligatory' and comments only on atyakṣyat ('such a person — how would he have abandoned dharma! — for abandoning it is reprehensible'). Recorded.
- translator The paired 'atyākṣīd vā' (luṅ, past) suggests that the example as transmitted illustrates the optional lṛṅ of the past rather than the obligatory lṛṅ of the future, to which BM attaches it; the English renders the pair as it stands, giving atyakṣyat a time-neutral conditional gloss ('would abandon') and atyākṣīt a past one, and does not decide the attachment.
- TB on this unit, filed in sk.2799.t1 (the TB on SK 2799–2805): 'kālatraye lakārāḥ' = liṭ for the non-today past out of sight (kathaṃ dharmaṃ tatyaktha), laṅ for the non-today past (atyajaḥ), luṅ for the past in general (atyākṣīḥ), luṭ for the non-today future (tyaktāsi), lṛṭ for the future in general (tyakṣyasi); 'atra' = 'in non-accomplishment of the action (kriyātipatti)'. Followed: '[proper to each]' and '[in non-accomplishment of the action (kriyātipatti)]'.
- textual Ours reads 'dharmam atyakṣat', which is not a form; the 1915 print reads 'dharmam a-' / 'tyakṣyat' (lṛṅ atyakṣyat), NSP pp. 473–474 (scan), as the sentence 'atra bhaviṣyati nityaṃ lṛṅ…' requires and as BM cites it. The English follows the print. Mūla — for Ajai's print check.
SK 2801 · A 3.3.144V
किंवृत्ते लिङ्लृटौ ॥ २८०१ ॥
kiṃvṛtte liṅlṛṭau
kiṃvṛtte liṅlṛṭau — When a form of kim (kiṃvṛtta) [is construed], liṅ and lṛṭ [occur, in censure (garhāyām) — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2799; in all three times].
Rule. When a form of kim is used, in censure, liṅ and lṛṭ come. Bhaṭṭoji says "in censure" still applies, but "optionally" (vibhāṣā) is not carried forward. One of his commentators draws the result. The ordinary lakāras of the three times do not come here as an alternative. The other reports that the Vṛtti calls liṅ and lṛṭ here apavādas of all the lakāras.
Example.
censure, with a form of kim: "who would revile Hari!"
→ this rule: liṅ → nindet, or lṛṭ → nindiṣyati
→ kaḥ kataraḥ katamo vā hariṃ nindet, nindiṣyati vā "Who — which of the two, or which of the many — would revile Hari!"
Applies when / blocked by. lṛṅ prāgvat: in non-accomplishment, lṛṅ is obligatory in the future and optional in the past. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators agree. A form of kim with censure is a cause for liṅ.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
गर्हायामित्येव । विभाषा तु नानुवर्तते । कः कतरः कतमो वा हरिं निन्देत् निन्दिष्यति वा । लृङ् प्राग्वत् ॥
'garhāyām' applies here as well (ity eva); 'vibhāṣā', however, is not carried forward. kaḥ kataraḥ katamo vā hariṃ nindet, nindiṣyati vā ('Who — or which of the two, or which of the many — would revile Hari!'). lṛṅ as before [i.e. in non-accomplishment of the action, obligatory in the future, optional in the past].
Bālamanoramā
किंवृत्ते लिङ्लृटौ - किंवृत्ते लिङ्लृटौ । नानुवर्तते इति । व्याख्यानादिति भावः । विभक्त्यन्तं डतरडतमान्तं च किंशब्दनिष्पन्नं किंवृत्तमित्युक्तम् । तस्मिन्प्रयुज्यमाने गर्हायां लिङ्लृटौ स्त इत्यर्थः । सर्वलकाराणामपवादाविति वृत्तिः । लृङ् प्राग्विदिति । भविष्यति नित्यं लृङ्, भूते वेति प्रागुक्तमिहाप्यनुसन्धेयमित्यर्थः । लिङ्निमित्तस्य किंवृत्तस्य गर्हायाश्च सत्त्वादिति भावः ।
translator notes
- BM: 'vibhāṣā' is not carried forward, on the strength of the commentators' explanation (vyākhyāna). kiṃvṛtta = what is formed from kim: its inflected forms and its forms in ḍatara and ḍatama; when it is used, liṅ and lṛṭ occur in censure; the Vṛtti calls them apavādas of all the lakāras. 'lṛṅ prāgvat' = 'in the future lṛṅ is obligatory, in the past optional', as stated before, holds here too, since kiṃvṛtta and censure, causes for liṅ, are present. Followed: 'a form of kim (kiṃvṛtta)', the three forms in the example, and the bracket after 'as before'.
- TB on this unit, filed in sk.2799.t1 (the TB on SK 2799–2805): liṅ and lṛṭ occur in the three times; since 'vibhāṣā' is not carried forward, in this domain the lakāras of the three times (nindati, nindiṣyati, anindat) do not occur as an alternative; 'prāgvat' = in kriyātipatti lṛṅ is obligatory in the future, optional in the past. Followed: '[in all three times]' and the bracket after 'as before'.
SK 2802 · A 3.3.145V
अनवकॢप्त्यमर्षयोरकिंवृत्तेऽपि ॥ २८०२ ॥
anavakḷptyamarṣayorakiṃvṛtte'pi
anavakḷptyamarṣayor akiṃvṛtte 'pi — When incredibility (anavakḷpti) or intolerance (amarṣa) [is expressed, liṅ and lṛṭ — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2801 — occur, in all three times], even where there is no form of kim.
Rule. When incredibility or intolerance is expressed, liṅ and lṛṭ come, even where there is no form of kim. Bhaṭṭoji says "in censure" has ceased. He defines the senses: anavakḷpti is asaṃbhāvanā, judging a thing impossible; amarṣa is akṣamā, not bearing it. One of his commentators says liṅ and lṛṭ are carried from SK 2801 and hold in the three times.
Example.
incredibility or intolerance: "that your honour should revile Hari"
→ this rule: liṅ → nindet, or lṛṭ → nindiṣyati
→ na saṃbhāvayāmi na marṣaye vā bhavān hariṃ nindet, nindiṣyati vā "That your honour should revile Hari — I do not think it possible, or I do not tolerate it."
One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators construes it so: "that your honour should revile Hari — that I do not think possible, or do not tolerate".
Applies when / blocked by. The two senses are not paired with the two lakāras one by one (yathāsaṃkhya). Bhaṭṭoji's commentators agree on the sign. In a compound the word with fewer vowels normally stands first. Here amarṣa, the shorter, is placed second. One of them cites the Vṛtti for this.
lṛṅ prāgvat: obligatory in the future, optional in the past. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators supplies an example: nāhaṃ bhāvayāmi caitro harim anindiṣyat.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
गर्हायामिति निवृत्तम् । अनवकॢप्तिरसंभावना । अमर्षोऽक्षमा । न संभावयामि न मर्षये वा भवान् हरिं निन्देत् निन्दिष्यति वा । लृङ् प्राग्वत् ॥
'garhāyām' has ceased (nivṛtta). anavakḷpti is [the judgement of] impossibility (asaṃbhāvanā); amarṣa is intolerance (akṣamā). na saṃbhāvayāmi na marṣaye vā bhavān hariṃ nindet, nindiṣyati vā ('That your honour should revile Hari — I do not think it possible', or '… I do not tolerate it'). lṛṅ as before [i.e. in non-accomplishment of the action, obligatory in the future, optional in the past].
Bālamanoramā
अनवकॢप्त्यमर्षयोरकिंवृत्ते अपि - अनवकॢप्यमर्ष । निवृत्तमिति । व्याख्यानादिति भावः । अनवकॢप्त्यमर्षयोर्लिङ्लृटोश्च यथासङ्ख्यं नेष्यते, अल्पाच्तरस्य अमर्षशब्दस्य पूर्वनिपातत्यागादिति वृत्तिः । न सम्भावयामीति । अकिंवृत्ते उदाहरणम् । भवान् हरिं निन्देदिति यत्तन्न संभावयामि, न मर्षये वेत्यन्वयः । किंवृत्ते उदाहरति — कः कतर इति । लृङ्प्राग्वदिति । भविष्यति नित्यं लृङ्, भूते वेत्युक्तमिहाप्यनुसंधेयमित्यर्थः ।
translator notes
- BM: 'garhāyām' has ceased on the strength of the commentators' explanation (vyākhyāna). A respective correlation (yathāsaṃkhya) of anavakḷpti and amarṣa with liṅ and lṛṭ is not intended: this is signalled by amarṣa, the word with fewer vowels, not being placed first (so the Vṛtti). 'na saṃbhāvayāmi' is the example without a form of kim, construed 'bhavān hariṃ nindet iti yat tan na saṃbhāvayāmi, na marṣaye vā'. 'lṛṅ prāgvat' = obligatory in the future, optional in the past. Followed: the construal of the example and the bracket after 'as before'; no yathāsaṃkhya is imposed in sutra_en.
- TB on this unit, filed in sk.2799.t1 (the TB on SK 2799–2805): liṅ and lṛṭ are carried forward (anuvartete) and occur in the three times, so the rule is an apavāda of all the lakāras; since kiṃvṛtta is not in the heading, both [with and without kim] would be covered anyway, so 'akiṃvṛtte 'pi' need not have been stated; the placing last of the word that deserved first place is to exclude yathāsaṃkhya. 'lṛṅ prāgvat' = optional in the past, obligatory in the future; example to be supplied: nāhaṃ bhāvayāmi caitro harim anindiṣyat. Followed: the anuvṛtti of liṅ and lṛṭ and '[in all three times]' in sutra_en.
- textual BM continues 'kiṃvṛtte udāharati — kaḥ kataraḥ…', citing a kiṃvṛtta example for this sūtra; neither our kaumudī nor the 1915 print (NSP p. 474 (scan)) has such an example at SK 2802 ('kaḥ kataraḥ…' is the example of SK 2801).
SK 2803 · A 3.3.146V
किंकिलास्त्यर्थेषु लृट् ॥ २८०३ ॥
kiṃkilāstyartheṣu lṛṭ
kiṃkilāstyartheṣu lṛṭ — When kiṃkila or words meaning 'is' (astyartha) [are the upapada], lṛṭ [occurs, in incredibility or intolerance (anavakḷptyamarṣayoḥ) — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2802].
Rule. When kiṃkila or a word meaning "is" is the upapada, lṛṭ comes, in incredibility or intolerance. Bhaṭṭoji says those two senses are carried forward up to SK 2806, not into it. kiṃkila, the pair taken together, expresses anger. The words meaning "is" are asti, bhavati and vidyate. Bhaṭṭoji calls the rule an apavāda of liṅ. SK 2802 would give liṅ and lṛṭ; this rule leaves lṛṭ alone, Bhaṭṭoji's commentators explain.
Example.
intolerance, with kiṃkila: "you will eat a śūdra's food!"
→ SK 2802 would allow liṅ; this rule: lṛṭ only → bhokṣyase
→ na śraddadhe na marṣaye vā kiṃkila tvaṃ śūdrānnaṃ bhokṣyase "kiṃkila — you will eat a śūdra's food! I do not believe it, or I do not tolerate it."
with a word meaning "is": asti bhavati vidyate vā śūdrīṃ gamiṣyasi "Is it so — that you will go to a śūdra's wife!"
One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators glosses śūdrī as "a śūdra's wife".
Applies when / blocked by. Here lṛṅ does not come, Bhaṭṭoji says. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators agree on the reason. liṅ is excluded, so there is no cause for liṅ.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
अनवकॢप्त्यमर्षयोरित्येतत् गर्हायां च SK 2806 इति यावदनुवर्तते । किंकिलेति समुदायः क्रोधद्योतक उपपदम् । अस्त्यर्थाः अस्तिभवतिविद्यतयः । लिङोऽपवादः । न श्रद्दधे न मर्षये वा किंकिल त्वं शूद्रान्नं भोक्ष्यसे । अस्ति भवति विद्यते वा शूद्रीं गमिष्यसि । अत्र लृङ् न ॥
'anavakḷptyamarṣayoḥ' is carried forward (anuvṛtti) up to 'garhāyāṃ ca' (SK 2806) [but not into it]. kiṃkila — the combination [of kim and kila] — expressing anger, is the co-occurring word (upapada). The words meaning 'is' are asti, bhavati and vidyate. [This rule] is an apavāda of liṅ. na śraddadhe na marṣaye vā kiṃkila tvaṃ śūdrānnaṃ bhokṣyase ('kiṃkila — you will eat a śūdra's food! I do not believe it', or '… I do not tolerate it'). asti bhavati vidyate vā śūdrīṃ gamiṣyasi ('Is it [so] — asti, bhavati or vidyate — that you will go to a śūdra's wife (śūdrī)!'). Here lṛṅ does not occur.
Bālamanoramā
किंकिलास्त्यर्थेषु लृट् - किङ्किला । किङ्किलेति । समुदायस्य, अस्त्यर्थानां च द्वन्द्वः । यावदिति ।गर्हायां चेत्यतः प्रागित्यर्थः । किङ्किलेत्यस्मिन् अस्त्यर्थेषु च प्रयुज्यमानेषु अनवकॢप्त्यमर्षयोर्लृट् स्यादित्यर्थः । पूर्वसूत्रेण लिङ्लृटोः प्राप्तौ लृडेवेत्यर्थमिदम् । तदाह — लिङोऽपवाद इति । न श्रद्दधे इति । न संभावयामीत्यर्थः । त्वं शूद्रान्नं भोक्ष्यसे इति यत्तन्न श्रद्दधे, न मर्षये वा किङ्किलेत्यन्वयः । किङ्किलेति क्रोधं द्योतयति । अस्तीति । शूद्रस्य स्त्री शूद्री । तां गमिष्यसीत्यस्ति भवति विद्यते वेत्यन्वयः । अत्र लृङ् नेति । भविष्यति नित्यं लृङ्, भूते वेत्युक्तमिह न संभवति, अत्र लिङो विध्यभावेन लिङ्निमित्तविरहात् ।
translator notes
- BM: the sūtra is a dvandva of the combination kiṃkila and the astyarthas; 'yāvat' = before 'garhāyāṃ ca'. When kiṃkila or the astyarthas are used, lṛṭ occurs in incredibility and intolerance; the preceding rule would give liṅ and lṛṭ, and this one is for lṛṭ alone, hence 'an apavāda of liṅ'. na śraddadhe = na saṃbhāvayāmi; construed 'tvaṃ śūdrānnaṃ bhokṣyase iti yat tan na śraddadhe na marṣaye vā'; kiṃkila conveys anger. śūdrī = a śūdra's wife (śūdrasya strī). 'atra lṛṅ na': the 'obligatory in the future, optional in the past' stated before cannot hold here, since liṅ is not enjoined and so there is no cause for liṅ. Followed: '[but not into it]', the construal, the gloss of śūdrī, and the reason for 'lṛṅ does not occur'.
- TB on this unit, filed in sk.2799.t1 (the TB on SK 2799–2805): where liṅ and lṛṭ would both apply, the mention of lṛṭ here excludes liṅ — hence 'an apavāda of liṅ'; 'asti bhavati' means 'there is [the act of] going to a śūdrā (śūdrāgamana) with you as agent'; 'lṛṅ does not occur' because, liṅ having been excluded, there is no cause for it. Followed: '[so]' in the gloss of the asti-example.
- translator 'astibhavatividyatayaḥ' lists the three verbs in their citation form in -ti ('vidyati' for vidyate); the English gives the forms used in the example.
SK 2804 · A 3.3.147V
जातुयदोर्लिङ् ॥ २८०४ ॥
jātuyadorliṅ
jātuyador liṅ — When jātu or yat [is construed], liṅ [occurs, in incredibility or intolerance (anavakḷptyamarṣayoḥ) — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2802; in all three times].
Rule. When jātu or yad is used, liṅ comes, in incredibility or intolerance. Bhaṭṭoji calls it an apavāda of lṛṭ. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators agree: SK 2802 would give liṅ and lṛṭ, and this rule keeps liṅ alone. One of them says yad here is an indeclinable that looks like a case-form (vibhaktipratirūpaka).
Vārttika: yadāyadyor upasaṃkhyānam. yadā "when" and yadi "if" are to be included (upasaṃkhyāna). With them too, liṅ comes in the same senses.
Example.
incredibility or intolerance, with jātu, yad, yadā or yadi
→ SK 2802 would allow lṛṭ; this rule: liṅ only → nindet
→ jātu yad yadā yadi vā tvādṛśo hariṃ nindet, nāvakalpayāmi na marṣayāmi "That one such as you should revile Hari: I do not think it possible, I do not tolerate it."
Applies when / blocked by. lṛṅ prāgvat. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives jātu bhavān harim anindiṣyat. He adds that this rule is for sentences without censure. In censure, jātu takes laṭ by SK 2799.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
vārttikaयदायद्योरुपसंख्यानम्
(vārttika) The inclusion (upasaṃkhyāna) of yadā and yadi [should be made, i.e. liṅ occurs in the same domain also when yadā or yadi is construed].
(वार्तिकम्) ॥ लृटोऽपवादः । जातु यद्यदा यदि वा त्वादृशो हरिं निन्देन्नावकल्पयामि न मर्षयामि । लृङ् प्राग्वत् ॥
[This rule] is an apavāda of lṛṭ. jātu yad yadā yadi vā tvādṛśo hariṃ nindet, nāvakalpayāmi na marṣayāmi ('That one such as you should — jātu, yad, yadā or yadi — revile Hari: I do not think it possible, I do not tolerate it'). lṛṅ as before [i.e. in non-accomplishment of the action, obligatory in the future, optional in the past].
Bālamanoramā
जातुयदोर्लिङ् - जातुयदोर्लिङ् ।जातु यत् अनयोः प्रयोगे अनवकॢप्त्यमर्षयोर्लिङ् स्यादित्यर्थः । यदिति विभक्तिप्रतिरूपकमव्ययम् ।अनवकॢप्त्यमर्षयोरकिंवृत्तेऽपी॑ति लिङ्लृटौ प्राप्तौ लिङेवेत्यर्थमिदम् । तदाह - लृटोऽपवाद इति । यदायद्योरिति । यदायद्योः प्रयोगेऽपि उक्तविषये लिङ उपसङ्ख्यानमित्यर्थः । जात्वादिशब्दा उदाहरणे अनवकॢप्त्यमर्षद्योतकाः । त्वादृशो हरिं निन्देदित्येतन्नावकल्पयामि, न मर्षयामि वेत्यन्वयः । नावकल्पयामीत्यस्य न संभवायामीत्यर्थः । लृङ् प्राग्वदिति । भविष्यति नित्यं लृङ्भूते वेत्युक्तमिहाप्यनुसंधेयमित्यर्थः, जात्वादियोगस्तु, अनवकॢप्त्यमर्षयोश्च लिङ्निमित्तत्वादिति भावः ।
translator notes
- BM: when jātu or yat is used, liṅ occurs in incredibility and intolerance; yat is an indeclinable resembling a case-form (vibhaktipratirūpaka). 'anavakḷptyamarṣayor akiṃvṛtte 'pi' (SK 2802) would give liṅ and lṛṭ, and this rule is for liṅ alone, hence 'an apavāda of lṛṭ'. jātu etc. in the example indicate incredibility and intolerance; nāvakalpayāmi = na saṃbhāvayāmi. 'lṛṅ prāgvat' = obligatory in the future, optional in the past, since jātu etc. and incredibility or intolerance are causes for liṅ. Followed: the anuvṛtti in sutra_en, 'I do not think it possible', and the bracket after 'as before'.
- BM: 'yadāyadyoḥ' = 'the inclusion of liṅ in the stated domain when yadā and yadi are used'. Followed: the bracket in k2.
- TB on this unit, filed in sk.2799.t1 (the TB on SK 2799–2805): 'anavakḷptyamarṣayoḥ' continues (vartate); since that rule would give liṅ and lṛṭ, this statement is to block lṛṭ, hence 'an apavāda of lṛṭ'; it applies in the three times. 'lṛṅ prāgvat' = optional in the past, obligatory in the future (jātu bhavān harim anindiṣyat). This rule is for non-censure; in censure, with jātu, laṭ (SK 2799). Followed: the anuvṛtti and '[in all three times]' in sutra_en.
- textual k1 is a lone daṇḍa in our source (markup only).
- textual Our k3 opens with '(vārttikam)', the digital edition's tag; the 1915 print marks the vārttika with a sign before 'yadāyadyor upasaṃkhyānam' instead (NSP p. 474 (scan)). The vārttika is k2; k3 is Bhaṭṭoji's prose.
SK 2805 · A 3.3.148V
यच्चयत्रयोः ॥ २८०५ ॥
yaccayatrayoḥ
yaccayatrayoḥ — When yac ca or yatra [is construed, liṅ — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2804 — occurs, in incredibility or intolerance (anavakḷptyamarṣayoḥ) — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2802].
Rule. When yac ca or yatra is used, liṅ comes, in incredibility or intolerance. Bhaṭṭoji gives only the example.
Example.
incredibility or intolerance, with yac ca or yatra
→ this rule: liṅ → kuryāḥ
→ yac ca yatra vā tvam evaṃ kuryāḥ, na śraddadhe na marṣayāmi "That you should act in this way: I do not believe it, I do not tolerate it."
Applies when / blocked by. Why split this rule from SK 2804? Bhaṭṭoji's commentators agree: so that only these two words continue into what follows, not jātu and yad. With lṛṅ, one of them gives yac ca yatra vā tvam evam akariṣyaḥ, na śraddadhe na marṣayāmi.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
यच्च यत्र वा त्वमेवं कुर्याः । न श्रद्दधे न मर्षयामि ॥
yac ca yatra vā tvam evaṃ kuryāḥ, na śraddadhe na marṣayāmi ('That you — yac ca or yatra — should act in this way: I do not believe it, I do not tolerate it').
Bālamanoramā
यच्चयत्रयोः - यच्चयत्रयोः । यच्चेति समुदाये यत्रशब्दे च प्रयुज्यमाने अनवकॢप्त्यमर्षयोर्लिङ् स्यादित्यर्थः । लृटोऽपवादः । योगविभागस्तु उत्तरसूत्रे अनयोरेवानुवृत्त्यर्थः । उदाहरणे यच्चेति यत्रेति च अनवकॢप्त्यमर्षद्योतकौ । त्वमेवं कुर्या इत्येतन्न श्रद्दधे, न मर्षयामि वेत्यन्वयः । अत्रापिभविष्यति नित्यं लृङ्, भूते वे॑त्युक्तमनुसंधेयम् । लिङ्निमित्तस्य सत्त्वात् ।
translator notes
- BM: when the combination yac ca or the word yatra is used, liṅ occurs in incredibility and intolerance; it is an apavāda of lṛṭ. The rule is split off [from SK 2804] so that only these two continue into the following sūtra. In the example yac ca and yatra indicate incredibility and intolerance; construed 'tvam evaṃ kuryā ity etan na śraddadhe, na marṣayāmi vā'. Here too 'lṛṅ obligatory in the future, optional in the past' holds, since there is a cause for liṅ. Followed: the anuvṛtti of liṅ and of 'anavakḷptyamarṣayoḥ' in sutra_en, and the construal.
- TB on this unit, filed in sk.2799.t1 (the TB on SK 2799–2805): 'anavakḷptyamarṣayoḥ' continues (vartate); a respective correlation (yathāsaṃkhya) is not intended here; this too is an apavāda of liṅ and lṛṭ; the split is so that only yac ca and yatra continue into the following two sūtras (SK 2806–2807); in kriyātipatti lṛṅ as before: yac ca yatra vā tvam evam akariṣyaḥ, na śraddadhe na marṣayāmi. Followed: the anuvṛtti in sutra_en.
- translator BM speaks of the anuvṛtti into 'the following sūtra' (uttarasūtre), TB of 'the following two sūtras' (uttarasūtradvaye); sutra_en at SK 2807 follows TB in carrying yac ca and yatra into it as well, as BM's own gloss there ('yaccayatrayoḥ prayoge') also does.
SK 2806 · A 3.3.149V
गर्हायां च ॥ २८०६ ॥
garhāyāṃ ca
garhāyāṃ ca — And in censure (garhā) [liṅ — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2804–2805 — occurs when yac ca or yatra (carried forward from SK 2805) is construed; in all three times, an apavāda of all the lakāras (per TB)].
Rule. In censure, when yac ca or yatra is used, liṅ alone comes. Bhaṭṭoji says "in incredibility or intolerance" has ceased. One of his commentators says liṅ here holds in the three times and is an apavāda of all the lakāras. In censure SK 2800 and SK 2801 would give their lakāras. This liṅ displaces both.
Example.
censure, with yac ca or yatra
→ this rule: liṅ alone → yājayeḥ
→ yac ca yatra vā tvaṃ śūdraṃ yājayeḥ "That you should officiate at a sacrifice for a śūdra!" — "that is improper".
Applies when / blocked by. Bhaṭṭoji's commentators add: lṛṅ as before. One of them gives yac ca yatra vā tvaṃ śūdram ayājayiṣyas tad anyāyyam.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
अनवकॢप्त्यमर्षयोरिति निवृत्तम् । यच्चयत्रयोर्योगे गर्हायां लिङेव स्यात् । यच्च यत्र वा त्वं शूद्रं याजयेः । अन्याय्यं तत् ॥
'anavakḷptyamarṣayoḥ' has ceased (nivṛtta). When yac ca or yatra is construed, in censure, liṅ alone occurs: yac ca yatra vā tvaṃ śūdraṃ yājayeḥ ('That you — yac ca or yatra — should officiate at a sacrifice for a śūdra!'): that is improper (anyāyya).
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 483–484—गर्हायां च । कालत्रयेऽयं भवतीति सर्वलकारापवादः ॥—लिङेव स्यादिति । गर्हायां ‘विभाषा कथमि—’ इति लट् प्राप्तस्तत्रैव ‘किंवृत्त’ इति लृट् प्राप्तस्तयोरपवादो यच्चयत्रयोर्योगे विहितोऽयं लिङिति भावः । लृङ् प्राग्वत् । यच्चयत्र वा त्वं शूद्रमयाजयिष्यस्तदन्याय्यमित्यादि
Bālamanoramā
गर्हायां च - गर्हायां च । निवृत्तमिति । व्याख्यानादिति भावः ।यच्चयत्रयोरिति, लिङिति चानुवर्तते । तदाह -यच्चयत्रयोर्योगे इति.लिङेवेति । नतु लकारान्तरमित्यर्थः । उदाहरणे यच्चेति यत्रेति च गर्हाद्योतकम् । 'त्वं शूद्रं याजये' रितियत्तदन्याय्यमित्यन्वयः । लृङ् प्राग्वत् ।
translator notes
- BM: 'anavakḷptyamarṣayoḥ' has ceased on the strength of the commentators' explanation (vyākhyāna); 'yaccayatrayoḥ' and 'liṅ' are carried forward (anuvartate); 'liṅ eva' = not another lakāra; yac ca and yatra in the example indicate censure; construed 'tvaṃ śūdraṃ yājayer iti yat tad anyāyyam'; lṛṅ as before. Followed: the anuvṛtti in sutra_en and 'liṅ alone'.
- TB (sk.2806.t1): the rule applies in the three times and is an apavāda of all the lakāras. 'liṅ eva': in censure, 'vibhāṣā kathami…' (SK 2800) and 'kiṃvṛtte…' (SK 2801) would have given their suffixes; this liṅ, enjoined where yac ca or yatra is construed, is the apavāda of both. lṛṅ as before: yac ca yatra vā tvaṃ śūdram ayājayiṣyas tad anyāyyam. Followed: 'liṅ alone', and '[in all three times, an apavāda of all the lakāras]' in sutra_en.
- textual The TB on SK 2799–2805 ('—garhāyām…' through '—yaccayatrayoḥ…'), formerly filed at the head of sk.2806.t1, was re-filed to sk.2799.t1 (2026-10-05); sk.2806.t1 now holds only the TB on this sūtra (NSP pp. 473–474 (scan)).
SK 2807 · A 3.3.150V
चित्रीकरणे च ॥ २८०७ ॥
citrīkaraṇe ca
citrīkaraṇe ca — And when astonishment (citrīkaraṇa) [is expressed, liṅ occurs when yac ca or yatra is construed — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2805–2806; in all three times].
Rule. In astonishment (citrīkaraṇa), when yac ca or yatra is used, liṅ comes. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says liṅ alone, not another lakāra. The other says the rule holds in the three times.
Example.
astonishment, with yac ca or yatra
→ this rule: liṅ → yājayeḥ
→ yac ca yatra vā tvaṃ śūdraṃ yājayeḥ "That you should officiate at a sacrifice for a śūdra!" — "this is astonishing".
With lṛṅ, one of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators gives … tvaṃ śūdram ayājayiṣyaḥ, āścaryam etat.
Watch out. The sentence is word for word the same as in SK 2806. Only the closing judgement differs: "that is improper" there, "this is astonishing" here.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
यच्च यत्र वा त्वं शूद्रं याजयेः । आश्चर्यमेतत् ॥
yac ca yatra vā tvaṃ śūdraṃ yājayeḥ ('That you — yac ca or yatra — should officiate at a sacrifice for a śūdra!'): this is astonishing.
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 484—चित्रीकरणे च । अयमपि कालत्रये लृङ् प्राग्वत् । यच्च यत्र वा त्वं शूद्रमयाजयिष्यः आश्चर्यमेतत्
Bālamanoramā
चित्रीकरणे च - चित्रीकरणे च । यच्चयत्रयोः प्रयोगे आश्चर्ये गम्ये लिङेव स्यान्न तु लकारान्तरमित्यर्थः । उदाहरणे यच्चेति यत्रेति चाश्चर्यद्योतकम् । त्वं शूद्रं याजयेरिति यत्तदाश्चर्यमित्यन्वयः ।
translator notes
- BM: when yac ca or yatra is used and astonishment is understood, liṅ alone occurs, not another lakāra; yac ca and yatra in the example indicate astonishment; construed 'tvaṃ śūdraṃ yājayer iti yat tad āścaryam'. Followed: the bracket in sutra_en.
- TB: this too applies in the three times; lṛṅ as before: yac ca yatra vā tvaṃ śūdram ayājayiṣyaḥ, āścaryam etat. Followed: '[in all three times]' in sutra_en.
SK 2808 · A 3.3.151V
शेषे लृडयदौ ॥ २८०८ ॥
śeṣe lṛḍayadau
śeṣe lṛḍ ayadau — In the remaining case [i.e. with a co-occurring word other than yac ca and yatra, when astonishment (citrīkaraṇa) is expressed], lṛṭ [occurs], provided yadi is not [the co-occurring word].
Rule. In the remaining case, lṛṭ comes: astonishment, with an upapada other than yac ca and yatra. But not when the word is yadi. One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators calls this an apavāda of all the lakāras.
Example.
astonishment, with nāma
→ this rule: lṛṭ → drakṣyati
→ āścaryam andho nāma kṛṣṇaṃ drakṣyati "It is astonishing: the blind man will see Kṛṣṇa!"
One of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators says nāma is an indeclinable that signals astonishment.
Applies when / blocked by. Why "not with yadi"? Bhaṭṭoji's counter-example: āścaryaṃ yadi so 'dhīyīta "It is astonishing if he should study." One of his commentators explains: liṅ comes by the vārttika under SK 2804, which includes yadi.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
यच्चयत्राभ्यामन्यस्मिन्नुपपदे चित्रीकरणे गम्ये धातोर्लृट् स्यात् । आश्चर्यमन्धो नाम कृष्णं द्रक्ष्यति । अयदौ किम् । आश्चर्यं यदि सोऽधीयीत ॥
When a co-occurring word (upapada) other than yac ca and yatra [is present] and astonishment is understood, lṛṭ occurs after the dhātu: āścaryam andho nāma kṛṣṇaṃ drakṣyati ('It is astonishing: the blind man — nāma — will see Kṛṣṇa!'). Why 'ayadau' ('when yadi is not [the co-occurring word]')? āścaryaṃ yadi so 'dhīyīta ('It is astonishing if he should study').
Tattvabodhinī
alignment inferredNSP p. 484—शेषे—। सर्वलकारापवादः ॥—सोऽधीयीतेति । यदायद्योरुपसंख्यानात् ‘जातुयदोः—’ इति लिङ् । लिङ्निमित्ताभावादिह लृङ् न
Bālamanoramā
शेषे लृडयदौ - शेषे लृडयदौ ।यच्चयत्राभ्यामन्यः शेषः । तदाह — यच्चयत्राभ्यामन्यस्मिन्निति । 'यदिभिन्ने' इति शेषः । लृट्स्यादिति । नतु लकारान्तरमित्यर्थः । आश्चर्यमिति । अन्धः कृष्णं द्रक्ष्यतीत्याश्चर्यमित्यन्वयः । नामेत्यव्ययमाश्चर्यद्योतकम् । मूक इति । मूकोऽधीयीत इत्याश्चर्यमित्यन्वयः । यदीत्याश्चर्यद्योतकम् ।
translator notes
- BM: śeṣa = what is other than yac ca and yatra; 'other than yadi' is to be added; 'lṛṭ occurs' = not another lakāra; construed 'andhaḥ kṛṣṇaṃ drakṣyatīty āścaryam'; nāma is an indeclinable indicating astonishment; in the counter-example yadi indicates astonishment. Followed: the construal, and nāma left as the particle of astonishment.
- TB: [the rule is] an apavāda of all the lakāras. In 'so 'dhīyīta' liṅ comes by 'jātuyadoḥ…' (SK 2804), because of the vārttika including yadā and yadi; and 'since there is no cause for liṅ, lṛṅ does not occur here'. Recorded.
- translator TB's 'here' (iha) may refer to the lṛṭ domain of this sūtra or to the counter-example; not decided in the English, which does not touch the point.
- textual BM's lemma for the counter-example is 'mūka iti' ('mūko 'dhīyīta ity āścaryam'), i.e. a reading 'āścaryaṃ yadi mūko 'dhīyīta' ('… if a mute should study'); ours and the 1915 print (NSP p. 474 (scan)) read 'yadi so 'dhīyīta', and the English follows them.
SK 2809 · A 3.3.152V
उताप्योः समर्थयोर्लिङ् ॥ २८०९ ॥
utāpyoḥ samarthayorliṅ
utāpyoḥ samarthayor liṅ — When uta or api, the two having the same meaning [i.e. 'certainly' (bāḍham)], [is construed], liṅ [occurs, in all three times].
Rule. When uta or api is used, and the two share one meaning, liṅ comes after the root. The shared meaning is "certainly" (bāḍham). The Tattvabodhinī adds that the rule holds in all three times.
Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "the two have the same meaning in the sense of 'certainly'". The word samarthayoḥ means "the two having the same meaning". The Bālamanoramā adds that with these particles liṅ comes, and no other lakāra.
Example.
uta "certainly" + han "to destroy", any time
→ liṅ (this rule) → uta hanyād aghaṃ hariḥ
"Hari will certainly destroy sin."
With api in the same sense: api hanyād aghaṃ hariḥ.
Applies when / blocked by. The two particles must mean "certainly". Bhaṭṭoji gives two sentences where they do not:
uta daṇḍaḥ patiṣyati "Will the stick fall?" Here uta asks a question. The ordinary future patiṣyati stays.apidhāsyati dvāram "He will close the door." Here api goes with the root dhā and makes it mean "to cover". Again the ordinary future stays.
Watch out. This sūtra also marks a limit. SK 2797 made lṛṅ a heading for the past. SK 2798 made it optional in the past, up to this rule. Bhaṭṭoji says: "from here on, when there is a cause for liṅ, lṛṅ is obligatory in non-accomplishment even in the past." Non-accomplishment (kriyātipatti) means the action did not come about.
The Tattvabodhinī gives an example: utāhaniṣyad dasyuṃ rājā "the king would certainly have killed the robber". It is understood that he did not kill him, and will not. So from here on, a cause for liṅ in a failed action always gives lṛṅ, past or future.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
बाढमित्यर्थेऽनयोस्तुल्यार्थता । उत अपि वा हन्यादघं हरिः । समर्थयोः किम् । उत दण्डः पतिष्यति । अपिधास्यति द्वारम् । प्रश्नः प्रच्छादनं च गम्यते । इतः प्रभृति लिङ्निमित्ते क्रियातिपत्तौ भूतेऽपि नित्यो लृङ् ॥
The two have the same meaning (tulyārthatā) in the sense of 'certainly' (bāḍham): uta api vā hanyād aghaṃ hariḥ ('Hari will certainly destroy sin' — with uta or with api). Why 'samarthayoḥ' ('having the same meaning')? uta daṇḍaḥ patiṣyati ('Will the stick fall?'). apidhāsyati dvāram ('He will close the door'). [In these] a question and covering, [respectively], are understood. From here on, when there is a cause for liṅ, lṛṅ is obligatory in non-accomplishment of the action (kriyātipatti) even in the past.
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 484—उताप्योः—। धातोर्लिङ् स्यात्कालत्रये ॥ भूतेऽपि नित्य इति । वाग्रहणस्य निवृत्तत्वात् भविष्यतीव भूतेऽपि नित्यं लृङ् । उताहनिष्यद्दस्युं राजा । नाहन् न हनिष्यतीति गम्यते
Bālamanoramā
उताप्योः समर्थयोर्लिङ् - उताप्योः । समौ अर्थौ ययोरिति विग्रहः । शकन्ध्वादित्वात्पररूपम् । एकार्थयोरित्यर्थः । कमर्थमादायानयोरेकार्थकत्वमित्यत आह — बाढमिति । तथा च बाढार्थकयोः उत अपि इत्यनयोः प्रयोगे लिङ् स्यान्न तु लकारान्तरमित्यर्थः । उत अपि वेति । उत हन्यादघं हरिः, अपि हन्यादघं हरिरित्यन्वयः ।उताऽपी॑बाढमित्यर्थकौ । गम्यते इति ।उत दण्ड पतिष्यती॑त्यत्र उतशब्देन प्रश्नो गम्यते ।अपिधास्यति द्वार॑मित्यत्र अपिना धाधातोः प्रच्छादनार्थकत्वं गम्यत इत्यर्थः । इतः प्रभृतीति ।वोताप्यो॑रिति मर्यादायामाङ् ।उताप्यो॑रित्यतः प्राग्भूते लिङ्निमित्ते लृङ् वेत्यधिक्रियते ।उताप्यो॑रित्यादिसूत्रेषु भूतेलिङ्निमित्ते लृङ् क्रियातिपत्तौ॑ इत्येवाधिक्रियते इत्युक्तम् । एवं चउताप्यो॑रिति सूत्रप्रभृति लिङ्निमित्तेक्रियातिपत्तौ भूते लृङित्येवाधिक्रियते, नतु वाग्रहणम् । अतो नित्यमेवाऽत्र विषये क्रियातिपत्तौ भूते भविष्यति च लृङित्यर्थः ।
translator notes
- BM: samarthayoḥ = 'whose meanings are the same' (bahuvrīhi; pararūpa as in śakandhu etc.), i.e. 'having one meaning'; asked in what meaning, Bhaṭṭoji answers 'bāḍham'; so when uta and api meaning 'certainly' are used, liṅ occurs and no other lakāra. Construed 'uta hanyād aghaṃ hariḥ', 'api hanyād aghaṃ hariḥ'. In 'uta daṇḍaḥ patiṣyati' uta conveys a question; in 'apidhāsyati dvāram' api conveys that dhā means covering. 'itaḥ prabhṛti': the āṅ of 'votāpyoḥ' is in the sense of a limit, so before 'utāpyoḥ' the heading is 'in the past, when there is a cause for liṅ, lṛṅ optionally', while from 'utāpyoḥ' on only 'bhūte liṅnimitte lṛṅ kriyātipattau' is the heading, without 'vā'; hence in this domain lṛṅ is always obligatory in kriyātipatti, in past and future. Followed: the example construed with each particle separately, '[respectively]', and the reading of 'from here on'.
- TB: liṅ occurs after a dhātu in the three times. 'bhūte 'pi nityaḥ': since 'vā' has ceased, lṛṅ is obligatory in the past as in the future: utāhaniṣyad dasyuṃ rājā ('the king would certainly have killed the robber'), where it is understood that he did not kill and will not kill. Followed: '[in all three times]' in sutra_en.
SK 2810 · A 3.3.153V
कामप्रवेदनेऽकच्चिति ॥ २८१० ॥
kāmapravedane'kacciti
kāmapravedane 'kacciti — When one's wish is made known (kāmapravedana), [liṅ occurs, in all three times], but not when kaccit [is construed].
Rule. When the speaker makes his own wish known (kāmapravedana), liṅ comes. It does not come when kaccit "I hope" is used. Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "when the disclosure of one's own intention is understood, liṅ occurs, but not when kaccit [is used]."
Both of Bhaṭṭoji's commentators call it an exception (apavāda) to all the lakāras. The Tattvabodhinī adds that it holds in the three times. The Bālamanoramā reads the last word as a-kacciti, "not when kaccit".
Example.
the speaker's wish: that you eat
→ liṅ of bhuj (this rule) → kāmo me bhuñjīta bhavān
"My wish is that your honour should eat."
The Bālamanoramā construes it: "'let your honour eat' — this is my wish".
Applies when / blocked by. With kaccit there is no liṅ: kaccij jīvati "Is he alive, I hope?" The Tattvabodhinī supplies "my wish" here as well. It adds that the laṭ jīvati comes by SK 2789, the present for what is near the present.
Why name kaccit at all? The Bālamanoramā answers. A question with kaccit already shows a wish, so this rule would apply. And SK 2814, for verbs of desire, cannot apply, because kaccit does not mean "wish".
Siddhānta-kaumudī
स्वाभिप्रायाविष्करणे गम्यमाने लिङ् स्यान्न तु कच्चिति । कामो मे भुञ्जीत भवान् । अकच्चितीति किम् । कच्चिज्जीवति ॥
When the disclosure of one's own intention is understood, liṅ occurs, but not when kaccit [is construed]: kāmo me bhuñjīta bhavān ('My wish is that your honour should eat'). Why 'akacciti'? kaccij jīvati ('Is he alive, I hope?').
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 484—कामप्रवेदने—॥ लिङ् स्यादिति । कालत्रये सर्वलकारापवादः ॥—कच्चिज्जीवतीति । कामो मे इत्यनुषञ्जनीयम् । ‘वर्तमानसामीप्ये’ इति लट्
Bālamanoramā
कामप्रवेदनेऽकच्चिति - कामप्रवेदनेऽकच्चिति ।अकच्चिती॑ति छेदः । तदाह — नतु कच्चितीति । सर्वलकारापवादः । अभिप्रायः = इच्छा । काम इति । भवान् भुञ्जीतेति मे कामः । इच्छेत्यर्थः । अत्र लिङ्निमित्तस्य सत्त्वात् क्रियातिपत्तौ भूतेऽपि नित्यं लिङ् । प्रश्न एवायं कामप्रवेदनद्योतक इति प्राप्तिः । अत्र कच्चिच्छब्दस्य इच्छार्थकत्वाऽभावादिच्छार्थेष्विति वक्ष्यमाणं नाऽत्र प्रवर्तते ।
translator notes
- BM: the division is 'akacciti' (a-kacciti), hence 'but not when kaccit'; the rule is an apavāda of all the lakāras; abhiprāya = wish (icchā); construed 'bhavān bhuñjīteti me kāmaḥ'. With kaccit the question itself would indicate the disclosure of a wish, so [liṅ] would otherwise apply; and since kaccit does not mean 'wish', the later 'icchārtheṣu…' (SK 2814) does not apply here either. Followed: the construal of the example, and 'intention' = wish.
- TB: liṅ occurs in the three times, an apavāda of all the lakāras. In 'kaccij jīvati', 'kāmo me' is to be supplied (anuṣañjanīya), and laṭ comes by 'vartamānasāmīpye…' (SK 2789). Followed: '[in all three times]' in sutra_en; TB's account of the counter-example is recorded.
- textual BM's 'atra liṅnimittasya sattvāt kriyātipattau bhūte 'pi nityaṃ liṅ' must mean lṛṅ (as BM itself says at SK 2809); recorded as transmitted in our BM, not bearing on the kaumudī.
SK 2811 · A 3.3.154V
सम्भावनेऽलमिति चेत् सिद्धाप्रयोगे ॥ २८११ ॥
sambhāvane'lamiti cet siddhāprayoge
sambhāvane 'lam iti cet siddhāprayoge — [liṅ comes after a dhātu] in the sense of sambhāvana (crediting [someone] with an ability), if that sambhāvana is 'alam' ('he is equal to it'), when [the word] alam, [its sense] being understood (siddha), is not used (aprayoga).
Rule. liṅ comes in the sense of sambhāvana, crediting someone with an ability. The ability must be of the kind "he is equal to it" (alam). And the word alam itself must not be used, though its sense is understood. Bhaṭṭoji's gloss supplies liṅ (it continues from SK 2809).
Bhaṭṭoji explains alam here as prauḍhi, "being equal to a task". The Bālamanoramā glosses it as "adequacy".
Example.
a strong man; the speaker credits him with the strength; alam is not said
→ liṅ of bhid "to split" (this rule) → api giriṃ śirasā bhindyāt
"He might even split a mountain with his head."
The Bālamanoramā calls this a hyperbole about a strong man. The word api shows that the crediting rests on his strength.
Applies when / blocked by. If the word alam is spoken, the rule does not apply: alaṃ kṛṣṇo hastinaṃ haniṣyati "Kṛṣṇa is equal to killing the elephant". The verb stays in the ordinary future, haniṣyati.
From SK 2809 on, lṛṅ is obligatory where the action failed. The Tattvabodhinī gives api giriṃ śirasābhetsyat "he would have split even a mountain with his head".
Watch out. The sūtra's words do two jobs each. Bhaṭṭoji says that sambhāvane is recast as sambhāvanam, and alam as alami. Both commentators explain how. Each word is repeated (āvṛtti), and one copy is recast in a new case. So sambhāvane names the sense of liṅ. sambhāvanam … alam says what kind of crediting it is. alami … siddhāprayoge says that the word alam is not used. The two commentators define sambhāvana in different words, and read iti differently; scholars discuss this.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
अलमर्थोऽत्र प्रौढिः । संभावनमित्यलमिति च प्रथमया सप्तम्या च विपरिणम्यते । संभावनेऽर्थे लिङ् स्यात्तच्चेत्संभावनमलमिति अलमि सिद्धाऽप्रयोगे सति । अपि गिरिं शिरसा भिन्द्यात् । सिद्धाप्रयोगे किम् । अलं कृष्णो हस्तिनं हनिष्यति ॥
alam here means prauḍhi (being equal to a task).
'sambhāvanam' and 'alam' are recast (vipariṇamyate) with the first case (prathamā) and with the seventh case (saptamī) [respectively — i.e. the sūtra's sambhāvane, recast with the first case, yields 'sambhāvanam', a first-case word (prathamānta), and alam, recast with the seventh case, yields 'alami', a seventh-case word (saptamyanta)].
[The meaning is:] liṅ comes in the sense of sambhāvana, if that sambhāvana is 'alam' ('he is equal to it'), when there is alam whose non-use is established (siddhāprayoga) — [that is, when the word alam is not used but its sense is understood].
api giriṃ śirasā bhindyāt ('he might even split a mountain with his head').
Why 'when [alam's] non-use is established' (siddhāprayoge)? alaṃ kṛṣṇo hastinaṃ haniṣyati ('Kṛṣṇa is equal to killing the elephant') [— alam is used, and the form is the lṛṭ haniṣyati, not liṅ].
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 484–485—संभावनेऽल—॥—प्रौढिरिति । पर्याप्तिरित्यर्थः ॥— प्रथमया सप्तम्या चेति । संभावने इति सप्तम्यन्तं प्रथमया विपरिणम्यते । अलमिति प्रथमान्तं सप्तम्येति संबन्धः ॥ —संभावनेऽर्थे इति । न च प्रथमया विपरिणमितत्वात्कथमत्र सप्तम्यर्थलाभ इति चेत् । अत्राहुः । संभावनेऽलमि- स्यावर्त्यं द्वितीयस्यैव विपरिणामात्सर्वेष्टसिद्धिरिति । संभावनं क्रियासु योग्यताध्यवसायः ॥—अलमितीति । तच्च संभावनं समर्थ इति चेद् भवति तदा लिङ् स्यादित्यर्थः ॥—सिद्धेति । सिद्धः अप्रयोगो यस्य तस्मिन्नलमि सति । यत्रालंशब्दो न प्रयुज्यते तदर्थस्तु गम्यते तत्रेति फलितोऽर्थः । मनोरमायां तु ‘अलमिति संभावने सिद्धाप्रयोगश्चेत्’ इति सूत्रयितुमुचितमित्युक्तम् । तत्र सिद्धस्याप्रयोग इति विग्रहः । कस्याप्रयोग इत्याकाङ्क्षायामर्थादलंशब्दस्येति बोध्यम् ॥—अपि गिरिमिति । संभावनद्योतकोऽपिशब्दः । गिरिविदारणे पर्याप्त इति संभावनात्र गम्यते । कालसामान्येयं लिङ् । लृङ् प्राग्वत् । अपि गिरिं शिरसाऽभेत्स्यत् । अलमिति चेत् किम् । प्रायेण गमिष्यति
Bālamanoramā
सम्भावनेऽलमिति चेत् सिद्धाप्रयोगे - संभावने । अलमर्थोऽत्र प्रौढिरिति । पर्याप्तिरित्यर्थः । विपरिणम्यते इति । संभावने इति यत् सप्तम्यन्तं तदावर्त्त्य प्रथमया संभावनमिति च विपरिणम्यते, यत्तु अलमिति प्रथमान्तं तदावर्त्त्य सप्तम्या अलमि इति च विपरिणम्यत इत्यर्थः ।छान्दसं विभक्तिव्यत्ययमाश्रित्ये॑ति शेषः । तथा च संभावने इति सप्तम्यन्तं, संभावनमिति प्रथमान्तं च लभ्यते । तथा अलमिति प्रथमान्तमलमि इति सप्तम्यन्तं च लभ्यते । तत्र संभावने इति सप्तम्यन्तमर्थनिर्देशपरं । तदाह — संभावनेऽर्थ लिङ्स्यादिति । उत्कटान्यतरकोटिकं ज्ञानं संभावनमित्युच्यते । संभावनमितिप्रथमान्तं तु अलमिति प्रथमान्तेन विशेष्यते । इति र्हेतौ । तदाह — तच्चेदिति । तत् = संभावनम्, अलं = पर्याप्तिहेतुकं चेदित्यन्वयः । षिधधातोर्ज्ञानार्थकात् ‘मतिबुद्धि—’ इति वर्तमाने कर्मणि क्ते सिद्धशब्दः । सिद्धे गम्यमानेऽप्यलमर्थे अप्रयोगो यस्य स सिद्धाऽप्रयोगस्तस्मिन्निति विग्रहः । अलमीति सप्तम्यन्तमत्र विशेष्यसमर्पकं संबध्यते । अलंशब्दप्रयोगं विनापि तदर्थे गम्यमाने इति यावत् । तदाह — सिद्धाऽप्रयोगे सतीति ।अलमी॑ति शेषः । अपि गिरिमिति । बलवन्तं पुरुषमधिकृत्य अत्युक्तिरियम् । प्रायेण शिरसा गिरिं भेत्तुमयं समर्थ इत्यर्थः । गिरिभेदसंभावनस्य सामर्थ्यहेतुकत्वद्योतकोऽपिशब्दः । अत्र लिङ्निमित्तसत्त्वात् क्रियातिपत्तौ भूते लृङ् ।अलमिति संभावने सिद्धाऽप्रयोगश्चे॑दिति सुवचम् ।
translator notes
- BM: prauḍhi = paryāpti ('adequacy'). On 'vipariṇamyate': the seventh-case word sambhāvane is repeated (āvartya) and [one copy] recast with the first case as 'sambhāvanam'; the first-case word alam is repeated and [one copy] recast with the seventh case as 'alami' — by resorting to the Vedic interchange of case-endings (chāndasa vibhaktivyatyaya). So both sambhāvane and sambhāvanam, and both alam and alami, are obtained. The seventh-case sambhāvane names the sense [of liṅ]; the first-case sambhāvanam is qualified by the first-case alam. Followed: the bracket stating the result of the recasting in the English. The kaumudī quotes the recast form 'sambhāvanam'; BM and TB name the sūtra's 'sambhāvane' as what is recast; the English quotes the kaumudī's word and explains the recasting in brackets.
- TB: sambhāvane is recast with the first case, alam with the seventh. Objection: if sambhāvane has been recast into the first case, how is the seventh-case sense (sambhāvane 'rthe) obtained? Answer, 'they say': 'sambhāvane 'lam' is repeated (āvartya) and only the second [copy] is recast, so everything wanted results. Agrees with BM's repetition; followed (the English keeps both 'sambhāvane' and 'sambhāvanam').
- BM defines sambhāvana as a cognition in which one of the alternatives is strongly favoured (utkaṭānyatarakoṭikaṃ jñānam). Recorded; see the translator's note on the rendering.
- TB defines sambhāvana as the judgement that [someone] is fit for actions (kriyāsu yogyatādhyavasāyaḥ). Recorded; see the translator's note on the rendering.
- BM on 'tac cet sambhāvanam alam iti': 'iti' is in the sense of cause (hetau); construe: 'if that sambhāvana is grounded in adequacy (alam = paryāptihetukam)'. Recorded; it differs from TB on the force of iti, and the English ('if that sambhāvana is "alam"') stays neutral (§16).
- TB on 'alam iti': 'if that sambhāvana takes the form "he is capable" (samartha iti), then liṅ comes'. Recorded; it differs from BM on the force of iti, and the English stays neutral (§16).
- BM on 'siddhāprayoge': siddha is a kta in the present (vartamāne) from ṣidh in the sense of knowing, by matibuddhipūjārthebhyaś ca [SK 3089]; analysis: siddhāprayoga = that whose non-use obtains even though its sense, alam, is understood (siddhe gamyamāne 'py alamarthe aprayogo yasya); the seventh-case 'alami' is the qualificand. In effect: when the sense of alam is understood without the word alam being used. Followed in the dash-clause of the block.
- TB on 'siddha…': 'siddhaḥ aprayogo yasya tasminn alami sati' — the resulting sense is: where the word alam is not used but its sense is understood. Agrees with BM; followed.
- BM: it would be easy (suvacam) to word the sūtra 'alam iti sambhāvane siddhāprayogaś cet'. Recorded; it does not change the English.
- TB: in the Manoramā it is said to be more fitting to frame the sūtra as 'alam iti sambhāvane siddhāprayogaś cet', analysed as 'non-use of what is understood', the missing 'of what?' being supplied by the sense: 'of the word alam'. Recorded.
- BM on 'api giriṃ …': a hyperbole about a strong man; the sense is 'he is probably able to split a mountain with his head'; the word api signals that the sambhāvana of splitting the mountain rests on his capability. Here, since there is a cause for liṅ, in kriyātipatti [the non-occurrence of the action] lṛṅ comes in the past. Followed in the gloss of the example; the lṛṅ remark recorded (not in the kaumudī).
- TB on 'api girim': api signals the sambhāvana; 'adequate to splitting the mountain' is the sambhāvana understood here; this liṅ is for time in general (kālasāmānye); lṛṅ as before (prāgvat): api giriṃ śirasābhetsyat. Counterexample for 'alam iti cet': prāyeṇa gamiṣyati. Recorded (not in the kaumudī).
- translator liṅ is supplied from utāpyoḥ samarthayor liṅ (SK 2809), the kaumudī itself writing 'liṅ syāt'; neither commentator names the source of the anuvṛtti. The gloss 'he is equal to it' for alam follows the kaumudī's 'prauḍhi' and BM's 'paryāpti'. 'crediting [someone] with an ability' for sambhāvana is chosen to fit the sūtra's 'alam' on either commentator's definition. The bracket on the counterexample (alam used, hence lṛṭ) is the translator's; BM and TB do not discuss the form haniṣyati.
- textual Collation (.work/collate-p59/batch07.md; NSP printed pp. 474–475 = scan page-0484/0485): SK 2811 clean. The BM pratīka in sk.2811.b1 reads 'sambhavāne 'lam iti' for 'sambhāvane 'lam iti' (OCR-type slip in the commentary layer; read through).
SK 2812 · A 3.3.155V
विभाषा धातौ सम्भावनवचनेऽयदि ॥ २८१२ ॥
vibhāṣā dhātau sambhāvanavacane'yadi
vibhāṣā dhātau sambhāvanavacane 'yadi — When a dhātu expressing sambhāvana (sambhāvanavacana) [is upapada], [liṅ comes] optionally [in the sense stated in the preceding sūtra — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2811], but not when yad [is upapada] [; in the other option lṛṭ — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from śeṣe lṛḍ ayadau, SK 2808, per BM].
Rule. When a root meaning "to credit with ability" is the upapada, liṅ comes optionally. An upapada is a word standing with the verb in the sentence, which a rule names as its condition. This option does not hold when yad "that" is the upapada. The sense is the one of SK 2811, which is carried forward.
In the other option lṛṭ comes. The Bālamanoramā takes it from SK 2808, śeṣe lṛḍ ayadau.
Bhaṭṭoji says why the rule is made: "because [liṅ] would obtain obligatorily by the preceding [rule]". SK 2811 alone would allow only liṅ.
Example.
sambhāvayāmi "I credit [you]" as upapada + bhuj "to eat"
→ liṅ optionally (this rule) → sambhāvayāmi bhuñjīta bhavān
→ or lṛṭ (SK 2808) → sambhāvayāmi bhokṣyate bhavān
"I credit you with being able to eat." The Bālamanoramā: "he is probably able to eat".
Applies when / blocked by. With yad, the option goes: sambhāvayāmi yad bhuñjīthās tvam. Here liṅ is obligatory, by SK 2811. The Tattvabodhinī says so.
Why does the sūtra say "root" (dhātau)? The Tattvabodhinī answers. Without it, the word sambhāvana itself might count as the upapada. Because the sūtra says "root", the option needs a verb such as sambhāvayāmi. Where only the word sambhāvana stands, liṅ is obligatory by SK 2811: bhuñjīta bhavān.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
पूर्वसूत्रमनुवर्तते । संभावनेऽर्थे धातावुपपदे उक्तेऽर्थे लिङ् वा स्यात् न तु यच्छब्दे । पूर्वेण नित्ये प्राप्ते वचनम् । संभावयामि भुञ्जीत भोक्ष्यते वा भवान् । अयदि किम् । संभावयामि यद्भुञ्जीथास्त्वम् ॥
The preceding sūtra [SK 2811] is carried forward (anuvṛtti).
When a dhātu [used] in the sense of sambhāvana is upapada, liṅ comes optionally in the sense stated [there], but not when the word yad [is upapada]. The statement [is made] because [liṅ] would obtain obligatorily (nitya) by the preceding [rule].
sambhāvayāmi bhuñjīta bhokṣyate vā bhavān ('I credit you with being able to eat': liṅ bhuñjīta, or [in the other option the lṛṭ — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2808 —] bhokṣyate).
Why 'not when yad [is upapada]'? sambhāvayāmi yad bhuñjīthās tvam ('I credit you with being able to eat': [here the liṅ is obligatory, by the preceding rule]).
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 485—विभाषा धातौ—संभावनमुच्यते येन तत्संभावनवचनं तस्मिन्धातौ । संभावनार्थकधातावित्यर्थः ॥—भुञ्जीथास्त्वमिति । अत्र पूर्वेण नित्यो लिङ् । धातौ किम् । संभावनवचने स्वरूपग्रहणं माभूत् । कृते तु संभावनवचने तद्वाचकधातोरप्रयोगादिह विभाषा न भवति । भुञ्जीत भवान् । पूर्वेणात्र नित्यो लिङ्
Bālamanoramā
विभाषा धातौ सम्भावनवचनेऽयदि - विभाषा धातौ ।अयदी॑ति छेदः । तदाह — नतु यदिति । लिङभावे लृट्, 'शेषे लृडयदौ' इत्यतस्तदनुवृत्तेः । संभावयामीति । प्रायेण भोक्तुं समर्थ इत्यर्थः ।
translator notes
- BM: the word-division is 'ayadi', hence 'na tu yat'. In the absence of liṅ, lṛṭ, because it is carried forward (anuvṛtti) from 'śeṣe lṛḍ ayadau' [SK 2808]. sambhāvayāmi … means 'he is probably able to eat'. Followed: the bracketed lṛṭ in sutra_en and the block, and the gloss of the example.
- TB: sambhāvanavacana = that by which sambhāvana is expressed, i.e. a dhātu meaning sambhāvana. On bhuñjīthās tvam: here liṅ is obligatory by the preceding [rule]. Followed: 'a dhātu [used] in the sense of sambhāvana' and the bracket on the counterexample.
- TB: why 'dhātau'? So that sambhāvanavacane is not taken as [the word sambhāvana] itself (svarūpagrahaṇa); when [the word] sambhāvana is used but no dhātu expressing it, the option does not apply: [e.g.] bhuñjīta bhavān, where the liṅ is obligatory by the preceding [rule]. Recorded (not in the kaumudī).
- textual Collation (.work/collate-p59/batch07.md; NSP printed p. 475 = scan page-0485): SK 2812 clean (the raw OCR's 'dhātādyupapade' is an OCR slip for 'dhātāv upapade', as in ours).
SK 2813 · A 3.3.156V
हेतुहेतुमतोर्लिङ् ॥ २८१३ ॥
hetuhetumatorliṅ
hetuhetumator liṅ — liṅ [comes optionally — 'vibhāṣā' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2812 —, after a dhātu standing] in the sense of a cause (hetu) or of what has the cause, [i.e. its result] (hetumat).
Rule. liṅ comes optionally after a root that stands for a cause (hetu), or for its result (hetumat, "what has the cause"). "Optionally" is carried forward from SK 2812. Bhaṭṭoji writes vā syāt, "comes optionally". In the other option lṛṭ comes, the Bālamanoramā says.
Example.
cause: bowing to Kṛṣṇa; result: reaching happiness
→ liṅ for both (this rule) → kṛṣṇaṃ namec cet sukhaṃ yāyāt
"If he should bow to Kṛṣṇa, he would attain happiness."
→ or lṛṭ for both → kṛṣṇaṃ naṃsyati cet sukhaṃ yāsyati
"If he bows to Kṛṣṇa, he will attain happiness."
The Tattvabodhinī: bowing to Kṛṣṇa is the cause of attaining happiness.
Applies when / blocked by. A vārttika limits the rule: bhaviṣyaty eveṣyate, "it is wanted only for the future". A vārttika is a supplementary statement on a sūtra. So the rule does not apply in hantīti palāyate "he runs away because [the other] is killing". The killing is in the present, not the future.
Both commentators tie the vārttika to the sūtra's wording. liṅ was already carried forward, yet the sūtra names it again. Naming it again, they say, conveys a particular time.
Watch out. hetumat here means the result of a cause. In SK 2576 (chapter 54) the same word named the prompter's activity in the causative. The word is the same; the sense differs with the rule.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
वा स्यात् कृष्णं नमेच्चेत्सुखं यायात् । कृष्णं नंस्यति चेत्सुखं यास्यति ।
[liṅ] comes optionally (vā) [— 'vibhāṣā' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2812; in the other option lṛṭ].
kṛṣṇaṃ namec cet sukhaṃ yāyāt ('if he should bow to Kṛṣṇa, he would attain happiness').
kṛṣṇaṃ naṃsyati cet sukhaṃ yāsyati ('if he bows to Kṛṣṇa, he will attain happiness').
vārttikaभविष्यत्येवेष्यते
(vārttika) It is wanted only in [reference to] the future (bhaviṣyati).
(वार्तिकम्) ॥ नेह । हन्ताति पलायते ॥
[Hence] not here: hantīti palāyate ('he runs away because [the other] is killing').
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 485—हेतुहेतु—विभाषेत्यस्यानुवर्तनादाह—वा स्यादिति ॥—नमे च्चेदिति । कृष्णनतिः सुखप्राप्तौ हेतुः ॥—भविष्यत्येवेति । लिङ्त्यनुवर्तमाने पुनर्लिङ्ग्रहणं कालविशेषप्रतिपत्त्यर्थमिति भावः ॥—हन्तीत्यादि । ननु ‘लक्षणहेत्वोः क्रियायाः’ इति हन्तेः शतृप्रत्ययः स्यात् हननस्य पलायने हेतुत्वात् । मैवम् । ‘देवत्रातो गलो ग्राह इति योगे च सद्विधिः । मिथस्तेन विभाष्यन्ते गवाक्षः संशितव्रतः’ इति ‘शाच्छोरन्यतरस्याम्’ इति सूत्रे भाष्ये व्यवस्थापितत्वात् । व्याख्यातं च कैयटेन तत्रैव सूत्रे देवत्रात इति संज्ञा । तत्र ‘नुदविदोन्दत्राघ्राह्रीभ्योऽन्यतरस्याम्’ इति न नत्वं भवति देवत्राण इति । किं तु देवत्रात इत्येव । ‘ग्रो यङि’ ‘अचि विभाषा’ इति प्राण्यङ्गे नित्यं लत्वम् । गलः । विषवाचके गर इत्यत्र न भवति । ‘विभाषा ग्रहः’ इति णप्रत्ययो जलचरे भवति ग्राहः । ज्योतिषि न । ग्रहः । ‘लक्षणहेत्वोः’ इति सूत्रे ‘नन्वोर्विभाषा’ इत्यतो विभाषेत्यनुवर्त्य व्यवस्थितविभाषाश्रयणादितिशब्दयोगे सद्विधिः शतृशानचौ न भवतः । हन्तीति पलायते । वातायने गवाक्षः । अन्यत्र त्ववङ् न भवति । गोक्षः । संशितव्रत इति बहुव्रीहिः । अत्र ‘शाच्छोरन्यतरस्याम्’ इति संशात इतीत्वविकल्पो न भवति । अन्यत्र तु शातः । शितः । ते पूर्वोक्तनलादिविधयो मिथः परस्परं एकविषये न विकल्प्यन्ते तत्तद्विधायकसूत्रे व्यवस्थितविभाषाश्रयणादिति भावः । क्रियातिपत्तौ तु भूते भविष्यति च नित्यं लृङ् । यद्यवर्षिष्यत् सस्यमुदपत्स्यत्
Bālamanoramā
हेतुहेतुमतोर्लिङ् - हेतुहेतुमतोर्लिङ् । पूर्वसूत्राद्विभाषानुवृत्तिं मत्वा आह — वा स्यादिति । पक्षे लृट् । हेतुभूते फलभूते वाऽर्थे वर्तमानाद्धातोर्लिङ् वा स्यादिति यावत् । भविष्यत्येवेति । लिङित्यनुवर्तमाने पुनर्लिङ्ग्रहणादिति भावः । हन्तीति । इतिर्हेतौ । वर्तमानकालिकहननाद्धेतोरित्यर्थः । अत्र लिङ्निमित्तसत्त्वाद्भविष्यति तु क्रियातिपत्तौ भूते च लृङ् ।
translator notes
- BM: taking vibhāṣā to be carried forward (anuvṛtti) from the preceding sūtra, he says 'vā syāt'; in the other option lṛṭ. That is, liṅ comes optionally after a dhātu standing in the sense of a cause or of a result (hetubhūte phalabhūte vārthe). Followed: the bracketed anuvṛtti and 'in the other option lṛṭ'.
- TB: because vibhāṣā is carried forward he says 'vā syāt'. On namec cet: bowing to Kṛṣṇa is the cause of attaining happiness. Agrees with BM; followed.
- BM: 'only in the future' — because liṅ, though [already] carried forward, is mentioned again. Followed: the vārttika is rendered as restricting the rule to the future.
- TB: re-mentioning liṅ while it is being carried forward is for conveying a particular time. Agrees with BM; followed.
- BM on hantīti: iti is in the sense of cause; 'because of the killing in present time'. Followed ('because').
- TB: Objection — by lakṣaṇahetvoḥ kriyāyāḥ [SK 3103] han should take śatṛ, since the killing is the cause of the running away. Answer: no; the Bhāṣya on śācchor anyatarasyām settles, by the verse 'devatrāto galo grāha iti yoge ca sadvidhiḥ / mithas te na vibhāṣyante gavākṣaḥ saṃśitavrataḥ', that these options are fixed (vyavasthita-vibhāṣā): under lakṣaṇahetvoḥ, vibhāṣā is carried forward from nanvor vibhāṣā and, taken as fixed, śatṛ and śānac do not come in construction with the word iti — hence hantīti palāyate. TB adds: in kriyātipatti lṛṅ is obligatory in past and future (yady avarṣiṣyat …). Recorded (not in the kaumudī).
- BM: here, since a cause for liṅ is present, lṛṅ comes in kriyātipatti in the future, and in the past. Recorded (not in the kaumudī).
- textual Ours reads 'hantāti palāyate'. NSP printed p. 475 (scan page-0485) reads 'hantīti palāyate', and BM's and TB's pratīkas both read 'hantīti' (collation batch07, class A). The English follows hantīti. Mūla correction: for Ajai's print check.
- textual The '(vārttikam)' tag that opens sk.2813.k3 in our source is editorial; the 1915 print marks the vārttika 'bhaviṣyaty eveṣyate' with its sign before it (p. 475). The label '(vārttika)' is put on k2, where the vārttika is, and dropped from k3, which is Bhaṭṭoji's counterexample.
- translator '[Hence]' marks that 'neha' is the counterexample to the vārttika's restriction: the cause (killing) is present, not future.
SK 2814 · A 3.3.157V
इच्छार्थेषु लिङ्लोटौ ॥ २८१४ ॥
icchārtheṣu liṅloṭau
icchārtheṣu liṅloṭau — When [dhātus] meaning desire (icchārtha) are [upapada], liṅ and loṭ [come after a dhātu] [when the agents differ (asamānakartṛka) — BM, TB].
Rule. When a verb meaning "to wish" is the upapada, liṅ and loṭ come after the root. Both commentators add that the two actions have different agents. Both call the rule an exception to all the lakāras.
Example.
icchāmi "I wish" as upapada; you are to eat (two agents)
→ liṅ (this rule) → icchāmi bhuñjīta bhavān
→ or loṭ (this rule) → icchāmi bhuṅktāṃ bhavān
"I wish that you would eat."
Bhaṭṭoji: the same holds with kāmaye "I desire", prārthaye "I request" and so on.
Applies when / blocked by. A vārttika adds a condition: kāmapravedana iti vaktavyam, "it should be stated: when one's wish is made known". The Bālamanoramā adds "to another". So the rule does not apply in icchan karoti "he does it, wishing". No wish is disclosed to anyone there.
How does this differ from SK 2810? Both commentators answer. SK 2810 covers a wish understood from context, with no verb of desire used. This rule covers a verb of desire as upapada.
Watch out. liṅ already comes by SK 2810 in a disclosed wish. Why name it again here? The Tattvabodhinī answers: otherwise loṭ, taught here, would block it.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
इच्छामि भुञ्जीत भुङ्क्तां वा भवान् । एवं कामये प्रार्थये इत्यादियोगे बोध्यम् ।
icchāmi bhuñjīta bhuṅktāṃ vā bhavān ('I wish that you would eat', with liṅ bhuñjīta or loṭ bhuṅktām).
In the same way it is to be understood in construction with kāmaye ('I desire'), prārthaye ('I request') and so on.
vārttikaकामप्रवेदन इति वक्तव्यम्
(vārttika) It should be stated: [only] when one's wish is being made known (kāmapravedane) [to another].
(वार्तिकम्) ॥ नेह । इच्छन् करोति ॥
[Hence] not here: icchan karoti ('he does [it] wishing [to]').
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 485—इच्छार्थेषु लिङ्लोटौ । एषूपपदेषु धातोरेतौ स्तः । सर्वलकाराणामपवादः । ‘लिङ् च’ इत्यनेन समानकर्तृकेषु लिङो विधानादिह लिङ्लोटावसमानकर्तृकेषु भवत इति बोध्यम् ॥—इच्छन् करोतीति । अत्रानभिधानात् ‘समानकर्तृकेषु’ इति तुमुन् न । ननु ‘कामप्रवेदनेऽकच्चिति’ इत्यनेनैव लिङः सिद्धत्वादिह लिङ्ग्रहणं मास्तु लोडेव विधीयतामिति चेन्न । लोटा लिङो वाधा माभूदिति लिङ्ग्रहणस्यात्रावश्यकत्वात् । न चैवम् ‘इच्छार्थेषु लोट् च’ इत्येव सूत्र्यतामिति वाच्यम् । चकारेण लिङोऽनुकर्षे तत्संबद्धस्य विभाषाग्रहणस्यानुकर्षणप्रसक्त्या लकारान्तरमपि स्यादिति । न चैवमपि कामप्रवेदन इत्युपसंख्यानादनेनैव सिद्धे ‘कामप्रवेदनेऽकच्चिति’ इति सूत्रं मास्त्विति वाच्यम् । यत्रार्थप्रकरणादिना कामप्रवेदनं गम्यते इच्छार्थकमुपपदं नास्ति तदर्थं तदारम्भात्
Bālamanoramā
इच्छार्थेषु लिङ्लोटौ - इच्छार्थेषु लिङ्लोटौ । इच्छार्थकधातुषु प्रयुज्यमानेषु लिङ्लोटौ स्तः । सर्वलकारापवादः । असमानकर्तृकविषयमिदम् । समानकर्तृकेषु तुलिङ् चे॑ति वक्ष्यते । इच्छामिति । भुञ्जीत भवानिति इच्छामीत्यन्वयः । कामप्रवेदने इति । परं प्रति स्वाभिप्रायाविष्करणेइच्छार्थेषु लिङ्लोटा॑विति विधिरित्यर्थः । इच्छन्करोतीति । परं प्रति स्वाभिप्रायाविष्करणाऽभावान्न लिङ्लोटाविति भावः ।कामप्रवेदनेऽकच्चिती॑ति सूत्रं तु प्रकरणादिना यत्र कामप्रवेदनं, नत्विच्छार्थकमुपपदमस्ति तद्विषयमिति बोध्यम् । इत उत्तरसूत्रंसमानकर्तृकेषु तुमु॑न्निति तु कृदधिकारे व्याख्यास्यते ।
translator notes
- BM: when dhātus meaning desire are used (prayujyamāneṣu), liṅ and loṭ come; an exception to all the lakāras (sarvalakārāpavāda). This rule concerns [actions] with different agents (asamānakartṛka); for the same agent 'liṅ ca' [SK 2815] will be stated. Followed: 'after a dhātu' and the bracketed restriction to different agents (asamānakartṛka) in sutra_en; the kaumudī itself leaves the same-agent case to SK 2815.
- TB: when these are upapada, these two come after a dhātu; an exception to all the lakāras; since liṅ ca prescribes liṅ when [the desire-dhātus] have the same agent, liṅ and loṭ here come when the agents differ. Followed: 'upapada' in sutra_en (BM's 'used' amounts to the same).
- BM on icchāmi …: construe 'I wish: bhuñjīta bhavān'. Followed in the gloss.
- BM: kāmapravedana = disclosing one's intention to another (paraṃ prati svābhiprāyāviṣkaraṇa); the rule icchārtheṣu liṅloṭau applies [only] then. On icchan karoti: there is no disclosing of one's intention to another, so no liṅ or loṭ. The sūtra kāmapravedane 'kacciti [SK 2810] covers cases where kāmapravedana is understood from context etc. but no desire-word is upapada. Followed: '[to another]' in the vārttika.
- TB: in icchan karoti tumun by samānakartṛkeṣu [tumun, SK 3176] does not come, because of non-expression (anabhidhāna). Objection: since liṅ is already established by kāmapravedane 'kacciti, let only loṭ be prescribed here. Answer: the mention of liṅ is necessary so that liṅ is not blocked by loṭ; and 'icchārtheṣu loṭ ca' would not do, since drawing in liṅ by 'ca' would draw in the vibhāṣā connected with it, and another lakāra too would come. Nor is kāmapravedane 'kacciti superfluous given this vārttika: it is for cases where kāmapravedana is understood from sense or context and no desire-word is upapada. Recorded (not in the kaumudī).
- translator '[Hence]' marks that 'neha' is the counterexample to the vārttika's restriction: in icchan karoti no wish is being made known to another (cf. BM).
- textual The '(vārttikam)' tag that opens sk.2814.k3 is editorial; the 1915 print (NSP printed p. 475, scan page-0485) marks the vārttika 'kāmapravedana iti vaktavyam' with its sign before it. The label is put on k2 and dropped from k3, which is Bhaṭṭoji's counterexample. Collation (batch07): SK 2814 clean.
SK 2815 · A 3.3.159V
लिङ् च ॥ २८१५ ॥
liṅ ca
liṅ ca — And liṅ [comes after a dhātu when dhātus meaning desire (icchārtheṣu, from SK 2814) that have the same agent (samānakartṛkeṣu, from samānakartṛkeṣu tumun, SK 3176) are upapada].
Rule. When a verb of desire is the upapada and both actions have the same agent, liṅ comes. Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "when [roots] meaning desire, having the same agent, are upapada, liṅ [comes]."
The condition "same agent" (samānakartṛka) comes from the sūtra just before this one. That is samānakartṛkeṣu tumun (A 3.3.158), which Bhaṭṭoji teaches later as SK 3176, in chapter 69. "Verbs of desire" comes from SK 2814.
Example.
he wishes; he himself is to eat (one agent)
→ liṅ, first person (this rule) → bhuñjīya
→ bhuñjīyeti icchati "He wishes, 'may I eat'."
The eater is himself the one who wishes.
Applies when / blocked by. The Tattvabodhinī explains the rule as a counter-exception (pratiprasava), a rule that restores what an exception had removed. With one agent, SK 3176 would bring the affix tumun and block SK 2814. This sūtra brings liṅ back.
Watch out. Only liṅ is restored, not loṭ. The Tattvabodhinī says so, and the Bālamanoramā says the rule is made "so that loṭ ceases".
Siddhānta-kaumudī
समानकर्तृकेषु इच्छार्थेषूपपदेषु लिङ् । भुञ्जीयेतीच्छति ॥
When [dhātus] meaning desire, having the same agent (samānakartṛka) [as the action desired], are upapada, liṅ [comes].
bhuñjīyeti icchati ('he wishes, "may I eat"').
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 485—लिङ् च । ‘समानकर्तृकेषु तुमुन्’ इत्यनेन ‘इच्छार्थेषु लिङ्लोटौ’ इति विहितयोर्लिङ्लोटोर्बाधे प्राप्ते लिङः प्रतिप्रसवार्थं सूत्रम् । न चात्र वासरूपविधिना लिङ्लोटोर्नित्यं वाधा नेति शङ्क्यम् । क्तल्युट्तुमुन्खलर्थेषु तदभावात् । अथापि वासरूपविधिः स्यात् । एवमपि लिङेव यथा स्याल्लोट् माभूदित्येवमर्थं तदारब्धव्यमेव । क्रियातिपत्तौ लृङ् प्राग्वत्
translator notes
- TB: when liṅ and loṭ, prescribed by icchārtheṣu liṅloṭau [SK 2814], would be blocked by samānakartṛkeṣu tumun [SK 3176], this sūtra is a counter-exception (pratiprasava) [restoring] liṅ. One should not suppose that by the vāsarūpa rule liṅ and loṭ are not blocked outright (nityam), for that rule does not hold where kta, lyuṭ, tumun and khal-sense suffixes are concerned; and even if the vāsarūpa rule did apply, the sūtra would still have to be made, so that only liṅ comes and not loṭ. Followed: the sutra_en names samānakartṛkeṣu as the condition taken over from 3.3.158; the rest recorded.
- BM (not in our source; Wikisource BM, uttara-3/0038): 'samānakartṛkeṣu' and 'icchārtheṣu' continue (anuvartate); in bhuñjīyeti icchati the eater himself is the agent of desiring, hence the same agent; with [the conditions] samānakartṛkeṣu icchārtheṣu this sūtra is made so that loṭ ceases (loṭo nivṛttyartham). Agrees with sutra_en's conditions and with TB's point that only liṅ, not loṭ, comes.
- translator The kaumudī itself supplies 'samānakartṛkeṣu icchārtheṣūpapadeṣu'; TB does not use the word anuvṛtti here, and BM (Wikisource only; see the BM note) says only that 'samānakartṛkeṣu' and 'icchārtheṣu' continue (anuvartate) without naming their sūtras, so the sources named in the sutra_en brackets (SK 2814, SK 3176 = A 3.3.158, the sūtra between 3.3.157 and this one, treated by the SK in the kṛt section) are the translator's identification. '[as the action desired]' in the block is also supplied.
- textual The BM block formerly filed here as sk.2815.b1 (pratīka 'liṅ yadi') is BM on SK 2821 (liṅ yadi), not on this sūtra; it was re-filed to sk.2821.b1 (2026-10-05). There is no BM on liṅ ca in our source, but Wikisource BM (uttara-3/0038) has one (see the BM note). Collation (batch07; NSP printed p. 475, scan page-0485): SK 2815 clean.
SK 2816 · A 3.3.160V
इच्छार्थेभ्यो विभाषा वर्तमाने ॥ २८१६ ॥
icchārthebhyo vibhāṣā vartamāne
icchārthebhyo vibhāṣā vartamāne — After [dhātus] meaning desire (icchārtha), [liṅ comes] optionally in the present (vartamāne).
Rule. After the verbs of desire themselves, liṅ comes optionally in the present. In the other option laṭ comes. Here the verb of desire takes the liṅ; in SK 2814–2815 it was only the upapada.
Example.
"he wishes", present time
→ liṅ (this rule) → icchet
→ or laṭ → icchati.
"he desires", present time → kāmayeta or kāmayate.
Applies when / blocked by. The Tattvabodhinī asks: why "after verbs of desire"? Because other verbs, like pacati "he cooks" and gacchati "he goes", have only laṭ in the present.
Bhaṭṭoji then recalls a rule. The next Aṣṭādhyāyī sūtra is SK 2208, which you know from chapter 44: vidhinimantraṇāmantraṇādhīṣṭasaṃpraśnaprārthaneṣu liṅ. Bhaṭṭoji recalls it here with its six senses. The Bālamanoramā says it is recalled because it comes next in the order. The senses and Bhaṭṭoji's examples:
- vidhi, impelling:
yajeta "one should sacrifice"; - nimantraṇa, engaging someone in a binding matter:
iha bhuñjīta bhavān "please eat here"; - āmantraṇa, permission:
iha āsīta "you may sit here"; - adhīṣṭa, respectful urging:
putram adhyāpayed bhavān "would you kindly teach [my] son"; - saṃpraśna, deliberative enquiry:
kiṃ bho vedam adhīyīya uta tarkam "sir, should I study the Veda or logic?"; - prārthana, asking for:
bhojanaṃ labheya "may I get food".
Then Bhaṭṭoji adds evaṃ loṭ, "loṭ likewise". This recalls loṭ ca (SK 2194): loṭ comes in the same six senses.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
लिङ् स्यात्पक्षे लट् ॥ इच्छेत् । इच्छति । कामयेत । कामयते । विधिनिमन्त्रण - SK 2208इति लिङ् । विधौ । यजेत । निमन्त्रणे । इह भुञ्जीत भवान् । आमन्त्रणे । इहासीत । अधीष्टे । पुत्रमध्यापयेद्भवान् । संप्रश्ने । किं भो वेदमधीयीय उत तर्कम् । प्रार्थने । भोजनं लभेय । एवं लोट् ॥
liṅ comes [after dhātus meaning desire, in the present]; in the other option laṭ.
icchet, icchati ('he wishes'). kāmayeta, kāmayate ('he desires').
By vidhinimantraṇa… (SK 2208), liṅ [comes in the senses vidhi etc.]:
in vidhi (impelling): yajeta ('one should sacrifice');
in nimantraṇa (engaging [someone] in a binding matter): iha bhuñjīta bhavān ('please eat here');
in āmantraṇa (permission): iha āsīta ('you may sit here');
in adhīṣṭa (respectful urging): putram adhyāpayed bhavān ('would you kindly teach [my] son');
in saṃpraśna (deliberative enquiry): kiṃ bho vedam adhīyīya uta tarkam ('sir, should I study the Veda or logic?');
in prārthana (asking for): bhojanaṃ labheya ('may I get food').
loṭ likewise [in the same senses].
Tattvabodhinī
alignment inferredNSP p. 485—इच्छार्थेभ्यः—। इच्छार्थेभ्यः किम् । पचति गच्छति
translator notes
- TB: why 'after [dhātus] meaning desire'? pacati, gacchati [have only laṭ in the present]. Followed: sutra_en keeps the restriction to desire-dhātus.
- translator The renderings of vidhi, nimantraṇa, āmantraṇa, adhīṣṭa, saṃpraśna and prārthana follow those adopted under SK 2208, which this passage recalls with its examples. 'loṭ likewise' (evaṃ loṭ) refers to loṭ ca (SK 2194, A 3.3.162), which gives loṭ in the same senses; the identification is the translator's. Placing the vidhinimantraṇa illustrations here follows the sūtra order, A 3.3.161 coming right after this sūtra.
- BM (not in our source; Wikisource BM, uttara-3/0039): the vidhinimantraṇa passage is recalled 'because it comes next in order' (kramaprāptatvāt smāritam); 'saṃprasāraṇe' = saṃpraśne; 'evaṃ loṭ' = the loṭ prescribed by loṭ ca in the senses vidhi etc. is illustrated likewise. Confirms the two identifications in the translator note.
- textual There is no BM on this sūtra in our source, but Wikisource BM (uttara-3/0039) has one (see the BM note); BM's kaumudī reads 'saṃprasāraṇe' for 'saṃpraśne' (glossed saṃpraśna), where ours and the print have 'saṃpraśne'. Collation (batch07; NSP printed p. 475, scan page-0485): SK 2816 clean; the cross-reference '(SK 2208)' matches the print's '2208'.
SK 2817 · A 3.3.163V
प्रैषातिसर्गप्राप्तकालेषु कृत्याश्च ॥ २८१७ ॥
praiṣātisargaprāptakāleṣu kṛtyāśca
praiṣātisargaprāptakāleṣu kṛtyāś ca — In [the senses of] praiṣa (impelling), atisarga (permission to act at will) and prāptakāla ([the action's] time having come), the kṛtya [suffixes] come, and [by 'ca'] loṭ [— drawn in (anukarṣaṇa) from loṭ ca, SK 2194].
Rule. In three senses the kṛtya affixes come, and by ca "and", loṭ. The senses are praiṣa, atisarga and prāptakāla.
Bhaṭṭoji defines the first two:
- praiṣa is vidhi, impelling someone to act;
- atisarga is permission to act as one pleases.
The third, prāptakāla, means "the time [for the action] has come".
loṭ is drawn in from loṭ ca (SK 2194). Drawing in a word by ca is called anukarṣaṇa.
Example.
yaj "to sacrifice", in praiṣa or atisarga
→ a kṛtya affix, tavya (this rule) → bhavatā yaṣṭavyam "it is to be sacrificed by you"
→ or loṭ (by ca) → bhavān yajatām "let your honour sacrifice".
Applies when / blocked by. Bhaṭṭoji says the ca that draws in loṭ is "for the sake of prāptakāla". Both commentators explain why. In praiṣa and atisarga, loṭ already comes by SK 2194. In prāptakāla it did not, so the ca is needed there. The Bālamanoramā's example for prāptakāla is guruṇā bhoktavyam "the time for the teacher's eating has come".
Watch out. Why say praiṣa and not simply vidhi? The Tattvabodhinī reports the answer that it makes the meaning clearer for pupils.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
प्रैषो विधिः । अतिसर्गः कामचारानुज्ञा । भवतायष्टव्यम् । भवान्यजताम् । चकारेण लोटोऽनुकर्षणं प्राप्तकालार्थम् ॥
praiṣa is vidhi (impelling). atisarga is permission to act as one pleases (kāmacārānujñā).
bhavatā yaṣṭavyam ('it is to be sacrificed by you', with the kṛtya tavya). bhavān yajatām ('let your honour sacrifice', with loṭ).
The drawing in (anukarṣaṇa) of loṭ by 'ca' is for the sake of prāptakāla.
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 485–486—प्रैषातिसर्ग—। प्रैषो विधिरिति । विधिग्रहणे कर्तव्ये प्रैषग्रहणं शिष्यबुद्धिवैशद्यार्थमित्याहुः ॥—लोटोऽनुकर्षणमिति । ‘लोट् च’ इति योगस्येदमेव प्रयोजनम्, एकयोगत्वे तु लिङोऽप्यनुकर्षणं स्यात् ॥—प्राप्तकालार्थमिति । प्रैषातिसर्गयोः पूर्वेणेव सिद्धत्वादिति भावः
Bālamanoramā
प्रैषातिसर्गप्राप्तकालेषु कृत्याश्च - प्रैषातिसर्ग ।लोट् चेति । पूर्वसूत्रोपात्तो लोट् चकारात्समुच्चीयते । कृत्यसंज्ञकाः प्रत्यया वक्ष्यमाणा, लोट् च प्रैषादिषु भवन्तीत्यर्थः । प्रैषे अतिसर्गे च कृत्यप्रत्ययमुदाहरति — भवता यष्टव्यमिति । भावे तव्यप्रत्ययः । लोटमुदाहरति — भवान्यजतामिति । ननु चकारेण लोटोऽनुकर्षणं व्यर्थं, प्रैषस्य विधिरूपतया, अतिसर्गस्य आमन्त्रणरूपतया चलोट् चे॑त्यनेनैव सिद्धेरित्यत आह — चकारेणेति । प्राप्तकाले यथा — गुरुणा भोक्तव्यम् । गुरुर्भुञ्जीत । भोजनं प्राप्तावसरमित्यर्थः ।प्राप्तकाले च कृत्याश्चे॑त्युक्तौ तु निमन्त्रणादिष्वपि कृत्याः स्युः । अतः प्रैषादिग्रहणम् ।
translator notes
- BM: the loṭ taken up in the preceding sūtra [loṭ ca, SK 2194] is gathered by 'ca'; the meaning is that the suffixes called kṛtya, to be stated [later], and loṭ come in praiṣa etc. Followed: '[by ca] loṭ' in sutra_en.
- BM: bhavatā yaṣṭavyam illustrates the kṛtya suffix in praiṣa and atisarga (tavya in the bhāva sense); bhavān yajatām illustrates loṭ. Objection: drawing in loṭ by 'ca' is pointless, since praiṣa is a form of vidhi and atisarga a form of āmantraṇa, and loṭ ca alone establishes [loṭ there]. Answer: 'cakāreṇa …' — it is for prāptakāla. Example of prāptakāla: guruṇā bhoktavyam; gurur bhuñjīta [so BM's text, with a liṅ form] — 'the [time for] eating has arrived'. Had one said 'prāptakāle ca kṛtyāś ca', the kṛtyas would come in nimantraṇa etc. too; hence praiṣa etc. are named. Followed: the last sentence of the block is rendered as answering that objection.
- TB: 'praiṣo vidhiḥ' — naming praiṣa where vidhi might have been named is, they say, for the clarity of the pupils' understanding. 'loṭo 'nukarṣaṇam': this alone is the purpose of making loṭ ca a separate rule; were it one rule [with vidhinimantraṇa…], liṅ too would be drawn in. 'prāptakālārtham': because in praiṣa and atisarga [loṭ] is already established by the preceding [rule]. Agrees with BM; followed.
- translator The rendering of prāptakāla as '[the action's] time having come' follows BM's gloss 'bhojanaṃ prāptāvasaram'. The kaumudī gives no example of prāptakāla.
- textual Ours runs 'bhavatāyaṣṭavyam' together; NSP printed pp. 475–476 (scan page-0485/0486) prints 'bhavatā yaṣṭavyam' (spacing only). In sk.2817.b1 'vakāreṇeti' is an OCR-type slip for 'cakāreṇeti' (read through). Collation (batch07): SK 2817 clean.
- textual BM's first pratīka 'loṭ ceti' has no counterpart in our kaumudī, nor in NSP p. 475 (scan page-0485), which goes straight from the sūtra to 'praiṣo vidhiḥ'. The Wikisource printed kaumudī (uttara-3/0039) opens with 'loṭ ca'; BM's copy of the kaumudī evidently carried it. Recorded as a BM-text variant; not supplied in the block.
SK 2818 · A 3.3.164V
लिङ् चोर्ध्वमौहूर्तिके ॥ २८१८ ॥
liṅ cordhvamauhūrtike
liṅ cordhvamauhūrtike — And liṅ [comes, in the senses praiṣa, atisarga and prāptakāla — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2817 —] when [the action] belongs to [the time] after a muhūrta (ūrdhvamauhūrtika) [, the kṛtyas and loṭ also coming, by 'ca'].
Rule. In the same three senses, liṅ comes when the action belongs to the time after a muhūrta. A muhūrta is a period of the day. ūrdhvamauhūrtika means "belonging to [the time] after a muhūrta". By ca, the kṛtyas and loṭ of SK 2817 still come too.
Bhaṭṭoji says praiṣa and the rest are carried forward from SK 2817.
Example.
yaj, the action to be done after a muhūrta
→ liṅ (this rule) → muhūrtād ūrdhvaṃ yajeta
→ or loṭ → muhūrtād ūrdhvaṃ yajatām
→ or a kṛtya → yaṣṭavyam
"After a muhūrta, you should sacrifice."
Applies when / blocked by. What is new here? Both commentators answer: liṅ in prāptakāla. SK 2208 already gives liṅ in praiṣa and atisarga, but it does not name prāptakāla. Both commentators add the point of ca. liṅ alone would block loṭ and the kṛtyas, so ca keeps them.
Watch out. SK 2788 has the same words, liṅ cordhvamauhūrtike. It is a different sūtra (A 3.3.9). There the condition is a root that marks loṭ's meaning, and the rule works on the future.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
प्रैषादयोऽनुवर्तन्ते । मुहूर्तादूर्ध्वं यजेत यजतां वा । यष्टव्यम् ॥
praiṣa etc. [praiṣa, atisarga, prāptakāla] are carried forward (anuvṛtti).
muhūrtād ūrdhvaṃ yajeta yajatāṃ vā ('after a muhūrta, you should sacrifice', with liṅ yajeta or loṭ yajatām). yaṣṭavyam ([with the kṛtya] 'it is to be sacrificed').
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 486—लिङ् चोर्ध्व—। प्राप्तकालविशेषेऽप्राप्तस्य लिङो विधानार्थमिदं सूत्रम् । प्रैषातिसर्गयोस्तु पूर्वेण प्राप्त एव लिङ् । लोट् कृत्यानां कालविशेषेस्मिन् लिङा वाधा माभूदिति चकारः ॥—पूर्वसूत्रविषय इति । प्रैषादय ऊर्ध्वमौहूर्तिके इति चानुवर्तत इति भावः
Bālamanoramā
लिङ् चोर्ध्वमौहूर्तिके - लिङ् चोध्र्वमौहूर्तिके ।लोडर्थलक्षणे चे॑त्युत्तरमेवंजातीयकमेव सूत्रं लिङ्लड्लुङ्लृड्विधायकं प्राक् पठितम् । तत्र ऊध्र्वमौहूर्तिकशब्दो व्याख्यातः । प्रैषादय इति । तथा च मुहूर्तादूध्र्वं यजेत यजतां यष्टव्यमिति । अत्र प्राप्तकालेऽप्राप्तस्य लिङो विधिः, विध्यादिसूत्रे लिङ्विधौ प्राप्तकालस्य ग्रहणाऽभावात् । प्रैषातिसर्गयोस्तु विध्यादिसूत्रेणैव लिङ् सिध्यति । लिङ एवात्र विधौ तु तेन लोटः कृत्यानां च बाधः स्यात्, अतश्चकारेण तेषामपि विधिरिति ज्ञेयम् ।
translator notes
- BM: a sūtra of exactly this kind, prescribing liṅ, laṭ, luṭ and lṛṭ [BM's text has 'luṅ', which must be luṭ: SK 2787 'pakṣe luḍlṛṭau'; SK 2788's examples āgacchet, āgacchati, āgamiṣyati, āgantā], was read earlier after loḍarthalakṣaṇe ca (SK 2788, A 3.3.9); the word ūrdhvamauhūrtika was explained there. With praiṣa etc. [carried forward]: muhūrtād ūrdhvaṃ yajeta, yajatām, yaṣṭavyam. Here liṅ is prescribed in prāptakāla, where it was not obtained, since the vidhyādi sūtra [SK 2208] does not mention prāptakāla; in praiṣa and atisarga liṅ is established by the vidhyādi sūtra itself. Were liṅ alone prescribed here, it would block loṭ and the kṛtyas; hence 'ca' prescribes them too. Followed: the bracketed anuvṛtti and the bracket on 'ca' in sutra_en.
- TB: this sūtra serves to prescribe liṅ, not otherwise obtained, in prāptakāla of this particular [time]; in praiṣa and atisarga liṅ is obtained by the earlier [rule] anyway. 'ca' is so that loṭ and the kṛtyas are not blocked by liṅ in this particular time. Agrees with BM; followed.
- translator The gloss of ūrdhvamauhūrtika ('belonging to [the time] after a muhūrta') follows the kaumudī under SK 2788: 'ūrdhvaṃ muhūrtād bhavaḥ ūrdhvamauhūrtikaḥ'. The kaumudī's own example uses 'muhūrtād ūrdhvam'.
- textual The tail of sk.2818.t1 ('—pūrvasūtraviṣaya iti …') is TB on SK 2819, which has no t1 of its own. Collation (batch07; NSP printed p. 476, scan page-0486): SK 2818 clean.
SK 2819 · A 3.3.165V
स्मे लोट् ॥ २८१९ ॥
sme loṭ
sme loṭ — When sma [is upapada], loṭ [comes, in praiṣa, atisarga and prāptakāla after a muhūrta — 'praiṣa etc.' and 'ūrdhvamauhūrtike' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2817 and SK 2818].
Rule. With sma, only loṭ comes. Bhaṭṭoji places it "in the domain of the preceding sūtra". So the three senses and "after a muhūrta" both still hold; the Tattvabodhinī says both are carried forward.
Bhaṭṭoji calls it an exception to liṅ and to the kṛtyas.
Example.
yaj, after a muhūrta, with sma
→ loṭ only (this rule) → ūrdhvaṃ muhūrtād yajatāṃ sma
"After a muhūrta, do sacrifice."
The Bālamanoramā: here neither liṅ nor a kṛtya comes.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
पूर्वसूत्रस्य विषये । लिङः कृत्यानां चापवादः । ऊर्ध्वं मुहूर्ताद् यजतां स्म ॥
In the domain of the preceding sūtra [— praiṣa etc. and 'ūrdhvamauhūrtike' being carried forward (anuvṛtti)].
[It is] an exception (apavāda) to liṅ and to the kṛtyas.
ūrdhvaṃ muhūrtād yajatāṃ sma ('after a muhūrta, do sacrifice').
Bālamanoramā
स्मे लोट् - स्मे लोट् । पूर्वसूत्रेति । तथा च मुहूर्तादुपरितनकाले प्रैषातिसर्गप्राप्तकालेषु लोडेव स्यान्नतु लिङ् कृत्याश्चेत्यर्थः । तदाह — लिङः कृत्यानां चापवाद इति ।
translator notes
- TB, printed under sk.2818.t1: on 'pūrvasūtraviṣaye' — the point is that praiṣa etc. and ūrdhvamauhūrtike are carried forward (anuvartate). Followed: the bracketed anuvṛtti in sutra_en and the block.
- BM: so, in praiṣa, atisarga and prāptakāla in the time after a muhūrta, only loṭ comes, not liṅ or the kṛtyas; hence 'an exception to liṅ and the kṛtyas'. Agrees with TB; followed.
- textual SK 2819 has no TB block of its own; its TB is the last item of sk.2818.t1. Collation (batch07; NSP printed p. 476, scan page-0486): SK 2819 clean.
SK 2820 · A 3.3.166V
अधीष्टे च ॥ २८२० ॥
adhīṣṭe ca
adhīṣṭe ca — And [when sma is upapada — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2819 —, loṭ comes] in [the sense of] adhīṣṭa (respectful urging) [, 'ūrdhvamauhūrtike' no longer applying].
Rule. With sma, loṭ comes in adhīṣṭa, respectful urging. "With sma" is carried forward from SK 2819. "After a muhūrta" no longer applies.
Both commentators call it an exception to liṅ; the Bālamanoramā specifies the liṅ given in adhīṣṭa (SK 2208). It explains adhīṣṭa as an act preceded by respectful treatment.
Example.
a request to one's teacher, with sma
→ loṭ of adhyāpaya "teach" (this rule) → tvaṃ sma adhyāpaya
"Do teach, [sir]." The Bālamanoramā says it is said to a teacher.
Applies when / blocked by. One sūtra, sme loḍ adhīṣṭe ca, would have given the same forms. Why two? Both commentators answer: the split (yogavibhāga) stops "after a muhūrta" from carrying on. So in respectful urging that condition does not apply.
The next Aṣṭādhyāyī sūtra, kālasamayavelāsu tumun (A 3.3.167), is taught later, as SK 3179 in chapter 69. The Bālamanoramā notes this.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
स्म उपपदेऽधीष्टे लोट् स्यात् । त्वं स्म अध्यापय ॥
When sma is upapada [— carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2819 —], loṭ comes in [the sense of] adhīṣṭa (respectful urging) [, 'ūrdhvamauhūrtike' no longer being carried forward].
tvaṃ sma adhyāpaya ('do teach, [sir]').
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 486—अधीष्टे च । लिङोऽपवादः । योगविभागस्तु ऊर्ध्वमौहूर्तिकाननुवृत्त्यर्थः
Bālamanoramā
अधीष्टे च - अधीष्टे च । लोट् स्यादिति । अधीष्टे विहितस्य लिङोऽपवादः । अधीष्टं सत्कारपूर्वको व्यापार इत्युक्तम् । त्वं स्माध्यापयेति गुरुं प्रत्युक्तिः ।स्मे लोडधीष्टेचे॑त्येकसूत्रत्वेन सिद्धे योगविभागस्तु ऊध्र्वमौहूर्तिक इत्यनुवृत्तिनिवृत्त्यर्थः ।कालसमयवेलासु तुमु॑न्नित्युत्तरसूत्रं तु कृदधिकारे व्याख्यास्यते ।
translator notes
- BM: 'loṭ syāt' — an exception to the liṅ prescribed in adhīṣṭa [by SK 2208]. adhīṣṭa is an activity preceded by respectful treatment (satkārapūrvako vyāpāraḥ), as stated. tvaṃ smādhyāpaya is said to a teacher (guru). Though [the same] would result from a single sūtra 'sme loḍ adhīṣṭe ca', the splitting of the rule (yogavibhāga) is to stop the anuvṛtti of ūrdhvamauhūrtike. Followed: the last bracket of sutra_en and '[sir]' in the gloss.
- TB: an exception to liṅ; the yogavibhāga is to stop the anuvṛtti of ūrdhvamauhūrtike. Agrees with BM; followed.
- BM: the next sūtra, kālasamayavelāsu tumun [A 3.3.167, SK 3179], will be explained in the kṛt section. Recorded: it accounts for the gap between this unit and SK 2821.
- textual NSP printed p. 476 (scan page-0486) reads 'sme upapade 'dhīṣṭe', ours 'sma upapade 'dhīṣṭe' — the same words, with and without the sandhi e + u (collation batch07, not a difference). SK 2820 otherwise clean.
SK 2821 · A 3.3.168V
लिङ् यदि ॥ २८२१ ॥
liṅ yadi
liṅ yadi — When yad [is upapada, together with kāla, samaya or velā — 'kālasamayavelāsu' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from kālasamayavelāsu tumun, SK 3179], liṅ [comes].
Rule. When yad is the upapada together with kāla "time", samaya "occasion" or velā "hour", liṅ comes. The three words are carried forward from kālasamayavelāsu tumun (SK 3179). Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "when the word yad is upapada, and kāla, samaya, velā, liṅ comes."
Both commentators call it an exception to tumun; the Bālamanoramā adds, to all the lakāras.
Example.
kāla + yad + bhuj "to eat"
→ liṅ (this rule) → kālaḥ samayo velā vā yad bhuñjīta bhavān
"It is time, the occasion, or the hour, that you should eat."
The Bālamanoramā construes: "that you should eat — that is its time".
Applies when / blocked by. The Tattvabodhinī carries praiṣa and the rest into this rule as well. So in yatkālaḥ pacati there is no liṅ, it says. Bhaṭṭoji does not state this, and the Bālamanoramā is silent.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
यच्छब्दे उपपदे कालसमयवेलासु च लिङ् स्यात् । कालः समयो वेला वा यद्भुञ्जीत भवान् ॥
When the word yad is upapada, and [one of the words kāla, samaya, velā ('time', 'occasion', 'hour') — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 3179 —] is upapada too, liṅ comes.
kālaḥ samayo velā vā yad bhuñjīta bhavān ('it is time, the occasion, or the hour, that you should eat').
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 486—लिङ्यदि ॥—कालसमयवेलासु चेति । उपपदेष्विति वचनविपरिणामेन संबध्यते । तुमुनोऽपवादः ॥—यद्भुञ्जीतेति । यत्कालः पचतीत्यत्र तु न प्रैषादीनामनुवृत्तेः
Bālamanoramā
लिङ् यदि - लिङ्यदि । कालसमयवेलास्वत्यनुवर्तते । सर्वलकारापवादः, तुमुनपवादश्च । भुञ्जीत भवानिति यत्तस्यकालः समयो वेला वेत्यन्वयः ।
translator notes
- BM (sk.2821.b1, pratīka 'liṅ yadi'): 'kālasamayavelāsu' is carried forward (anuvartate). [The rule is] an exception to all the lakāras and an exception to tumun. Construe: 'that you should eat — that is its time, occasion or hour'. Followed: the bracketed anuvṛtti in sutra_en and the block, and the gloss.
- TB on 'kālasamayavelāsu ca': it is connected as 'upapadeṣu' by a change of number (vacanavipariṇāma); an exception to tumun. On yad bhuñjīta: but in yatkālaḥ pacati [liṅ] does not [come], because praiṣa etc. are carried forward (anuvṛtti). Followed for 'upapada'; TB's claim that praiṣa etc. are carried into this rule is recorded — the kaumudī does not state it, and BM does not mention it.
- textual The BM on SK 2821 (sk.2821.b1) was re-filed here 2026-10-05 from sk.2815.b1, where it had been filed. Collation (batch07; NSP printed p. 476, scan page-0486): SK 2821 clean.
- translator kālasamayavelāsu tumun is A 3.3.167, the sūtra immediately preceding; the SK treats it in the kṛt section (SK 3179), as BM under SK 2820 says. The SK number is the translator's identification.
SK 2822 · A 3.3.169V
अर्हे कृत्यतृचश्च ॥ २८२२ ॥
arhe kṛtyatṛcaśca
arhe kṛtyatṛcaś ca — When a fit [agent] (arha) is understood, the kṛtya [suffixes] and tṛc [come], and [by 'ca'] liṅ.
Rule. When a fit agent (arha) is understood, the kṛtya affixes and tṛc come. By ca, liṅ comes as well. tṛc is the affix of voḍhā, given below. Bhaṭṭoji writes only cāl liṅ, "by ca, liṅ".
Example.
vah "to carry, to marry"; you are fit to do it
→ liṅ (by ca) → tvaṃ kanyāṃ vaheḥ
"You are fit to marry the girl."
The Tattvabodhinī gives the forms of the other affixes:
→ a kṛtya → tvayā kanyā voḍhavyā or vahanīyā
→ tṛc → tvaṃ kanyāṃ voḍhā.
Applies when / blocked by. The kṛtyas and tṛc already come by their own rules. Why name them here? The Tattvabodhinī reports the answer. The new thing is liṅ for fitness. The other affixes are named so that this liṅ does not block them.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
चाल्लिङ् । त्वं कन्यां वहेः ॥
By 'ca', liṅ [comes as well].
tvaṃ kanyāṃ vaheḥ ('you are fit to marry the girl').
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 486–487—अर्हे—। योग्ये कर्तरि गम्यमाने कृत्यतृचो भवन्ति । त्वया कन्या वोढव्या । वहनीया । त्वं कन्यां वोढा ॥—कन्यां वहेरिति । कन्योद्वहने योग्यस्त्वमित्यर्थः । नन्वर्हे किमर्थं कृत्यतृचो विधीयन्ते । यावता सामान्येन विहितत्वादनर्हेऽपि भविष्यन्तीति चेत् । अत्राहुः । अर्हतायां द्योत्यायामप्राप्तो लिङ् विधीयते, तेन तु लिङा वाधा माभूदिति कृत्यतृचोर्विधानम् । न च वासरूपविधिना समीहितसिद्धिः । स्त्र्यधिकारादूर्ध्वं तदप्रवृत्तेरिति ॥—धातुसंबन्धे—। इह धात्वोर्विशेषणविशेष्यभावादिसंबन्धोऽनुपपन्नः स्वार्थस्मारणेनोपक्षीणत्वात् । पदार्थसंसर्गो वाक्यार्थः, कारकविशिष्टा क्रिया चेति स्वीकारात् । शब्दानुगमादृते न शाब्दोऽस्ति प्रत्यय इत्यवष्टभ्य शाब्द- वोधे शब्दोऽपि भासत इत्यभ्युपगमेऽपि शब्दस्य स्वार्थं प्रत्येव प्रकारत्वं न तु शब्दान्तरं प्रति । तथा च धातुसंबन्धो वाक्येन न दुष्यते इति तस्य वाक्यार्थत्वासंभवाद्धातुशब्देन धात्वर्थो लक्ष्यते । ननु ‘धातोः कर्मणः समानकर्तृकात्—’ इति सन्विधौ कर्मत्वं समानकर्तृकत्वं च धातोरर्थद्वारकं विशेषणमाश्रितं तथेहापि धात्वोरर्थद्वारकः संबन्धोऽस्त्विति चेत् । मैवम् । तथा हि सति परस्परसंबन्धार्थवोधकानेकधातुप्रयोग एव प्रत्ययाः स्युस्ततश्च गोमानासीत् गोमान् भवितेत्यादि न सिध्येत् । न ह्यत्र ‘वसन् ददर्श’ इत्यत्र वर्तमानकालो वसिरिव वर्तमानकालोऽस्तिः प्रयुज्यते । न चाप्रयुज्यमानस्य धात्वन्तरेण संबन्धोऽस्ति । अर्थयोः संबन्धाभ्युपगमे धातुद्वयाभावेऽपि धात्वर्थद्वयस्य सत्त्वात् गोमानासीदित्यादौ नानुपपत्तिः । तदेतदभिप्रेत्याह—धात्वर्थानामिति । विषयवहुत्वापेक्षं वहुवचनम् । एकैकविषयापेक्षायां तु धात्वर्थयोरिति बोध्यम् । एतच्च मनोरमानुसारेण व्याख्यातम् । केचित्तु धात्वोरर्थद्वारकसंबन्धेऽभ्युपगते गोमानासीद्भवितेत्यादि न सिध्येदिति मनोरमोक्तं चिन्त्यमेव । ‘तत्करोति तदाचष्टे’ इत्यत्रैव ‘तदस्यास्त्यस्मिन्—’ इत्यत्राप्येकत्ववर्तमानत्वयोरविवक्षितत्वात्प्रकृतसूत्रानपेक्षयैव तत्सिद्धेः । न ह्यत्र मतुब्विधौ वर्तमाने लडित्यादाविव कालविशेषपरिग्रहोऽस्तीत्याहुः । तद्भाष्यकैयटाद्यननुगुणम् । तथा हि भाष्ये प्रत्यय इत्यनुवर्तमाने पुनरत्र प्रत्ययग्रहणं किमर्थमित्याक्षिप्य अधातुप्रत्ययानामपि संबन्धे साधुत्वं यथा स्यात् गोमानासीत् भविता वेति समाहितम् । कैयटेन तु ‘तदस्यास्त्यस्मिन्निति—’ मतुप् प्रत्ययो वर्तमानसत्ताविशिष्टप्रकृत्यर्थयुक्तो विहित इत्युक्तम् । तथा च मतुब्विधावस्तीत्यत्र एकत्वस्याविवक्षितत्वेऽपि वर्तमानत्वं विवक्षितमिति तद्ग्रन्थबलादवगम्यते । किंच दण्डिनमानयेत्युक्ते वर्तमानसत्ताविशिष्टदण्डयुक्त एवानीयते नान्यः । तथा च आसीत् भवितेति तिङन्तपदानुरोधेन गोमानित्यत्र गावोऽस्यासन् गावोऽस्य भवितार इत्यतीतानागतसत्ताविशिष्टप्रकृत्यर्थयुक्तो मतुप्प्रत्ययः प्रकृतसूत्रेणैव विधीयते न तु तदुक्तरीत्या लभ्यत इति दिक् । ननु तत्तद्विधिवाक्यैरेव स्वविषये प्रत्ययाः सिद्धाः किमनेन सूत्रेणेत्यत आह—यत्र काल इति । ‘वर्तमानसामीप्ये—’ इत्यारभ्य कालान्यत्वं प्रायेण प्रतिपाद्यते तदेव चेह गृह्यत इति भावः । वनानि पश्यन् ययावित्यादौ वर्तमानभूतकालादिप्रत्ययेषु को वा स्वकालात्प्रच्युतो भवतीत्याकाङ्क्षायामाह—तिङ्वाच्येति । प्रधानानुरोधेन गुणस्य नयनमुचितं न तु विपरीतमिति भावः ॥—प्रत्यया इति । कालान्तरभाजो भवन्तीत्यर्थः ।—भूते लडिति । एवं चोषित्वा ददर्शेत्यर्थः ॥—अतीतेति । अतीतवासकर्ता कर्ता यस्य दर्शनस्येति वहुव्रीहिः ॥—सोमयाजीति । ‘करणे युज्यते इति भवित्वाति विवित्तो गवता एकाह—सोमेन यक्ष्यमाण इति । एवं च पश्यन् ययावित्यत्र दृशेर्भूते लट् । दृष्ट्वा ययावित्यर्थः । ‘निवेदयिष्यतो मनो न विव्यये’ इत्यत्र तु वेदयतेर्भूते लट् तस्य ‘लटः सद्वा’ इति शतृप्रत्ययः निवेदनं कृतवत् इत्यर्थं इत्याशूह्यम् । स्यादेतत् । भावि कृत्यमासीदिल्यत्र सूत्ररीत्या भाविशब्दस्य भूतकालत्वे स्वीकृते सत्यतीतं भवनमित्यर्थादासीच्छब्दस्याप्येककर्तृकमतीतं भवनमित्यर्थात् भाव्यासीच्छब्दयोर्युगपत्प्रयोगो न स्यात् । भाविशब्दार्थस्य आसीच्छब्देनैव लाभात् । ततश्चैतावन्तं कालं भावितया व्यवहृतं तदिदानीमासीदिल्यर्थोऽत्रावश्यं स्वीकर्तव्यः । स्वीकृते तु गोमानासीदिल्यत्रापि गोमानिति व्यवहारविषय आसीदिल्यर्थोऽस्तु । ‘वसन् ददर्श—’ इत्यादौ भूते लक्षणया यथायथं लङादिः स्वीकर्तव्यः । सोमयाजीत्यत्र तु भूत एव णिनिप्रत्यये जातेऽपि भवितेति लुडन्तसमभिव्याहारे सति सोमयाजीति व्यवहरिष्यमाण इत्यध्याहारेण णिनेर्भविष्यदर्थे लक्षणया वा प्रयोगो भवेदिति किमनेन सूत्रेणेति चेत् । अत्राहुः । अध्याहारलक्षणाप्रयुक्तक्लेशं विनैव प्रायशो निर्वाहार्थः सूत्रारम्भः । न हि भावि कृत्यमासीदिल्यादौ क्वचिदध्याहारादिकमगत्या भवतीति सर्वत्र तत्स्वीकर्तुमुचितमिति
Bālamanoramā
अर्हे कृत्यतृचश्च - अर्हे कृत्यतृचश्च । चाल्लिङिति । योग्येकर्तरि गम्ये कृत्याः, तृच्, लिङ् चेत्यर्थः । त्वं कन्यां वहेरिति । कन्याविवाहस्य योग्य इत्यर्थः ।
translator notes
- BM: when a fit agent (yogye kartari) is understood, the kṛtyas, tṛc and liṅ [come]. tvaṃ kanyāṃ vaheḥ means 'you are fit for marrying the girl'. Followed: 'a fit [agent] … is understood' in sutra_en (TB likewise: yogye kartari gamyamāne) and the gloss.
- TB: when a fit agent is understood, the kṛtyas and tṛc come: tvayā kanyā voḍhavyā, vahanīyā; tvaṃ kanyāṃ voḍhā. On kanyāṃ vaheḥ: 'you are fit for marrying the girl'. Agrees with BM; followed.
- TB: Objection — why are the kṛtyas and tṛc prescribed for arha, when they are already prescribed generally and would come in non-arha too? Answer, 'they say': liṅ, not otherwise obtained, is prescribed when fitness is to be conveyed, and the kṛtyas and tṛc are prescribed so that they are not blocked by that liṅ. Nor is the purpose served by the vāsarūpa rule, since it does not operate after the strī-adhikāra (OCR 'rugradhikārāddharva…', scan 'stryadhikārād ūrdhvaṃ'). Recorded (not in the kaumudī).
- textual The part of sk.2822.t1 from '—dhātusaṃbandhe—' to the end is TB on SK 2824 (dhātusambandhe pratyayāḥ), which has no t1 of its own. Collation (batch07; NSP printed p. 476, scan page-0486): SK 2822 clean.
SK 2823 · A 3.3.172V
शकि लिङ् च ॥ २८२३ ॥
śaki liṅ ca
śaki liṅ ca — When capability (śak) [is to be conveyed], liṅ [comes], and [by 'ca'] the kṛtya [suffixes].
Rule. In the sense of capability (śak), liṅ comes. By ca, the kṛtya affixes come too. Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "liṅ comes in [the sense of] capability; by ca, the kṛtyas."
The Bālamanoramā explains śak as a noun of the bare action, "being able". So the rule applies when capability is understood.
Example.
vah "to carry"; you are able to do it
→ liṅ (this rule) → tvaṃ bhāraṃ vaheḥ
"You are able to carry the load."
Bhaṭṭoji then recalls, in its place in the order, māṅi luṅ (SK 2219), from chapter 44. With the particle māṅ, luṅ comes: mā kārṣīḥ "do not do [it]".
Then he asks: how are mā bhavatu "let it not be" and mā bhaviṣyati "it will not be" correct? The luṅ after māṅ is an exception to all the lakāras. His answer: "this is not māṅ; it is the word mā." The Bālamanoramā adds that mā without the marker ṅ is also listed among the indeclinables.
Is māṅi luṅ then needed? The Bālamanoramā says yes. na māṅyoge (SK 2228) gives luṅ forms without the augment aṭ or āṭ after māṅ. māṅi luṅ is needed so that those forms are used in the domain of every lakāra.
Watch out. vaheḥ also appeared in SK 2822. There it meant "you are fit to"; here it means "you are able to". The form is the same; the rule and the sense differ.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
शक्तौ लिङ् स्यात् चात्कृत्याः । त्वं भारं वहेः । माङि लुङ् SK 2219 मा कार्षीः । कथं मा भवतु मा भविष्यतीति । नायं माङ् किंतु माशब्दः ॥
liṅ comes in [the sense of] capability (śakti); by 'ca', the kṛtyas.
tvaṃ bhāraṃ vaheḥ ('you are able to carry the load').
māṅi luṅ (SK 2219): mā kārṣīḥ ('do not do [it]').
How then [are] mā bhavatu ('let it not be') and mā bhaviṣyati ('it will not be') [correct, since the luṅ after māṅ is an exception to all the lakāras]? This is not māṅ; it is the word mā.
Bālamanoramā
शकि लिङ् च - शकि लिङ् च । 'शक्' इति भावे क्विबन्तम् । शक्तौ गम्यमानायामित्यर्थः । भारं त्वं वहेरिति । वोढुं शक्त इत्यर्थः ।माङि लु॑ङिति व्याख्यातमपि क्रमप्राप्तं विशेषविवक्षया पुनः स्मार्यते । ननु सर्वलकारापवादोऽयमित्युक्तम्, एवं सति मा भवतु मा भविष्यतीति कथमिति शङ्क्यते — कथमिति । परिहरति — नायं माङिति । किंत्विति । ङकारानुबन्धविनिर्मुक्तस्यापि अव्ययेषु पाठादिति भावः । नच माशब्दमादाय मा भवत्वित्यादिप्रयोगसत्त्वेमाङि लु॑ङिति व्यर्थमिति वाच्यं, सर्वलकारविषये 'न माङ्योगे' इत्यडाड्रहितलुङन्तप्रयोगार्थं तदावश्यकत्वात् ।
translator notes
- BM: 'śak' is a kvip-form in the sense of the bare action (bhāve); i.e. when capability is understood. bhāraṃ tvaṃ vaheḥ means 'you are able to carry [it]'. Followed: 'capability' in sutra_en and the gloss.
- BM: 'māṅi luṅ', though already explained [SK 2219], is recalled here because it comes in its turn in the sūtra order, for the sake of a particular point. Objection: it was said that this [luṅ] is an exception to all the lakāras; how then mā bhavatu, mā bhaviṣyati? Answer: this is not māṅ but the word mā, since [mā] free of the marker ṅ is also read among the indeclinables. Nor may one say that, since mā bhavatu etc. are possible with the word mā, māṅi luṅ is pointless: it is needed for the use, in the domain of all the lakāras, of luṅ-forms without aṭ or āṭ by na māṅyoge [SK 2228]. Followed: the bracket in the objection sentence ('since the luṅ after māṅ is an exception to all the lakāras').
- textual SK 2823 has no TB, in our source or in the print: NSP printed p. 476 (scan page-0486, read) passes in the TB band from '—arhe—' (SK 2822) straight to '—dhātusaṃbandhe—' (SK 2824). Collation (batch08): SK 2823 clean; the cross-reference 'SK 2219' matches the print's '2219'.
SK 2824 · A 3.4.1V
धातुसम्बन्धे प्रत्ययाः ॥ २८२४ ॥
dhātusambandhe pratyayāḥ
dhātusambandhe pratyayāḥ — When there is a relation between the meanings of dhātus (dhātusambandha), pratyayas [prescribed for one time also come in another time (kāle), per BM].
Rule. When the meanings of two roots are related, an affix taught for one time may also come in another. Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "when there is a relation between the meanings of roots, the affixes [that have been] stated for a particular time may come in another [time] too."
Which affix shifts? Bhaṭṭoji answers. The action expressed by the finite verb (the tiṅ-form) is the principal one (pradhāna). So the affixes shift after the root of the subordinate action (guṇabhūta), to conform to the principal.
Example.
vas "to dwell" (subordinate) + dṛś "to see" (principal, in liṭ: dadarśa)
→ laṭ after vas in the past (this rule), replaced by the affix śatṛ → vasan
→ vasan dadarśa "dwelling, he saw".
Bhaṭṭoji gives the meaning: "a seeing whose agent is the agent of a past dwelling". Both commentators restate it as uṣitvā dadarśa "having dwelt, he saw".
Bhaṭṭoji's second example:
somayājy asya putro bhavitā "a son of his will be a soma-sacrificer".
The affix ṇini in somayājī is taught for the past by karaṇe yajaḥ (SK 2996, chapter 67). The Bālamanoramā says it is read here as future, to fit the luṭ form bhavitā. Bhaṭṭoji gives the meaning: a coming into being whose agent is the son who will sacrifice with soma.
Applies when / blocked by. Why does the liṭ of dadarśa not shift to the present instead? Both commentators answer. The Bālamanoramā: the seeing is the principal action; the dwelling serves it. Both put the rule the same way: the subordinate is brought into line with the principal, not the reverse.
Watch out. "dhātu" in the sūtra means the root's meaning, not two roots actually spoken. Both commentators say so. Both commentators add gomān āsīt "he was an owner of cows". The affix matup is taught for a present "is"; here it stands with a past "was". No second root sits beside āsīt, yet the two meanings are related.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
धात्वर्थानां संबन्धे यत्र काले प्रत्यया उक्तास्ततोऽन्यत्रापि स्युः । तिङ्वाच्यक्रियायाः प्राधान्यात्तदनुरोधेन गुणभूतक्रियावाचिभ्यः प्रत्ययाः । वसन् ददर्श । भूते लट् । अतीतवासकर्तृकर्तृकं दर्शनमर्थः । सोमयाज्यस्य पुत्रो भविता । सोमेन यक्ष्यमाणो यः पुत्रस्तत्कर्तृकं भवनम् ॥
When there is a relation between the meanings of dhātus (dhātvartha), the pratyayas [that have been] stated for a particular time may come in another [time] too.
Because the action expressed by the tiṅ [-ending] (tiṅvācyakriyā) is principal (pradhāna), the pratyayas [take on another time] after [the dhātus] expressing the subordinate action (guṇabhūtakriyā), in conformity with that [principal action].
vasan dadarśa ('dwelling, he saw'): laṭ [— replaced by śatṛ —] in the past (bhūte). The meaning is: a seeing whose agent is the agent of a past dwelling (atītavāsakartṛkartṛkaṃ darśanam).
somayājy asya putro bhavitā ('a son of his will be a soma-sacrificer'): [the meaning is] a coming into being (bhavana) whose agent is that son who will sacrifice with soma.
Bālamanoramā
धातुसम्बन्धे प्रत्ययाः - धातुसम्बन्धे । धातुशब्देन धात्वर्थो लक्ष्यते । धात्वोः संबन्ध इति विग्रहः, संबन्धस्य द्विनिष्ठत्वात् । तथा च धात्वर्थयोः संबन्धे सति प्रत्ययाः स्युरिति लब्धम् । कस्मिन्नर्थे इत्याकाङ्क्षायां काले इति गम्यते, 'वर्तमाने ल' डित्यारभ्य तत्तत्कालविशेषेष्वेव प्रत्ययविधिदर्शनात् । तत्र तत्तद्विधिभिरेव तत्तत्कालविशेषे प्रत्ययसिद्धेस्ततोऽन्यस्मिन्काले इति गम्यते । तदाह — धात्वर्थानामित्यादिना । धात्वर्थयोरित्यर्थः । उदाहरणबहुत्वाभिप्रायं बहुवचनम् ।वर्तमानसामीप्ये वर्तमानवद्वे॑त्यादिसूत्रे यत्र काले ये प्रत्यया उक्तास्ते धात्वर्थयोः सम्बन्धे गम्ये ततोऽन्यस्मिन्नपि काले स्युरिति यावत् । तथा च 'वसन् ददर्शे' इत्यत्र लडादेशः शतृप्रत्ययो भूतकाले इतिसिद्धं भवति । ननुवसन् ददर्शे॑त्यत्र भूते लडिव वर्तमाने लिडित्यपि स्यादित्यत आह — तिङन्तेति । 'वसन् ददर्शे' त्यादौ तिङन्तवाच्या दर्शनादिक्रिया प्रधानम् । वासादिक्रिया तु दर्शनादिक्रियार्थत्वाद्गुणभूता । अतः प्रधानभूतदर्शनादिक्रियानुसारेण गुणभूतवासादिक्रियावाचिभ्य एव इह प्रत्ययाः कालान्तरेषु विधीयन्त इत्यर्थः । भूते लडिति । एवं च उषित्वा ददर्शेत्यर्थ- । तदाह — अतीतेति । अतीतवासे कर्ता यस्येति विग्रहः ।सप्तमीविशेषणे बहुव्रीहौ॑ इति ज्ञापकाद्व्यधिकरणपदो बहुव्रीहिः । उदाहरणान्तरमाह — सोमयाजीति । सोमेन इष्टवान्यः स सोमयाजी । करणे यजः॑ इति भूते विहितो णिनिः, इह भवितेत्यनद्यतनभविष्यल्लुडन्तप्रधानक्रियानुसारेण अनद्यतनभविष्यति बोध्यः । तदाह — सोमेन यक्ष्यमाण इति । भवनमिति । उत्पत्तिरित्यर्थः ।गोमानासी॑दित्यप्युदाहार्यम् । अत्र गौरस्यास्तीति अस्तिक्रियायां वर्तमानायां तदस्यास्ती॑ति विहितो मतुप् गौरस्यासीदिति भूतायामस्तिक्रियायां भवति, धात्वर्थद्वयसंबन्धस्य सत्त्वात् । एतेन अर्थद्वारके धात्वोः संबन्धे इत्यपि व्याख्यानं परास्तम् । तथा सति परस्परसंबन्धार्थबोधकधातुद्वयप्रयोगे प्रत्यया इत्यर्थलाभाद्गोमानासीदित्यत्र मतुबनापत्तेः । नहि धात्वोरिह प्रयोगोऽस्ति । धात्वर्थयोः सम्बन्धे इत्यर्थाभ्युपगमे तु गोमानासीदित्यत्र धातुद्वयप्रयोगाभावेऽपि धात्वर्थद्व्यस्य सत्त्वादासीदित्यर्थे मतुब्निर्बाध इत्यन्यत्र विस्तरः ।
translator notes
- BM: by the word dhātu its meaning (dhātvartha) is meant by indication (lakṣaṇā); the analysis is 'a relation of two dhātus', since a relation resides in two. So: when there is a relation between two dhātu-meanings, pratyayas come. In what sense? 'Time' (kāle) is understood, since from 'vartamāne laṭ' on the pratyaya-rules are seen to be for particular times; and since those rules already give the pratyayas in their own times, 'in a time other than that' is understood. Followed: '[in another time (kāle), per BM]' in sutra_en and 'another [time]' in the block.
- BM: 'dhātvarthānām' means 'dhātvarthayoḥ' (of the two); the plural is with a view to the plurality of examples. Recorded; the English keeps the plural.
- TB, printed under sk.2822.t1: the plural is with a view to the plurality of domains (viṣayabahutva); taking each domain singly it is 'dhātvarthayoḥ'. Recorded; the English keeps the plural.
- TB, printed under sk.2822.t1: a relation between the dhātus themselves (qualifier–qualificand etc.) is impossible, since a word is exhausted in recalling its own meaning; so 'dhātu' means the dhātu-meaning. Objection: let it be a relation of the dhātus through their meanings, as in the san-rule (dhātoḥ karmaṇaḥ samānakartṛkāt …). No: then the pratyayas would come only where several dhātus conveying related meanings are actually used, and gomān āsīt, gomān bhavitā would not be established, since no present-tense as is used there as vas is in vasan dadarśa; on the relation of meanings, the two dhātu-meanings are present even without two dhātus. TB says this follows the Manoramā, then reports and answers 'some' who find the Manoramā's point doubtful (they derive gomān āsīt from the matup-rule itself, number and present time being unintended there): that is against the Bhāṣya and Kaiyaṭa — the Bhāṣya justifies the restated 'pratyayāḥ' by the correctness of non-dhātu pratyayas too in such relations (gomān āsīt, bhavitā vā), and Kaiyaṭa holds that matup is prescribed for [an owner] qualified by present existence. Recorded (not in the kaumudī).
- BM adds gomān āsīt as a further example: matup, prescribed by tad asyāsty asmin [for a present 'is'], comes for a past 'was', because the two dhātu-meanings are related. By this the explanation 'relation of the dhātus through their meanings' is refuted, since it would require the use of two dhātus, and matup would not come in gomān āsīt. Recorded (not in the kaumudī).
- BM on 'tiṅvācya…': Objection — in vasan dadarśa, just as laṭ comes in the past, why should not liṭ [of dadarśa] come in the present? Answer: the action of seeing etc., expressed by the tiṅ-form, is principal; the dwelling etc. is subordinate, being for the sake of the seeing; so the pratyayas are prescribed in other times only after the [dhātus] expressing the subordinate action, in conformity with the principal. Followed: '[take on another time]' and 'in conformity with that [principal action]'.
- TB, printed under sk.2822.t1: on 'yatra kāle' (answering 'what is this sūtra for, when each rule already gives its pratyayas in its own domain?'): what is meant here is the change of time (kālānyatva) taught mostly from vartamānasāmīpye … on. In vanāni paśyan yayau, which of the present and past suffixes leaves its own time? — answered by 'tiṅvācya…': the subordinate is properly brought into line with the principal, not the reverse. 'pratyayāḥ' means 'come to belong to another time'. Agrees with BM; followed.
- BM on 'bhūte laṭ': the śatṛ that replaces laṭ is established for past time; so the meaning is 'uṣitvā dadarśa' ('having dwelt, he saw'). On 'atīta…': the analysis is 'that whose agent is the one in whom the past dwelling [has its agent]', a vyadhikaraṇa bahuvrīhi justified by the jñāpaka 'saptamīviśeṣaṇe bahuvrīhau'. Followed: '[— replaced by śatṛ —]' and the rendering of the compound.
- TB, printed under sk.2822.t1: on 'bhūte laṭ', the sense is uṣitvā dadarśa; 'atīta…' is a bahuvrīhi: 'that seeing whose agent is the agent of the past dwelling'. Agrees with BM; followed.
- BM on somayājī: one who has sacrificed with soma; ṇini, prescribed in the past by karaṇe yajaḥ [SK 2996], is here to be understood in the non-today future (anadyatana bhaviṣyat), in conformity with the principal action expressed by the luṭ-form bhavitā; hence 'somena yakṣyamāṇaḥ'. bhavana = utpatti ('coming into existence'). Followed: 'coming into being' and 'will sacrifice'.
- TB, printed under sk.2822.t1, ends with an objection — that adhyāhāra (supplying words) and lakṣaṇā could account for vasan dadarśa, somayājī … bhavitā and bhāvi kṛtyam āsīt without this sūtra — and answers, 'they say', that the sūtra is made so that the usage is accounted for mostly without the trouble of adhyāhāra and lakṣaṇā. It also cites nivedayiṣyato mano na vivyaye as laṭ [replaced by śatṛ] of vedayati in the past. Recorded (not in the kaumudī).
- textual SK 2824 has no TB block of its own; its TB is the part of sk.2822.t1 from '—dhātusaṃbandhe—' on, as in the print (NSP printed pp. 476–477, scan page-0486/0487). Collation (batch08): SK 2824 clean (the print's 'dhātusaṃvandhe' is b/v at the resolution limit).
SK 2825 · A 3.4.2V
क्रियासमभिहारे लोट्; लोटो हिस्वौ; वा च तध्वमोः ॥ २८२५ ॥
kriyāsamabhihāre loṭ; loṭo hisvau; vā ca tadhvamoḥ
kriyāsamabhihāre loṭ; loṭo hisvau; vā ca tadhvamoḥ — When kriyāsamabhihāra (repetition or intensity of the action) [is to be made known], loṭ [comes after a dhātu]; in place of [that] loṭ, hi and sva [, which — 'loṭ' being carried forward (anuvṛtti) from the first clause, per BM and TB — have the properties of the hi and sva that are tiṅ-substitutes of loṭ]; and in the domain of ta and dhvam, [hi and sva come] optionally.
Rule. The sūtra has three clauses.
- When repetition or intensity of the action is to be made known, loṭ comes after the root.
- In place of that loṭ, hi and sva come. They are exceptions to the verb endings (tiṅ).
- Where the endings ta and dhvam would stand, hi and sva are optional.
Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "when repetition or intensity is to be made known, loṭ comes after a root, and in its place hi and sva come — an exception to the tiṅ."
Repetition is paunaḥpunya, "again and again". Intensity is bhṛśārtha. Both commentators add that the repetition is the root's own meaning; loṭ only makes it known.
Example.
yā "to go", the going repeated
→ loṭ (this rule) → hi in its place (this rule) → yāhi.
adhi-i "to study", the studying repeated
→ loṭ → sva in its place → adhīṣva.
The full sentences, with the doubling and the following verb, are under SK 2828.
Applies when / blocked by. What are hi and sva? Bhaṭṭoji says hi is named parasmaipada and sva ātmanepada. Both are also named tiṅ. Both commentators say this makes the form a word (pada). The Bālamanoramā says they are treated like the familiar loṭ endings hi and sva.
ta and dhvam are the second person plural endings, both commentators say. Where ta or dhvam would come, hi and sva still replace the loṭ, but only optionally. In the other option ta and dhvam themselves stand: yāta, adhīdhvam. The Bālamanoramā adds that hi and sva never replace ta and dhvam themselves.
Watch out. hi and sva do not take the names of person or of singular. Bhaṭṭoji gives the reason: otherwise prescribing them would be pointless. The Bālamanoramā adds the Bhāṣya's word: hi and sva are wanted for all persons and numbers. So:
- hi comes in every person and number after a parasmaipada root, in the agent sense;
- sva comes after an ātmanepada root, for the action itself (bhāva), the object (karman) or the agent (kartṛ).
Siddhānta-kaumudī
पौनः पुन्ये भृशार्थे च द्योत्ये धातोर्लोट् स्यात्तस्य च हिस्वौ स्तस्तिङामपवादः । तौ च हिस्वौ क्रमेण परस्मैपदात्मनेपदसंज्ञौ स्तस्तिङ्संज्ञौ च । तध्वमोर्विषये तु हिस्वौ वा स्तः । पुरुषैकवचनसंज्ञे तु नानयोरतिदिश्येते । हिस्वविधानसामर्थ्यात् । तेन सकलपुरुषवचनविषये परस्मैपदिभ्यो हिः कर्तरि । आत्मनेपदिभ्यः स्वो भावकर्मकर्तृषु ॥
When repetition (paunaḥpunya) or intensity (bhṛśārtha) is to be made known (dyotya), loṭ comes after a dhātu, and in its place (tasya) hi and sva come — an exception (apavāda) to the tiṅ [-endings].
And those [two], hi and sva [— 'loṭ' being carried forward (anuvṛtti) from the first clause into 'loṭo hisvau', per BM and TB —], have the designations parasmaipada and ātmanepada respectively, and the designation tiṅ.
In the domain (viṣaya) of ta and dhvam, however, hi and sva come optionally.
But the designations of person (puruṣa) and of singular (ekavacana) are not extended (na atidiśyete) to these two — by force of (sāmarthya) the [very] prescription of hi and sva.
Hence, in the domain of every person and number, hi [comes] after parasmaipadin [dhātus], in the sense of the agent (kartari); sva after ātmanepadin [dhātus], in the senses of bhāva, karman and kartṛ.
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 487— क्रियासमभिहारे—॥—द्योत्य इति । क्रियासमभिहारो धातोरेवार्थः । लोट् तु द्योतक इति भावः ॥—तस्य च हिस्वौ स्त इति । ननु लोट् इत्यनेन तिङो लक्षयित्वा तिङामेव हिस्वौ विधीयेताम् । तथा सति तिङन्तत्वात्पदत्वं लभ्यत इति गुणोऽप्यस्ति । वा च तध्वमोरिति वाक्यशेषोऽपि स्वरसतः संगच्छते । अन्यथा येन नाप्राप्तन्यायेन हिस्वयोस्तिङपवादत्वे सति तध्वमोः स्थाने तयोर्विकल्पेन विधानासंभवादुक्तवाक्यशेषो दुरुपपाद इति चेत् । अत्राहुः । लोट्शब्दस्य तिङ्लक्षणा न न्याय्या असंजातविरोधित्वेनोपक्रमस्य प्रावल्याद्विषयसप्तम्याश्रयणेन वाक्यशेषसोपपन्नत्वाच्च । किंच तिङामादेशत्वे तिप्सिप्मिपां स्थाने विहितस्य हेः स्थानिवद्भावेन पित्त्वात् ङित्त्वाभावेन लुनीहीत्यत्र ‘ई हल्यघोः’ इतीत्वं न स्यात् । ब्रूहीत्यत्र ‘ब्रुव ईट्’ इतीडागमे ब्रवीहि इति स्यात् । तृण्ढीत्यत्र तु ‘तृणह इम्’ इतीमागमे तृणेढीति स्यात् । किंच लादेशानामेव परस्मैपदात्मनेपदसंज्ञे न तु लादेशतिङादेशानामिति सर्वेषां तिङां द्वावपि हिस्वौ पर्यायेण स्यातां न तु तिवादीनां हिस्तङां स्व इति पदव्यवस्थया । ततश्च लकारस्यैवादेशौ हिस्वौ न तु तिङामित्यवश्यं स्वीकर्तव्यमिति । नन्वेवं द्वयोरपि ‘लः परस्मैपदम्’ इति परस्मैपदसंज्ञा स्यात्ततश्च परस्मैपदिभ्य एव हिस्वौ स्यातामत आह—तौ चेति । अयं भावः । लोटो हिस्वौ इति वाक्ये ‘क्रियासमभिहारे लोट्’ इति वाक्याल्लोडित्यनुवर्तते तच्च हिस्वाविल्यस्य विशेषणम् । न च हिस्वौ लोटो भवत इति सामर्थ्याल्लोड्धर्मकावित्यर्थः संपद्यते । तत्रापि मुख्यलोट्संबन्धिनो धर्मस्य प्रत्ययत्वस्यातिदेशो व्यर्थः । स्थानिवत्त्वेनैव तत्सिद्धेः किंतु स्थानिवद्भावलब्धलोड्व्यपदेशकौ तिङ्भूतौ यौ हिस्वौ तयोरेव धर्म इहातिदिश्यते । केचित्तु क्रियासमभिहारे लोडित्यनन्तरं लाघवात्तस्य हिस्वाविति वक्तव्ये लोड्ग्रहणसामर्थ्याल्लोड्धर्मकावेव हिस्वौ लोटः स्थाने भवत इत्यर्थः संपद्यते । तथा च पूर्वोक्तरीत्या तिङ्भूतौ यौ हिस्वौ तयोरेव धर्म इहातिदिश्यत इति सिद्धमिष्टम् । एवं च लोटो हिस्वाविति वाक्ये पूर्ववाक्याल्लोड्ग्रहणं नानुवर्तनीयमित्याहुः ॥—तिङ्संज्ञौ चेति । तेन पदत्वं ‘तिङ्कतिङः’ इति च भवति ॥—हिस्वविधान इति । यदि हि पुरुषवचनसंज्ञे अपि स्यातां तर्हि युष्मत्सामानाधिकरण्ये एकत्वे च सत्येव हिस्वाभ्यां भाव्यं तत्र च व्यर्थो हिस्वविधिरिति भावः ॥—हिः कर्तरीति । स्वो भावकर्मकर्तृष्विति । उक्तं च कैयटेनापि । हिशब्दस्य कर्ता वाच्यः स्वशब्दस्य तु भावकर्मकर्तार इति । अत्र नव्याः । अल्पे हस्वे इत्यादौ कप्रलयवक्त्रियासमभिहारे लोडयं स्वार्थिक एव । न लस्मिल्लोटि ‘लः कर्मणि च’ इत्याद्यर्थो नाभ्युपेयः प्रयोजनाभावात् । यदि तु हिशब्दस्य कर्ता अर्थः स्यात् पुनः पुनरतिशयेन वा यानं ह्यन्तस्यार्थ इति वक्ष्यमाणग्रन्थः स्वरसतो न संगच्छेत् । याहियाहीत्यादौ तु कर्त्रादिप्रतीतिर्यातीत्यादिसमभिव्याहारेण सुलभैव । यथा एधांचक्रे इत्यत्र तङादेशात्प्रागेव आमः परस्य लेलुक्यामन्ते संख्याप्रतीत्यभावेऽपि चक्रे इत्यनुप्रयोगवशेन एककर्तृका वृद्धिरूपा क्रियेत्यविद्यमानापि संख्या प्रतीयते, तथैव हिस्वान्तेष्वपि कालकारकसंख्याप्रतीतिर्यातीत्याद्यनुप्रयोगवलेन भवतीत्याहुः । स्यादेतत् । ‘क्रियासमभिहारे हिस्वौ लोड्वा च तध्वमोः’ इति सूत्रमस्तु । तथा च हिस्वौ लोटौ न भवत इति लोड्धर्मकावित्यर्थः पूर्वोक्तरीत्या स्यादिति सर्वेष्टसिद्धौ किमनेन लोट इति षष्ठ्यन्तकरणेनेति चेत् । अत्राहुः । हिस्वयोर्यदि लोट्स्थानिकत्वं न स्वीक्रियते तर्हि तयोर्लोडादेशवद्भावेन ‘ई हल्यघोः’ इत्यादिप्रवृत्त्या लुनीहीत्यादिसिद्धावपि हिस्वान्तस्य लोडन्तत्वं न सिध्येत् । तथा च हन्त चेत्यनुदात्तविकल्पो न स्यात् । हन्त प्रलुनीहिप्रलुनीहीत्ययं लुनाति । एवं च लोडन्तत्वलाभार्थं लोटो हिस्वाविति विधीयते । यदि तु हिस्वौ लोडित्युक्तेऽपि लोड्वद्भावाश्रयेण लोडन्तकार्यं हन्त चेति स्वरविकल्पः सिध्यतीति ब्रूषे तर्हि स्थानिवद्भावलब्धलोड्धर्मकौ हिस्वावित्यर्थस्यानाश्रयणाल्लोडादेशकार्याणि परस्मैपदात्मनेपदसंज्ञादीन्यपि न सिध्यन्ति । तथा च पूर्वोक्तदोषस्तदवस्थः स्यात् । लोट् लोटो हिस्वौ इत्युक्ते तु स्थानिवद्भावेन हिस्वयोर्लोट्त्वाल्लोडन्तकार्यं स्वरविकल्पः सिध्यति ‘क्रियासमभिहारे लोट्’ इति वाक्याल्लोडित्यनुवर्त्य हिस्वौ लोडिति प्रागेव व्याख्यातत्वाल्लोडादेशवद्भावेन परस्मैपदात्मनेपदसंज्ञादीन्यपि सिध्यन्तीति
Bālamanoramā
क्रियासमभिहारे लोट्, लोटो हिस्वौ, वा च तध्वमोः - क्रियासमभि । अत्र चत्वारि वाक्यानि । तत्रक्रियासमभिहारे लो॑डिति प्रथमं वाक्यम् । पौनः पुन्यं भृशार्थश्च क्रियासमभिहार इत्युक्तम् । क्रियासमभिहारे इति धात्वर्थविशेषणम् । क्रियासमभिहारविशिष्टक्रियावृत्तेर्धातोरिति लभ्यते । लोट् तु द्योतकः । तदाह — पौनः पुन्ये भृशार्थे च द्योत्ये इति । क्रियासमभिहारविशिष्टक्रियावृत्तेर्धातोर्लोडिति यावत् । सर्वलकारापवादः ।लोटो हिस्वा॑विति द्वितीयं वाक्यं व्याचष्टे — तस्येति । पूर्ववाक्यविहितस्य लोटो हिस्वावादेशौ स्त इत्यर्थः । तिङामपवाद इति । अपवादावित्यर्थः । प्रत्येकाभिप्रायमेकवचनम् । ननु हिस्वयोरुभयोरपि लादेशत्वात्परस्मैपदत्वं स्यात् । तथा सति हेः परस्मैपदत्वं, स्वादेशस्य त्वात्मनेपदत्वमितीष्टा व्यवस्था न सिध्येत् । अस्य स्वादेशस्य तङ्प्रत्याहारप्रविष्टत्वाऽभावेनतङानावात्मनेपदम् इत्यस्याप्रवृत्तेः ।तिप्रतस्झी॑त्यादिसूत्रोपात्तेषु ताऽऽतामादिष्वेव तङ्संज्ञाप्रवृत्तेः । किंच अनयोर्हिस्वयोःतिप्तस्झी॑ति सूत्रानन्तर्भूतत्वात्तिङ्त्वं च दुर्लभमित्यत आह — तौ चेति ।लोटो हिस्वा॑विति द्वितीयवक्ये तावत्क्रियासमभिहारे लोडिति प्रथमवाक्याल्लोडित्यनुवृत्तं स्थानषष्ठ्या विपरिणतं तृतीयं वाक्यं संपद्यते । तत्र हि 'लोटो हिस्वौ' इति द्वितीयवाक्याद्धिस्वावित्यनुवृत्तं धर्मपरमाश्रीयते । तथा च लोडादेशौ हिस्ववद्भवत इत लभ्यते । कौ भवत इत्याकाङ्क्षायां पूर्ववाक्योपस्थितौ हिस्वाविति गम्यते । ततश्च याविमौ तिङनन्तर्भूतौ हिस्वावुक्तौ तौ प्रसिद्धलोडादेशतिङन्तर्भूतहिस्ववद्भवत इति तृतीयं वाक्यं पर्यवस्यति । तिङन्तर्भूतहिस्वयोस्तावत्क्रमात्परस्मैपदत्वमात्मनेपदत्वं तिङ्त्वं च प्रसिद्धम् । अतः प्रकृतौ हिस्वौ क्रमात्परस्मैपदात्मनेपदसंज्ञौ तिङ्संज्ञौ चेत्यर्थः । तिङ्त्वात्पदत्वसिद्धिः । ननुवा च तध्वमो रिति तध्वमोर्हिस्वादेशविकल्पविधिरनुपपन्नः, लोडादेशभूतहिस्वयोस्तिङपवादतया लोटस्तध्वमोरप्रसक्तेरित्यत आह — तध्वमोर्विषयेत्विति । स्थानषष्ठीमाश्रित्यलोडादेशतध्वमोः स्थाने हिस्वा॑वित्यर्थ इति न भ्रमितव्यम्, येनोक्तदोषः स्यात्, किंतु विषयविषयिभावः षष्ठर्थः । तथा च तध्वमोर्विषये लोटो हिस्वौ, पक्षे तध्वमाविति फलतीत्यर्थः ।अत्र मध्यमपुरुषबहुवचनमेव तशब्दो गृह्यते, व्याख्यानात्, ध्वंसाहचर्याच्च । ननु हिस्वयोरनयोर्मध्यमपुरुषैकवचनत्वस्याप्यतिदेशाद्युष्मत्सामानाधिकरण्ये एकत्वे च सत्येव हिस्वौ स्याताम् । तथा चइणौ हिस्वौ सर्वेषां पुरुषाणां, सर्वेषां च वचनानामिष्येते॑ इति भाष्यमनुपपन्नमित्यत आह — हिस्वविधानेति । यदि हिस्वयोर्मध्यमपुरुषैकवचनसंज्ञे स्यातां तर्हि युष्मत्सामानाधिकरण्ये एकत्वे च सत्येवलोटो हिस्वौ स्याताम्, अन्यत्र तु यथायथं तिबाद्यादेशाः स्युः । तथा सति लोटो हिस्वविधानमनर्थकं स्यादतो न पुरुषवचनातिदेश इत्यर्थः । तेनेति । हिस्वयोः पुरुषवचनातिदेशाऽभावेन क्रमात् परस्मैपदात्मनेपदसंज्ञालाभेन चेत्यर्थः । सकलेति । सकलपुरुषवचनविषये हिर्भवति, स च भवन् परस्मैपदिभ्य एव कर्तर्येव भवति, न त्वात्मनेपदिभ्यो भावकर्मकर्तृष्वित्यर्थः,शेषात्कर्तरि परस्मैपदमित्युक्तेरिति भावः । आत्मनेपदिभ्यः स्व इति ।अनुदात्तङित आत्मनेपदम्,॒भावकर्मणोरित्यादिसूत्रविषयेभ्यो धातुभ्यो भावकर्मकर्तृषु लोटः स्व एव भवतीत्यर्थः । अनयोरत्र क्रमात् परस्मैपदात्मनेपदसंज्ञाविध्यभावे तु लादेशत्वेन उभयोः परस्मैपदत्वात् कर्तर्येव परस्मैपदमात्मनेपदिभ्योऽपि स्यादिति भावः ।
translator notes
- BM: there are four sentences (vākya) here: (1) kriyāsamabhihāre loṭ; (2) loṭo hisvau, explained by 'tasya …': hi and sva are substitutes for the loṭ of the first sentence; (3) a sentence obtained by carrying forward: from the first, 'loṭ' is carried into the second (recast with the sixth case of the substituend), and from the second 'hisvau' is carried forward and taken as standing for a property (dharmapara), yielding 'these hi and sva, which are not among the tiṅ, are like the well-known hi and sva that are substitutes of loṭ and among the tiṅ' — whence their parasmaipada/ātmanepada and tiṅ designations; (4) vā ca tadhvamoḥ. Followed: the bracket in sutra_en and 'And those [two] … have the designations …' as an extension (atideśa).
- TB: in the sentence loṭo hisvau, loṭ is carried forward (anuvartate) from 'kriyāsamabhihāre loṭ' as a qualifier of hisvau; what is extended is the property of the hi and sva that are tiṅ and get the name loṭ by sthānivadbhāva. TB also reports 'some' who hold that, since 'tasya hisvau' would have sufficed, the very mention of loṭ yields 'hi and sva having the properties of loṭ, in place of loṭ', so that loṭ need not be carried forward. TB and BM agree on the anuvṛtti; the dissenting view is recorded.
- TB on 'dyotye': kriyāsamabhihāra is the meaning of the dhātu itself; loṭ only makes it known (dyotaka). Followed: 'to be made known (dyotya)'.
- BM: kriyāsamabhihāre qualifies the dhātu-meaning — after a dhātu denoting an action qualified by kriyāsamabhihāra; loṭ is the dyotaka; an exception to all the lakāras. 'tiṅām apavādaḥ' means 'exceptions', the singular being with reference to each. Agrees with TB; followed.
- TB on 'tasya ca hisvau': Objection — let loṭ indicate the tiṅ, and hi and sva be substitutes for the tiṅ; then padahood would follow from being tiṅ-final, and 'vā ca tadhvamoḥ' would fit naturally. Answer, 'they say': taking loṭ to indicate tiṅ is not proper; besides, as a substitute of tip/sip/mip, hi would be pit by sthānivadbhāva and not ṅit, so lunīhi would lack the ī of ī halyaghoḥ, brūhi would become bravīhi by bruva īṭ, and tṛṇḍhi would become tṛṇeḍhi by tṛṇaha im; and every tiṅ would take both hi and sva by turns instead of hi for tip etc. and sva for taṅ. So hi and sva are substitutes of the lakāra itself. Followed: 'in its place (tasya)' = in place of loṭ.
- BM on 'tau ca': Objection — both hi and sva, as substitutes of la, would be parasmaipada [by laḥ parasmaipadam], so that the wanted distribution (hi parasmaipada, sva ātmanepada) would fail: sva is not within the pratyāhāra taṅ, the taṅ-name applying only to ta, ātām etc. of the tiptasjhi… list; and not being in that list, neither would be tiṅ. Hence the extension. From being tiṅ follows padahood. Followed (the reason for the designations).
- TB on 'tiṅsaṃjñau ca': hence padahood, and [the accent rule] tiṅṅ atiṅaḥ applies. Recorded.
- BM on 'tadhvamor viṣaye tu': one must not take the sixth case as one of substituend (sthānaṣaṣṭhī) — 'hi and sva in place of the ta and dhvam that replace loṭ' — for ta and dhvam could not arise at all once hi and sva are exceptions to the tiṅ; the sixth case expresses the relation of domain and what is in the domain (viṣayaviṣayibhāva): in the domain of ta and dhvam, hi and sva for loṭ; in the other option ta and dhvam. 'ta' is the second-person plural only, by the explanation (vyākhyāna) and by association with dhvam. Followed: 'in the domain (viṣaya) of ta and dhvam'.
- TB (under SK 2828, on 'pakṣe'): ta means the second-person plural by association with dhvam; though dhvam's being ātmanepada might suggest the third-person singular ta, the shared properties of plural and second person decide. Agrees with BM; followed.
- BM on 'hisvavidhānasāmarthyāt': if hi and sva also had the second-person and singular designations, they could come only when co-referent with yuṣmad and in the singular, other cases taking tip etc. as usual, and the prescription of hi and sva for loṭ would be pointless; this agrees with the Bhāṣya's 'hi and sva are wanted for all persons and all numbers'. Followed ('by force of the [very] prescription').
- TB on 'hisvavidhāne': if they also had the person and number designations, hi and sva could occur only when co-referent with yuṣmad and in the singular, and there the hi-sva rule would be pointless. Agrees with BM; followed.
- BM on 'tena …': hi comes in all persons and numbers, but only after parasmaipadin dhātus and only in the agent sense, by śeṣāt kartari parasmaipadam; sva comes after dhātus falling under anudāttaṅita ātmanepadam, bhāvakarmaṇoḥ etc., in bhāva, karman and kartṛ. Without the separate parasmaipada/ātmanepada designations both, as la-substitutes, would be parasmaipada, and parasmaipada would come in the agent sense even after ātmanepadin dhātus. Followed.
- TB on 'hiḥ kartari … svo bhāvakarmakartṛṣu': Kaiyaṭa says the same — the agent is expressed by hi; bhāva, karman and agent by sva. Agrees with BM; followed.
- TB reports 'the moderns' (navyāḥ): this loṭ, like the suffix ka in alpe hrasve, is svārthika in kriyāsamabhihāra; the senses of laḥ karmaṇi ca etc. need not be assumed for it, and time, kāraka and number in yāhi yāhi … are understood from the following yāti, as number is in edhāṃ cakre from the auxiliary. TB then defends the wording 'loṭo hisvau' (sixth case) against 'kriyāsamabhihāre hisvau loḍ vā ca tadhvamoḥ': without substitution for loṭ, the hi/sva-form would not count as loṭ-final, and the optional anudātta of hanta ca would fail (hanta pralunīhi pralunīhīty ayaṃ lunāti). Recorded (not in the kaumudī).
- textual Ours prints the sūtra as three parts separated by semicolons (the corpus convention); NSP printed p. 477 (scan page-0487) gives it as one sūtra with one number (3.4.2). Ours 'paunaḥ punye' has a space where the print has 'paunaḥpunye'. Collation (batch08): SK 2825 otherwise clean.
SK 2826 · A 3.4.3V
समुच्चयेऽन्यतरस्याम् ॥ २८२६ ॥
samuccaye'nyatarasyām
samuccaye 'nyatarasyām — When an aggregation (samuccaya) [of actions is to be made known], [what was stated in the preceding sūtra comes] optionally [— 'kriyā', 'loṭ', 'loṭo hisvau' and 'vā ca tadhvamoḥ' carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2825, without 'samabhihāre', per BM].
Rule. When an aggregation (samuccaya) of several actions is to be made known, what SK 2825 taught comes optionally. Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "when the aggregation of several actions is to be made known, what was stated before comes optionally."
What was stated before? Both commentators list it: loṭ after the root, hi and sva in its place, and the option for ta and dhvam. The Bālamanoramā adds that samabhihāre, the word for repetition, is not carried forward.
Example.
two actions gathered: drinking the gruel, chewing the grain
→ loṭ, then hi (this rule) → piba, khāda
→ saktūn piba dhānāḥ khāda … (completed under SK 2828).
In the other option there is no loṭ: saktūn pibati, dhānāḥ khādati "he drinks the gruel, he chews the grain".
Applies when / blocked by. The Bālamanoramā says the word kriyā "action" is carried forward from SK 2825. So the rule gathers actions only. It does not apply to a gathering of participants in an action.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
अनेकक्रियासमुच्चये द्योत्ये प्रागुक्तं वा स्यात् ॥
When the aggregation (samuccaya) of several actions is to be made known (dyotya), what was stated before [in SK 2825, carried forward (anuvṛtti) without 'samabhihāre' — loṭ after a dhātu, hi and sva in its place, optionally in the domain of ta and dhvam] comes optionally.
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 487–488—समुच्चये—चिनोतेर्भावे ‘एरच्’ इत्यच् ॥— प्रागुक्तमिति । धातोर्लोट् लोटो हिस्वौ तध्वमोर्विषये वेत्यर्थः
Bālamanoramā
समुच्चयेऽन्यतरस्याम् - समुच्चये । समभिहार इति पदरहितंक्रिया, लोट् लोटौ हिस्वौ वा च तध्वमो॑रिति पूर्वसूत्रमनुवर्तते । क्रियेति लुप्तषष्ठीबहुवचनान्तं समुच्चय इत्यत्रान्वेति । तदाह — अनेकक्रियासमुच्चये द्योत्ये इति । एवं च कारकसमुच्चयमाश्रित्य नाऽस्य प्रवृत्तिः । प्रागुक्तमिति । धातोर्लोट्, तस्य हिस्वौ प्रसिद्धहिस्वधर्मकौ तध्वमोर्विषये वा इत्युक्तमित्यर्थः । यथाविध्यनुप्रयोगः । 'क्रियासमभिहारे' इति,समुच्चयेऽन्यतरस्या॑मिति च लोड्विधी उक्तौ, तयोर्मध्ये यत्पूर्वसूत्रं 'क्रियासमभिहारे' इति, तदेतत्पूर्वशब्देन परामृश्यते । तदाह - आद्ये लोड्विधाने इति । विधिमनतिक्रम्य यथाविधि । यस्याः प्रकृतेर्लोड्विहितस्तस्या अनुप्रयोग इति लभ्यते । तदाह — लोट्प्रकृतिभूत एवेति । अत्राऽनुप्रयोगः पश्चात्प्रयोगः, न त्वव्यवहितत्वं विवक्षितम्, लुनीहिलुनीहीत्येवायं लुनाती॑ति भाष्यप्रयोगाल्लिङ्गात् ।
translator notes
- BM: the preceding sūtra minus the word 'samabhihāre' — 'kriyā, loṭ, loṭo hisvau, vā ca tadhvamoḥ' — is carried forward (anuvartate). 'kriyā' is [taken as] a sixth-case plural with the ending elided, construed with samuccaye; hence 'when the aggregation of several actions is to be made known'. So the rule does not operate on an aggregation of kārakas. Followed: the bracketed anuvṛtti in sutra_en and 'of several actions'.
- BM on 'prāguktam': loṭ after a dhātu; for it hi and sva having the properties of the well-known hi and sva; optional in the domain of ta and dhvam. Followed in the bracket.
- TB on 'prāguktam': loṭ after a dhātu, hi and sva for loṭ, optional in the domain of ta and dhvam. Agrees with BM; followed.
- TB: samuccaya is formed from ci (cinoti; OCR 'vinoti', scan page-0487 'cinoteḥ') with the suffix ac in the bhāva sense by erac. Recorded.
- textual The second part of sk.2826.b1, from 'yathāvidhyanuprayogaḥ' on, is BM on SK 2827, which has no b1 of its own. Collation (batch08; NSP printed pp. 477–478, scan page-0487/0488): SK 2826 clean.
SK 2827 · A 3.4.4V
यथाविध्यनुप्रयोगः पूर्वस्मिन् ॥ २८२७ ॥
yathāvidhyanuprayogaḥ pūrvasmin
yathāvidhy anuprayogaḥ pūrvasmin — In the former [of the two loṭ-rules, kriyāsamabhihāre loṭ, SK 2825], the subsequent use (anuprayoga) [of a dhātu] is according to the prescription (yathāvidhi) [, i.e. of the dhātu after which the loṭ was prescribed].
Rule. In the first of the two loṭ rules, SK 2825, the root used afterwards must be the root that took the loṭ. The use of a verb afterwards is called anuprayoga. Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "in the first prescription of loṭ, only the root that is the base of the loṭ is to be used afterwards."
Example.
yāhi yāhi (loṭ of yā)
→ the verb used afterwards is yā again (this rule) → yāhi yāhīti yāti.
The Tattvabodhinī: not gacchati, though it too means "goes".
Applies when / blocked by. Why use a verb afterwards at all? The Tattvabodhinī answers. The hi-form or sva-form does not show number, participant or time. So a following verb is needed anyway; this sūtra only fixes which root it is.
"Afterwards" need not mean "right next to it". The Bālamanoramā cites the Bhāṣya's own usage, lunīhi lunīhīty evāyaṃ lunāti, where evāyam comes between. The Tattvabodhinī reports that the Bhāṣya rejects this sūtra as unneeded.
Siddhānta-kaumudī
आद्ये लोड्विधाने लोट्प्रकृतिभूत एव धातुरनुप्रयोज्यः ॥
In the first prescription of loṭ [SK 2825], only the dhātu that is the base (prakṛti) of the loṭ is to be used subsequently (anuprayojya).
Tattvabodhinī
NSP p. 488—यथाविध्यनु—। पूर्वस्मिन्क्रियासमभिहारविषये । अत्र संख्याकारकादीनां हिस्वान्तादप्रतीतेस्तद्वोधनायानुप्रयोगो न्यायत एव प्राप्तस्तदनुवादेन यथाविधीति नियम्यते । तथा च पक्षे प्राप्तस्य नियमनाद्याहियाहीति गच्छतीत्यादि न भवति । यद्यप्यन्यत्र ‘इन्हन्पूषार्यम्णां शौ’ इत्यादौ नियमशब्देन परिसंख्या व्यवह्रियते ‘सर्वनामस्थाने च’ इत्यादिना शौ तद्भिन्ने च दीर्घे प्राप्ते शेरन्यत्र तु तन्निवृत्तिपरत्वात्तथापीह कदाचिद्यातीत्यस्य कदाचिद्गच्छतीत्यस्यानुप्रयोगे प्राप्ते यथाविधीत्ययमप्राप्तांशपरिपूरणाय ‘व्रीहीनवहन्ति’ इत्यादिवद्विधीयत इति नियमविधिरेवायम् । एतेन मीमांसकप्रसिद्धनियमविधिः शब्दशास्त्रेऽप्रसिद्ध इति वदन्तः परास्ताः
translator notes
- BM, printed under sk.2826.b1: of the two loṭ-rules stated (kriyāsamabhihāre and samuccaye 'nyatarasyām), 'pūrva' refers to the former, kriyāsamabhihāre; hence 'ādye loḍvidhāne'. yathāvidhi = without transgressing the prescription, which yields 'the anuprayoga of that base after which loṭ was prescribed'; hence 'loṭprakṛtibhūta eva'. anuprayoga here means using afterwards; immediate contiguity is not intended, as the Bhāṣya's usage 'lunīhi lunīhīty evāyaṃ lunāti' shows. Followed: the brackets in sutra_en and the block, and 'used subsequently'.
- TB: pūrvasmin = in the domain of kriyāsamabhihāra. Since number, kāraka etc. are not understood from the hi/sva-final form, anuprayoga to convey them is obtained by reason alone (nyāyataḥ); restating it, the sūtra restricts it by 'yathāvidhi', so yāhi yāhīti gacchati and the like do not occur. Though 'niyama' elsewhere (e.g. under inhanpūṣāryamṇāṃ śau) denotes parisaṃkhyā, here, where yāti and gacchati might both be used by turns, 'yathāvidhi' fills out the part not obtained, as in 'vrīhīn avahanti', so this is a niyamavidhi proper; this refutes those who say the Mīmāṃsakas' niyamavidhi is unknown in grammar. Followed: 'only the dhātu …' as a restriction.
- TB, printed under sk.2828.t1 (on 'itiśabdas tu'): the intervening iti and reversed order (yāhi yāhīti yāti) do not stop yāti from being an anuprayoga, 'anu' meaning only 'restating'; this is settled by the Bhāṣya's examples and its rejection (pratyākhyāna) of the sūtra. Since a loṭ-base's own tiṅ-form alone is present to the mind and fit to be used after it, the Bhāṣya rejects the sūtra, as it rejects svaṃ rūpaṃ śabdasya; so another standing example of the Mīmāṃsakas' niyamavidhi has to be sought. Recorded (not in the kaumudī; it qualifies TB's own remark under t1).
- textual SK 2827 has no BM block of its own: its BM is the second part of sk.2826.b1. Collation (batch08; NSP printed p. 478, scan page-0488): SK 2827 clean.
SK 2828 · A 3.4.5V
समुच्चये सामान्यवचनस्य ॥ २८२८ ॥
samuccaye sāmānyavacanasya
samuccaye sāmānyavacanasya — In [the loṭ-rule for] aggregation (samuccaya) [SK 2826, the subsequent use (anuprayoga) — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2827 —] is of [a dhātu] expressing the general [action] (sāmānyavacana).
Rule. In the loṭ rule for aggregation, SK 2826, the root used afterwards is one of general meaning. It must cover all the gathered actions. Bhaṭṭoji's gloss: "when loṭ is prescribed for aggregation, there is subsequent use of a root with a general meaning."
Bhaṭṭoji adds how the sentence is completed. After that root come laṭ or another lakāra, and tip or another ending, as the case requires. They make the number, the time and the person clear.
A vārttika then adds the doubling: kriyāsamabhihāre dve vācye, "in repetition, doubling is to be stated". The Bālamanoramā, citing the Bhāṣya, says it applies to the loṭ-form of SK 2825. Both commentators say it is explained in the section on doubling.
Example. Repetition (SK 2825, 2827), with doubling:
yā + loṭ → yāhi (SK 2825)
→ doubled (the vārttika) → yāhi yāhi
→ iti, then the same root (SK 2827) in laṭ → yāhi yāhīti yāti
"'Go, go!' — so he goes": he keeps going.
Bhaṭṭoji splits the meaning. yāhi yāhi means going again and again, or intensely. yāti means one agent's going in the present. iti shows that the two are construed as one and the same going (abhedānvaya, construal of identity).
The same with other persons and numbers: yāhi yāhīti yātaḥ, yānti, yāsi, yāthaḥ, yātha.
In the second plural, the other option keeps the ending ta: yāta yāteti yūyaṃ yātha "you [all] keep going".
In other lakāras: yāhi yāhīty ayāsīt (luṅ) "he kept going", or yāsyati (lṛṭ) "he will keep going".
With sva: adhīṣva adhīṣvety adhīte "he keeps studying".
In the second plural, the other option keeps dhvam: adhīdhvam adhīdhvam iti yūyam adhīdhve "you [all] keep studying".
Aggregation (SK 2826, 2828), with no doubling:
pā "to drink" and khād "to chew" → loṭ, hi (SK 2826) → piba, khāda
→ iti, then a root of general meaning (this rule): abhyavaharati "he takes a meal"
→ saktūn piba dhānāḥ khādety abhyavaharati
"'Drink the barley-gruel, chew the parched grain' — thus he takes his meal."
The Bālamanoramā explains the words. Drinking is taking a liquid without chewing. Chewing is for solid food. Taking a meal is the general act that covers both.
With sva: annaṃ bhuṅkṣva dādhikam āsvādayasvety abhyavaharate "'eat the rice, relish the curd-dish' — thus he takes his meal".
In the second plural, with ta and dhvam:
pibata khādatety abhyavaharatha;bhuṅgdhvam āsvādayadhvam ity abhyavaharadhve (the printed text reads bhuṅdhvam).
In the other option, hi and sva. The Tattvabodhinī gives piba khādety abhyavaharatha and bhuṅkṣva āsvādayasvety abhyavaharadhve.
Bhaṭṭoji: the gathered actions are construed as one with the general action. Without loṭ: saktūn pibati, dhānāḥ khādati; annaṃ bhuṅkte, dādhikam āsvādayate.
Applies when / blocked by. By these rules Bhaṭṭoji explains a verse. The Bālamanoramā ascribes it to Māgha's poem:
purīm avaskanda lunīhi nandanaṃ muṣāṇa ratnāni harāmarāṅganāḥ / vigṛhya cakre namucidviṣā balī ya ittham asvāsthyam ahardivaṃ divaḥ
"The mighty one who, warring with the enemy of Namuci, day after day caused heaven's disquiet thus: 'storm the city, cut down Nandana, plunder the jewels, carry off the women of the immortals'." The Bālamanoramā identifies the mighty one as Rāvaṇa and the enemy of Namuci as Indra.
Here avaskanda, lunīhi, muṣāṇa and hara are aggregation loṭ. The general verb used afterwards is asvāsthyaṃ cakre "caused disquiet". Bhaṭṭoji gives its sense: the act of disquieting, made up of storming, cutting down and the rest. It is past, not of today, out of the speaker's sight, with one agent.
Watch out. Bhaṭṭoji rejects two readings of the verse.
- Some take it as "he stormed again and again", that is, as repetition. That is wrong, for two reasons. First, the word kriyāsamabhihāre does not carry over into SK 2826. (The printed text reads anuvṛtteḥ, "because it carries over". Bhaṭṭoji's commentators read ananuvṛtteḥ, "because it does not carry over", and the doubling argument requires it. The Bālamanoramā's ground: the Bhāṣya does not state that it carries over.) Second, repetition would require the loṭ-forms to be doubled, and they are not.
- Some take avaskanda and the rest as second person singular. That too is wrong. Under SK 2825 Bhaṭṭoji said that hi and sva take no name of person or number. Both commentators limit the error to person and number; the Tattvabodhinī adds that the forms are indeed loṭ.
With this the section on the meanings of the lakāras ends. Two closing lines (colophons) follow. The first ends the lakārārtha section. The second says that the whole tiṅanta, the verb, is complete. Chapter 66 begins the kṛdanta, words formed with kṛt affixes, with dhātoḥ (SK 2829).
Siddhānta-kaumudī
समुच्चये लोड्विधौ सामान्यार्थस्य धातोरनुप्रयोगः स्यात् । अनुप्रयोगाद्याथायथं लडादयस्तिबादयश्च । ततः संख्याकालयोः पुरुषविशेषार्थस्य चाभिव्यक्तिः ।
When loṭ is prescribed for aggregation (samuccaye loḍvidhau) [SK 2826], there is subsequent use (anuprayoga) of a dhātu with a general meaning (sāmānyārtha).
After the subsequently used [dhātu] (anuprayogāt) come laṭ etc. and tip etc., as is appropriate in each case (yathāyatham). From them [arises] the manifestation (abhivyakti) of number and time, and of the meaning of the particular person (puruṣaviśeṣa).
vārttikaक्रियासमभिहारे द्वे वाच्ये
(vārttika) In kriyāsamabhihāra, doubling (dve) is to be stated.
(वार्तिकम्) ॥ याहियाहीति याति । पुनःपुनरतिशयेन वा यानं ह्यन्तस्यार्थः । एककर्तृकं वर्तमानकालिकं यानं यातीत्यस्य । इतिशब्दस्त्वभेदान्वये तात्पर्यं ग्राहयति । एवं यातः । यान्ति । यासि । याथः । याथ । यातयातेति यूयं याथ । याहियाहीत्ययासीति । यास्यति वा । अधीष्वाधीष्वेत्यधीते । ध्वंविषये पक्षेऽधीध्वमधीध्वमितियूयमधीध्वे । समुच्चये तु सक्तून्पिब धानाः खादेत्यभ्यवहरति । अन्नं भुङ्क्ष्व दाधिकमास्वादयस्वेत्यभ्यवहरते । तध्वमोस्तु पिबत खादतेत्यभ्यवहरथ । भुङ्ध्वमास्वादयध्वमित्यभ्यवहरध्वे । पक्षे हिस्वौ । अत्र समुच्चीयमानविशेषाणामनुप्रयोगार्थेन सामान्येनाभेदान्वयः । पक्षे सक्तून् पिबति । धानाः खादति । अन्नं भुङ्क्ते । दाधिकामास्वादयते । एतेन पुरीमवस्कन्द लुनीहि नन्दनं मुषाण रत्नानि हरामहाङ्गनाः । विगृह्य चक्रे नमुचिद्विषा बली य इत्थमस्वास्थ्यमहर्दिवं दिव इति व्याख्यातम् । अवस्कन्दन-वनादिरूपा भूतानद्यतनपरोक्षा एककर्तृका अस्वास्थ्यक्रियेत्यर्थात् । इह पुनःपुनश्चस्कन्देत्यादिरर्थ इति तु व्याख्यानं भ्रममूलकमेव । द्वितीयसूत्रे क्रियासमभिहार इत्यस्यानुवृत्तेः । लोडन्तस्य द्वित्वापत्तेश्च । पुरीमवस्कन्देस्यादि मध्यमपुरुषैकवचनमित्यपि केषांचिद्भ्रम एव । पुरुषवचनसंज्ञे इह नेत्युक्तत्वात् ॥
yāhi yāhīti yāti ('he goes, "go! go!"', i.e. he keeps going). The meaning of the hi-final [form] is going repeatedly or intensely; [the meaning] of yāti is a going with a single agent in present time. The word iti makes one grasp that the intended construal is one of identity (abhedānvaya).
Likewise yātaḥ, yānti, yāsi, yāthaḥ, yātha [after yāhi yāhīti].
yāta yāteti yūyaṃ yātha ([in the domain of ta, the other option:] 'you [all] keep going').
yāhi yāhīty ayāsīt ([luṅ] 'he kept going'), or yāsyati ([lṛṭ] 'he will keep going').
adhīṣva adhīṣvety adhīte ('he keeps studying', with sva).
In the domain of dhvam, in the other option: adhīdhvam adhīdhvam iti yūyam adhīdhve ('you [all] keep studying').
But in aggregation (samuccaya): saktūn piba dhānāḥ khādety abhyavaharati ('"drink the barley-gruel, chew the parched grain" — thus he takes his meal'); annaṃ bhuṅkṣva dādhikam āsvādayasvety abhyavaharate ('"eat the rice, relish the curd-dish" — thus he takes his meal').
In [the domain of] ta and dhvam, however: pibata khādatety abhyavaharatha; bhuṅdhvam āsvādayadhvam ity abhyavaharadhve.
In the other option, hi and sva [i.e. piba khāda …, bhuṅkṣva āsvādayasva …, with abhyavaharatha, abhyavaharadhve].
Here the particular [actions] being aggregated are construed as identical with the general [action] that is the meaning of the subsequently used [dhātu].
In the other option [where there is no loṭ]: saktūn pibati, dhānāḥ khādati; annaṃ bhuṅkte, dādhikam āsvādayate.
By this [the verse] is explained: 'purīm avaskanda lunīhi nandanaṃ muṣāṇa ratnāni harāmarāṅganāḥ / vigṛhya cakre namucidviṣā balī ya ittham asvāsthyam ahardivaṃ divaḥ' ('The mighty one who, having made war on the enemy of Namuci, day after day caused the disquiet of heaven in this way: "storm the city, cut down Nandana, plunder the jewels, carry off the women of the immortals"'). For the meaning is: the action of disquieting, consisting in storming, cutting down and so on, past, not of today, out of [the speaker's] sight (bhūtānadyatanaparokṣa), with a single agent.
The explanation that the meaning here is 'punaḥ punaś caskanda' ('he stormed again and again') and so on is founded on error, because 'kriyāsamabhihāre' does not carry over (anuvṛtti) [reading ananuvṛtteḥ with BM and Wikisource; ours and NSP anuvṛtteḥ] into the second sūtra [SK 2826], and because the loṭ-forms would then have to be doubled [by the vārttika above].
The [view] of some, that purīm avaskanda and the rest are second-person singular, is also simply an error, because it has been stated [under SK 2825] that the designations of person and number do not [apply] here.
[Thus ends the section on the meanings of the lakāras (lakārārthaprakriyā).
Thus, in the latter half (uttarārdha) of the Siddhānta-kaumudī composed by Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita, the tiṅanta is complete.]
Tattvabodhinī
alignment inferredNSP p. 488–489—द्वे वाच्य इति । वार्तिकमिदं द्विरुक्तप्रक्रियायां व्याख्यातम् ॥—इतिशब्दस्त्विति । ननु इतिशब्देन व्यवधानाद्यातीत्यस्यानुप्रयोगत्वं कथमिति चेत् । अत्राहुः । अनुशब्दस्येहानुवादित्वमात्रपरत्वाद्यवहितविपरीतप्रयोगयोरिष्टापत्तिः । एतच्च भाष्यकारीयोदाहरणसूत्रप्रत्याख्यानाभ्यां निर्णीयते । न च ‘समुच्चये सामान्यवचनस्य’ इति विशेषस्योक्तत्वात्सूत्रैकदेशस्य पूर्वस्मिन्निति पदस्य वैयर्थ्यमस्तु नाम । यथाविध्यनुप्रयोग इति तु यथाविधीति नियमार्थं स्वीकर्तव्यमेव । अन्यथा याहि याहीति गच्छतीत्यादि स्यादिति वाच्यम् । यस्माल्लोड्विधिस्तत्प्रकृतिकतिङन्तस्यैवोपस्थितत्वेनानुप्रयोक्तुमर्हत्वान्न तूपस्थितपरित्यागेन यत्किञ्चिद्धातुप्रकृतिकतिङन्तस्यानुप्रयोगार्हतेति । अत एव ‘स्वं रूपं शब्दस्य’ इत्यपि सूत्रं प्रत्याख्यातं भाष्यकारेण । ‘अग्नेर्बुक्’ इत्यादौ विधिवाक्यगतस्याङ्गारवाचकाग्निशब्दादेरुपस्थितत्वात् तत्परित्यागेनानुपस्थितवह्न्यादिशब्देभ्यो ढगादिर्न भवेदिति । एवं चास्मिन्प्रत्याख्याते यथाविध्यनुप्रयोगसूत्रे मीमांसकप्रसिद्धनियमविधेः स्थितोदाहरणमन्यदन्वेषणीयमिति दिक् ॥—एवमिति । याहियाहीति यातः याहियाहीति यान्तीत्येवमूह्यमित्यर्थः ॥—पक्षे इति । ‘वा च तध्वमोः’ इत्युक्तत्वात् हिस्वाभावपक्ष इत्यर्थः । तध्वमोरित्यत्र तशब्देन मध्यमपुरुषवहुवचनं गृह्यते ध्वंसाहचर्यात् । यद्यपि ध्वमित्यस्यात्मनेपदत्वमस्तीति तत्साहचर्येण प्रथमपुरुषैकवचनस्य ग्रहणं प्राप्नोति । तथापि बहुवचनत्वमध्यमत्वरूपधर्माभ्यां मध्यमपुरुषवहुवचनमेव गृह्यत इत्याशयेनोदाहरति—यातयातेति यूयमिति । अस्यापि लोटो लङ्वत्त्वात् ‘तस्यस्यमिपाम्—’ इति यात इत्यत्र थस्य तादेशः । विध्यादिलोट्विषये त्वनुप्रयोगेऽपि थस्य तादेशप्रवृत्तेर्यूयं यातेत्यनुप्रयोक्तव्यम् ॥—अधीध्वमधीध्वमिति । ‘सवाभ्याम्—’ इत्यम् ॥—अधीध्वे इति । विध्यादिलोट्विषये तु अधीध्वमित्येवानुप्रयोक्तव्यम् । भावकर्मणोस्तु भूयस्वभूयस्वेति भूयते । पच्यस्वपच्यस्वेति पच्यते इत्याद्युन्नेयम् । ‘समुच्चयेऽन्यतरस्याम्’ इति सूत्रे क्रियासमभिहार इत्यननुवर्तनात् द्वित्वमकृत्वैवोदाहरति—सक्तून् पिब धानाः खादेति ।—अभ्यवहरथेति । विध्यादिलोट्विषये तु अभ्यवहरतेत्यनुप्रयोक्तव्यम् । एवम् अभ्यवहरध्वे इत्यत्राप्युक्तविषये अभ्यवहरध्वमित्यनुप्रयोक्तव्यम् ॥—पक्षे हिस्वाविति । पिव खादेत्यभ्यवहरथ । भुङ्क्ष्व आस्वादस्वेत्यभ्यवहरध्वे इत्युदाहार्यम् ॥—लवनादीति । आदिशब्देन मोषणहरणे ग्राह्ये । अनुवृत्त्यभ्युपगमे वाधकमाह—लोडन्तस्येति ॥—भ्रम एवेति । पुरुषांशे वचनांशे च । लोडंशे तु प्रमैवेति भावः । एवमुक्तोदाहरणेषु हिस्वान्तेषु तिङन्तत्वं यथायथं परस्मैपदात्मनेपदान्तत्वं च सिद्धं पुरुषवचनसंज्ञे तु विधानसामर्थ्याद्धिस्वयोर्नस्त इत्युक्तमिति सर्वेष्टसिद्धिः ॥ ‘कृदतिङ्’ इति तिङ्भिन्नप्रत्ययस्य कृतसंज्ञाकरणात् कृतां तिङ्ज्ञानाधीनज्ञानत्वात्तिङ्निरूपणानन्तरमेव कृतां निरूपणमुचितमिति तिङो निरूप्य कृतो निरूपयितुमाह—धातोरिति । ननु तिङ्निरूपणात्प्रागेव ‘स्पृशोऽनुदके क्विन्’ ‘ऋत्विग्-दधृग्’ इत्यादिना क्विन्नादिनिरूपणं कृतमिति कथमियं भवदुक्तसंगतिः संगच्छत इति चेत् । अत्राहुः । क्विन्नादिनिरूपणस्य तत्र प्रासङ्गिकत्वात्, प्राधान्येन च कृतामत्रैव निरूपणान्नोक्तशङ्कावकाश इति । यद्यपि ‘धातोरेकाचो हलादेः’ इति सूत्राद्धातोरित्यनुवर्तत एव तथापि आर्धधातुकसंज्ञाया आश्रितशब्दव्यापारललाभाय पुनर्धातोरिति ग्रहणं कृतम् । अन्यथा ‘आर्धधातुकं शेषः’ इत्यनेन तिङ्शिद्भिन्नस्य धातोर्विहितप्रत्ययमात्रस्यार्धधातुकसंज्ञायां लूभ्यां पूभ्यामित्यादाविड्गुणौ स्यातां धातोर्विहितत्वेन भ्यामादेरार्धधातुकत्वात्, पुनर्धातुग्रहणे कृते तु तव्यत्तव्यादय इव धातोरित्येवमविधानात् भ्यामादेरार्धधातुकत्वं नेति दिक् । ‘प्राग्लादेशाद्धात्वधिकारः’ इति पक्षोऽयुक्त इत्याशयेनाह—आ तृतीयसमाप्तेरिति । तृतीयाध्यायसमाप्तिपर्यन्तमित्यर्थः । प्राग्लादेशादिति पक्षे तु ‘तिङ्शित्सार्वधातुकम्’ इत्यत्र धातोरित्यधिकाराभावात् शित्प्रत्ययमात्रस्य सार्वधातुकत्वेन शसोऽपि सार्वधातुकत्वे ‘सार्वधातुकमपित्’ इति ङित्वे च हरीनित्यादौ ‘घेर्ङिति’ इति गुणः स्यादिति ज्ञेयम् । स्यादेतत् । धातोर्लकारे सति तस्मिन् परतो नित्यत्वात्करिष्यतीत्यादौ प्रथमं स्यप्रत्ययप्रवृत्तौ तिवाद्यप्रसङ्गः, यत्र तु तिवाद्याश्रयो विकरणस्तत्रैव व्यवधानाभावाद्भवतीत्यादौ तिवादयः स्युरिति चेत् । मैवम् । ‘विकरणेभ्यो नियमो वलीयान्’ इति स्वीकारात् । अथवा विहितविशेषणाश्रयणेन धातोर्विहितस्य लस्येति व्याख्यानादिष्टसिद्धिः । न- न्वेत्रं विहितविशेषणाश्रयणे ‘विद्लृ लाभे’ इत्यस्माद्धातोर्विहितस्य लटः शविकरणव्यवायेऽपि ‘विदो लटो वा’ इति णलादयः स्युरिति चेत् । अत्र हरदत्तः । धातुनाऽत्र विहितं विशेष्यते विदिना लानन्तर्यमिति । तथा चायमर्थः संपद्यते । धातोर्विहितस्य विदोऽनन्तरस्य लटो णलादय इत्यभ्युपगमात् वेत्तेरेव विहितस्य लटो णलादयो भवन्ति न तु विन्दतेर्लट् इति दिक् ॥ विधेयानिर्देशात्स्वरितलाच्चाधिकारसूत्रमिदमित्याह—अधिकारोऽयमिति
Bālamanoramā
समुच्चये सामान्यवचनस्य - समुच्चये सामान्यवचनस्य । उच्यतेऽनेनेति वचनः । सामान्यवाचिन इत्यर्थः । फलितमाह — सामान्यार्थकस्येति । समुच्चीयमानक्रियासामन्यवाचिन इत्यर्थः । अनुप्रयोगादिति । अनुप्रयोगादिति । अनुप्रयुज्यमानादित्यर्थः । तत इति । अनुप्रयुज्यमानधातुप्रकृतिकलडादिभिरित्यर्थः । हिस्वाभ्यां तु न सङ्ख्याकारकाद्यभिव्यक्तिः । तथा च भाष्यं — हिस्वान्तमव्यक्तपदार्थकं तेनाऽपरिसमाप्तोऽर्थः॑ इत्यादि ।क्रियासमभिहारे द्वे वाच्ये॑ इति वार्तिकं द्विरुक्तप्रक्रियायां व्याख्यातम् । इदमाद्यसूत्रविहितलोडन्तविषयमिति भाष्ये स्पष्टम् । क्रियासमभिहारे लोटमुदाहरति — याहियाहीति यातीति । भाष्ये 'इति' शब्दस्य दर्शनादिति भावः । ह्यन्तस्येति । याहि याहीत्यस्येत्यर्थः । एककर्तृकमिति । यातीति यानिकर्तुस्तदेकत्वस्य च प्रतीतेरित्यर्थः । अभेदान्वये इति । तथा च पुनः पुनरतिशयेन वा यद्यानं तदात्मकमेककर्तृकं वर्तमानं यानमिति बोधः । तिङन्तेषु सर्वत्र क्रियाविशेष्यक एव बोध इति सिद्धान्तादेवमुक्तिः । एवमिति । याहि याहीति यातः । याहि याहीति यान्तीतित्यादिसकलपुरुषवचनेषूदाहार्यमित्यर्थः । याहि याहीति ययौ । याहि याहीति याता । याहि याहीति यास्यति । याहि याहीति यातु । लोण्मध्यमपुरुषबहुवचनतादेशविषये लोटो हिभावविकल्प उक्तः — वा च तध्वमोरिति । तत्र हिभावपक्षे याहि याहीति यूयं यातेति सिद्धवत्कृत्य अभावपक्षे आह — यात यातेति यूयं यातेति । याहि याहीत्ययात् । याहि याहीति यायात् । लुङ्याह — याहि याहीत्ययासीदिति । लृङि उदाहरति — अयास्यद्वेति । याहि याहीत्ययास्यदिति लृङि रूपम् । यास्यति वेति पाठे लृटि उदाहरणम् । क्रमस्तु न विवक्षितः । पक्षे इति । ध्वंविषये स्वादेशाऽभावपक्षे इत्यर्थः । यूयमधीध्वमिति — लोण्मध्यमपुरुषबहुवचनम् । भावकर्मणोस्तु भूयस्व भूयस्वेति भूयते । पच्यस्व पच्यस्वेति पच्यते इत्युदाहार्यम् । अथसमुच्चये सामान्यवचनस्ये॑ त्यस्योदाहरति — समुच्चये त्विति । अभ्यवहरतीति । पानं द्रवद्रव्यस्य । दन्तसंमर्दनं विना भक्षणम् । खादनं तु — कठिनद्रव्यस्य चर्वणम् । तयोः सामान्यरूपमभ्यवहरणम्, यथाकथंचिद्भक्षणात्मकत्वात् । पक्षे हिस्वाविति । तध्वमोर्विषये कदाचिद्धिस्वादेशौ पक्षे इत्यर्थः ।पिब खादेत्यभ्यवहरते॑ त्युदाहार्यम् । अत्रेति ।पिब खादेत्यभ्यवहरती॑त्यादौ समुच्चीयमानपानखादनादिक्रियाविशेषाणामनुप्रयुज्यमानधातुवाच्याभ्यवहरणातमकक्रियासामान्येनाऽभेदान्वय इत्यर्थः । पक्षे सक्तूनिति । समुच्चये लोडभावपक्षे अनुप्रयोगोऽपि सामान्यवचनस्य नास्तीति भावः । एतेनेति ।समुच्चयेऽन्यतरस्या॑मितिसमुच्चये समान्यवचनस्ये॑ति च सूत्रद्वयेन तदुदाहरणप्रदर्शनेन चपुरीमवस्कन्दे॑त्यादि माघकाव्यस्थं श्लोकवाक्यं व्याख्यातमित्यर्थः । बली — रावणो, नमुचिद्विषा = इन्द्रेण सह, विगृह्य - विरोधं प्राप्य, पुर्याः = अमरावत्याः, अवस्कन्दनं = पीडनं, नन्दनवनस्य लवनं, रत्नानां मोषणम्, अमराङ्गनानां हरणमित्येवंप्रकारेण अहर्दिवम् = अहन्यहनि, अस्वास्थ्यं चक्रे = कृतवानित्यन्वयः । इत्थंशब्द इतिपर्यायोऽवस्कन्दनादिक्रियाविशेषणामस्वस्थ्यक्रियासामान्येऽभेदं ग्राहयति । फलितमाह — अवस्कन्दनलवनादीति । आदिना मोषणं हरणं च गृह्यते । भ्रममूलकत्वमुपपादयति — द्वितीयसूत्रे इति । अननुवृत्तेरिति । भाष्ये तदनुवृत्तेरनुक्तत्वादिति भावः । तदनुवृत्त्यभ्युपगमे बाधकमाह - लोडन्तस्येति ।समुच्चयेऽन्यतरस्या॑मिति सूत्रे 'क्रियासमभिहारे' इत्यनुवृत्तौ 'अवस्कन्दे' त्यादिलोडन्तानांक्रियासमभिहारे द्वे वाच्ये॑ इति द्वित्वापत्तेरित्यथः । भ्रम एवेति । मध्यमपुरुषांऽशे, एकवचनांशे च भ्रम एवेत्यर्थः । कुत इत्यत आह — पुरुषवचनसंज्ञे इह नेत्युक्तत्वादिति । अत्र भाष्ये हिस्वान्तयोरनभिव्यक्तसङ्ख्याकालकत्वात्तदभिव्यक्तयेऽनुप्रयोगस्य न्यायत एव प्राप्तत्वादनुप्रयोगविधिर्माऽस्तु इत्युक्तम् । एवं चतानीमानि क्षुद्राण्यसकृदावर्तीनि भूतानि भवन्ति जायस्व म्रियस्वेत्येतत्तृतीयं स्थान॑मिति श्रुतौसमुच्चयेऽन्यतरस्या॑मिति लोटो हिस्वावेव भवतो,न त्वनुप्रयोगः । तत्र जननमरणक्रिययोरेव विवक्षिततया सङ्ख्याकालाभिव्यक्तेरविवक्षितत्वेन तत्राऽनुप्रयोगस्य प्रयोजनाऽभावात् । एतेनआ च सत्यलोकादाचाऽवीचेर्जायस्वम्रियस्वेति विपरिवर्तमानमात्मानं जीवलोकं चालोक्याऽस्मिन् संसारे नित्याऽशुचिदुःखात्मकं प्रसङ्ख्यानमुपवर्तते॑ इति वाचस्पत्यग्रन्थेऽपि जायस्व म्रियस्वेति व्याख्यातम् । नचात्रसमुच्चयेऽन्यतरस्या॑मित्यत्र 'क्रियासमभिहारे' इत्यस्याननुवृत्तेरुक्तत्वात्कथमिह पौनःपुन्यमसकृत्पदगम्यमित्यदोषः । कल्पतरुग्रन्थे तु जायस्व म्रियस्वेत्यत्र 'क्रियासमभिहारे' इति सूत्रेण लो॑डित्युक्तम्, तत्तु द्वित्वापत्तेरुपेक्ष्यमिति शब्देन्दुशेखरे प्रपञ्चितम् । इति श्रीवासुदेवदीक्षितविरचितायां सिद्धान्तकौमुदीव्याख्यायां बालमनोरमायां लकारार्थप्रक्रियानिरूपणम् । अथ मत्वर्थीयप्रकरणम् । — — — — — — — —
translator notes
- BM: vacana = that by which [something] is expressed (ucyate 'nena), i.e. 'expressing the general'; Bhaṭṭoji gives the result as 'sāmānyārthasya', i.e. expressing the general [action] of the actions being aggregated. anuprayogāt = from the subsequently used [dhātu]; tataḥ = by laṭ etc. having the subsequently used dhātu as their base. Number, kāraka etc. are not manifested by hi and sva; so the Bhāṣya: 'the hi/sva-final [form] has an unmanifested sense; by it the meaning is incomplete'. Followed: 'from them' = from laṭ etc. after the subsequently used dhātu.
- BM: the vārttika kriyāsamabhihāre dve vācye is explained in the section on doubling (dviruktaprakriyā); the Bhāṣya makes clear that it concerns the loṭ-form of the first sūtra [SK 2825]. Followed: the reference '[by the vārttika above]' in k3.
- TB: this vārttika is explained in the dviruktaprakriyā. Recorded.
- BM on 'yāhi yāhīti yātīti': [Bhaṭṭoji includes iti] because the word iti is seen in the Bhāṣya. 'hyantasya' = of yāhi yāhi. 'ekakartṛkam': from yāti the agent of going and its singleness are understood. 'abhedānvaye': the cognition is 'a single-agent present going, consisting of the repeated or intense going', since in tiṅanta [sentences] the cognition always has the action as its qualificand. Followed in the rendering of the three meanings.
- TB on 'itiśabdas tu': Objection — with iti intervening, how is yāti an anuprayoga? Answer, 'they say': 'anu' here means only restating, so intervening and reversed uses are accepted, as settled by the Bhāṣya's examples and its rejection of the sūtra [SK 2827]. Recorded; the English keeps 'subsequent use'.
- BM on 'evam': yāhi yāhīti yātaḥ, … yāntīti and so on in all persons and numbers; likewise yāhi yāhīti yayau, yātā, yāsyati, yātu. With 'vā ca tadhvamoḥ' hi is optional for the second-person plural ta of loṭ; taking 'yāhi yāhīti yūyaṃ yātha' as given for the hi-option, Bhaṭṭoji shows the other option, yāta yāteti yūyaṃ yātha. Followed: '[after yāhi yāhīti]' and '[in the domain of ta, the other option]'.
- TB on 'evam': yāhi yāhīti yātaḥ, yāhi yāhīti yānti and so on are to be supplied. On 'yāta yāteti yūyam': ta is the second-person plural (see SK 2825); this loṭ too is treated like laṅ (loṭo laṅvat), so tha becomes ta by tasthasthamipām; where loṭ is in the vidhi-etc. sense the anuprayoga too takes that ta, so 'yūyaṃ yāta' would be used. Recorded; the English follows the kaumudī's yātha.
- BM on the luṅ and the following example: luṅ — yāhi yāhīty ayāsīt; for lṛṅ he gives 'ayāsyad vā' (yāhi yāhīty ayāsyat), 'and where the reading is yāsyati vā, it is an example of lṛṭ'; the order is not intended. BM thus reads 'ayāsyad vā' and knows 'yāsyati vā' as a variant. The English follows our text and the print ('yāsyati vā', lṛṭ); the variant is recorded.
- BM on 'pakṣe' (in the domain of dhvam): in the option where sva does not come; yūyam adhīdhvam is the loṭ second-person plural. For bhāva and karman: bhūyasva bhūyasveti bhūyate; pacyasva pacyasveti pacyate are to be exemplified. Followed: 'in the other option'.
- TB: 'pakṣe' = in the option where hi/sva do not come under vā ca tadhvamoḥ. adhīdhvam takes am by savābhyāṃ vāmau; with loṭ in the vidhi-etc. sense the anuprayoga would be adhīdhvam. For bhāva and karman: bhūyasva bhūyasveti bhūyate; pacyasva pacyasveti pacyate. Agrees with BM; followed.
- BM on samuccaya: pāna is [taking] a liquid, swallowing without chewing; khādana is chewing a solid; abhyavaharaṇa ('taking a meal') is the general form of both, being eating of whatever kind. On 'pakṣe hisvau': in the domain of ta and dhvam, hi and sva in the other option; 'piba khādety abhyavaharatha' is to be exemplified. Followed: 'takes his meal' and the bracketed hi/sva forms.
- TB: since 'kriyāsamabhihāre' does not carry into samuccaye 'nyatarasyām, Bhaṭṭoji gives the samuccaya examples without doubling. On 'abhyavaharatha': with loṭ in the vidhi-etc. sense the anuprayoga would be abhyavaharata, and likewise abhyavaharadhvam for abhyavaharadhve. On 'pakṣe hisvau': piba khādety abhyavaharatha; bhuṅkṣva āsvādayasvety abhyavaharadhve. Followed: the bracketed hi/sva forms.
- BM on 'pakṣe saktūn …': in the option without loṭ in samuccaya there is no anuprayoga of a general [dhātu] either. Followed: '[where there is no loṭ]'.
- BM on 'etena': by the two sūtras samuccaye 'nyatarasyām and samuccaye sāmānyavacanasya and their examples, the verse from the Māgha-kāvya ('purīm avaskanda …') is explained. balī = Rāvaṇa; namucidviṣā = with Indra; vigṛhya = having come into conflict; avaskandana = harassing the city (Amarāvatī); cutting down the Nandana grove; stealing the jewels; carrying off the women of the immortals — in this way, ahardivam = day after day, he caused the disquiet [of heaven]. ittham is a synonym of iti and conveys the identity of the particular actions with the general action of disquieting. Followed in the rendering of the verse.
- TB on 'lavanādi': ādi covers stealing and carrying off. Followed in 'cutting down and so on'.
- BM on 'bhramamūlakam': its pratīka is 'ananuvṛtter iti', glossed 'because the Bhāṣya does not state its anuvṛtti'; then 'loḍantasya' gives the objection to accepting the anuvṛtti: were kriyāsamabhihāre carried into samuccaye 'nyatarasyām, the loṭ-forms avaskanda etc. would have to be doubled by kriyāsamabhihāre dve vācye. Followed: 'does not carry over' (see the textual note).
- TB: 'loḍantasya' states the objection to accepting the anuvṛtti (anuvṛttyabhyupagame bādhakam āha). TB's own explicit statement on the point stands earlier, under the samuccaya examples: since 'kriyāsamabhihāra' does not carry into the sūtra samuccaye 'nyatarasyām (kriyāsamabhihāra ity ananuvartanāt), Bhaṭṭoji gives those examples without doubling. Agrees with BM; followed: 'does not carry over'.
- translator TB's 'anuvṛttyabhyupagame bādhakam āha—loḍantasyeti' (verbatim in BM) does not by itself decide between the readings: it fits 'ananuvṛtteḥ' (two reasons for the charge of error) and equally the print's 'anuvṛtteḥ' (Bhaṭṭoji names the opponent's assumption, then gives the objection to it). The decisive evidence is BM's pratīka 'ananuvṛtter iti', TB's 'ity ananuvartanāt' under the samuccaya examples, the Wikisource kaumudī, Bhaṭṭoji's undoubled samuccaya examples, and the two parallel ablatives ('…vṛtteḥ … dvitvāpatteś ca'), which read naturally as two reasons.
- TB on 'bhrama eva': the error lies in the person-part and the number-part; in the loṭ-part [the view] is correct. Thus in the examples the hi/sva-final forms are tiṅanta and, as appropriate, parasmaipada- or ātmanepada-final, but the person and number designations do not belong to hi and sva, by force of their prescription. Followed: 'is also simply an error' is kept to person and number.
- BM on 'bhrama eva': an error as to the second-person part and the singular part. Agrees with TB; followed.
- BM closes the prakaraṇa: the Bhāṣya says that, since the hi/sva-final [forms] have unmanifested number and time, anuprayoga to manifest them is obtained by reason and need not be prescribed; so in the śruti 'jāyasva mriyasva' and in Vācaspati's 'jāyasva mriyasveti …', hi and sva come by samuccaye 'nyatarasyām without anuprayoga, number and time not being intended; the Kalpataru's view that this is loṭ by kriyāsamabhihāre is to be disregarded, since it would require doubling, as set out in the Śabdenduśekhara. Recorded (not in the kaumudī).
- textual Ours and NSP printed p. 478 (scan page-0488, read) both read 'dvitīyasūtre kriyāsamabhihāra ity asyānuvṛtteḥ' ('because of the anuvṛtti …'). BM's pratīka is 'ananuvṛtter iti', glossed 'bhāṣye tadanuvṛtter anuktatvāt', and BM and TB both take the next clause ('loḍantasya …') as the objection to assuming the anuvṛtti. The Wikisource printed kaumudī reads 'dvitīyasūtre kriyāsamabhihāre ity asyānanuvṛtteḥ' (uttara-3/0045, l. 5), a second printed witness for the negative. In NSP the line breaks at 'ity asyānu-' with 'vṛtteḥ' on the next line, so the loss of 'na' (asyānanu- → asyānu-) is a likely haplography at the print's line break. The sense requires 'ity asyānanuvṛtteḥ' ('because … does not carry over'). The English follows the commentators and Wikisource, with the departure marked by a bracket in the block; the transmitted reading is preserved in the source. Mūla, print agrees with ours: for Ajai's print check.
- textual Ours 'anuprayogād yāthāyathaṃ'; NSP p. 478 (scan page-0488) 'anuprayogād yathāyathaṃ' (the word is yathāyatham; Wikisource agrees with the print). The English follows yathāyatham (collation batch08, class A).
- textual Four slips in ours against NSP p. 478 (scan page-0488; collation batch08, class A), each followed in the English in the print's form: 'yāhi yāhīty ayāsīti' for 'ayāsīt' (the luṅ form; BM 'ayāsīd iti'); 'dādhikām āsvādayate' for 'dādhikam' (as in 'dādhikam āsvādayasva' just above); 'harāmahāṅganāḥ' for 'harāmarāṅganāḥ' (hara + amarāṅganāḥ; BM 'amarāṅganānāṃ haraṇam'); 'avaskandana-vanādirūpā' for 'avaskandanalavanādirūpā' (the la of lavana lost at the print's line-break; BM's and TB's pratīkas 'lavanādi').
- textual Ours and the print (NSP p. 478, scan page-0488) both read 'bhuṅdhvam āsvādayadhvam'; the English transliterates the printed form. The standard form is bhuṅgdhvam (bhuj + dhvam). Orthographic; recorded only.
- textual Ours and the print both read 'purīm avaskandesyādi'; the expected 'purīm avaskandety ādi' (so Wikisource) is translated ('purīm avaskanda and the rest'); the print's reading is probably a misprint (collation batch08, class V).
- textual The two colophons in square brackets at the end of k3 are supplied from NSP p. 478 (scan page-0488, read), where they are printed in kaumudī type after 'nety uktatvāt': 'iti lakārārthaprakriyā' and 'iti bhaṭṭojidīkṣitaviracitāyāṃ siddhāntakaumudyām uttarārdhe tiṅantaṃ samāptam'. Both are missing from our source (collation batch08, class M). Mūla: for Ajai's print check.
- textual The '(vārttikam)' tag at the head of sk.2828.k3 in our source is editorial; the print marks the vārttika 'kriyāsamabhihāre dve vācye' with its sign before it and closes it with a double daṇḍa. The label '(vārttika)' is put on k2 and dropped from k3, which is Bhaṭṭoji's prose.
- textual sk.2828.b1 ends with BM's own colophon to the lakārārtha section and the heading 'atha matvarthīyaprakaraṇam' (BM's order); the tail of sk.2828.t1 from 'kṛd atiṅ …' on is TB on SK 2829 (dhātoḥ), and the TB's own colophon closing the tiṅanta (NSP p. 478 foot) is not in our t1.
- translator The glosses of the yāti/adhīte/abhyavaharati examples, the bracketed tense-labels on ayāsīt and yāsyati, and the rendering of the verse are the translator's, guided by BM's construal. Bhaṭṭoji names no source for the verse; BM ascribes it to the Māgha-kāvya.
- translator The bracket '[the subsequent use (anuprayoga) — carried forward (anuvṛtti) from SK 2827 —]' in sutra_en is the translator's inference from the kaumudī's 'anuprayogaḥ syāt'; neither commentator names the anuvṛtti, BM only glossing sāmānyavacana.