Full Text of - 0b. Patanjali, Mahabhasya, Joshi 1968 - PDF

3/9/2020 Full text of "0b.
Patanjali, Mahabhasya, Joshi 1968"
This is Google's cache of

https://archive.org/stream/0b.PatanjaliMahabhasyaJoshi1968/0b.%20Patanjali%2C%20Mahabhasya%2C%20Joshi_1968_djvu.txt. It
is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 16 Feb 2020 13:11:49 GMT. The current page could have changed in the
meantime. Learn more.
Full version Text-only version View source

Tip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F or ⌘ -F (Mac) and use the find bar.
Full text of "0b. Patanjali, Mahabhasya, Joshi

1968"
See other formats
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1riJA4EQi28J:https://archive.org/stream/0b.PatanjaliMahabhasyaJoshi1968/0b.%2520P… 1/373
3/9/2020 Full text of "0b. Patanjali, Mahabhasya, Joshi 1968"
Publications of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit

Class C No. 3
PATANJALFS
VYAKARANA - MAHABHASYA
SAMARTHAHNIKA
(P. 2. 1. 1 )
Edited with
Trarislation and Explanatory Notes

by
S. D. JOSHI
UNIVERSITY OF POONA
POONA
First Edition\ May 1968
@ With Publisher
Printed by J. E. David at Spicer College Press, Ganeshkhind, Poona 7, and published

by W. H. Golay, Registrar, University of Poona, Poona 7. 1000—4847-68.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is a pleasure to express here the debt of gratitude that I owe to my

student-friend, Mr. Jouthe Roodbergen. While preparing the manu-
script of this work he was constantly by my side. He has read the entire
manuscript line by line and has made substantial changes both in idiom
and thought. He has improved the translation by comparing it with the
original text and has added a number of notes to make the background
of the various arguments ciear. Many a passage has been clarified as a
resuit of his helpful suggestions, comments, and corrections. Without his

continued assistance, the imperfections of the present work would have
been much more numerous. I cannot thank him enough for his collabora-
tion which is responsible for the present shape of the work.
I am deeply indebted to my teacher, Prof. R. N. Dandekar, Direc¬

tor of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, who, in spite of various
activities and pressure of work, not only revised the manuscript securing
consistency in style and treatment, but also offered constructive sugges¬
tions as regards the presentation of the text and translation. His affec-
tionate encouragement and abiding interest in the progress of this work
was a constant source of inspiration to me. His wide experience as
scholar and editor has proved highly beneficial to me. I would also like
to take this opportunity to express my deep sense of gratitude to my
guru, Prof. Daniel H. H. Ingalls of Harvard University, who first
taught me how to render Sanskrit texts into English. While at Harvard
he introduced me to the various theories in Western linguistics and
philosophy. I am also indebted to Prof. Dr. G. V. Devasthali, M. D.
Balasubrahmanyam and Dr. S. D. Laddu of C.A.S.S. who have read
parts of the Introduction and offered useful suggestions for its improve-
ment. I am also grateful to my colleagues and friends, J. R. Joshi and
Saroja Bhate, for their abie assistance in preparing the press-copy of the
Sanskrit text and Index. Finally, the Spicer College Press and the Bhan-
darkar Oriental Institute Press deserve more than forma! thanks. Thev
have seen this work through press with such accuracy, speed, and skill as
to win most cordial recognition.
C. A. S. S.
University of Poona
April 28, 1968
S. D. Joshi.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
Introduction
i-xix
2.
Text
1- 32
3.
Translation and Explanatory Notes
1-208
4. Index
209-223
INTRODUCTION
1. THE THREE MUNIS OF SANSKRIT GRAMMAR
1.1. In recent years, keen interest has been evinced in Paninian

studies, both by Indian and foreign scholars, and fresh attempts havc been
made to describe the technique of Panini and his noteworthy commentators,
Katyayana and Patanjali. Panini’s Aftddhyayi which gives a mathe-
matical mode 1 of grammatical description is regarded as one of the
greatest monuments of human intelligence 2 . The first commentarial work
on Panini’s Astadhydyl that is available to us is Katyayana’s Vdrttikas
(Short Critical Notes). Katyayana was a southemer and a follower
of a school of grammar different from PaninFs. The main aim of
his Vdrttikas is not to explain Panini’s rules but to improve on PaninFs
Astddhydyi where it falis short of achieving its goal 3 . PatanjalTs
Mahabhdsya which is based on the Sanigraha of Vya<Ji performs the
double task of commenting on Panini’s rules on the one hand and
Katyayana’s Vdrttikas on the other.
1.2. In order to understand the Mahabhdsya properly, it might be
relevant to state in brief the purpose of this extensive commentary on

Panini 4 . The purpose of this work is : (i) to defend Panini where
alterations and additions proposed by Katyayana appear to be unreason-
able, (ii) to examine independently the rules and views of Pajnini

which are left unnoticed by Katyayana 5 , (iii) to show that what is
explicitly stated by Katyayana or by other Varttikakaras is indirecdy
and implicitly accepted by Panini himself 6 , and (iv) to make additions
to Panini’s rules where they cannot account for the usages of Patanjali’s
time and area. _.
1. Vidya Nivas Misra, The Descriptive Technique of Panini , Paris, 1966,
pp. 10-22.
2. L. Bloomfield, Language , p. 11.
3. Betty SHEFTS, Grammatical Method in Panini , American Oriental Society,

New Haven, Connecticut, 1961, p. 18.
4. In stating this, I have made use of the excellent monograph of KlELHORN:

Katyayana and Patanjali , Second ed., Varanasi, 1963.
5. Bhasya No. 1-39. (The word Bhdsya No.* refers to the division of the
Sanskrit text presented for this transladon).
6. Bhdsya No. 20-29.
Inlroduction
2. THE CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF PATAftJALPS STYLE
2.1. The language of PatahjalPs Mahdbhdsya is lucid and elegant, but

the interpretation of that work involves insuperable difficulties. The
arguments in the Mahdbhdsya are presented in a conversational style as in
the Dialogues of Plato. The Indian commentators divide this dialogue into
three speakers : the purvapaksin, the siddhdntyekadesin , and the siddhdntin 7 .
The purvapaksin is the person who raiscs doubts, asks questions,
and attacks PaninPs or Katyayana’s formulations. The siddhdntyekadesin
is the person who refutes the objections and defends Panini or Katyayana
bv providing partially correct answers 8 . The siddhdntin is the person
who gives final decisions in particularly knotty points, either (i) by saying
that Katyayana’s additions to and rephrasings of Panini’s sutras are
unfounded or unnecessarv, or (ii) by defending Katyayana’s rephrasing
of the rules, or (iii) by suggesting that a particular rule of Panini
is not needed even if Katyayana defends it. It is often a difficult task

to attribute a particular statement to a particular speaker. The
commentators on the Mahdbhdsya do not always agree with one another
in assigning statements to particular speakers. Furthermore, we have to
face certain additional difficulties. For instance, Patahjali places before
the readers both the sides of a question, examines the merits and
demerits involved in the arguments of these sides, and then arrives
at the conclusion that both the views are acceptable for one reason or
another. In such cases, commentators take great pains to point out
that one of the views belongs to the siddhdntyekadesin and is onlv
partially true, while the other view is the final one and acceptable to
Patahjali. The commentators Kaiyata and Nagesa do not always
find it easy to decide what the final opinion of Patahjali is. At times,
it becomes difficult for them to judge whether Patahjali concurs with
or differs from Katyayana, in his criticism of Panini 9 . The Mahdbhdsya.
which carries an abstruse grammatical discussion, remains a closed
book for those readers who are not properly initiated into the highly
developed technique of Panini J s methodology. In his Vdkyapadiya
Bhartrhari has paid a tribute to Patahjali that the Mahdbhdsya is
7. F. KIELHORN, op. cit ., pp. 52-53 etc., and B. SHEFT5, op. cit ., p. 17.
8. Occasionally we have the purvapaksyel?adesin also whose role is to raise coun-

ter objections as demanded by a particular context. His views, though not
always incorrect, do not support the issues of the siddhdntin.
9. Bhasya No. 190-195.
The Characteristic Features of Patanjali s Style
impenetrable in its depth but appears to be lucid on accoiint of its

beautiful exposition 10 .
2.2. While investigating in a theoretical way the logical correctness

of Panini 5 s aphorisms 11 , Katyayana and Patanjali often enter into
a discussion which does not appear to be relevant to Panini 5 s descriptive
technique. In such cases, we must understand why Patanjali inserts
these topics which are in no way connected with Panini’s analysis.
It is not seldom that Patanjali gives new interpretation of Panini J s
aphorisms and tries to prove the correctness of Paninis formulations

when Katyayana questions their validity 12 . In such cases, Pataiijali often
seems to deviate from the original intention of Panini. This creates a
good deal of confusion in the mind of the reader if he is not aware
of Patanjali’s intention in giving such tricky interpretations of PaninPs
rules. Serious students of the Mahdbhasya will, however, easily realise
that the new interpretations offered by Patanjali are not always
essential for understanding Panini. They are meant mainly to bridge
over the gulfs separating the different traditions of the grammarians 18 .
Patanjali’s skill lies in harmonizing the trend of philosophization 14
introduced by Katyayana with the pure descriptive approach of Panini.
The digressions from Panini’s text that are introduced in PatanjalTs
Mahdbhasya are often intended to link together two intrinsicallv
different approaches — philosophical and linguistic. Patanjali minimizes
the divergence between Katyavana’s school, which provides functional
and semantic definition, and Panini’s school, which gives structural and
formal definition, by reconciling the traditional values, to which
Katyayana often sticks, with the modem technique of Panini. On
account of ali this, the Mahdbhasya makes a difficult reading.
2.3. This does not, however, mean that we can have a correct
understanding of PaninPs grammatical technique only through the
examination of PaninTs Astadhyayi 15 . Scholars are now increasingly aware
of the fact that they cannot rely solely on the modem methods of
linguistic interpretation for understanding Panini’s code and procedure
of grammatical analysis. No one can deny that for the interpretation of
Panini there is only one valuable source and that is the Mahdbhasya.
10. Vdkyapadiya , II, 480, ed. by K. V. ABHYANKAR and V. P. LlMAYE,

Poona University, 1965: alabdhagadhe gambhirydd uttana iva sausthavat.
11. Grammatical Method in Panini , op . cit ., p. 1 7.
12. Bhdsya No. 134-136.
13. Bhdsya No. 116-119, 140-165.
14. The Descriptive Technique of Panini, op, cit„ pp. 25-26.
15. Paul Thieme, Panini and Panimyas , JAOS, Vol. 76, pp. 1-23 (1956).
iii
Introduction
The value of the Mahabhasya lies not only in its masterly interpretation
of Panini and Katyayana, but also in its elucidation in fuller detail of
the obscure jxrints which are left untouched by his predecessors.
Panini’s code affords scope for a variety of possible interpretations and
we shall be at a loss to decide which is the correct one, unless we take
the help of the Mahabhasya 16 . The influence of the Mahabhasya on
the later grammatical literature and philosophical works is so great
that its pronouncements on various issues are regarded as final and indisput-
able. A person’s scholarship was generally stamped as imperfect if he had no
proper training in the Mahabhasya 17 .
3. THE SAMARTHAHNIKA: MAHABHASYA ON P.2.1.1.
3.1. The text of the Astadhyayi f which consists of approximately

4000 aphorisms, is divided into eight books called adhyayas. Each book
is again divided into four quarters ( padas ). For the sake of convenience,
Patanjali further divides each quarter into ahnikas : ‘day sessions 5 . The
total number of ahnikas is 85. The text of the Mahabhasya presented
here relates to the first aphorism of the first quarter of the second book
of the Astadhyayi and is known amongst scholars by the name
samarthaknika.
3.2. The first two quarters of the second book of Panini’s Astadhyayi
deal with the procedure of generative grammar i.e. the theory of
integration (vftti). For a fuller understanding of this theory, one must
first study Patanjali’s Bhasya on the two quarters relating to samasa .
Therefore, a detailed treatment of it is reserved until the proposed
translation of those quarters has been completed.
3.3. I propose to give here a brief sketch of the arguments put forth
in the section of the Bhasya translated in this book, and to indicate
their connection with one another. In connection with P.2.1.1 Patanjali
has discussed fourteen topics; three of these are discussed before the
first Vdrttika is taken up for examination ( Bhasya No. 42). The
practice of discussing a rule independently and before entering into
an examination of the first Vdrttika on that rule is not uncommon in the
Mahabhasya.
4. ANALYSIS OF THE TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THE SAMARTHAHNIKA
4.1. According to Patanjali, the word vidhi in P.2.1.1 means

‘grammatical operation’. Therefore, Patanjali interprets P.2.1.1 to mean
16. S. VaRMA: Scientific and Technical Presentation of Patanjali as Reflected

in the Mahabhasya , VI] f Hoshiarpur, Vol. I, No. 1, pp. 1-23 (1963).
17. Vakyapadtya , op. cif., II 480: tasminn ahrtabuddhxndm naivavdsihiia

niscayah .
IV
Analysis of the topics discussed in the Samarthahnika
that wherever a grammatical operation concerning finished words is

prescribed, it must be applied to words which are semantically connected.
4.2(i). After discussing the meaning of the word vidhi Patanjali

raises the question with regard to the character of P.2.1.1 : Is the
scope of this rule restricted to a particular section of the Astadhyayi as is

the case with an adhikara rule, or does it apply throughout the
Astadhyayi like a paribhdsa rule? Patanjali regards P.2.1.1 as a
paribhdsa rule ( Bhasya No. 10). In this connection, another basic
question needs to be taken into consideration : What does the word
samartha mean? Its exact significance has direct relevance to the
determining of the character of the rule. Therefore Patanjali enters
into a discussion on the nature of sdmarthya. According to him,
sdmarthya is of two. kinds: vyapeksa : ‘meaning-interdependence 5
and ekdrthibhava : ‘emergence of single integrated meaning 518 .
4.2 (ii). ImerHcnendence of meaning exists only in groups of

uncompounded words like rdjnah purusah : ‘king’s man’, or in a sentence.
Here, the words depend on one another to make the meaning syntactically
complete. ‘Single integrated meaning’ exists only in the integrated forms
like rdjapurusah: ‘king-man 5 . In the case of the uncompounded
word-groun, the word meanings, separately presented by the stem words,
are linked together by some relation indicated by the inflectional
suffixes. In the case of the compound, on the other hand, the separate
presentation of the meaning by the constituent words and of their
relation with each other does not occur. The compound as a whole
denotes a single meaning in which the grammatical relation between the
constituents also obtains the status of a word-meaning.
4.2 (in). The difTerentiation between vyapeksa : ‘meaning-interdepend-

ence’, and ekdrthibhava: ‘single integrated meaning 5 , which plays an
important role in determining the nature of an uncompounded word-
prouo and a compound expression, is based on the fnanner of presentation
of t-V meaning. The two expressions, rdjapurusah : ‘king-man 5 and
rdjnah purusah : ‘king’s man 5 have almost identical meaning and
refer to the same object. But the ways in which meaning is presented by
these expressions are different.
4.2 (iv). Patanjali finally concludes that sdmarthya : ‘semantic

connection’ should be understood in the sense of ekdrthibhava : ‘single
integrated meaning’, and P.2.1.1 as a paribhdsa- rule ( Bhasya No. 10).
Since this rule is restricted to cases of ‘single integrated meaning 5 ,
according to Patanjali, P.2.1.1 does not supply the condition samarthah :
18. For the meaning of the terms used here, reference may be made to the
translation of the text and to the notes.
Introduction
‘semantically connected’ in the rules dealing with the uncompounded word-

group. This does not, however, appear to be Panini 5 s intention. According
to Panini, the semantic relationship that exists between words is an
essential requirement for all the rules involving a finished word as one of
the conditions for the operation prescribed by them. In other words,
according to Panini, the condition samarthah is valid for the rules
dealing with both an uncompounded word-group and a compound. In
P.2.1.1 the word samarthah means any kind of semantic relationship
between two grammatical units. The division of sdmarthya into
ekarthibhdva and vyapeksa is not known explicitly or . implicitly to
Panini. These two interpretations of sdmarthya date from Katyayana’s
period onwards. This whole discussion leads Patanjali to raise the
basic ouestion about the utility of the principle of sdmarthya .
4.3(i). Pataniali, therefore, takes up for discussion the topic of the

nurpose of P.2.1.1. While explaining the purpose he adopts an operat-
ional approach ( Bhdsya No. 15). By means of examples and counter-
examoles he shows where P.2.1.1 applies and what the purpose of the
word samartha in the rule concerned is. The purpose of the word
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1riJA4EQi28J:https://archive.org/stream/0b.PatanjaliMahabhasyaJoshi1968/0b.%2520… 10/373
samartha is that the rules dealing with a compound apply to words

which are semantically connected and not to words which just happen
to occur in immediate sequence without semantic connection. For
instance, by P.2.2.8 we derive the compound rdjapurusah : ‘king-man’.
The condition samartha supplied by P.2.1.1 informs us that this
compound is only allowed when its members, ‘king’ and ‘man’, are
semantically connected. The phrase(s) bhdrya rdjnah (,) puruso
devadrttasw. ‘wife of a king, man of Devadatta’ serves as a counter-
example. Here the words rajnah and purusah occur in immediate
sequence, but there is no semantic connection between them. Conse-
quently, no compound is formed out of these two semantically
unconnected words.
4.3 (ii). The word samartha means ‘having semantic connection as

indicated bv syntactic elements’. Literally the word samartha means
samah arthah yasya : ‘having the same meaning 519 . The term imolies
that uncompounded word-group ( vdkya ) and the corresponding compound
( i/rtti ) should convey the same meaning. From PatanjalFs discussion
(Bhdsya Nos. 38 - 40) it appears that another term, namely gamaka ,
19. Panini uses the word samartha in aphorisms 1.3.42, 2.3.57, 3.3.152,
8.1.65, 8.3.44, precisely in the same meaning. In 4.1.82, the meaning
‘having semantic connection with other words connected‘ has to be assumed.
The word sdmarthya in P. 8.3.44 is used in the sense of vyapeksa , i.e.
semantic connection as existing in a sentence.
vi
Anatysis of the lopics discussed in the Samarthahnika
was current among the grammarians to express more or less the same
idea as conveyed by the word samartha. But it seems that the word
gamaka belongs to the non-technical language. Gamakatva : ‘abilitv
to exnress (the same meaning)’, as the non-technical principle
underlying compound-formation in dailv usage. must have been silently
assumed by grammarians also. The Bhasya No. 38 argues that the
mention of the word samartha is not necessary in order to prevent the
formation of the compound rajapurusah : ‘king-man’ from the expression
hharyd rajnah puruso devadattasya : ‘wife of a king, man of Devadatta’.
We can prevent the formation of the comnound rajapurusah from the
above expression by the non-technical principle of (a)gamakatva. For,
the compound does not convey the same meaning as the corresponding
uncompounded word-group.
4 3(iii). But for grammar, which is not concemed with word-meaning

(Bhasya No. 68), it will be difficult to account for compound-
formation on the basis of the criterion of meaning. How can one
establish the criterion for deciding the sameness of meaning? In order
to be able to establish this criterion (the sameness of meaning) one mav
have to establish some other criterion, and this may ultimately lead
to a regressus ad infinitum (Bhasya No. 68). Patafiiali has thus finally
arrived at this: The word samartha is not necessary ( Bhasya No. 40).
4 3(iv). But can Panini not have chosen the word samarthah as a
technical term to indicate that, for the formation of a compound out
of uncompounded word-group, mere sameness of meaning between the
comoound and the uncompounded word-group is not enough but that
something more than this is required? And if he has actually done so,
what can that extra-technical meaning expressed by the word samartha
have been? It may be that Panini wants to describe supramorphemic
syntactic level of grammar in terms of svntactic or semantic relationship,
as also to lay down that semantic connection is an essential requirement
for building up syntactic combinations by the rules which involve a
finished word as one of the conditions for their application. Since
Panini has stated that samartha is a necessary condition for building up
syntactic combination like compounding, etc. the question arises: What
can samartha mean in connection with padavidhi : ‘syntactic operation’?
Here the discussion on the first Vdrttika starts.
4.4. It has been already pointed out that the meaning of samarthya
implied in P. 2.1.1 is ekarthtbhdva: ‘emergence of single integrated
meaning’—as seen in compounds. Then Patahjali, while discussing the
terms pfthagartha: ‘having separate meaning’ and ekarthxbhdva:
‘emergence of single meaning’ ( Vdrttika 1), points out that both the
vn
Introduction
compound and the uncompounded word-group (oiit of which the com-

pound is formed) present the same meaning but they do it in two
different ways. 20 But the terms prthagartha and ekarthibh&va evidently
indicate the difference in the characteristics of the compound and the
uncompounded word-group. Hence arises the question: What are the
special characteristic features of ekarthibhava, which distinguish it from

the prthagarthatva ?
4.5. This topic is left unnoticed by Katyayana. But Patanjali takes it ud

and mentions the grammatical as well as the semantic features which
distinguish the compound from the corresponding uncompounded word-
group. The grammatical features are: (i) absence of the inflectional
suffixes, (ii) absence of word-intervention between the members of a
compound, (iii) a fixed word-order and (iv) a single accent. The
semantic features are: (i) that the members of a compound being un-
inflected remain ambiguous in indicating the precise number of the object;
(ii) that the meaning of uncompounded word-group is ciear while that
of the compound is vague; (iii) that the constituents of a compound
cannot be qualified by the word outside the compound but that the uncom¬
pounded word-group permits this; and (iv) that, when the sense of
conjunction is to be conveyed, the conjunctive particle ca : ‘and’ is used
in the uncompounded word-group but not in a compound.
This discussion leads us to the basic question: Whether the denotation

of single meaning of a compound is a natural phenomenon or is based
on any grammatical rules.
4.6(i). In his first Varttika Katyayana has already discussed this tonic
which must have occupied the attention of grammarians and philo-
sophers of language from the early days. In Patanjali’s opinion denotation
of a single meaning by the compound form is a natural thing. In fact,
grammarians do not have any criterion to analyse meaning. Panini’s
method of generation of word-forms is purely mechanical and unrelated
to semantics. It is, of course, true that Panini collects and classifies all
types of meaning under the various headings (Bhasya No. 65-66); but
these are not intended to teach meanings unknown to us. These meanings
present the condition in which the rules are operative. To explain this,
Patanjali provides an analogy. The statements: ‘The path is on the
right hand side of the well’, ‘Look at the moon in the cloud’, do not
confer a new position on the path or on the moon. They only explain
their existing location with the help of distinctive signs, ‘well’ and
‘cloud’. Similarly Panini’s rules only mention the meanings as a condi¬
tion for their application.
20. See 4.2.(ii).
Analysis of the topics discussed in the Samarthahnika
4.6. (ii). Patanjali further says that, for the sake of economy, mean-
jngs are not taught. One can define the meaning of A by means of
synonym B, that of B by means of C, and so on. This would lead to
a regressus ad infinitum , and also resuit in the lack of economy. Pataiijali
further points out that the description of the meaning of each word
is an impossible task. Who has competence enough to define the meaning
of roots, nominal stems, terminations and particles? In Patanjali’s opinion
if the entities referred to by the words are known then no fruitful pur-
pose is served by discussing the nature of meaning denoted by the words.
Grammar does not serve any useful purpose by teaching meanings which
are already known to us from daily communication.
4.6 (iii). If, both the compound and the uncompounded word-group
convey the same meaning naturally, then what is the function of gram¬
mar? Is a current compound form merely described by grammar
{nityasabda) , or is it generated by grammar (karyasabda)?
4.7(i). Patahjali’s attitude in regard to this question is neutral. In his

opinion, whichever altemative is accepted, the basic position of Panini’s
procedure remains the same. For, in either view the formulation of the
Astadhyayi is not rendered futile. 21 The function of grammar is both
to analyse the usage into its constituent elements ( nityasabda ) and to
formulate the rules the application of which allows the generation of
word-form [karyasabda). It appears that the karyasabda view has reference
to the generative aspect of grammar whereas the nityasabda view refers to
its descriptive aspect.
4.7(ii). It would perhaps be helpful at this stage to examine in greater

detail the meaning of the term ‘generative’ 22 when it is used with refer¬
ence to PaninFs grammatical system. The ‘generative’ grammar builds
units of a more complex-structure out of the units of a less complex
structure by strictly applying the rules which make up the system. It
does not matter whether the generated forms are actually used in the
spoken or written language. The generative grammar is concerned only
with possible correct usage.
4.7(iii). How did this generative grammar itself originate? Presumably,

in the following manner: A relatively small number of words both from
Vedic and actual spoken language was selected. These words were sub-
21. Mbh Vol. 1, II 14-15: yadyeva nityo’thdpi karya ubhaythapi lapsanam,

pravartyam iti.
22. The term ‘generative grammar’ used here does not exactly correspond to
Chomsky’s conception of generative grammar. See Chomsky, Aspecis
of the Theorp of Syniax , Cambridge, Mass., 1965.
ix
lntroduction
jected to grammatical analysis, and, from this analysis, elements (stems

and suffixes) were obtained which defied further analysis into smaller
elements. A set of rules was formulated to govern the combination of
these elements. These rules were intended to cover all possible correct usages.
This is clearly shown by the fact that Katyayana and Patanjali had to
introduce substantial corrections and supplements into Panini’s system,
in order to make it cover the usages of their own times and regions.
After Sanskrit had been codified by them and had ceased to be a spoken
language, the necessity to include new, living usage was no longer there.
The only concem then was the correct usage of the written literary
Sanskrit, and this was guaranteed by striet adherence to the prescriptions
enjoined in the works of the three great grammarians.
4.7 (iv). We find that Panini’s generative grammar differs from the
descriptive grammar in at least two respects: (1) His rules of generation
are aDplicable only if one adopts the ‘bottom-to-top’ or the ‘beginning-
to-end’ procedure; (2) it does not concern itself with actual usage but
only with possible correct usage.
The procedure of Panini’s generative grammar is called integration

(vftti) as indicated above. For instance, the nominal stem gamana is
built up from the simple elements gam (root) and ana (suffix), the latter
being technically known as a krt suffix and the formational process as
the krdvrtti : ‘integration by means of krt suffix’. From the complex
elements fiutra and kdmya a denominative verbal root putrakdmva is
formed. Compounding is also a case of integration. From the (alreadv
complex) elements rajnah purusah we form the compound rdjapurusah.
The uncompounded expression is transformed into a compound. In the
nityasabda view the expression rajnah purusah is a paraohrase of
rdjapurusah. Both exist side by side. The compound is not derived from
the non-compound as would be suggested by the kdryasabda view.
4.7 (v). The two views, descriptive ( nityapaksa ) and generative (kdrya-
paksa), are not to be looked upon as diametrically opposite to each

other; they together present a complete picture of the generative pro¬
cedure of PaninPs system. The first view ( nityapaksa ) pays greater
attention to the theoretical procedure and the device employed by Panini
in his system for the generation of word-forms, while the second view
( kdryapaksa ) is concerned with the experimental aspect of Panini’s
system for the generation of word-forms. In fact, these two views are
interdependent, and cannot be dissociated from each other.
4.7 (vi). It has been alreadv pointed out that grammar bases its analysis
on the natural data ( nityasabda ) and tries to derive from it a number
of rules capable of explaining the formation of words. The consistency
Analysis of the topics dkcussed in the Samarthahnika
and completeness of the formal rules would be tested by the considera-

tion whether by applying them, one could generate the words which
might have been accepted as good usage at the time w,hen the rules were
formulated. The nityasabda view takes into account the ultimate form
of language, while the karyasabda \iew takes into account the smallest
grammatical unit where the rules of generation are applicable. Both
the views considered together imply that, in order to analyse a usage,
one should take into account the ultimate form; but that, in order to
generate it, one should start from the beginning. Thus Panini’s analy-
tical method combines these two different approaches, namely, the ulti¬
mate form as the starting point of description ( vibhajya anvakhydna 23 )
and the same form as the final stage of generation ( kramena anvakhydna **).
While formulating the rules of grammar Panini has adopted the ‘end-to-
beginning’ or ‘top-to-bottom’ procedure, but for the application of his rules
of generation one has to adopt the ‘beginning-to-end’ or the ‘bottom-to-
top’ procedure. • . , , '
4.7 (vii). The process of integrating elements into what eventually be-
comes a finlshed word is called vrtti. There are two types of vrttis :
ajahatsvartha and jahatsvartha. According to the first type of vrtti , the
compound does not denote a meaning totally independent of its consti-
tuents. The compound as a whole denotes a single meaning without,
however, ignoring the mutual interdeoendence of parts. The second type
implies that the compound as a single whole conveys the meaning, and
in conveying this meaning the constituents have no function separate
from that of the whole. These two interpretations of ekdrthtbhava seem
to date from Patanjali’s time and are not known to Katyayana. It is, of
course, not improbable that Patanjali has derived them from some other
grammarian whom he does not quote. ,
4.7(viii). The next topic that Patanjali takes up for discussion is whether
P. 2.1.1 applies to cases of integration (fn. 19) only or also to those of
words in a sentence. According to Patanjali, tThe rule applies to both
types of cases. This, however, goes against what he has stated in Bhdsya
No. 10. In order to show that P. 2.1.1 is applicable to both kinds of
cases he interprets the term samartha in four ways ( Bhdsya No. 100),
two of which refer to ekdrthtbhava: ‘single integrated meaning’ and two
to vyapeksa : ‘meaning interdependence’. Thus the scope of P. 2.1.1 is
substantially widened: (a) Being a paribhasa it becomes applicable
23. See Kielhorn’s translation of the Paribhasendusekhara of NagojI Bhatta,

pp. 260-63, second edn. by K. V. ABHYANKAR, 1960, Bhandarkar
Oriental Research Institute, Poona 4.
24. See fn. 23.
xi
Introduction
throughout the Astadhyayi . (b) It concerns both compounds and words

related to each other in a sentence.
4.8. If it is assumed that, besides the compounds, P. 2.1.1 applies to

the words in a sentence context also, a difficulty arises in the case of
nighata : ‘loss of accent’ and yusmadasmadddesa : ‘substitution in respect
of yusmad and asmad 9 . Patanjali suggests that the exception to the opera-
tion of sdmarthya is, any way, necessary to prevent the generation of
ungrammatical forms, whatever the altemative we choose, ekdrthibhava
or vyapeksd f or both ( Bhdsya No. 101-111).
4.9(i). Katyayana holds a different opinion. He knows that PaninFs

samartha-paribhdsd is operative everywhere in the field of grammatical
or semantic relation of words. But the nighata: ‘loss of accent’ and the
substitution in respect of yusmad and asmad are applicable to words even
though' they do not show such a relationship with each other. There-
fore, instead of bringing the nighata and yusmadasmadddesa : ‘substi¬
tution in respect of yusmad and asmad 9 within the sphere of the
samartha-paribhdsd he prefers to mention them under the heading
samanavdkye: ‘in one and the same sentence’. This implies that the words
which are not grammatically connected may occur in the same sentence,
and that the nighata and the substitution in respect of yusmad and
asmad may take place in such cases. In order to substantiate this, he
gives a definition of ‘sentence’. According to him, a grammatical sen¬
tence contains only one single verb. One can say that the introduction of
this new section-heading samanavdkye has pertinence only in the case of
substitution for yusmad and asmad. As for nighata, the examples which
Patanjali gives to illustrate the Varttika, samanavdkye, are non-vedic, and
their accents cannot be ascertained. Moreover, some of PaninFs rules in
the nighata section are applicable only in the complex or compound
sentences which contain more than one verb. 25 Therefore, if the whole
nighata section is brought under the heading samanavdkye, the rules
regarding the nighata will not apply to a sentence which contains more
than one verb.
4,9 (ii). In order to have a ciear picture of the operation of the samartha -
paribhdsa it would be worth while here to discuss in brief the theory of
grammatical relation of words as revealed in PaninFs system. Although
PaninFs system appears to have no direct relevarice to ontological relation-
ships, his generati ve rules do take into account the grammatical or
semantic relationship 26 when those rules are utilised for building a structure
of the higher order. This relationship between the two or more meaning-
ful units is called sdmarthya , and it is variously represented as follows:
25. 8.1.35, 39, 46, 51-53, 58-66.
26. For a detailed treatment of the subject, see J. F. Staal, Word Order
in Sans^rit and Universal Crammar , pp. 38-44, Dordrecht - Holland, 1965.
Analysis of the topics discussed in the Samarthdhnika
(a) Karaka relationship: Here one of the finished words is a verb

and the other is a non-verb (i.e. operator). For instance, odanaih pacati :
‘he cooks rice\ These karaka relations are divided by Panini into six
broad categories: apadana, sampraddna, karana, adhikaratya, karman
and kartT'
(b) Genitive relationship: This occure between two case-inflected words

one of which occurs in a genitive case or between a word in a genitive
case and a verb. For instance, rajnah purusah : ‘king’s man’, or iti me
bhati : ‘I think so\
(c) Samanadhikarana i.e. appositional or syntactic relationship: This

relationship is marked by agreement in number, case, gender, person,
etc. For instance, riUah ghatah : ‘a blue jar’, sa pacati : ‘he cooks’.
(d) Samdsa relationship: A relationship between two or more case-

inflected words which when combined into a compound drop their in-
flectional suffixes. For instance, rdjapurusah: ‘a king-man’.
(e) Mahdmkya relationship: A relation between two or more sen-

tences forming one complex or compound sentence.
(f) Stem-suffix relationship: The relationship between the stem and

the root-forming suffixes ( dhatuvrtti) or the secondary suffixes ( tad-
dhitavTtti). For instance, putnyati: ‘he desires to have a son’; dasarathih :
‘offspring of Dasaratha 5 . It should be noted that this stem-suffix relation¬
ship which falis within the sphere of the samartha-paribhdsa does not
include the relationship between the stems and the case-suffixes or the
stems and the verb ending suffixes. The primary derivatives fall within
the sphere of the samartha-paribhdsd y only when they are accompanied
by an upapada . For instance, kuihbhakarah : ‘pot-maker’.
(g) Partitive relationship: This might occur between two case inflected
words or verbs joined by the particles like ca : ‘and’, etc. For instance,
gramas ( ca) nagarorn ( ca ) : c a village (and) a city’; pacati {ca)
pathati {ca) : ‘he cooks (and) studies’. This relationship is also possible
between one finished word or verb on the one hand and the particle
itself on the other. For instance, rdma eva : ‘Rama only’; pacati eva :
‘he cooks only’.
(h) A preverb-verb relationship: For instance, sa anugacchati:

‘He goes after’.
(i) upapada relationship: A relationship between a noun or verb on

the one hand and the upapada (accompanying word) on the other. For
instance, pitra saha : ‘with a father’; bhuktva vrajati : ‘having eaten
he goes away’.
zrn
Introduction
4.9 (in). To generate the syntactic combinations of the types mentioned

above Panini has laid down an essential condition namely that of meaning-
ful relationship between the units concerned. As a resuit of this condition
the rules concerning finished words become applicable only when these
words are inter-related from the point of meaning.
Panini does not define the term vakya : ‘sentence’ although he uses it.
But his rules on mghata and pluta 27 imply that a sentence may contain
one verb (simple sentence) or more verbs (a compound or a complex
sentence whose constituents are connected by means of the particles ca,
yat , hi, etc.). Actually, Panini is not much concerned with defining a
sentence, because in his opinion the device of samarthya : ‘meaning rela¬
tionship’ between the two grammatical units will be enough for generating
or describing the combination of syntactically connected units. 28
4.10(i). The foregoing discussion leads to the further question: Does

the samartha-paribhdsa take into account only a semantic relationshir»
of one word with another, or does it determine also the grouping of
words into a particular set? Suppose B has samarthya: ‘semantic con-
nection’ with A and C. Then the sequence ABC can be arranged into
two hierarchical structures, namely, [AB(C)] and [A(BC)]. Now the
question is: When we have several possibilitdes of grouping, does the
samartha-paribhdsa show preference to any particular way of arrange-
ment or not? The answer is that grouping can be made in any desired
order. An illustration will make the point ciear. The expression ‘king’s
cow’s milk’ can be organised into two different arrangements, leading
to two different ways of compound-formation: (i) (king’s cow)’s milk
and (ii') kin<r’s (cow’s milk). The first analysis leads to the compound-
form rdjagaviksira, and the second to rdjagokslra (Bhdsya No. 121-129).
These comrounds denote different meanings and they have different
internal structures. The principle of samarthya has nothing to do with
the grouping of constituents of the compound to be formed. One can
group them in any desired order. However, the rules of compounding
and the device of samarthya work in the same order in which the words
are grouped. Once the words ‘king’s’ and ‘cowY are grouped into one set
(rajagarn ) the set as a whole forms a semantic connection with the other
words. Its part is not allowed to form an independent connection with
any other word.
4.10 (ii). A similar question is raised in the Bhdsya No. 105-111. In

the expression “king’s cow and horse and man”, we cannot say whether
the unit ‘king’s’ is connected only with ‘cow’ or with ‘horse’ and ‘man’
as well. The sequence of words can be arranged into two altemative
27. See fn. 25, and 8.2.93, 94, 99, 104.
28. The Descriptive Technique of Panini , Op.cit. 112-113.
xiv
Analysis of the topics discussed in the Samarthdhnilza
hierarchical structures, with a difference in meaning : [king’s (cow and

horse and man)] or [(king’s cow) and horse and man]. The first set
leads to a compound rdjagavyasvapurusa, while the second either to
rajagavasvapurusa or rajagosvapurusa . Here the ambiguity is removed
when the compound is formed. However, this is not possible every-
where. The compounds rajadhenuksira or rajadhenvasvapurusa remain
as ambiguous as their corresponding uncompounded word-groups. It
is only in the case of the word go that we find a visible difference
in the intemal structures (P. 5.4.90).
4.11. The next question that arises is : Why is the samartha

condition restricted to the province of syntax only? The reply is that
the operations which are phonologically conditioned take into account
only the immediate sequence of phonemes ( sarahita P. 6.1.72)
irrespective of whether the phonemes concemed belong to the words
which are semantically connected or not. For instance, in the sentence
tisthatu dadhy asana tvcflh sdkena : ‘let curds be left alone, eat with
vegetables’, P.6.1.77 which prescribes semivowels y in place of i, applies,
even when the words dadhi : ‘curds’ and asana : ‘eat’ are not semantically
connected but only occur in immediate sequence. In this discussion,
a difference is made between the varnavidhi : ‘phonological operation’
and padavidhi : ‘syntactic operation’. P. 2.1.1 is applicable only in
the case of the padavidhi .
4.12(i). Having explained the scope of the samartha-paribhdsa and

its utility for the generation of syntactic combination, Katyayana and
Patahjali raise a auestion regarding the wording of the aphorism,
samarthah padavidhih : Can the aphorism, as it is, prevent the compound-
formation of words which are not semantically connected? Obviouslv
it canot prevent such a formation, because the rule samarthah
padavidhih, which amounts to saying samarthah samasah literally
interpreted, would mean that the process of compound-formation
itself is semantically connected. This is a meaningless statement. The
rule, as it is, does not mean that a compound is to be formed only
of words that are semantically connected, but it means that the

operation of compounding is semantically connected (Bhasya No. 132).
Therefore, Katyayana proposes a change in the wording of the
aphorism and reads samarthandm padavidhih : ‘compounding etc.
(takes place) of semantically connected words’. Patanjali tries to solve
this difficulty by resorting to a somewhat far-fetched way of
uttarapadalopin compounding as explained in the Bhasya No. 139.
The purpose of Patanjali’s five-way compounding elaborated there is
to show that the word samarthah in P.2.1.1 covers everything, ali
numbers and cases, independently of Katyayana’s rephrasing. For a
detailed explanation see Note (122).
xv
Introduction
4.12(ii). The whole discussion of the commentators on P.2.1.1,

starting from Katyayanas rephrasing is 'based on the assumption that
the word padavidhih in the aphorism is vidheya : ‘predicate’ and the
word samarthah is uddesya: ‘subject’. Once the rule is analysed like
this there is no other possibility to extract sense out of it except by
changing the word samarthah to samarthmam. But if the word
samarthah was taken as vidheya, and padavidhih as uddesya, the rule
would mean : yatra padavidhih tatra samarthah iti upatisthate :
“Where an operation concerning finished words is prescribed, there
the word samarthah ‘semantically connected’ is to be supplied”. Thus
the rephrasing as well as the elaborate explanation given in the
Bhasya (No. 139) to interpret the word samarthah becomes unnecessary.
4.13(i). Now Katyayana raises the question : How may one account
theoretically for the formation of samanadhikarana compounds like
virapurusah ‘brave-man’? According to him, the condition of
samarthya will not allow such a formation. In the samanadhikarana
compound, the constituents stand in syntactic agreement, i.e. they
refer to one and the same entity. A relation, on the other hand,
invariably involves two entities which are mutually related. Since in
the expression ‘brave-man’ onlv one entity is referred to, namely man,
we cannot speak of any meaning-relationship with reference to it.
Therefore, a special rule to justify the samanadhikarana compounds
would seem to be needed. Katyayana, however, says that such a
special rule is not necessary, because Panini’s procedure (P.2.1.58)
itself clearly indicates that this type of formation is allowed. Pataiijali,

on his part, tries to justify these compounds by pointing out the fact
that the expression virapurusah refers to the qualities, ‘braveness’ and
‘manhood’, as well as to one individual entity, namely man. According
to Pataiijali, the semantic connection between two syntactically agreeing
words is possible, because one and the same entity can be thought of
differently on account of the difference in its qualities (Bhasya No. 140-
170).
4.13(ii), The discussion introduced here by Katyayana has a

philosophical implication rather than a grammatical one. Katyayana
has a philosophical bend of mind — a characteristic which Bhartrhari
shares with him—whereas Panini and Pataiijali are essentially
descriptive grammarians who think that they can do without any discussion
on philosophical issues. Panini and Pataiijali take it for granted that
the constituents of the samanadhikarana compound are semantically
connected. According to them the question regarding the semantic
xvi
General Observations
connection between two syntactically agreeing words falis beyond the

scope of grammar. Katyayana overrates the importance of philosophical
issues and Patahjali underrates their relevance to linguistic analysis.
Patahjali often shows that the philosophic doctrines explicitly propounded
by Katyayana are implicitly approved by Panini.
4.14. After having discussed the principle of sdmarthya and its

application Katyayana and Patahjali introduced the general topic
regarding number of words to be compounded. Can a compound
of more than two words be formed or not? The conclusion that
they arrived at is that a dvandva or a bahuvnhi can be formed of
more than two constituent words. Elsewhere a compound is generally
formed of two words only (Bhdsya No. 171-213).
5. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
5.1. From the foregoing discussion it will be ciear that Katyayana

maintains the tradition of Panini so far its technique is concemed but
tries to improve upon that tradition by means of its philosophical
interpretation. He defines sdmarthya in ternis of semantics as, ekdrthibhdva
and vyapeksa — the concepts which seem to have been unknown to

Panini. He also introduces the new section-heading samdnavdkye and
defines vakya. Panini can do without defining vdkya because he describes
syntactic combinations in terms of grammatical relationship without
bringing in the notion of a sentence. Katyayana thinks that the wording
of the aphorism, samarthah padavidhih, is inadequate and rephrases it
as samarthdndm padavidhih . He attempts to present a grammar as a
System of philosophy—a tendency which becomes more conspicuous in
the Vdkyapadlya of Bhartrhari. In connection with the samanadhikarana
comnounds he raises the question, whether a word denotes gitya :
‘quality’ or drairya : ‘individual entity’. It appears that he is more
concemed with meaning and philosophization. Therefore, he introduces
manv new tonics which are looselv connected, or have no apparent
connection, with PaninFs system.
5.2. Before examining the Vdrttika first, Patahjali clarifies PaninPs

position with regard to the samartha-paribhdsd. While doing so, he
discusses the topics: (i) the meaning of the word vidhi, (ii) the nature
of the rule: whether adhikdra or a paribhasa, and (iii) the operation
of the principle of sdmarthya . He makes his own contribution to the
svsêm by introducing the theories relating to the types of vrttis,
jahatsvarthd and ajahatsvarthd . He reinterprets P.2.1.1 and shows that
Katyayana’s rephrasing of it is not necessary. It will be seen that
Patahjali seeks to steer ciear of the two extreme approaches, namely,
that of descriptive linguistics adopted by Panini and that of philosophical
xvii
Introduction
lirmiistics adopted by Katyayana. He accepts in essence Katyayana’s

philosophical and semantic view-points, but hints at the same time,
that Panini’s procedure takes that view-point for granted without caring
to discuss it. According to Patanjali, a discussion on philosophical issues
falis beyond the scope of descriptive generative grammar. Thus we
find many digressions from Panini in the Varttikas and in the
Mahabhasya. One must, however, admit that they have substantially
enriched the grammatical tradition of India. Some of these digressions
are important even from the point of view of modem linguistic and
semantic theories. Indeed, they constitute quite a significant contribution
to the linguistic thought as a whole.
6 A NOTE ON THE TEXT AND TRANSLATION
6.1. The text of the Vyakarana-Mahabhasya given here is virtually

reproduced from Kielhorn's edition. 29 I have, however, slightly revised it
by introducing my own punctuation, by marking the accent in relevant
context, and by using double dandas. I have also changed a few readings
which obviouslv seemed to be misprints, on the authority of other
editions and commentaries. The variant readings worth considering are
very few. It is, therefore, onlv seldom that I have recorded them in my
notes.
6 2. The main improvement which I may claim to have made in the

text of the Bhasya consists in the manner of its presentation. The present
text is divided into 14 sections, and each section into paragraphs which
are serially numbered for facility of reference. The numbers shown
in the translation of the Bhasya correspond to the numbers of paragraph
in the Sanskrit text. Sometimes the paragraphs are further subdivided
[subdivisions being indicated by (a), (b), (c), etc.,1 in order that the
reader should find it easy to understand the intemal links between the
arguments involved. Section-titles and bracket-headings are inserted in the
Sanskrit text and the English translation, to make the line of the arguments
and the topics discussed in the Mahabhasya ciear. These tities and
headin^s are borrowed from the Nirnaya Sagar edition, the Vyakarana-
Mahabhasya , Vol. II, Bombay, 1912. Occasionally, I have ventured to
coin new tities and headings when those of the Nirnaya Sagar Press
appeared to be inadeauate.
6.3. I have tried throughout to make my translation as precise as

possible. Accordingly, I have preferred literal rendering wherever it
was possible without adversely affecting the intelligibility.
29. The Vyakarana - Mahabhasya of Patanjali, Vol. I, Bhandarkar Oriental

Research Institute, Poona, 1962.
xviii
A Note on the Texi and Translation
Serious students of the Mahabhasya are aware of the

many difficulties in presenting a definite, final and ideal trans¬
lation of this work. The present translation and interpretation of
the Mahabhasya is mainly based on the two notable commentaries:

Pradipa of Kaiyata and Uddyota of Nagesa. Wherever the explanation
given by the commentaries appeared to be over-subtle or too far removed
from the natural meaning of the text, I have ventured to give what
seemed to me to be a stricter and more straightforward interpretation.
In such cases, I have clearly indicated in the notes my disagreement
with the commentators with reasons. Wherever the interpretation of the
commentators was not available, I have supplied my own in the notes.
6.4. It is a matter of regret that the most valuable commentary, namely,

the Mahdbhdsyadipika of Bhartrhari, is not available on the Mahabhasya
on P.2.1.1. It is available up to the first seven ahnikas only. The next
important commentary that is available to us is the Pradipa of Kaiyata
which is largely based on BhartrharTs Dipika. The value of this commentary
lies not only in its leamed interpretation of the Mahabhasya but also
in that it reflects the development in the field of grammatical thoughts
from Bhartrhari to Kaiyata. I have given the translation of the relevant
portions from Kaiyata’s commentary, because I think that it will be
invaluable to those who care for a first-hand interpretation of the
Mahabhasya. I have also given the translation of such passages from
the Uddyota of Nagesa, as contain an independent examination of the
Mahabhasya or show some difference from Kaiyata’s view-point or
present some new observations. The Sanskrit text of the portions trans-
lated from the Pradipa or the Uddyota , which follows the Nirnaya
Sagar edition of the Vydkarana-Mahabhasya, is given in footnotes.
usftfa t IR l K l K
( 3T2T
(sTOTT^nO
l ftfaftfcr #s4 w $--1
(3rT^s^)
^ fcgftgre : wsm f5RR: i firt^rRfir i g^rf^q^r i rtot

fl*rftRftwR 7<Tf*:pT«J a II ,
\ g^RiîR: 3fF^lf^qR-HRi i
(STcrsp-wr^)
« 3i: gs^^NTfawftffSW: I
(srf^hfw^pO
<t srf^K: jrf&fpi creuft^nRT ?fcT %T | qfaRTT g#R-
^R«tT Rcft JT&RR. I cM I JRfa: gJTR&W <^-
&TW: Wt |
()
% g^5T JRRM^: I
(srfasrai ni )
« ariwr *# grf^4 TRflNFTf g^r: gari hrwr. ii
is; arvrfrrftt; g^nrf^
c ûqt «n gw 4 wrsiqajr qfr |
<4. crl^pff^ STR^sfW* =q *wra 5EP2^tcft ^^rfcf firaftv-
ftqpf TOf^r^raqftcr: i sqfcjm 3^: em z qsfaq>r> =q qfq mirs-

ftqR TOfRgR^ PfJlClrt: SRfl^T-SSi^cn | 3fRq SPt$-
3 tR 5 tÎR ^ >T#cT | SRpqq | HHT^
[ <:. ^. «« ] * U- ?• \* ] fR I *wm\ 3 ^:
iRWFli ^ gRi qiqFoqTSRq qTq?qiSI% 3 % m> SPJ^t
»w& «Riw^s^jjffer: I
(fosiqnTi^q.)
* o qqqRRR 3 r 4 TKRqT %qq Rff?T II
( 3 n$rq*rr«ra:)
* \ U/Rft 9^cR^sq- gqqqfof fqqq q;qsq q fsfiqq | 3fq;qsq
<TF/rNRR 33«|Rr 3W3T [8. ?■ C\1 %frf I *T $*-
oqoT [ ^. R. ^ ] WIRjcT |
( 3 TI%<rem*ri«R )
\% ?T3 ^ TRR cf3 1 fiWRTC: TOR fft |
(airqqqmvrr^q)
K\ m *TRcT i Rqq | q qq cTl^Rewf|?TR: ||
(3r«T ^Rqqft^rrrrqqiiiqrfeRqq;)
()
t» 3R SRs&WPf k*H I
Ben. reads for 3 TKcT.
Ben, reads f^ for g.
(*) feffe focflfcft: ?FRqrT 6 | qigfsicT: qW%T |
<*') wto few, | q^q ^rtt qis ferat fqwjt^t 3 ^ 5 ^ ||
(ir) ^r [R. %• \°] A\fmd: feto: i
( sr ') ^qgfoi feqsR | feg cq 5I|^TT Wt qflft JJfl&q I!
M =qg«rr ?T2;^T^fef|rrpRT^%: [R. ?. U] Alfeni,aratorI

<*'> SPlfclgof feqsR I jfrqt fer ^Rrtiq II
( *> qsfjft gqR [R- ?. Vs] iqwrg.^gqqq.%qqq; i
(**) eHqqfoi feq*R i cq jtt ife^ri *rq qiî^ II
<*) qgi gsprw gqfeq c | ^Rg^r: qRWq^: |

gqqqftf few’Ki mqr <nr: g^r sqcrrrcq ll
(■*> Hfltft €l°|j [R- ?■ #°] ar^# 3 ^: ifciW: I
W) gqqqiqi feqqq. i piat ^q^testg qfiR: fqqfe qRPTR n
(arrg^r*^)
K% 3f«t feqtofq ?wîqr ?c wnq qqfq l fera ffq i

(jrai%<nm«ra:)
?vs q qi qqfe qffq;amq ffe i
(SW^TOWTT^T^PO
Kc qqfe qtqgqqq qqft qfSRg rniq^g.qirq® ferar qfrqrsfera ?fe i

qÎ fefSjqq qqfe *Tf cqjS fera ffe cT^T * qfeiTsq cRJ ^ Jfmtfe |
(3n$<T»n«Pi)
K% cr;i qraraq qqfe |
(srarrSTflt^^)
qrar qrMq qqfe fe
b Before 5i|tosR^, Ben. ins. STRRf^fiq*** *
v. After gs§>?r, Ben. ins. J% & ^Rszrm ^Tf ^T W$\ TÊlfasr

After Ben. ins.
^ Ben. *rt
b lfefar w
C. ^gt. R. R. <£.
(*. o
r? «rg?ri ^fwft i
g<g?rfir «ritr* i
( W]§<rwi«^ )
=U ^3 R ^ 3 fTf^ 5 II¥FPI 5 T^% I OTF I aT^TR^T^T® ^TT^S^-

wMFiwra an%qf 5 ^r|?Tf%te i
(^nfR^T^w;)
rh g^faircra; i ariffirg ftr#; qfogrpR l qn^qf^nrt'* sm^rfc-

cTRcT ^mr «ftcF 4 5 M#F %RrfRRFR 3 gg^ | «pfo-
dfq- g^gqki ctfr: g^rreR gf^Fg s^cFrftgrrr-
^ *r wf5 II
( Sfl%<T;in«r* )
ggfeft hrjtft *Rfg i
()
<*) 8R[R«lfaU
(4) ^jrgRs^l
<*> grcaawR wftfa 11
(3?T$q-*i«q?0
R\s ^R HRajiT^ WflcgwR ?Rg?%5P7^q-: g^gWr ^ffa: 3f5T

fM irratft 1
(?wNT;nTT«r»i)
r<s <jfa: I rrrtr^ gftsj *r£t r RRTRRr grqwrfr gtrrg: 11
(3n§qw«^)
m rr#sn?R gftaj *rr m c tftw srnrlft 1 3 ;*rrrt g^fRg ^r-

rwt g?g^: ^rttrt zmwffir 1
\$. After TO^^rT, Ben. ins. *
£. Ben. ins.
d . gsrwiSF TOffc^; Hf 57T. =?. *. 3; v.
«. ^mraifÊra;. v. %.
s»
i RpprrfejR *rf g^^wwfceacr n '■
( «JTraTÎWflTÎX )
*t <*> *R clft R gg3P7T^^T rJ^ ifrR-JTmrf^ I f%R3R: 5n#TR.I
( n ) ff ^TN' ^RtIPT gSf<*g. ^rtPT 5?3^: ^3rTPT W

*rrcrar q%tT ggîqiM^T ^ RT^f^fomt pr<t ^tipt
^ gwpr *t: g?i l <# i apreuft gsg^t ^tipt
jp^rr i qcr% fpftn<rt vt sw q:
j=? jptfiI: ^n ggspn^n istf?r II
( 111 ) 3 F®n=r g^riq- Wtoipt *fiF? i i
*TR«f [ <i. \. SS ] PfTfPJRT I cTCRTÎWr
^ 53 TOWR wftft ||
(arriijTWwpO
?& ifrrerft ^fiOTR *RTf?T HIpfig fm #” I

()
^ gfttr^Ri ffrR frlPT RT Mgoj ?T ST^RcT ffit gxfisqg II
( 3 n$q-*rr^)
^y ^ R^tmHT ffrW frlPT R «T JTg^qcT fcg^R ^tTPT
g?f^5^TTPT 3^: ^xRT <KRI?3R ffrFT UTOtf^ |
V* 3fn^5g5tr#rrf^ qôir^ n
(«nsiware;)
^ ^Ttift ^tR5?t ^H^m u iHi ifri^ fwr R^mî «r sgR^sg^g»^-
<K, After cTSf, Ben. ins. %.
\o, After Ben. ins.
U. After Ben. gives HIW3WRT H%3 ?W 3T INiWiWt * as a
Varttika.
After ?f STTmfcf, Ben. gives as j* Vtirttifa,
/. ^TT^. y. U?. * *
\\9 (*) q - q^qq |
<*) wmfi wm ?r *rqf% i
(^) 3mqqrcqra; i w wn*n%r qrqqq w smraq =q l q%irqT
qjfqq jpqlf qfccffg fsRT ?T% q ^Tgf=qqWiqq?qi' JT^cT Hf^RS-

T«lcr ffo | t??rWI%fT}|jTtSJTqq;cqirt% q f^TST^: KTTftfq I
JTW qqfrl qqfcf qq ff%*. | qqqT | Z&Z.xm
!FP: II
(sr?n^rpnn«nj:)
\<t qwrq^q |cpr?: Wjqiqtq i prfq Wr *nr: qqm qq^Treqfq qtsq?

qifqq iqqq qj^ iFq?T ^FfT {Rjqqf qqTxRqfo |
crwTîq: w^q^T ||
\<k $i <# srqkq^ i 3T^rr%n^ q>qqwr qqqjqrqr qrq?q qi

qq I sqqfqîqq w4 §xqmq afmqT^gfq^ i
(5r?q7^qTêTw^q^)
«0 PcTSFT qT% qqfaqq, | 3f5R4 q^f%q^qTqqqqqqqqreRq WW

grgcq qrfisqq. | 3fqqqjqTFT pflfq | 3{<rqifqT: I 3f^^Rt
srsmqf^fl qjfroT: l [\. {. *\ ] icqqfrqqrq qfqsqTcr I
Qcrqtqrqqqqqrqqi q>qqiqqr mw& qr^q qqw qpqqrfq 1 qqqqrq:

qqqq^q II
(#
(3rq
(ST-^vn^q-^ )
a ^ 3fq foqqmsfq qqqq?qt qqqfqg^qq f^r qqq qw 1
Before Ben % ins, 3 $.
ii \ ii
«r gwqfci q^mWtffara: n
(srw^n^)
*\ fi 2 ^: 2 «TW^ %fiT#T I
( )
yy w? 3«iwi% l w. 5 ^t ffit I sri% q^firoft ?R2^ # II
(ari^qwt^n,)
y<\ f%g s *r% gwMfcr ^tt^rtt ^nr: 3fT#raTft<g% 3^1%
(^mpTra^rr^)
y^ f# iglsR^mjf n
(srsw*^)
y\$ |
^^^«nrfwF^ w' n
y^ i^sRft 5 * i ^nr: g^r ?i% i gur% gjtf irafir l ^rg^r
ll
(^>*T#r5!T5??w sj i’i.)
<\o «praTT =f wfa fflft I *W ^Wf g^T|% I 5ETfr% rr ^RrfcT I *R-

ipr II
'{'*■ Ben. g^fcr; for gfrssrq:.

V J .. After hhj%, Ben. ins. g.
(*■ o
M JpricT BFRT I Rf: 3^T: gWl *TfT | ^PTTR *T
^ I ^ 3 ^ II
^ ™r?*t i tfi:g^r: i enrag#F<? l 5531^: l
tcT gÎVIT^TT fttTBT: I f% af| | R^R^RRTR I 3 flf Tf *FRR|
§ft [ R. «. *? ] 3TO&T %$% i [\.^.\o]
*rrrtrt wfflcrs' u
<\tt & cTt^r#TR?cTT fttlR: |
(nTt^n:)
_ _c_
^mTcPJ^T ©3
^q>i: fft II
(aîmtr^fforapaR)
\\ gwf^t ^ ETT# I *nr: g?B: RiTi: g?B: Rfi 3?T I *RRfT

r *rafrr | *Rq^r?f?r ll
3ffef giRq q^R<T JR% | $1 ^fiROR. I fttPRRft 3TRRR>
13{f ft ^Rrg^Rqg jrrt r fotre: n
(^ )
Hvs Rg r flfwcRrg. | r fc 5iRf>elR rrrr #ro; | 3 R£?r

RR 5RRR R^RSRR I RRrRR S^cfRsI^lcT^TcftqqR %RR
f^Rt R RRR | 3RR %RR I R* TC RRR Mr-
Rpft R^RKRlfRRRR Mqt R RRR ?cftf RR Mr* R^R I 3T§-
=er: %RT: RRT^R fR ||
(sjfTfiipTsa%ifR*imH:)
<\<£ RRiTfRRR RRR RTR^ I RT3T°TRr RRRT%SRlfcr

I RRR R^f^lT
RRRT RRRRRÎ
Rfa ||
g. ama^r- 5. \. rr%.
(fttrwwrrani;)
^ qgmit^q: i qqfcr fe.fafsrsrq^ssqg; m ^ptt% 5qq>q,i «n^ qrq^-
sqrfiq,| 3fq tRTl^TR^ I qqfcT 5fT 3^5?rW q^-
*WRT qtsgr gft^cr: T^m cT?q q^ftw | W ^ qqft |

arqq^re/trcqfq u
( STO^JTN Ii Wr^T§7;^T^Tl RT * )
ô s qq ^ qfqffo iq qqf?T qm I 3*5^ Uf: gqq ffal ^FTT% q q# |

<M^ , (?' i t II
()
\ \ gqteqfqfrq; l jgqr^sra^f^M qqft i cr^r«n 1Iqqrrcq gsfsq.

5=r^q gqgq; ?q?^ torA n
(^^Tfatr<jfcrf?JW( 6 *rq)
\\ =qqpTt qqft qr# i wqqfr: ^rrfqqqtqsj i qpqqtq; i gft qterasr

gqq^fcr i gqra q qqfa i ^rtft qqrajqqr ri% i qrrmqqtq: i «q-^
q qfTrf^q q f^qfqsreq q qtftfq i qqig q qqrar i qqqqqqqq-
fq^gfqqM qfftfq II
(arq arqffvrqFRq
( SHiTOWiq.)
\\ 3$qfwqqq<farq?icr iWq f^ qTqrfqqi qr%dftqTqqrdi%3re-

fqq?U
(3rR>TI'2rq)
gq gqqj antrqiqqrra; i q ^qr anf^q^
(sn^THJiq)
Va qw gq^nqif^qr%q fqpsqqT aqfl^qqr ?fq i qqn; qqqiq;i s re qfl pT-
Ben.
^ ( r. \)
^ 5^: [ < p . ] 3TTt% *% Rf^ ^ l
- (anriR»tm)
%% ^FRRRRTRTR' | R"*TRFj RTRI RFRJRTH?NRRfRTRfRSTRI TRTRR-

, RJTIRH&RR fRRR I RRRT I ^ CR7RR: TRT: I 3f% RRRR I
R ^R c TR^R RT <R3RRfl$J RfiRT^TRRRR folRR I RfRCTH' RTR
R: g R: R II
( 3TT^TW^)
^\S f% 3R: ROTRRT RlfeRRf I

(OTN[*W*nO
^ p( I W? §1RT RlfeRRT I 3RR irRRTRmTÎRr %RF-TR3-
fR^n* TOR: RRI rfR R RTR%R f>^ RRTRl TRRR I 3fR

cRR ^{RcfcRIR RR fR ^RRR^RT || 3J^4t: RRRR5RRR I Rt
(^t%w*rO
R %RTRI5R RcRR$ fRf^l Rf^RTSTRfRS fR | RRTcf ff JpTlfRRTR

Rf&R: RRRTR: I cPRT I W- ?®R I
v$o fam OTRTR: | RHFT5IRT <RT 'R R: | RTRRRRrÎ«J RRRT

fRRTR RRRR RT TRiRRRRfRHRT | RcRg fRRTRRt fR fcJRi RR-
RR: RrfRTV^R tWt RRRSRf JFRTRf RR RTRFR5TRT ffw |
R RRRFT^TRT: RfTR: RFRR RRR JTcRR: RcRRIR RRR ||
( WNHTffR^RRR )
3f5Tff%: RRRtRRFfRRRR I RfRT ft R£RT RRTRRT R fRRIRRT I R^j'

*\9. Ben. 3 t4i%?î: for r?3 : .
U- Ben. <sw ^ ^ cR*T %*T t*r: ^ f(=3 *m ) l [ mv
m 11 * II ] 3Ttf*R-’.
Dr. Kielhorn’s lst and 2nd Ed. jjf^zrqf foKg:.
Ro. After 5Tc2r^T^, Ben. ins. =^.
After Ben. ins. ajfj.
k «trursp;; %?r rw mrct; hirr; * r^stosrjtV; *%; Rf^ssjRrURVjr:
%. I. <« ; Y. =!. * ; Y. = . 5.<; ; '1. I. \$0, ; $.. Y. ^v$o • <1. Y. 3< ; Y. Y. \<C
I 3f=wr ^^5RtJT STf^tSqT mRTSfiafa#t: Tlf^T-
ftcrcsj I ?r ^safa f^rfrrcRqiq^nîw^ farNSfr aatsmrfer l at
ft ^TTc5^H5qf^T qsjlf^firft Ha|| 3v|4i f%
cFT f^T ^TTÎI
(3wwm*r )
sn^rc^R^rc ^ II R li
( ^TÎ^tt 15 ^ )
VSR mwmtaTC. I f% amra; I ^mfemrg; | ff ^ qajr ifrtqsjsjT-
ff%q-8j^ | âmcT$lcrgafrr ma =a gmr«r l m ifaraqlt
fm wm ar% araaaa famrâaafâ:^^^: înan i a =a

girai mrmrfrm i crcmnaf araaaa ||
(# arafftrama ^qr^Rpwrftwtq;)
vs
(ara h rfaam^)
()
\S^ m a IT% aaaf% R5 cf 3TTf: I
\sa TOaTfaara cfafaaTf: i
(wrsjTwapO
\sh m Iram aaat % ^trwfr afaaq piti [%aa§mTar i ftr ara: i

afa ^cmpfr af%*. ,a *Rasaaiaa?3% jwrTaarraaa
^f&sqcaama i 3rmnmrar iraa^flaaraât#qtff aaaftfa i
ftaaa ararfcr n atf qaairFafcar i
*\ aimiat i
Ben. *T6®fer for ttf%.
R%. After f[%:, Ben. ins.

i. Eg Yeda X. 106. 6.
h v.
(3TT?Î*pO
\S\9 gg^gCcRFIT JTTJT ff%: I
VS* 3T¥ JtFi^ | ^ f l^Tcf <*l% | .jgqtsq TRiqPT SFT^JTR: W qR

Ûf% | <IW I cT8JT ggqwfg qgqig: W qR 5fCT% I gq Jxfi q^RT
qgqpr q&ng; ^tgq girT^wq^ qgqrg: Wr gng; ll
( 3TT$q-9TRWT 6 ^)
\s^ gg RTtB *Rqgqqrgifcg% ggqqiqgiTgqg !TrRtRiqJT'7rrR'-fc5%STR-

mmft i
(?mrwR«n'2R.)
<J o %q gfa: I WR giRRiq gigfg | q:
gfTfg I crnT I eradi ggq^T gqcPTTg: W gajsRq gg# g* itfecff-

%r%ffqgrft i g grqqq: Wtfqfcft f#qq gm ggqg ggqfg ||
(fWPTwrffKWiig)
«i l qfqqgqqri^m W^fcT | cmr | fgqjôjqj ffg fgfq% fg gg

qpqqrfe^qiT wpt fgqgtsq gggs ?fg u
( WT^RKÎ Wtl«f^)
fqqq gq^ng: | gqfg gg qr =q qjqgt gmrqT i gff fl qqrg#

fgs<q igqi gg^fg gaj^qg g g^g g fqgq: i
(Hm^grww*^)
<c\ qqr gft q%qqqj^qqgj ffg i^Nfrqferfg ggg^qqifisrqoT w-

<qq gf|qgqgrsq giqgjq? ?fg u
( fl*TNRTRrm^ )
<jy 3fqgr gqqifqwtsq qg| i%qg i gig«q gw gg: gggr qr i w

3nc i gggggf qr wqfgfg i q;: jgSfc: wrf qT i ?c gi ??gg>
gq r srttr qgq m grnff qgg;: i pigrqi ggjgq ggr
ggq fgqgqgrRvq; -rggrsfq- ggrgjgqsq: #*q: i qqggfwg-
^v. After qr, Ben. ins. g.

34. After Ben. ins.
qqqt sqqf%% srfrg 5T
qfqsqfa II
(awsrfcqnqTsftairorwq.)
<£H 3fW |
|rf> JTR IT%: I
(ffJTmsnTt 5 ^)
^\s qit 5®^ | ft s?q?r i fatp&Tsq fcftqi <jq! q
^njjcr srqqrqqqqq 11
(suq^JnTw^nO
cc qg
( stht^wpjr;)
<s«> tott: gqffqqq qratfw l
(arrqqr wwi)
«,o 5TWTT: I
( «JTPTpnTT®^ )
M q Jiwgqq? I
(sTT^mT^vnrar^)
5TTITtl% |
fgq^T qiHldllrf |
<U *r ^T^FfPT: g^r: |
<*,y jt<ihftt gq qft srmtf^ i
qg %r q snwmnqr fltfq i
()
*A arfqftq: gisqrsqr^T: snfcmRqii^: jnfqqfeqnq qqqfq^
jmrqr gq ntqqq awlfq i
After qnfo Ben, ins. *=n%f.

r \$. After Jtf; jp:, Ben. ins.
k. 5rn%^^wi%w^m^T%5iq?n.^ 3 .
U (r. ?)
()
WWTA-qfeaqq^qTq: 5f?qf%: II 3 II
(sqrw^n^)
<^vs qqrq^qjqrqwqTqqqwnq: §q;;qfqq qfq4q n
(tr^r-cT^n%^^)
q^rc-qw ii a n
(sq-r^rr^psq^)
q^qrcsqqgi qrq*qfai ?-spq i qq qq: qi^sqqaji1 q m- w^-

qtRfcT I 1 % cft | Sfsqqt: I ff qf: qqq ?<fq> q^TT qqqrfa^ ITOFT-
fqtq gqqtsfa qqTq 4 r?jqssqqrfq 1 qqfcftrqq^qqr qî qrf^qq
qqfq 1 qqr wA \m ?fq T^qiqqqq^tfqqspqqr feffqr qifqqn'
qqiq ll
(arr^nr^)
«A 3fq q?jqqqqfqiq: qiq*qqqrft sqqsn qjq'4 f% qqqqRqqr q^qic)'-

f^qqtfqFTSf q;q: q^ qq^qq, |
(fWT^rHwrszpO
?oo qqffciTi; 1 q^qq, 1 qqtsqq% 4 q m qqqi: 1 q qrqqq: 1 qq-

qqfq jr^qqicqqq qq qrfSjfqfiqiqrqt qi^: sppqq qq fqqrfqtrq-
qif: 1 q %f qiraf^qTqiql w^: s^qet qq qq: qiq 4 qqq 1
qq qqiqrtq^q^q qqqq qtf^csrqTqTf: qr 4 t q a^qq qq qq:
qTq 4 wfq 1 qqqi 1 -ff s|TFq 4 fq q*qq fqRg^qq; q qft-
qrqq; ?iq 1 q;: jqqfr aq>nt: q 4 f: l s^q l qWI qqq q^s 4
qqq qa%q 4 qqq qqgrq qqqfqi% 1 qqsq qiqqqqqfqrq: qm 4
qfq fqqq: qjfqqq qqq 4 : qqq: qqsiq: qqq ?fq 1 qqqr l qqq
fq qqq qqfq^qq qqqqqfqfq q 4 cr 1 qqafsqqRg-qq qqqqq
ffq q^qq 1 qqr =qqgr qrq 4 qtq rqac: qqqqq qqfyqrq: qqq:
qqîq: qqq ffq 11 q;: gqftc q 4 pqq; l qq? f^qq qr ^qiqqr
rc. After Ben. ins. ?r 33 -^^ and puts ;j= 5 q% into brackets.
R%. Before sg;£nsr:, Ben. ins. «^sr4: *pr4 ^r% [
30 . Ben. for for «[ssttoTC *
stT ^ | srîf^qfriqf <3=r ^ l f% crft l
3 TCRFTft ^ | cmT | 3 /RTf^pqfT ^ ^TCtcT: II
3rcsrr *raf5T %pncfa%s sFnfire&r i cmr i arfer m m spfw: i

3 TM fft 1 $: *f«Fq |R | gqpT fcq§: 3 ’ II
(«fa^r^mrnnO
\o\ ^crfw^qâjFqi fttrr: g q^r: |
(sjtiwwtr»);)
\or wf^Tq-srrqi grn m^Ri ^qf
JTfcR^ qrfisq: I fMircT: I 3PT Z?£\ I 3ffe f#8T
sq^%R fasTR: g-RlfcF 1 I g^W^RTT: I 3 fR?r T^T cl^r >#-
I 3TR# RT vrfWrT I gR«R<)«J SWtfft $RT
R 5 TRRR: JTTpPci m cP*i gfftsft *m&t : II

(snlmTr^re:)
\ o \ qcn %m i
(*mreH*rp«R;)
?oy JTTfq TfqcT | T% cfft | ârnai^T qqqj
3nc cr:ri^ smiqî w^m, erinm; i 3?q ^-. \ 3r^ft%n*q?r 1

5 * 5 : Sficlf TJcqF^T ^r^TlftwqiTR: qvm | emi I
T^f?r 1 m ^rert ^ *r ctwr arrefc 1 3^ ^ 1
3?. Ben. puts sffjfpj- SS& into brackets.
33. Ben. fqqiji for fqsfRr:.
I. f?tefcr|:. <i. l. tc. .
“»• ^^gqTit^fareqJTt^Rrer. <■• \- 3 «,
qfeUfftfcT I ^ ^JTTfw^M:
^TT Wm ||
('^w^wTirraq:)
jm pipiN: ii $ ii
(sqmnrrapi)
?o'a jt=^pt ^^!rr%qqf ^Rsq: i m\ ^v-m^ jswsi ^qqrsniw l

( ra^q^srmqtra^q )
*W*focT»>lT ^T II 'S II
K*% en%^TOTi qT T^TFf qfqsqfcT I qqfr qq: ^cRlfoT | qrfr
| fcT FcFT s | cn?[ HI^cTn fl%: iTTHlfet I cTW | Wl-

cRfsq qMqqiteRqqrqqj^q sn^q^q ffq q*q% II
(s^nw^vrn^)
\o\$ 3 ft^ 3 nf i gqqcFMf qr qqqqi gqrat qfq*ql% i qqiq gq: w&-

rRTfoi I qiR SFSRTsfrfq | jfq Frf^ I gmR qqfqtqqq^Rltqrfil
TRT I qqfq fq%q: RFq^rTcTR fqcJRqq R II
HW^nr«qfu %g^ 11 c n
(siTTîra^qq)
\©<£ ^<iqRq«qkiqq-: feqqg, | qgqiqq m- qqfcr qjqqqq ||
(sm^TRnj^ J^mparq)
ôv* 3 *) 3 ptc 3 nc i ^qqcFMi qi ^Tqgm^qrg; i
( SÎWI^)
(q) *fr$ctcfit qi gqRi gqigl qqfo 35 1
(anlrr^q^)
\\o 3ff^R% qq% I
33*1 Ben. h*TTS*T for ^n*T*
3v. Ben. transp. and
3 V Ben. gives ^sfa^T 37 as a Varttika,
3^* Ben. vrf^qT% for ^fcT-
(*wmi*r*nwpO
l\\ <*) ^ *fi$cP 3 U sit <pr^ *m
w em# ^ i
< *> T^? cTft | # ?I^n^gm>3T9?ra5^tT«Ti ef HfTRTt *mfct I

(*) jp?r^ crj m# ^ jtwtto- eftajrenft eme: n
(aro sTT^WOTrrf^cw^)
(^rm^Rir%^)
snwe e^TOiwftî 11 ^ n
(smw*n«raO
K\\ (*) afujqici ei 5 *# emrcm emrcmfttm mFRet micftft m-

5*R. I epm*R I 3$: <T5f?r I sfrt: 7S# I emiemi. I affar
T^rfir i emrcmfttrwr. i 'refer II
(*rm<?$Fr *rp^)
< T > îfeiiwi 3 ' %fer I gqj refer i §*§ $%gr n

K\\ w 3Tic I arneme i emfa frenfr fomfotmtft n
(qm®g«iRR?irf%w;)
II ?® II
( s^trni^TT'^ )
K 'îfers wwi wflfw ^5?^ | |% gff II
een^ ~
(sjrnFfPTP^)
WW 5 Tfm
t: II U II
renmT: l f% jprfajre; I
%\b. Before Ben. ins. as a Vartlika .
\c, After q^f^r Ben. ins.
m i 3(4 ^ ixt^t I afof m

l 3{Rjf m w4% ||
#t jrf<i 3 W%% ii « ii
(sjfi^pnsjR:)
\\% îf^ftqFT srfcrît ^ si t: i mm ^ w *m =3 wi .ll
HV 9 | q#qi^Ff 5 f îfsfWT 5 TRfq^ I
(^nupram^)
\\<Z ^Wjt f^cf «IRTOS! ?WRWITf^R«[ I
^fg^Tcf ifg; i rrer^: ^rf4m4fn
*rc 4 tf 4 ||
\\<K gr ^FR4 ^FFTtffT ^TtRsqT sfTRsq: |
(OTi^mnwrw^ ir%^ q.)
^fSfTJRRT I|
II «II
(saiTMWT^)
«o *mf 4 w ft gnTiTifw^gTfig^wrR °f &4 wra i SHRTft-

«fitft 1 % 3[MTfw | $53 % TTRJTR | gJTRTfofitft 1 3^x5 |
^Tfesfc ^ | ^4 cT 5U%T I f[TT#n rf 3ffcjf c^lft |
ÎT#Tf JT 3fte4 5^TT4 I T% JfT: ?T f^FTRT | 3f^?p3T3 ll
( 3 i«i )
*rwW: fisrwraift ft#*n4ig; n n
Ben. iTH^mg for ^W,

vo. JRT?pJtT& for JTsiFqT?T.
x\. Ben. gngpiT^ for «IHsTT.
«. * : *mcnhg%' *• w.
v ; , A M
(sqmrmwra;)
W wiit 0 fl^rrajraw: i % wmj fl^#imra;i 't wz 'tmt i

> it: #t I
(m^wrcraraTwp*)
m fag«£r fepiRPraw ?fw *mm n
(an^Tm^n^)
fepTRuraw %w %ft% sqt: ^pcrct: ynrasratf feprrasrejf

cfer l erit i feJT^r^r 5ra# ton^raw fft l
fosrfq- snarfir i
tRa ^
()
W\ ^cTS^T =<* JTt; r 4\t JTfafT^ I flft itWW flsmfejfc-
frfRT l W ^cTSFW wtfw WT JTt: #fafi=r 5RT ?r cT3J ^
srratffir i ctst sfrWffi ^ Ii
(««rernifforO
M 3 ii SH ii
(s?rt^jfTwp^)
\r\ ^Rfq%mr JTf: w ^rrar ^ =t *m-
®tct: i ^qitcT^ i jt ft i wn^-qJTR jt^T l qWr nra wr

?r slfcrfm tfcrfr ^R^rfq- qcrcr i m\ m jfiî qofkfafel n
*r\s %r î 3=ret 4t ^rfto^rftfit: w wm- snalf?n f% to-
1srcnWg; l l wflft u
(^r^r^ti^ni;)
Wt W' <tft 3Tt: SifkiftswmrcT tf?T W ^PTRTt ^fcT |
( SJTWR^TM^ )
JNFR5T cRT Jrhfoft ^ 5P?R^T 31^^ ^FfRT: ||
(?# wi# ^nTT^f^krf^^)
«• Ben. suarier i ^ ?
o- «itwilwgfr; 'i. v. v.; *. k . *h.
v - srthPst^ <i^î e? htt. *. rj *.
(3ti%'RRr)
U« 3R fert 'RRR SFRlfeRR: &R% I

( stmrmririsFO
^R’ 4 t smfefc ?m ^jRPTrwrcig; u H n
(sqTW^TT^)
\\l <T 3 #H WiTf^: TRRf RTT^R RRT 3 fR=Tpfal% RF? W ftfl^-

irrcr | fcigg trrr? sf rt#r i Rgg §r$ ^ r ^ qqq%f% ||
( 3T[%T^TI%^)
smffNro ii li
(«TTwnrr^ra:)
^WRRRtR mq?T gqRTRRFR: | 1% R TRFRJ fRR: |

RJRRR gfTT?r cTFR W: qqRRRR | q R RR^q fcRTCR-
rrrtr ^rI^rrr TRTRRiq mA RRfqg rrrs r i rtr-
mt 3 ^nrafsnftfir u \c u
(sq-T^TVTI^)
\\\ fenera; l rrI. i gfraki trr ftfafoeftfcr rrrr, ii
(anî^nc.)
\\* frir £%Rqt# rrtr i
y 3* After 3 j*j, Ben. ins, into brackets
q. fEfit qvrfk- $.. 1 . \3V9.
r. <0to; ^rttkt. %. \.wr,
(wn^^Tirra;^)
II II
? 3f«t%tr«rf%^^Ttsq^ i Wiw =et wfqte 3 *rofai =q ^mfcrftRt 11
( aTT^trarapO
\\\ qqqfq stt^m wjra'i trq&q:
\\^ ^q sfa: 1srpfo qifqqR^wifailfct sîftfq qfq^Rr II
( 3 TT§q-w^)
\\t <?wfq RrfqqrfiPri ?r wW wk # l
(*ri*TR* n**P*)
W ^ cTf| g^q^qRq ÛTOT: ^R^t: I g*I&T Rrft:
^mRrfq; i ^mqtffft: ^mRrfa: i gqqki fqfa: smfqfa: wi-

fii^r: gqqfqRr: fqR): grptfqfa: I qq;*q qd^Rr: I T^-
fff^T: q5qqft: I qa^pri fqfq: qajqft: | q^jflRn qatf^: I ^ ^f^T:

qqqqRn i ^{qiq^ sqqftftsj sqqRtRrsr wilfqq *m-
ftrw ^q^pr: i q^Rrs? q^Rrfts? q^qsj q^fqfa*? qarfqfasj
q?[fqqq: i gwqqq*? q^fqqqg *m: q^fqfq: l $. *fto 3 ttc-
T 3 ^tq| qrd ^4 fqqT%: ||
(aWPfrrfafR;)
TOiîwpra^ II R° II
( szfUfjnvtiKq^ )
l«0 tWMIRwupjqti^l*t «hdoqj^ | %;: q$qj 4U^q:® l fq> 3iK&T ^T
W 1 aranferaj qpwwfoj
w. After Ben, ins.
$.
R. *. V,
ll RK II
(s*nw*n^)
\V{ RfR fSR <RTRT R RfT tfPfcRR.! 3f«T ff 3°i: RfTR? RR^ RfT
wrrj 3prt fc %r goTts^rr ff gfR<RR. l
Im?. rrrcrrrMrrt rrrr RffR i apft ff r =r
crrrTrrt rtr 4 *refcr ii
()
% rt Rtifi gq rrr? rtr 4 s^r =R R Î
( SRST&TOflPTR^T^ )
?y« RR MT: i RR RRRTRRRRiFR^ %R jpifS^: gfRRRjl
( )
?«r ^RTîpl^rrq- dt jft^triwsr Rf^rfR i
()
l"<tZ, 3f?i?R[ fSRRfTfRRR 5TSRW gq^cT RRRR: slfligR II
()
?«\S R*| RRRRRtS# RRTR |
(wwr^m^JtR)
KMt R3TR«TRRT R g JRRR I R ff JJf ffg% R§r 4 RfRR fIRKfiiff RT

R^RfJI
(?rwmr^r>rr' ) -fR)
JFTflf^^RTfif cffcRt RORR f5Rf*T 3R^R: RfRfTgR.1
( )
IRO 3JR goTR^jf^: SrfRRRftcT I

(^R^RR;)
K\i fSRRfT$#SfR RRRTR RRTRI^ffcr |
VH. After snWR I Ben. ins. vtîqfg;.

*$.. Ben. tRT^r for gjpf, .
WISI ^ 3T I
()
% =W cTT^kk I
(jRTr^Tfm^rm^)
m rn ^TR^.1 V^> ^5fj: 3?fcT: gt^: I W%' ^tg: $# ffa I
(srwr^T^rrsr^vnsjr^)
*V\ %3F*TKftof>Hf WM!ff Kf^T 5T3#T ^<<TtRT^| f% wm\\ 3TC-

Wn ^!T%T: | 3R ^qRRRFfM JT*p£r I d%kfrfiRT-
toi$w %fftR spfiW* ^ i gwMq>i sfet II .
( 3 ?T|rtpTf^)
\\% ?r dckf^w^' *flfw ff?r i
(*r*n*rR*n ^)
\\\3 %<TT gqpfM | ^Rts^r =mp? I qmT W& Wf‘ I
3rf[% -#t vrîr: | ^ ^tortr sfr n
()
l\£ Rk cjf! *R fefwiFr Tti^sqfiTfTft crft JTTtftfd |
3^frqM fficiT 3;&rtar TOk i af^rcft fcf^-wi" ^rai' ftfiq: i

gq^ra; | l
(RTNr*nrpanO
?<-a ^ ^ ^r cr rjwrfw-
fflR# I m gT#T: eiHRnkôq^ I ^ ^ eiwk: flPTffrfW-
roni.1 gf gnpt z°q ^ ll
(RnwRRrc^rpsR)
\%0 3JW cffgiTRTn#^ qcSPTH ^ R I q-
%cggR wkjfr 5T ll
W9. BeD. *j^: for 3 ;^:.
Y£. Ben. for
t. mm «t§?r. =?. 1 .*°-, w
3 TW qjq^ ^n^TqR^s¥tT% cHW ^Tqrfqq^qfq I ^ f|

^qsfaqi^fegqqqq i qqqi i qqfopjreq sgfqqqj qqfcrafq-
^t s^f^rrmf^r i qqi -qrqw ftinqfa^ [r. ».
* ^ ]*' f^qqr^fcf q*qq ||
( 3 TT%q*n^)
qqqqiqqq^q srcrqTfW^qfos**^ i fq qqRqqj qfq

wi, q$: qtaqfaqqq^ i
( SR^TO*^)
\\\ qfq gqrqrfqq^Tq^qq^qqt^qfT gfWtaer qgf^qq fcqq t#

q 5 TFTt% |
( 5 Rrr^fm 5 fivrTB^)
K%m 3 fqFqfq%ifq^q qq I
K%\ q=r =q f^rr qqiqnqq^qrowq qfcqqj %: 3?^ qftg^q: l
qiKDTq. I 3{gqq?qiq ||
( PITOITO^ )
:i 5 fT ^wRTTg; 11 rr ii
(s wmTP^m)
q qT q^sqq. 1 fq wm^ 1 qqqqirpqra; 1 qqqsrwToqRq wm\

qftwfq 1 fq qqqsrFnoqq. 1 $in 5 W^swfftT%fr v w
(^qTOWRtmVsmTTrfeq)
3 flTWqs ^ II R\ II
(wrmnTRm)
\\\* ffqrwqs qft^qiq qqsqq. 1 fq«qkrrf*q: fqqrcrqfo: 1 jfqiw-
Y%. Ben. om. fi%.
ô. Before ... Ben. reads into brackets s^Tl%OT^fl*PTRTTT-
as a Vdrttika.
u. <^. 3. V*.
cpf 1 ^ i $m, i I f% wmmj); i fiif^sjTS^:
[R.R. \ II
(*rm>rmm*nwra:)
\%<Z 3Rcq?q-\cRJT ^ srafarp*. I feiR. I §TRT I -' -"
(WNRT^^rr 5 ^)
?T 3Rt ff^^^TiTMOqrf^r I f% clff | ^SR^qTTmTWTT^ I
T%t 3 tpi^ w n
II W II
(sqmnrr 3 ^)
?\S 0 crcWNfi gjf: f^fcra; | cre^Frarfî I cfWfera?!: cR?fo
i cTcewrR^ i *rpnwr \
3 TW gtsfacR$: | iRW I cT^^Rl^ ||
( 3 T^TI^)
m m. 3|?ri ?rt*ww: f^> ^ i?i^T: s*rigt wnftf^M^r l

*\SR ^?JT5[ fattt: I
( 5 T*m% )
wrn 3 *tt§^% n ^ ii
()
^ts;m%<r sjfc^ransuf «^f 3 ? 3 : [ R. R- ^ ]
affROTM SRfiSJPIJ fflft W *7T3. I g^T^n^q^RTT ?% II

(^WTWm)
*\sy 1 3 f 5 rrfqr *wrgt wfa 1
4^. Ben. marks jpn?2n%3 ^ as a Vdrttika.

w. \c 37 . 3 -*. ’ * * J
WW |RT II ^ II
( wh^wwh: )
*\s^ sjqtfcqfc g*ns fi% | ft; «broiî qfi festrararaj ®r qfi

ft<TO% I
(^ÎWTT*^)
\\9\ W5W' fqqf: sfi^T: g8J«5 'W-T*? *sfT3^ q^T?T%% I f% crft I

qq ftuf: qrfRct | gapj '*TOta«r gaRffrft1 J?tT%si qosrcrsr 3%-
<&m l s^rotwt =q <qT%q^qrr ^ gaR?fa*q%q<srciT # 11
(^€iwin s ^)
?\s\s <») d^qTcpr^wcfT^^ft *r fcM%® starafeitfgtaRirc ?t% arrnm l

( * ) R %C 3 nfqrRP^ |
(%) qfqcR =q q|q I%|: T^qq | ct?TT =q qt^T =q ^cTiqim^ I %ST

=%tctt =q qgTîcTift i staiqfarct =q ^stîctri =q ttarorar^-
atsmR: I It^qiflRatSTcTT^g *T f*Rf% i
*RIHRraf?faPi |Rvs ||
(«n?OTTr«nO
RRTRcRq =q qfqqqT «RW: | qiqFqq^q^qfq V qiqrqqwcq^-

fqfcf 5TTRrfcT |
(^mpTqRn*^)
*\s^ %q stq: 13Rfq qVi qVr rc wri qf^qicf i p; =q ^

wsqa[R. l <q^ ^ ^ l qjqi =q ?qqw^ =q
ll
U« tr^^sisTcm: qq qft q rr^ i
<^. Before jtr?4i Ben. reads f% =g.
'-,?. Ben. Vf for q- =}q\
*. 3 TRTf ^ g;£. 5 .. 3.
y. srsn^^fi^RqirifR. ,j s. v. \°K.
z— t T^fX’
K*K
fTcTTtoRWT I
^rterftrf^pq Z$\T$\ *T ||
(ftfarrcarpfgwwiwpO
?<:r 3^3 I
(m^reri%R*0
sifag^T ^nsRWTHt: n Rc H
(«rmnn«pO
Kt\ «nri^far I ^ |
(sjn^qprîr^)
U« ^ d*rt *T3fw i ^ \\ 'jfopifjfa: ggreirer-
fsfa: I ^ II WER I WFTffo:* | *WI«M || jq^jq |
( H^TT^R^TT%^ )
* TOTOpc^ II 3° II
(*qmmi«raj
Kt^ 5T ^T I ft» I | 3^qtsq cr^HfW-
«f^T ^WT^pTf^sO^ ||
(an^nnszpO
\c% m-. wu
(twsTFnmTispO
(«n^jrrmMq:)
t*\S 3RTteTrK4 foqqi <jqVaf $mt bb ffrT | 3f^3T^ II
® <Tt^^fes 5 Ri- 'i- V. <^. "
aa )%q-i: re re rpr- ffft ffaTfes. 5. ?. 3*.
66 q*mrer; srfwr 'jjfoqq;. I. K. v& ; *.. *..
( )
frfil fwfarw: I T%5TI%%% TO% ? 3 ^^ cc 15 it 1^-
tR5r^w^n.i
( W WTITWrWT*^ )
\c\ u qtfwfiTi 55: i t% erit i araq^ff^sR. II
(^JTT'?TJT^^ri%s’i;)
f^RfW^r#T^5T3T II 3^ II
(anwwn;)
ô mu Rfiw^T%Rra?Rr qrRqqj tu ^r u
fqfqrTI | qfqlMKWxT Rfarfi dd ||
cTr# q^q fqfqrf^TTRfqfxigtr q#nf^ i
(eimrr5PTi E *R)
=t q^qn.1
^rciRTir^R* 3 PT^
II 33 II
(sqpeqnTP 3 ^)
\<*A jRRrfnf^wtifcfqi^-t qsfq®' 5 rr^mqfqr^ fqfa^^rcr-

q#7TRfer |
(OT^T%^Rnrt E ^)
u. i^rar ^rnirrf^qqrftrfwq^^t iftpj ii r%<* qw qzm
1#f: f|lI%;f|Tf%: I^RTR: TKt qRTfT | m U I 1^ ltqf: cffasTcT

<#: ftTfcKS cT rq 1#T%cTq: q^RTcR: qi5T qRlcT | 3fq^q fqqf:
%qq iqj: r%ml#;Rncf: i^ftifer: qrd q^qqfq qri: qisfr i fiT%

fgTTTftcqq Rqsq qrq# *#Rfq/ II
ce mr%q 5 r <r< ;rr^ ?.. *. =-

dd afs:ctm 1 îT 0 *iTfre ?.. ?.. U<.
ee gwdSRW 5 - i’.
ff riqh %• v*.
3f^r rrft qptiRPRRq cTtJ^WffT STTR^for I g*fe»RZ%ftsr §qcnf%R-
srrcrar i m m'. i %rawi?;-
fqRTKTtRf «qit&MlcT^fa' I
(s r*TR*rp*p*)
%T sfa: | %£ cRT^RT I ff: rflt I *w
STI^telWW cCTW? cTggqftfe cTRrraT?TrIc5f qFRqfcT ||
(3rr%w*r»0
^\3 Rg ^TFIMfRT I fog |
^ f#$<Jl ST|^ [ R. ?. <vs ] ?fc
(OTimWR.)
\*,<Z *#sqft II
3T9T Clft qfqtucRqî ^cqjTOfT 5TFTTRT I arfqqwrgq’? ffrt^ | cR
(3TT%q^T^^n^)
roo %q £h: | pt% firwiq- ll
(an^nJ^TT^)
Ro\ qRflt %JFcf: I affqqî^qq fft ||
(stTjjTfiT^Twfq- OT«re^?nMR)
f£ ^prfw^qfeq rhirirt: srFfrfir | ^5RRq #^FTRa^-

RT%$mW?r™ I
Ro\ tq <£fa: | 3Rqqi^^fq |
Ro« % qJT: q^qsqqi^f^ft cT3; |
( ^wpirw«k )
ff m ^;i
II
99 - frisaiijramgiri^R =?. v. m.
hh. f>RIÎ^qT^RT5l?rnl5 ftifi. s. 5. v..
ii. «i.v.e? 91 . *.*.*«.
(R. O
()
apifidiT d| sndn% i
^wsaaraw^tfTOân [ =x- *. i
(^'Tprep^pO
ôvs a gw #r aaft*aia: i wi; i p raa?: arfâer srf^^rr ars-

aaWrcafa ii
( 3TT^q^T^^2n^)
a.o<s w #5 %t: acamaraa ctct ^ kk ardrfer I atf =a g aPT:

snaasaraa l srf^Fr: 11 \
(^qqr wtf^)
acap?aia dddpr wii aafa*apr: i cita iaaf: a#aa

arfâiT afsaaToadfa 11
(3TT§qr^mvn^q^)
r\o *mr aaafaaiaaaaiV gâpit; i apra, | aprar g =a api: jtcWt-

aasa =a raatTsfd affaaa afsaarapreafcr 11
()
Rl\ a=a apfprfaaprfsaar a ftpadfa ^ fdtr w I apia. I araaT a

=a apT: acaPjaTaasa =a faapsfcr 3#an' afaaafarcaicr ||
(3TT^q*TFq^)
a.^ 3 . arfîciaa^ a fdafa i

RU aârsa ara: n
srq*r w qqtFnfi^; i
jj. aâa aa«rgnara;; t%j:. h. v. »?; ^. *. *$a.
kk. 3W<fiUHmT«t; *. R *; <V V. «3-
& q. ar. v.
PATANJALI ’S
Vyakarana - Mahabhasya
SAMARTHAHNIKA
( P. 2. 1. 1 )
Translation and Explanatory Notes
(NOW STARTS THE FIRST AHNIKA IN THE FIRST SECTION OF THE
SECOND CHAPTER)
SAMARTHAH PADAVIDHIH (P.2.1.1.)
(/. AS A PARIBHA$A:)
‘(Wherever) an operation conceming a finished 1 word (is prescribed),

(the word) samarthah : ‘semantically connected’ (is to be supplied)’.
(II. AS AN ADHIKARA :)
‘(Wherever) an operation conceming a finished word (is prescribed in

the section starting from this nile), (the word) samarthah: ‘semantically
connected’ (has its continued effect in the subsequent rules belonging to
this section)’.
Note (1):
(a) For the meaning of the word samartha see discussion in Bhasya No. 2 100
and Note thereon.
(b) Katyayana, Patanjali and the later commentators on the Astadhydyx

understand the word samarthah in the rule as samarthdnam: ‘to (words) which
are semantically connected’ (see Bhasya Nos. 132-139). They take the word
padavidhih as vidheya: ‘predicate* and samarthah as uddesya : ‘subject*. In this
interpretation the rule means: ‘(wherever) a grammatical operation conceming
a finished word (is prescribed), (it must be applied) to (words) which are
semantically connected*.
(c) In the interpretation of P.2.1.1 stated under I and II, the word padavidhih
is taken as uddesya and samarthah as vidheya. Padavidhi is the condition for
supplying the word samartha. Compare Bhasya on P.1.1.3, Vol. I, p. 46, lines
27-28 3 : wherever the word gunah or vrddih occurs, the word ikah is to be
supplied. See Nagesa on Bhasya No. 14: samarthapadopasthanam : ‘presentment
of the word samartha * (in rules dealing with pada). See end of note (3).
1. The term ‘finished’ is used of those words which end either in a case-termina-
tion or in a finite verb ending, i.e. those words which have undergone the com¬
plete process of grammatical derivation (see P. 1.4.14).
2. Wherever reference is made to the Bhasya text by number only, the reference
is to the division of the Sanskrit text as presented for this translation.
3. Wherever reference is made to the Bhasya text by page and line number, the
reference is to the edition by F. Kielhorn and K. V. Abhyankar. The
Vyakarana-Mahabha$ya of Patanjali, Vol. I, Poona 1962; Vol. II, Poona 1965.
Reference to Kaiyata and Nagesa is based on the edition of the Vyakarana-
Mahabhasya, Vol. II, Nimaya-Sagar Press, Bombay 1912.
Mahabhasya (P.2.1.1)
The difference in interpretation, viz. between that of Katyayana c.s. and the
one proposed here, does not entail any difference in the application of the rule.
The difference only concerns the wording of Panini’s rule. In the interpretation stated
under I and II the word samarthah can be retained as it is. No change into
samarihanam is needed.
(d) The difference between paribhdsd and adbibar a is discussed in

Bhasya Nos. 3-13. It seems that Panini takes the rule as a paribhdsd , because
his general practice in the case of paribhdsd-mles is to mention the condition
(in the present case the word padavidhih) for the application of the rule in the
rules themselves (see the section on paribhdsd in the Siddhdn’a J ?aumudi) 4 . In the
case of adhikara- rules Panini generally States the limit of application in the rules
themselves by such words as prd£: ‘as far as’ or d: ‘up to’, but no internal con¬
dition for selective application of the rules is mentioned. In the present rule the
word padavidhih cannot be taken to indicate a limit for application.
(e) The purpose of the rule 2.1.1 is to establish that rules dealing with com-
pound-formation apply to words which are semantically connected and not just to
words which happen to occur in immediate sequence without semantic connection.
F.i. by P.2.2.8 we derive the compound rajapurusah : ‘king-man*. The word
samarthah , supplied from P.2.1.1, informs us that this compound is only allowed,
when its members (‘king’ and ‘man’) are semantically connected. The phrase
bharya rajnah puruso dcvadattasya: ‘wife of a king, man of Devadatta’ may
serve as a counterexample. Here the words rajnah and purusah occur in im¬
mediate sequence, but no semantic connection is there. Consequently, no com¬
pound can be formed of these two words. For further explanation see Bhasya
Nos. 14-15.
(NOW STARTS THE SECTION IN WHICH THE MEANING OF THE WORD vidhi
IS EXAMINED)
1. ( Bhasya: Question ) 4a
What is this word vidhi (i.e. how is the word-form derived and what
does it mean) ?
4. The edition of the Siddhantakaumudi used for reference here is the 8th ed .
Nirnaya-Sagar Press, Bombay 1942.
4a. Question many times implies objection. Objections are raised in the form of
questions. When from the context of the Bhasyas it is ciear that an objection- is
raised in the form of a question, the term “objection” ( aksepa ) is chosen. When
there is no context to suggest objection against a previous argument, the term
“question” ( prasna ) is selected.
Samarthahnika
Kaiyata 5 :
(On) ‘What is this word vidhi*. As there is a doubt, because the meaning
(of the word in question) has not been settled, the question (arises) whether
(the word vidhi ) is (derived) in the sense of action or in the passive sense. If we
take it to be derived in the sense of action, we will have the genitive case in the
sense of object (farmani, P.2.3.65), because pada : ‘finished word* becomes the
object of prescription. In the other case, the genitive will (express) the sense
of relation in general (by P.2.3.50.).
Note (2):
Vidhi , derived in the sense of action, means padanam vidhanam : ‘prescription

of finished words*. Thus P.2.1.1. will be applicable where a finished word is
prescribed (see the mpatana-rules P.2.1.17; 3.1.127; 3.1.128; 5.4.126).
Vidhi derived in the passive sense, means: ‘what is prescribed’, i.e., grammatical
operation. In that case padavidhi means padakarya : ‘grammatical operation (like
compounding) applicable to a finished word* ( padasya vidhih means padasya
k&ryam). For a similar discussion on the meaning of the word vidhi see Mbh. 6
on P. 1.1.58, Vol. I. p. 151, lines 17-20.
2. ( Bhasya: Ansrver)
The letter i 7 denoting the passive sense (is added) after (the root)
dhdfj preceded by (the preverb) vi. What is prescribed (by Panini 5 s
rules) is vidhi: ‘operation 5 . But what could that be which is prescribed?

‘Compounding 5 , ‘prescription of case-ending 5 and ‘treatment as a part
of the following word 5 .
Kaiyata 8 :
(On) ‘But what*. This question (is raised by the purvapa^sin 9 ) , because the
specific (categories of) grammatical operations (applying to a finished word) are
5. P. 313: fafsrfrfa ^ #ri awfPrewra; ^ sre?r:i f%
ffTSpr:, spJTCmPT: I ITTsrcnspT 73TPTt I
smcsr i
6. Mbh. will be used as the abbreviation for the Mahabhasya.
7. I.e. the suffix ki prescribed by P. 3.3.92.
8. P. 313: f% 'pTfrfrT I II
'mfcftwn?-HFmro i
9. The purvapak?in is the person whose role in the discussion is to raise doubts,
ask questions. He is answered by the siddhanttn who settles doubtful points and
gives his views as final. Occasionally there is a third person, the siddhantyekadesin,
who will refute objections, though not in a final way. His role is to provide
a part truth which suits the occasion. In the discussion going on in Mbh. the
partners are not persons different from Patanjali himself, although the division
of roles may go back to discussions actually held by Patanjali with students or
opponents.
Mahabhasya (P.2.J.1)
not stated here (in P.2.1.1). Another (i.e. the siddhantin ), who has already
in mind the specific (categories of) grammatical operations to be stated subse-
quently, answers: ‘compounding’ etc.
Note (3):
The three categories of operations, ‘compounding*, etc. are prescribed for

finished words. Therefore, they come under P.2.1.1. Vibhaklividhana : ‘pre-
scription of case-ending’ may be illustrated by P.2.3.4. This rule prescribes the
accusative case for words joined with the words aniara and antarena. The pur-
pose served by P.2.1.1 is now that the accusative case is added to a word only,
when it is semantically connected with the conditioning words antara and
antarena , and not, when it is just followed immediately by them without semantic
connection. The rule P.2.3.2, which prescribes the accusative in the sense of
object, cannot be strictly regarded as a padalârya, because the case-ending pre¬
scribed here is added to the nominal stem and not to a finished word. In order
to assign the status of padakarya to rules like this one Kaiyata somewhat reverses
current procedure. It is not so that a case-ending having a fixed categorical mean-
ing is added to a nominal stem, but the finished word, ending f.i. in the accu¬
sative, must be used in the sense of object (harmani ). Words ending in other
cases will not have that sense. To this interpretation Kaiyata gives the name
niyama: ‘restriction*. In this way rules like P.2.3.2 become padal?arya also.
Parangavadbhava : ‘treatment as a part of the following word’ may be illustrated
by P.2.1.2. The rule States that a case-inflected word followed by a vocative
is treated like a part of that vocative, when a rule dealing with accent is to be
applied. The purpose served by the word samartha in P.2.1.1 is now that
P.2.1.2 will be applied, when the preceding word is semantically connected with
the following vocative. Only then.it-will.be treated as a part of that vocative.
For an example of ‘compounding* see Note (1) sub (d). The construction
vibhaktividhanam vidhiyate : ‘prescription of case-ending is prescribed’ (accusativus
interioris objecti) is the same as that in paleam pacati : ‘he cooks cooking*. The
specific prescription of a case-ending like the accusative becomes the object of the
general action of prescribing. ,
This section points out that the word vidhi is derived in the passive sense and
that padavidhi means ‘grammatical operation prescribed for a finished word*.
Since Patanjali has interpreted P.2.1.1 so as to mean that a grammatical
operation prescribed for a finished word applies to a semantically connected word,
he has to change the meaning of the word padavidhi into padakarya: ‘opera¬
tion prescribed for a finished word*. But normaily padavidhi will mean: ‘rule
prescribing operation, etc.*. See Kaiyata*s use of the word padavidhi in his com-
ment on Bhasya No. 14.
(HERE ENDS THE DISCUSSION IN WHICH THE MEANING OF THE WORD vidhi
13 EXAMINED)
Samarthdhnika
II
(NOW STARTS THE SECTION IN WHICH IT IS EXAMINED WHETHER THE RULE

IS A paribhasa OR AN adhikdra)
3. (Bhasya: Question)
But what (kind of rule) is this: adhikdra or rather paribhasa?
Kaiyata 10 :
(On) ‘But what . . . is*. If this (rule P.2.1.1) is considered as an adhikdra ,

then the word padavidhih becomes redundant, so one might object, because the
subsequent (rules) invariably prescribe a grammatical operation for a finished
word. Therefore, since the word padavidhih is mentioned, (this would give us a
clue) to decide that (the rule) is a paribhasa and the question would be out of
place. (If one argues) in this way, then (we will say that) the question (raised
in the Bhasya) concems what would be proper and what would not. This
being so, if the alternative: adhikdra is accepted as the proper one, then the
word padavidhih need not be mentioned. If (the alternative:) paribhasa is ac¬
cepted as proper, (the word padavidhih) has to be mentioned (to show the con-
dition for the application of the rule). Even in the alternative view, viz. that of
adhikdra , (we may say that the word padavidhih) serves the purpose of clarifica-
tion, (so from the word padavidhih we cannot conclude whether the rule is
adhikdra or paribhasa).
Note (4):
An adhikara-rule is a section-heading rule, restricted to that section, the limit

of which is generally stated in the adhikara-rule itself. In each rule belonging to
that section the adhikdra-mle is repeated ( anuvrtta ). A paribhasa- rule is an
interpretative rule applicable throughout the Astadhyayd and not restricted to a
particular section.
When we consider P.2.1.1 as an adhikdra , the word padavidhih which, in

fact, States the condition for the application of the word samarthah need not be
mentioned. Even then the adhikdra- rule will apply to ‘compounding’, ‘prescription
of case-ending*, and ‘treatment as a part of the following word*, just because
they come under this section. But if the rule is a paribhasa , the condition under
which it operates has to be mentioned in the rule, so that it will select itself its
instances scattered throughout the Astadhyayi. See further Note (1) sub (d).
10. P. 313: fT JTfTfa I I 3TT^ri
^ftT^TTTcn ftTRTcT ST^PmfTT: II
cfT| TOTPTTOÎ^ T STOI ^ cT<TT
i \ a^rrms f<T ^nr f^ror«f *rfa®*rfir i
4. ( Bhasya: Counter question)
But what difference is there between adhikara and paribhasa?
Kaiyafa 11 :
(On) ‘But what*. We have to understand that this question is asked by a

person different (from the one who asked the previous question). But the first
one must (already) have known the difference between them. Otherwise the
question: ‘But, what (kind of . . .)* (in Bhasya No. 3) cannot be justified.
5. ( Bhasya: Ansiver to Counterquestion)
The adhikara is present in each (subsequent) rule, so that it will not

be necessary to mention it (again and again) in every (subsequent) rule.
But a paribhasa 3 although it occurs in one place (only), illuminates the
whole Science of grammar as a lamp. Take an example: a brightly shining
lamp, although it stands in one place (only), illuminates the whole house.
Kaiyata 12 :
(On) ‘The adhikara ... in each (subsequent) rule’. When the question is asked
about the nature (of adhikara and paribhasa ), the utility is stated, so that by
this we will know their nature. Thus, when a word used as a section-heading is
presented in each (subsequent) rule, its utility is that it need not be mentioned
(again in each subsequent rule).
(On) ‘But a paribhasa . The meaning of the passage is that a paribhasa is

formulated by stating a condition in it, (and) it covers everything wherever it
finds that mark. But in other passages the author of the Bhasya proceeds without
making a distinction between adhikara and paribhasa , because both share the
characteristic of being for the sake of other rules, as is shown by the statement:
‘an adhikara -rule is of three kinds’ 13 . Similarly, the statement: ‘when two
paribhdsas which find scope (i.e. each of them finds scope for application some-
where to the exclusion of the other), (and) which present themselves simul-
taneously (for application in one particular case)’ 14 .
11. p. 314: î !ra:r fq#r: n
12. P. 314: srftR>TT: WlT?f r-
13.
14.
«fai srfoftfflirmw xfadfrwmf sfa zrzfhzkr: qf^TTTjT-
frfa qfvsmr fenmrr
Mbh. on P. 1.1.49, Vol. I, P. 119, lines 9-13.

Mbh. on P. 1.1.14, Vol. I, P. 70 lines 20-21.
Samarthahnika
Note (5):
In the first quotation the term adhikara includes paribhdsd also. In the second
quotation the term paribhdsd includes adhifydra. See Bhasya No. 130.
6 . (Bhasya: Another Coimterquestion)
But what difference in (economy of) effort is involved here?
Kaiyata 15 :
In which view (either adhikara or paribhdsd) do we have laghava : ‘greater

economy of effort’ or in which (will we have) gaurava : ‘lesser economy of effort*,
that is the question.
7. ( Bhasya: Ansrver to the second Coimterquestion)
If it is an adhikara (the word samartha) should be accentuated (with

svarita). But if it is a paribhdsd 5 ali ( vidhi , i.e. injunctive rules, con-
cerning a finished word) are required by it (to supply the condition
samartha in them).
Kaiyata 16 :
(On) ‘should be accentuated*. It means that the word * samartha * should be

read with (an accentuation of) svarita quality. Here the svarita (accejit) which
is a quality (of a sound) is mentioned in the form of action as: svarayitavyam :
‘should be accentuated*, just as the quality ‘white’ (i.e. ‘it is white* is sometimes
put) as ‘it “white-s** * (i.e. it appears to be white). It goes without saying that
in this view (i*e. the view of adhikara) the word ( padavidhih) need not be
mentioned.
(On) ‘all ... are required*. It means that (the rule taken as) paribhdsd
should be formulated by mentioning the word padavidhih , so as to cover as
many grammatical operations as there are conceming a finished word. In case of
other paribhasas also (a paribhasa- rule) requires (the vidhi-ru\es) fumished
with that mark which is mentioned as a condition (in the paribhdsd- rules them-
selves).
Note (6):
A paribhasa contains two elements, 1. a marker (M), to indicate where the

rule becomes operative, 2. a proviso (P), for the vidhi- rules (i.e. rules which
15. P. 314: =f7: TO WH* TOfa, TOTI
16. P. 314: I ^f^TOTOT qftTOTpTcTO: I TO FTfaft
to: fHfro: *T*rt to: \ q^-
f«BT5«r TOT TO * I I
qrorcffar enfsT TOfartw ^ qfw<n j SFro ^ P r
qf^TT^T§ 11
-8
deal with word-formation) required by the paribhasa, and which are scattered
throughout the Astadhydyii. How will the paribhasa- rule recognize the vidhi-ru\e
for which it is Iooking? The vidhi- rule contains the same marker which is stated in
the paribhasa. F. i. the paribhasa-mle P. 1.1.3 il(o gunavrddln States that, wherever
guna or vrddhi is prescribed (M), it will come in the place of the vowels
(both short and long) i, u, r, l (P). This paribhasa becomes operative and will
supply the word ikah (P) in whichever vidhi- rule contains the conditioning word
guna or vrddhi (M). P.7.2.1 14 mrjer vrddhih contains (M), so the paribhasa
P. 1.1.3 becomes operative and supplies the word i/?ah (P). Only then
P. 7.2.114, its meaning having been completed in this way, becomes operative
for word-formation. Therefore, Patanjali says that, if P.2.1.1 is a paribhasa ,
it would require ali vidhi- ruês concerning a finished word (M) to supply the
word samartha (P). This is not so in the case of an adhil?ara. The adhikara
becomes automatically effective in whatever rule follows in that particular sec-
tion. No guiding mstrument for selecting its own instances is built in. How an
adhikara is uttered with svarita is not ciear from P. 1.3.11 svaritenadhikdrah.
The original accentuation of the successive vowels of the word samarthah is
anudatia , udatta, svarita , by P.6.2.139 (the udatta of artha is retained in
samartha ) and by P.8.4.66 (the vowel following after udatta takes svarita).
Whether the adhiârasvarita is different from the original svarita or whether ali
vowels of the word samartha will take svarita is nowhere ciear in Mbh.
The form svarayitavyam is a denominative formation. The ganasutra con-

cerned, tat karoti , iad acaste , occurs in the curadi-section of the Siddho.nââumudi
(No. 2573, p. 426). The form svarayati means svaram k ar <>ti: ‘makes accent’,
‘is accented’. Patanjali uses the general term svaraptavyam instead of the more
fitting term svaritayitavyam.
8. ( Bhdsya: Another doubt)
In the same way (just as there was a doubt whether the rule is
adhihdra or paribhasa) there is another doubt: whether (the word)
samarthya: ‘semantic connection’ should (be taken as) ‘meaning-
interdependence’ or (as) ‘single integrated meaning’.
Kaiyata 17 :
(On) ‘single integrated meaning’. That is ‘single integrated meaning’, where

(constituent) words by taking on the meaning of the main member (of the com-
pound) either (become) meaningless or convey another meaning (in addition to
their own meaning), as they (respectively) either abandon their own meaning
17. p. 314: j zpr 3T
II
Samarthahnika
or present their meanings as qualifiers (of the meaning of the main member).
‘Meaning-interdependence* is of the nature of mutual requirement.
Note (7):
‘Semantic connection* is interpreted in two ways: 1. ‘meaning-interdependence’,

2. ‘single integrated meaning’. 18
Interdependence of meaning only exists in uncompounded word-groups like

rajnah purusah : *king’s man’ or in the sentence. Here the words require each
other to determine and complete their meaning.
Single integrated meaning is again interpreted in two ways:
i) ajahatsvartha Vrttih , ii) jahatsvdrthd vrttih (see Bhdsya No. 75). In the
first interpretation the constituents which combine to make integration ( vrtti ) 19 do
not abandon their own meaning, but retain it insofar it qualifies the meaning
of the main member of the compound. F.i. in the compound rdjapurusah: ‘king-
man’ the word rajan denotes the meaning: ‘related to a king’, that means ‘man’,
which is the meaning of the main member. The word rajan thus stands for the
meaning purusa by presenting its own meaning as a qualifier to it. This is called
upasarjamhhutasvartha: ‘presenting its own meaning as subordinate’. A con¬
stituent word does not give up its own meaning, but changes it, so as to become
a qualifier of the main member. Since this constituent does not present its meaning
separately anymore, it cannot be itself qualified by a word outside the compound.
In the second interpretation the constituents of the word-composition ( vrtti )

give up their own meanings which merge in a new, single meaning denoted by
the word-composition as a whole. The compound rdjapurusah as a whole denotes
a single meaning ‘king-man’, where the part-meanings are no more separable from
18. The term ekdrthxbhava, translated here as ‘single integrated meaning’ literally
means ‘emergence of single meaning’. This emergence may be due to integration
of constituent meanings, as is the case in ajahatsvartha vrtti, or it may arise
naturally as singleness of meaning, in which the constituent meanings have no
part. These two interpretations date from Patahjali ? s period. In the Varttikas
ekdrthxbhava simply means emergence of single meaning owing to integration
of constituent meanings which, when uncompounded, have separate meanings
(see Varttika I on P.2.1.1). To avoid repetition of the words ‘emergence of’
the translation ‘single integrated meaning’ is chosen.
19. The term vrtti literally means ‘tuming something into something else’. It is
used with regard to the process of word-formation in which a meaningful unit
of a structurally higher order is built up from meaningful elements, i.e., in¬
tegration. The term vrtti is also used to denote the resulting integrated form.
See Siddhantakaumudx, p. 209, Sarvasamasapravesa. For the translation of the
term vrtti usually the word ‘word-composition’ is chosen, because this word can
be taken to refer to compounding as well as to the formation of non-compound
words. Also, this word gives some indication of the process of formation in which ,
higher units are built up from their elements .
10
Mahdbhdfta (R2.1.1)
each other. So in the phrase darsamyah rajapurusah : ‘handsome king-man’ the

‘man* is not qualified by darsamydh, but the ‘king-man’, i.e. the compound as a
whole. This, anyway, would be the theoretical explanation. But, actually,
darsariiyah goes with purusah. Pataiijali States that the main members of the
compound can be qualified by a word outside the compound. See Bhasya
Nos. 27 and 28 and Nagesa on No. 28.
To sum up: In the ajahaisvdrtha view the members have individual meanings,
but the subordinate member assumes the meaning of the main member. In the
jahatsvariha view the meanings of the constituent members merge in a whole.

It does not mean that the members have no meaning at all, but that their mean¬
ing is not to be separated from the whole. The compound conveys meaning as
a whole, and in conveying meaning the parts have no separate function from the
whole, whereas in the ajahaisvdriha view the compound does not convey mean¬
ing totally independent from its constituents.
9. ( Bhasya: Consequences of the allernalive inlerprelatioris: ei(drthlbhdva or
vyapeltsd are shown with regard to the alternative: adhifydra or paribhdsa)
Among these alternatives, if we take ‘semantic connection’ as ‘single

integrated meaning’ and (the rule as) adhikara, (then) ‘compounding’
only will come under (the) control (of this rule). ‘Prescription of case-
ending’ and ‘treatment as a part of the following word’ will be left out.
If, on the other hand, we take ‘semantic connection’ as ‘meaning-
interdependence’ and (the rule as) adhikdra , (then) ‘prescription of case-
ending’ and ‘treatment as a part of the following word’ will come under
(the) control (of this rule). But ‘compounding’ only is left out. More-
over, (the words) samartha and yukta have to be stated (separately) else-
where. Where elsewhere? In (the rules) P.8.3.44 and P.8.1.24 20 . But
if we take ‘semantic connection’ as ‘meaning-interdependence’ and (the
rule as) paribhdsa } (then) whatever operation in grammar smells of
finished word, all of that will come under (the) control (of the rule),
but ‘compounding’ only will be left out.
Kaiyata 21 :
(On) ‘(then) ‘compounding* only*. Because ‘single integrated meaning* is

only found there.
20. Wherever a Panini-rule is quoted in the text of the Mbh ., the translation may
indicate its number only. The explanation will be given in the note on the
Bha$ya in question.
21. P. 315: gTTra - I II
Samarthdhnika
11
Note (8) :
The alternative: ‘single integrated meaning* or ‘meaning-interdependence*, is

possible in both interpretations of the rule, adhikara and paribhasa. If we re-
gard P.2.1.1 to be restricted to cases of ‘single integrated meaning*, rules pre-
scribing ‘case-terminations* and ‘treatment as a part of the following word* are
necessarily left out, because ‘single integrated meaning’ only exists in compounds.
If, on the other hand, we regard P.2.1.1 to be restricted to cases of ‘meaning-
interdependence*, it will only cover the rules prescribing ‘case-terminations* and
‘treatment as a part of the following word*. Rules prescribing ‘compounding*
are left out, for the simple reason that ‘meaning-interdependence* does not exist in
compounds.
P.8.3.44 prescribes that the visarga which originales from the word-endings
-is and -us is substituted by s, before a semantically connected word which be-
gins with the letters £, £/r, p, ph. This rule would not be covered by P.2.1.1, if
we regard the latter rule as an adhikara .
P.8.1.24 States that substitutions for the pronouns yusmad and asmad do not
take place, when these pronouns are connected with the particles ca, Va, ha ,
aha , eva. This rule would not be covered by P.2.1.1, if we regard the latter
rule as an adhikara. But if we take P.2.1.1 as a paribhasa , no such difficulties
would arise. There is, however, another difhculty then. In the rules P.8.1.24
and 8.3.44 the condition samartha: ‘semantically connected’ is required and
could be supplied by P.2.1.1 as a paribhasa . Then a question arises: why does
Panini separately mention this condition in these rules by the words }?u£/e and
samarthye respectively? The mention of these words in these rules gives us the
clue that P.2.1.1 is restricted to word-composition rules and does not cover
the rules dealing with the sentence.
10 . (Bhasya: Final vier»)
Among these altematives, (if we accept) that ‘semantic connection’ is

(here) ‘single integrated meaning’ and (the rule is) a paribhasa , then the
rule can be better kept as it is (than in other alternative interpretations).
Kaiyata 22 :
(On) ‘Among these*. (In the case of P.2.1.1 as an adhikara there will be
three altematives:) The first alternative: ‘semantic connection’ as ‘single inte¬
grated meaning* (and the rule 2.1.1 as) an adhikara. The second alternative:
‘semantic connection’ as ‘meaning-interdependence’ (and the rule as) an adhikara .
22. P. 315: ^fcT | TO:
sfir fcffa: TO: I fffprtfr HTTOfafrorc ffa qrfta I tTcf TO
tot 'Tformr faro i
12
Mahdbhdsya (P.2.1.1 )
The third alternative: both types of semantic connection (i.e. ‘meaning-inter-

dependence’ and ‘single integrated meaning’) (and the rule as) an adhiJ(dra .
Again, in the interpretation as a paribhdsd , there will be three alterhatives. Out

of six possible alternatives (the alternative) ‘single integrated meaning* and (the
rule as) a paribhdsd is decided upon.
Note (9):
(a) The consequence of the finai view is that ‘prescription of case-termination*

(referred to as PCT) and ‘treatment as a part of the following word* (referred
to as TPFW) will not be covered by P.2.1.1, because they are excluded by the
condition of ‘single integrated meaning’. According to Kaiyata (in his comment
on ‘can be better kept as it is’) this does not matter, because other provisions are
made, so as to make the rules dealing with PCT and TPFW applicable in
the case of semantic connection between the elements in question.
In P.2.3.2 which is a PCT rule, we can manage without the word
samarlha. The case-ending prescribed here is karakavibhakti: ‘case expressing the

relation between noun and verb’ which invariably implies a semantic relation
between verb and karalâ: ‘operator’. The separate condition samartha is not
required here.
In the case of upapadavibJiaJ(li: ‘case-ending governed by an accompanying

word’, Panini himself uses the words yuîe and yogdt in the rules concerned to
indicate the condition of semantic connection (see P.2.3.4; 2.3.16, etc.). So
here also we can do without the word samartha.
In the case of TPFW rules the function of the word samartha is taken over
by the statement iannimitta : ‘its cause’ ( Varttil?a No. II on P.2.1.2, Mbh. Vol. I,
p. 357). An example is P.2.1.2 where it is stated that, as far as accentua-

tion is concerned, a preceding word is considered as a part of the following
vocative. The Varttiâ now says that this rule only applies, if the preceding word
is a genitive and if the genitive meaning can be considered as the cause of the
vocative meaning. In the expression madranam rajan : ‘O king of Madra’ the
country is regarded as the cause of the kingship for the person referred to by the
vocative. The condition Iannimitta, which prescribes a causal relation between
two meanings, cannot be fulfilled, unless there is a semantic connection between
the genitive and vocative meanings.
By accepting the alternative: ‘semantic connection’ as ‘single integrated mean¬

ing’ for P.2.1.1, its scope is undoubtedly restricted, but possible undesired conse-
quences are taken care of by special provisions, and no harm results.
(b) By accepting P.2.1.1 as a paribhdsd its scope is widened. The rule be-
comes applicable to rules prescribing denominative and fyrt formations involving
a finished word as one of the conditions for the operation prescribed, as P.3.1.8
Samarthahnika
13
(where the condition supah : ‘after a word ending in a case-termination’ is

stated) and P.3.2.1 which States that the Ifri suffix aN is added in the sense
of ‘agent* after a root when this latter is preceded by a word in the accusative
expressing the notion of grammatical object.
Because P.2.1.1 covers cases like these, the rule P.3.1.8 cannot be applied
in a construction like dnaya putram icchaty artham: ‘bring the son, he wishes
money*. Out of the immediate sequence puLram icchati we cannot now form the
denominative puirtyati 2 * , because semantic connection is lacking here. Similarly,
in the phrase anaya I?umbham karoti patam : ‘bring a jar, he makes a cloth* we
cannot apply P.3.2.1 to form the compound £umh/ia£ara.
11. ( Bhdsya : Objectiori)
Even so, in some places (the word) samartha is mentioned, when it

need not be. And in other places it is not mentioned, although it should
have been. To begin with, it is mentioned when it need not be, as in
P.4.1.82. (Then,) it is not mentioned, although it should have been, as in
P.3.2.1 (where we have to supply:) ‘after a semantically connected (root) 5 .
Kaiyata 24 :
(On) ‘P.4.1.82*. Since P.6.3.17 prescribes non-elision of case-ending, the

implication is that taddhita suffixes are added after (a word) ending in a case-
termination. Therefore (the rules prescribing taddhita suffixes prescribe operations)
for finished words. So when (P.2.1.1 as) a paribhasa presents itself (to a rule
prescribing taddhita formation) there is no chance for a suffix to be added in
the absence of semantic connection.
(On) ‘P.3.2.1*. If we accept the view that pratipadiâ : ‘nominal stem* stands
for a group of five (notions, viz. genus, individual, gender, number, noun-verb
relation), the nominal stem itself expresses the notion of (grammatical) object
(and) so this (rule P.3.2.1) cannot be regarded as dealing with a finished word.
But if we accept the view that the nominal stem stands for a group of three
(notions only, viz. genus, individual, gender), then (the notion of gram¬
matical) object can be expressed by the case-ending (only) (and) there is no
difficulty now, because P.2.1.1 presents itself in P.3.2.1, since the latter rule
deals with finished words.
23. See Siddhantakaumudi, No. 2658 on P.7.4.33.
24. P. 315: I
<rfer swmsf n
l wr ^reFTrvrrf^r 'rcfo-
i 5 trifur: refafac^^c7f?*rr>Tr , rc*rRTcT
14
Nagesa 25 :
(On) ‘group of five’. This is a rash statement. Even if we accept that view
(viz., that a nominal stem expresses five things in a general way), (stili) it is
necessary to add the case-ending (to the stem) in order to indicate the (special)
meaning of that (i.e., of the accusative case). But the intention of the purva-
pal^sin in the Bhasya is as follows: the word padavidhih (in P.2.1.1) denotes
an operation which concerns a finished word.
And in this way (P.2.1.1 will operate) in the case of compounding (which
is of finished words) and of taddhita sufhxes (which are added after finished
words) only, both of which directly concern finished words, but it would not
(operate) here (i.e. in the case of J^rt suffixes like aN which are added to a
root 26 ). For here the thing directly concerned is a root and not a finished word.
Note (10):
P.4.1.82 is an adhifyara rule which States that the words samarthanam (i.e.
samarthat : ‘after a semantically connected word’), prathamat: ‘after the first
(word)’ and va : ‘optionally’ continue to have effect in the subsequent rules 27 .
The objection says that it is not necessary to mention the word samarthanam
here, because all taddhita suffixes are added after words ending in a case-ter-
mination (see below on P.6.3.17). So the operation prescribed by P.4.1.82
will be padakarya\ ‘grammatical operation prescribed for a finished word* and
P.2.1.1 would become effective and supply the condition samarthat.
P.3.2.1 (see Note (9) States that the l?rt suffix aN is added after a root, when
the latter is preceded by its grammatical object. The objection says that the
operation prescribed by P.3.2.1 cannot be a padavidhi: ‘grammatical operation
prescribed for a finished word’, because aN is prescribed after a root. Panini
should have separately stated the condition samartha for the connection between
root and upapada: ‘accompanying word*.
25. PP. 315-16: | ^ I cTcWSfq 1
ii i ^ ^ *rerr—
wvz ^ i m mg# sr i
26. The question whether the paribhasa 2.1.1 applies or not is really immaterial,
for P.3.2.1 can only operate when the preceding word functions as a grammatical
object with regard to the following root. This definitely implies semantic relation.
See note (9).
27 Strictly speaking, P.4.1.82 means that the expressiores: samarthanam prathamat :

‘after the first (word) among semantically connected (words)’ and va: ‘option¬
ally’ are continued. But Patanjali (see Mbh. on 4.1.82. Vol. II, p. 239) and
following commentators have twisted the meaning of the rule for reasores ex-
plained in the Paribhasendusekhara, Kielhorn’s trsl., pp. 307-315.
Samarthdhnika
15
P.6.3.17 States that the locative case, added to a word ending in a con¬
sonant or a, standing for a notion of time, is not optionally elided before the
suffixes Lara , Lama, Lana and the word Jâla. If we assume that taddhita suffixes
are added just to a nominal stem, then there would not have been any occasion
at all to employ the locative before tara, tama, etc. From this we conclude that
taddhita suffixes are added to a word ending in a case-termination.
According to the ‘five-thing’ view mentioned by Kaiyata, the. derivational

process of the word kumbhakdra: ‘potter* would start from kumbha 4- kf + aN,
instead of from kumbha + am + far + aN, since the sense of the accusative
case-ending am is already included in the nominal stem kumbha. This, of course,

is a wrong view, because in compound-formation the first member must be a
finished word.
12 . (Bhasya: Objectiori rejected )
But is it not so, that, when we say kumbhakdra : ‘pot-maker’ (or)

nagarakara : ‘city-maker’, we do apprehend semantic connection (between
‘pot’ and ‘maker’, etc.)?
Kaiyata 28 :
(On) ‘But is it not so’. If the word kumbhakdra conveys (the meaning ‘pot-
maker’, where the compound constituents are) semantically connected, as well as
(the meaning ‘pot’, ‘maker’, where the constituents are) not semantically con¬
nected, then we will have to make some special provision (viz. to supply the word
samartha) in order to prevent the use (of kumbhakdra: ‘pot-maker’) in the sense
of (‘pot’, ‘maker’, where the constituents are) not semantically connected, other-
wise not.
Note (11):
Special provision need, of course, not be made, since the word kumbhakdra
exclusively conveys the meaning ‘pot-maker’.
13. ( Bhasya: Objectiori feaffirmed)
Yes, that is true. It is apprehended once a suffix has been added. (But s N
that same suffix must first be generated after the semantically connected
word.
28. p. 316: %fr i ^
16
Kaiyata 29 :
(On) ‘that same . . . first*. This rule (P.2.1.1) is made, so that compound¬
ing etc. should not (take place) of semantically unconnected words. The same
is true here also. That is, mention of (the word) samartha should be made to
prohibit (the addition of) the suffix (aN), when there is no semantic connection.
The answer (to the objection that the word samartha should be stated in
P.3.2.1 ) is not given by the author of the Bhasya, because it is obvious. For,
the significant designation ‘upapada’ is stated only for making the paribhdsa
(P.2.1.1) effective (here) by making the (addition of) the suffix dependent on
a finished word.
Note (12):
The purvapal^sin says that at the level from which compounding starts there
may or may not be a semantic connection between the elements, as explained
by the meaning-analysis, f.i. kumbham lâroti as against dnaya lûmbham fyaroti
patam : ‘bring a pot, he makes a cloth*. According to the rules of the gram-
matical system the compound fyumbhakdra can only be generated in the meaning
indicated by the first analysis. In the case of the second analysis compounding
is not allowed. For this reason P.3.2.1 must come under P.2.1.1. The objection
says that this is not possible, because P.3.2.1 is not a padavidhi: ‘(rule pre-
scribing an) operation for a finished word*.
How P.2.1.1 becomes operative here is not shown by Patanjali. From the
Bhasya it appears that the objection remains without answer. Kaiyata says that
Patanjali has done so, because the answer is obvious. Since the word J?armani
in P.3.2.1 refers to the upapada (a designation given to a finished word) and
functions as the condition for adding the suffix, the rule P.3.2.1 becomes a
padavidhi Therefore it comes under P.2.1.1.
The discussion concerning the nature of the rule P.2.1.1 is initiated by

Patanjali, not by Katyayana. In Vartiiâ XIII (Mbh. Vol. I, p. 368) Katya-
yana takes. the rule as a paribhdsa, because he presupposes that P.2.1.1 applies
in the nighata -section (see Bhasya No. 120). In Vdrttika XVII Katyayana
uses the word samarthadhil?d<ra referring to P.2.1.1.
The view preferred by Patanjali is that of paribhdsa (see Bhasya No. 10),
and his view is taken over by the later commentators. But this does not prevent
Patanjali to refer to the rule as an adhil?ara (see Mbh . Vol. I, p. 368, line 23 ;
29. P. 316: ^ TTE[ ^cffefcT 1 *TT ^
fwr crs^rfir i 5
^rsqrfTcn i wmv. ^ to-
«PTt% 1
Samarthahnlka
17
p. 369, line 2, line 6). There is no inconsistency here, because Patanjali con-
siders the paribhdsd as a subdivision of the adhil(dra (see Kaiyata on Bhasya
No. 5 and note 5).
(HERE ENDS THE SECTION IN WHICH IT IS EXAMINED WHETHER THE

RULE IS A paribhdsd OR AN adhikara).
III
(now starts the SECTION on THE purpose of THE samarlha-paribhasd)
14. ( Bhasya: Question )
Now, what is the purpose of mentioning (the word) samartha (in

P.2.1.1)?
Kaiyata 30 :
Through the question regarding the purpose of the main word samartha the
question about the purpose of the rule itself is raised. Although by this word
we cannot generate semantic connection (between the elements to be com-
pounded), because to generate semantic connection, when the elements them-
selves do not show it, falis outside the scope of this rule, stili, the word samartha
serves the purpose of providing the proviso ‘semantic connection* for the rules
dealing with a finished word. Therefore, the word samartha is regarded as the
main one.
Note (13):
For the meaning of padavidhi: ‘rule prescribing a grammatical operation for a

finished word*, i.e. rule dealing with a finished word, see note 3.
15. ( Bhasya: Answer)
(a) He (Panini) will state (in P.2.1.24) (that a word in the) ac¬
cusative case is compounded with (the words irita etc., as in kastasritah :
‘who has resorted to effort’, narakasritah: ‘who has taken his refuge in
hell\
(a’) What is the purpose of mentioning samartha (with regard to

P.2.1.24)? (So that this rule will not become operative in the following
example:) pasya devadatta kastam irito visnumitro gurukulam : ‘see, o
Devadatta, the (painful) effort, resorted to the house of his teacher has
Visnumitra’.
30. p. 3i6: scirri i i ren a fritf
8HR I
18
Note (14):
The examples are given in the sub-sections indicated by accentless letters

(a-f). The counterexamples follow in the sub-sections indicated by accented
letters (a*-f*). The words underlined in the translation of the counterexamples

correspond with the compound-constituents in the examples. The rules mentioned
in this Bhasya prescribe compounding. The words given as examples are com-
pounds. The counterexamples show how the words used as compound-constituents
in the examples may occur in immediate sequence without semantic connection.
Throughout these sections it is shown that the word samartha supplied in each
rule quoted becomes purposeful by prohibiting compounding in the counter¬
examples. F.i. the word samartha in P.2.1.24 becomes purposeful by prohibiting
the formation of the compound of the semantically unconnected words fastam
and sritah which here form part of two different sentences.
(Bhasya contitmed )
(b) (Panini will state:) P.2.1.30 (by which rule we derive the com-
pounds) sahJ?alakhandah: ‘piece cut off by nippers’, k^kanah: ‘made
blind in one eye by a hog\
(b’) What is the purpose of mentioning samartha (with regard to

example:) tistha tvarn sdnkulayd khando dhavati musalena : ‘stop (cut-
ting) by nippers, the piece (already cut off) by a pestle slips away\
Note (15):
The rule P.2.1.30 States that a word in the instrumental may be com-
pounded with a semantically connected word denoting a quality, when it (the
quality, f.i. kdnatva: ‘blindness’) is caused by the thing denoted by the word in
the instrumental, and with the word artha . For further explanation see note (14).
(Bhasya continued )
(c) (Panini will state:) P.2.1.36 (by which rule we derive the com-
pounds:) gohitam : ‘good for cows’, asvahitam : c good for horsesb
(c 5 ) What is the purpose of mentioning samartha (with regard to

example:) sukham gohhyo hitam devadattaya : { pleasant for cows, good
for Devadatta 5 .
Note (16):
The rule P.2.1.36 States that a word in the dative may be compounded with
semantically connected words denoting things intended for the objects denoted
by the words in the dative, and with the word artha: *for the sake of*, bali: *a
Samarthdhnika
19
sacrifice', hita: ‘good\ sti^ha: ‘pisant*, ra^sita: ‘reserved for*. For further ex¬
planatiori see note (14).
(Bhasya continucd)
(d) (Panini will state:) P.2.1.37 (by which rule we derive the com-
pounds:) vTkabhayam : ‘fear of wolves’ dasyvhhayam: ‘fear of robbers’,
caurabhayam : ‘fear of thieves’.
(d’) What is the purpose of mentioning samartha (with regard to

P.2.1.37)? (So that the rule will not become operative in the following
example:) gaccha tvarii ma z/rkebhyo bhayaxa devadattat yajnadattasya:
‘do not go away because of the wolves, fear of Devadatta has Yajnadatta\
Note (17):
The rule P.2.1.37 States that a word in the ablative may be compounded with
the semantically connected word bhaya : ‘fear*. For further explanation see
note (14).
(Bhasya continued)
(e) (Panini will state in P.2.2.8 that) (a word in) the genitive is
compounded with a case-inflected word. (By this rule we derive the com-
pounds:) rajapurufah: ‘king-man’, brdhmanakambalah : ‘brahmin-
blanket’.
(e*) What is the purpose of mentioning samartha (with regard to

example:) bharya rajnah purtifo devadattasya : ‘wife of the king, man of
Devadatta’. ^
Note (18): For further explanation see notes (1) sub (e) and (14).
(Bhasya continucd )
(f) (Panini will state:) P.2.1.40 (by which rule we derive the com-
pounds:) aksasaundah : ‘addicted to dice’ 3 strisaundah: ‘addicted to
women’.
(f’) What is the purpose of mentioning samartha (with regard to

example:) kusalo devadatto c ksesu saundah pibati panagare: ‘skilled is
Devadatta in dice, the addict drinks in the winehouse’.
20
Note (19):
The rule 2.1.40 States that words ending in the locative may be com-
pounded with the semantically connected words saimda etc. For further expla-
nation see note (14).
The first and the last buteone sutra are quoted by Patanjali in vrtti form,
whereas the others are quoted verbatim.
16 . ( Bhasya: Objectiori)
Now, even if we mention (the word) samartha here (in P.2.1.1 and
which therefore becomes effective in P.2.1.27), why is (compounding)
not allowed in (the expression) mahat kastam sritah : ‘who has made a
painstaking effoiT?
Kaiyata 31 :
(On) ‘painstaking effort’. In the example given, there is definitely semantic

connection (of mahat) with the action of srayana: ‘resorting to\ Therefore, the
question is raised (how can the word samartha serve to prevent possible undesired
compound-forms built up from the constituents mahat , kasta and srita?).
Ia 32 . If (first) a compound were formed here out of the two words Jâsta and
srita , then (the undesired expression) mahat kastasritah (where mahat would be
the outside qualifier of tasta) would resuit.
Ila. Even if we form a ‘three-word’ compound (of mahat , fâsta and srita
together at the same time), stili the substitution of a for t (in mahat , by
P.6.3.46), prescribed when the final member of the compound follows (i.e.
when £asta occurs as the final member in the compound mahalfâsta) , would
not take place, when the middle member in the compound follows (i.e. £asta
as the middle member in the compound mahatkastasrita ).
31. P. I 5PFH I JRPT sflSjfsTcT-
*r*mr: cttttst fftr ctrt i 3rtPt mrn
OTt: ^T^TT^r: I ^ facT:
sr cTîPr i
ffa feqt *PTI?r ^ 5 *PT1% *FffffefcT
frer *rfir ctrt i *t*tt ^Tsrfsra-
^rff: II 3T^ c3T|: WWT T^ff^T^Tf^T^cW-
^qft: q-^qrr^ fMhnrfMNcsf ^ ^ri^ftfcr *r*rrcrt *r ptt<?t i
n CS v
32. The divisions Ia etc. are based on the summary at the end of the note.
Samarlhahmka 21
Ilb. (Also,) even if a ‘three-word* compound were made, (internal) 33 com-

pound (eonstruction) would be there according to P.2.1.61, And the accent
Ib. which according to P.6.2.47 applies to the compound mahakastasriia (when

we derive it from) mahalâstam sriiah , that same (accent) would apply here
(i.e. in ‘three-word* compounding at one and the same time) according to
P.6.1.223 33a .
(But) stili the accentuation in the form mahdranydfiiah: ‘gone beyond the
great forest’ would show a difference (in ‘two-word* or ‘three-word* compounding).
Ib. If ‘two-word* compounding were made as mahdranyam afitah, the accent

would apply according to P.6.2.144, but if we make ‘three-word* compounding
l lb. with (internal) tatpurusa of two (words) according to P.2.1.61, (then)

the word maharanya would be accentuated on the final syllable according to
the accent (prescribed) for compounds (by P.6.1.223), just as the word sala in
purvasalapriyah.
ll c. But others say that, if we make ‘three-word* compounding, the sense ‘ad-
miration for (making the effort) * would not be conveyed, and there would
not (even) be the relation of qualifier and qualified (either), because there is
no mutual relation between the words mahat and /fasta, since they directly con-
vey the meaning of the main member (viz. srita). So no (internal) compounding
would be there and, accordingly, there would be no (question of) substituting
d for t (in mahat). And for the word mahat the (undesired) original accent
according to P.6.2.47 would resuit.
Nagesa 34 :
(On) ‘just as . . .* Others (i.e. Nagesa himself) say that,. if we make a

three-word bahuvrihi out of (the expression) mahdn devadattah priyo yasya:
33. By ‘internal eonstruction’ we mean grouping of two constituents, made after

the whole compound (i.e. ‘three-or-more -word’ compounding) has been formed
at one and the same time. This ‘internal eonstruction’ should be carefully dis-
tinguished from the more current procedure of building compounds by com-
bining two words at a time, e.g. from A-j-B-f-C we derive the compound ABC.
The grouping AB or BG within ABC is called ‘internal eonstruction’. In ‘two-
word’ compounding, on the other hand, we form the same compound ABC by
first compounding A and B, then AB and C. Here the grouping of A and B
occurs before the compound ABC as a whole is formed.
The purpose of making such a subsequent internal eonstruction may not be

immediately ciear. But for the application of rules within Panini’s system, f.i.
when accent is concemed, it may make a difference whether we make such an
internal eonstruction or not (see note on Bhdsya 181).
33a. So far accentuation is concemed it does not make any difference here whether
we start from a ‘two-word’ compound, left side analysis, or directly make a
‘three-word’ compound.
34. p. 317 : 5 finit
inranftrsmr. n
22
who likes the great Devadatta , (we have to accept) on the authority of the men-
tion of (the word) bahulam : ‘variously’ (in P.2.1.57), (that) in compounding
three words (together at a time), compounding of internal constituents by P.2.1.61
does not take place in order to prevent the (incorrect usage) mahadevadattapriyah
(where the internal tatpurusa would be mahadevadatta ) and to establish the
(correct usage) mahaddevadattapriyah. And, therefore, (the form) mahat-
kastasritah as such will be treated as one word having one accent. But this is
not desired. This is what the Bhdsya means. At the end of (the discussion on)
this rule 35 , while making the statement that P.2.1.57 does not apply to the in¬
ternal words which form part of the ‘three-word’ compounding, (the author of
the Bhasya) has almost stated that the rules (like P.2.1.61), which give a
detailed account (of P.2.1.57) and which are meant to restrict (what should
be) the first member of a compound, do not apply either (to the internal consti¬
tuents in ‘three-word* compounding).
Note (20):
(a) P.6.3.46 States that the t of mahat is substituted by a, when mahat is

followed by a syntactically agreeing word or by the word jaftya.
P.2.1.61 states that the words sat, mahat, etc., may be compounded with
words denoting what is being admired, and the compound is called tatpurusa.
P.6.2.47 states that a word in the accusative, except when the idea of sepa-
ration is expressed, retains its original accent, when it is followed by a word
ending in Kta .
P.6.1.223 States that a compound has udatta accent on the final syllable.
P.6.2.144 states that a word ending in Kia etc. has udatta on the final
syllable, when it is part of a compound and preceded by a gati, Jtdrafya or
upapada.
P.2.1.57 states that a qualifying word is variously compounded with a

syntactically agreeing qualified word and the compound is called tatpurusa
( karmadharayct ).
(b) The question put by Patanjali is, why is compounding not allowed of
mahat + kastam + sritah , in spite of their semantic connection ? The implication
is that compounding of these three words may give rise to undesired formations.
Kaiyata makes a painstaking effort in determining which formations are desired

and which are not.
The possibilities for compounding these three words are basically two: either
we make ‘two-word’ compounding (f.'i. from A + B we derive AB; from
AB + C we derive ABC), or we make ‘three-word’ compounding (from
35. See Bhd?ya No. 198
Samarthahnifa
23
A + B + C we derive ABC). Each basic possibility is again subdivided into

two. In ‘two-word* compounding we may proceed by Teft-side* analysis, i.e.
analysis, where the rightmost constituent is last combined, as indicated above, or
by ‘right-side* analysis, i.e. analysis, where the leftmost constituent is last com¬
bined: from B + C we derive BC; from A + BC we derive ABC (see also
note on Bhasya Nos. 171 and 181).
If ‘three-word’ compounding is first made, then subsequently we may or may

not form internal constructions of constituents, f.i. as tatpurusa ,
(c) Kaiyata first takes up ‘two-word’ compounding, ‘right-side* analysis. A

compound is formed of kastam (B) and sritah (C), by P.2.1.24, which rule
States that a word in the accusative is compounded with the words srita etc.
But the next step, i.e., the compounding of mahat (A) with kostasrita (BC)
cannot be made, because mahat qualifies the subordinate member fasta (see
sdpcfaam asamartham bhavati , Bhasya No. 26). So what results is an
expression where mahat is a separate word and fastasritah is a compound. This
is not desired.
What will be the resuit, if we take ‘two-word* compounding ‘left-side* analysis?

Mahat will be compounded with fastam according to P.2.1.61. Substitution of
the t of mahat by a will take place by P.6.3.46. The accent will fall on the
final syllable by P.6.1.223. Then the form mahaâstam is compounded with
srita by P.2.1.24. The accent of mahakast&m is retained by P.6.2.47. The re-
sulting form reads mahaâstdsritah which is the desired form.
In the ‘three-word* compounding ABC the internal construction AB will be
regarded as a tatpurusa by P.2.1.62. The substitution rule P.6.3.46 and the

accent rule P.6.1.223 apply. The resuit is the form mahakastdsritah. That
means, that in ‘two-word* compounding ‘left-side’ analysis, and in ‘three-word*
compounding we cannot show a difference in the resulting form. The accents
according to P.6.1.223 and P.6.2.47 coincide.
This is why Kaiyata replaces the example mahat fastam sritah by mahad
aranyam afiitah. Here P.6.2.47 cannot apply, because of the condition ahOna:
‘non-separation*. Compound-formation in ‘two-word* compounding, Teft-side*
analysis will be as follows:
[a] from mahad arandam we derive mahdranyam by P.2.1.61. The sub*-

stitution rule P.6.3.46 and the accent rule P.6.1.223 apply.
[b] from mahdranyam atUah we derive maharanydtitah by P.2.1.24. The

accent is prescribed by P.6.2.144.
In ‘three-word* compounding by P.2.1.24 the internal construction AB would

be tatpurusa by P.2.1.61. The accent falis on the last syllable according to
P.6.1.223 ( maharanya ). This accent will preVail over the accentuation
24
(P.6.2.144 of the compound-whole (mahdranydtltdh) , because Bhasya

No. 187 States that the accent of the intemal construction prevails over the
accent of whole compound. So in this case an undesired accentuation will resuit.
Kaiyata may not have felt satisfied with these attempts to arrive at an un¬
desired form. He mentions stili another possibility. Suppose we make ‘three-
word* compounding. Then we may say that the words mahat and kasta are
each of them directly connected with the main compound member srita. This
implies that between mahat and £asta there is no mutual relation. This being the
case, the rules P.2.1.61 (forming internal tatpurusa) and P.6.3.46 cannot ap-
ply. The resuit would be the form mahatJiastdsntah which is undesired.
Summary of Kaiyata*s successive explanations:
I. ‘Two-word* compounding.
a. ‘Right-side’ analysis: the undesired expression mahat kastasritah.
b. ‘Left-side* analysis: the desired form mahaâstd^ritah,
II. ‘Three-word* compounding.
a. Without intemal tatpirrusa (P.2.1.61 is simply not taken into account).

This gives the undesired form: mahatkastdsritah.
b. (Ha is rejected). With internal tatpurusa (P. 2.1.61 is taken into ac¬
count). This gives the desired form: mahakastdsritah.
c. (Ilb is rejected). Without intemal tatpurusa (application of P.2.1.61 is re¬

jected, because semantic relation between mahat and I?asta is denied). This gives
the undesired form: mahatkastdsritah.
The possibilities Ib and Ilb happen to produce identical forms, but Kaiyata,
by means of his example maharanydHtah , shows that this need not always be so.
Here Ib would give mahdranydfitdh and Ilb maharanyafitah.
What Nagasa means to say by his remark that in ‘three-word’ compounding

we cannot consider the internal construction mahalâsta (AB) as a tatpurusa ,
is this: if the intemal grouping A + B is conditioned by the uttarapada: ‘final
compound-member’, as prescribed by P.2.1.51, then only we can combine AB
after the ‘three-word* compound ABC has been formed. Only in such a case,
i.e. when the uttarapada (here C) follows, internal construction (like ABC)
is allowed.
But if already in ‘two-word’ compounding we can combine A and B in-

dependently, because grouping them is not conditioned by an uttarapada , then
we are not supposed to make an internal construction AB after the ‘three-word*
compound ABC has been formed. F.i. we can combine mahat and fastam
Samarthahnika
25
together as mahdkastam quite well independently, without having a following

word srita. Now in ‘three-word’ compounding of mahat, fastam and srita which
necessarily results in the form mahatkastasritah , we are not supposed to make a

subsequent internal grouping of mahat and £asta, from which we would derive
the internal construction mahal(asta . See also note on Bhasya 198.
17. (Bhasya: Counterobjeciion )
Do you mean to say that wc cannot form (the compound) mahd-

kastasritah,?
Kaiyata 36 :
(On) ‘cannot form*. It is totally impossible to form a compound out

of the expression bharya rdjnah puruso devadatlasya: ‘wife of a king, man of
Devadatta’ (Jbut) we cannot say the same is true here. This is what (the Bhasya)
means to say.
Note (21):
For the possibility of mahakastasritah see note (20). For the expression
bharya etc. see note (1) sub (e).
18. (Bhasya: Ansrver to counterobjeciion)
(No), we can form it, if we have the following uncompounded ex-

pressions: (from) mahat kastam (we derive) mahdkastam; (from
mahdkastam sritah (we derive) mahakastasritah. But when we have the
following uncompounded expression: mahat kastam sritah, then we should
not form it. And yet it would resuit.
Kaiyata 30 :
(On) ‘we can make it, if*. When we first form a compound of mahat and
kasta (which is possible,) since they show interdependence (in meaning), with¬
out taking into account the word srita , the compound (of mahaâsta) with the
word srita would resuit.
Note (22):
The word ‘it’ in the Bhasya ‘we should not form it’ and ‘it would resuit’ is
rather ambiguous, as is pointed out in Bhasya No. 20.
36. P. 317: q - 37 VRrftfa | *TTT HR? TPfT: JWt sfafa-
tfa TTR: II
37. P. 317: vnrfo Z&fo \ q*TT% f%
qqm: i
26
In making a compound out of the three words mahat (A), fastam (B), and
sriiah (C) it is the question whether we have to combine only two words, leaving
the third word out, or whether we have to combine all three. The first alternative
presents two possibilities:
l a. A+B makes AB; C lies outside the compound AB.
l b. B-fC makes BC; A lies outside the compound BC.
The second alternative of combining ABC together is again subdivided, this

depending on whether we make ‘two-word* compounding (i.e. combining two
words at a time) or ‘three-word’ compounding. If ‘two-word* compounding, then
we have the choice between ‘left-side’ and ‘right-side* analysis. The possibilities
will be then as follows:
II a. 1. A + B makes AB; AB + C makes ABC.
II a.2. B + C makes BC; A + BC makes ABC.
II b. A + B + C makes ABC.
The forms resulting from the above combinations will be the following:
l a. mahakastam + sritah . For making the compound mahaJâstam the rules

P. 2.1.61 and P.6.3.46 apply. The resulting expression is correct.
l b. mahat + âstasrftali. For making the compound the rule
P.2.1.24 applies. The resulting expression where mahat lies outside the com¬
pound is incorrect, but has been taken into account by the pv/rvapal?sm t because
he does not know yet the statement sapef^sam asamariham bhavati in Bhasya
No. 26.
II a. 1. mahal?astasritah. For making this compound the rules mentioned under

Ia apply, and, in addition, P.2.1.24. The resulting compound is correct usage,
as Patanjali himself States in this Bhasya .
II a.2. mahaâstasriidh. For making this compound P.2.1.24 applies and, in

addition, P.2.1.61 and P.6.3.46. The resulting form is correct, but later on
( Bhasya No. 33) it is pointed out that this way of forming the compound is not
correct.
II b. mahatkastasritah . For making this compound the rules P.2.1.61 and

P.2.1.24 apply simultaneously. The resulting compound is not correct. See also
note (20), possibility IIc and Nagesa’s comment on Bhasya No. 20.
The word ‘it’ in the Bhdsija-translation refers to undesired possibilities of forma-

tion, i.e., Ib; II a.2; and II b.
19 . ( Bhasya : Objectiori)
Then why cannot we form it?
Samarthahnika
21
20. ( Bhasya : Coimterobjection)
Why cannot we form it out of what? Out of two (words) or rather

out of many?
Kaiyata 38 :
(On) ‘Why out of what\ The non-committal statement (i.e., h as V a > i n the
singular) is meant to indicate (the possibility of) a ‘two-word’ or ‘three-word’
combination.
Note (23):
If the Bhasya would have read h a Voh or kesam instead of h a *ya, the author
would have committed himself to ‘two-word* compounding exclusively or to
‘three-or-more-word* compounding exclusively. The objection of Bhasya No. 19
does not indicate out of what, i.e., out of which words the compound cannot be
formed. This point is brought out by the counterobjection. The expression dvayoh
( bahunam ) : ‘(compounding) of two words (out of many)* in the Bhasya is
to be distinguished from dvayoh dvayoh (bahvnam): ‘(compounding) of two
words at a time (out of many)* in Bhasya No. 171 ff. Dvayoh means com¬
pounding of two words only, while leaving out a third combinable word, whereas
dvayoh dvayoh means combining two words at a time in ‘three-or-more-word*
compounding, like A+B makes AB; AB +. C makes ABC, etc. The word
dvayoh in the present Bha§ya refers to the undesired possibility A + BC (Ib,
note 22).
21. ( Bhasya: Intention of the objection)
Why cannot we form it out of many (words)?
Kaiyata 39 :
(On) ‘why cannot we form it out of many (words)?* Since both words
(mahat and hasta ) have the status of grammatical object with respect to (the
action of ‘resorting to* expressed by) srita , both are semantically connected with
srita. Or, (if it is argued that) hasta only has the status of object, (then the
reply would be that.) through this (word £asta), mahat also would be semanti¬
cally connected with srita. This is what (the Bhasya) means to say.
Note (24):
In the first alternative the words mahat and £asta are independently related to
srita , both being regarded as its objects. In the second alternative h a §t a only ls
38. P. 317: cf^q- I ^
39. P. 317: ^prt ^RTT^T I WtrPr f«T^T STOaf
OTtorfcr i 3T *nWr *tpt: ii
28
Mahabhasya (P.2.1.1 )
regarded as the object. But since mahat stands in syntactical agreement with
fasta, it enters into the same construction regarding srita. See note (20), possi-
bilities II a, b and c.
22. (Bhasya : Answcr)
(Because in the rules dealing with compounding) the expression

sup supd : c a case-inflected word with a case-inflected word’ is present.
Kaiyata 40 :
Since number (as shown by the singular used in the words sup and supd) is
intentionally used, only one case-inflected word can be compounded with one case-
inflected word, so compounding of many (words at a time) is not allowed. Just
as in the expression pasund yajcta: ‘one should sacrifice by means of an animal’
no more than one animal is mentioned. So also here.
Nagesa: See translation given with Bhasya No. 24.
Note (25):
The word sup is continued from P. 2.1.2. in subsequent rules and the word
supd from P.2.1.4. When both of these words are read together in the fol-
lowing rules they are taken to mean: ‘a case-inflected word is (to be) com¬
pounded with a case-inflected word*. The expression sup supd is not a rule, but
a combination of two words to indicate their combined continued effect.
The question underlying the present discussion is put in Bhasya No. 21 :

why no compounding of many words at a time? An answer is given in the
present Bhasya: the expression sup supd is there. The commentators agree in
taking this expression as a prohibition of compounding many, i.e., more than two,
words at a time. But Kaiyata and Nagesa differ in interpreting Bhdsya
Nos. 22-23.
According to Kaiyata, the words sup and supd each of them signify any one
case-inflected word. Why is that so? Because the singular sup and supd is
intentionally used. Only two words can be compounded at a time.
According to Nagesa, the words sup and supd refer each of them to one case-
inflected word only, that is one specific case-inflected word only, excluding ali
other case-inflected words. Two words only can be compounded at all. The
question of compounding more than two words at a time does not even arise.
This interpretation seems improbable. But it represents a recurring argument
wherever Patanjali discusses the question of dravya: ‘individual* and aJ^rti:
40. p. 318: ^fcf i
«IfiTt * ireafarc: I w 75RT cl^rfT II
SamarthdhniJâ
29
‘generic feature, generic notion*. The view that a word signifying dravya always
stands for one specific dravya is denied by assuming that a word stands for
dkrtu See Mbh . Vol. I, p. 243, lines 16-20.
23. (Bhdsya : Objectiori)
But stili, sir, do not rules become effective (by using words) in a generic
sense? Take an example: where the word prdtipadikdt : ‘after a nominal
sterni occurs, (we see that a suffix) is added each time after a different
nominal stem.
Kaiyata 41 :
(On) ‘But stili, sir*. Just as the statement brdhmano na haniavvah: ‘a brah-
min is not to be killed* prohibits the killing of brahmins as a whole (generically),
in the same way here also compounding may be formed of many (words at a
time, according to the expression sup supa ).
Nagesa 42 :
Fearing that a rule, even if it becomes effective (by using words) in a gen¬
eric sense, is not observed to apply to many individuals simultaneously, included in
that generic sense, (Kaiyata) says: ‘just as the statement ... a brahmin etc.l
Note (26):
By giving his example Pataiijali, i.e., the purvapa^sm, defines generic sense
in an operational way. He shows how it works, when we take a word in a
generic sense. It works so as to include all individual instances to which it refers
in a general way.
The purvapaksms point is now, if a word taken in a generic sense will in¬
clude all its individual instances, why does not it include also groups of indi¬
vidual instances?
To Kaiyata*s opinion the purvapaksms point is this: if a word taken in

a generic sense will include all of its individual instances, why does not it in¬
clude also groups of individual instances? But this point is not clearly brought
out by the illustration given in the Bhasya. Kaiyata tries to remedy this by adding
an example of his own: ‘a brahmin should not be killed*. This injunction, by
mentioning the word ‘brahmin* in a generic sense, forbids killing of any single
brahmin as well as of brahmins taken collectively, i.e., of groups of brahmins, i.e.,
of two or more brahmins at a time.
41. P. 318: Tf TTt STr^JWt H ?f<T
II «TfTT *T<TT^T *TT3*Tfafir II
42. p. 318 : 3 nf*ft smpsfWTPr
V 1 ? sfa
30 Mahabhasya (P.2.1.1)
The discussion up to this point, according to Kaiyata, may be summarized as

f ollo ws:
1. (Bhasya 21). Why not compound many words at the same time ?
2. (Bhasya 22). Sup supa is there. The singular used here forbids com-
pounding of more than two words at a time. Any single case-inflected word is
to be compounded with any single case-inflected word.
3. (Bhasya 23). What if we take sup and supa. in a generic sense? Will not
that make compounding of groups of words possible, since generic sense applies
to individuals as well as to groups, as is shown by the injunction ‘a brahmin
should not be killed*?
The same discussion, according to Nagesa, may be summarized as follows:
1. (Bhasya 21). Why not compound many words at a time?
2. (Bhasya 22). Sup supa. is there. Here the words sup and supa stand for
individuals. Thus only one specific case-inflected word is to be compounded with
only one specific case-inflected word. So the possibility of compounding three or
more words at a time does not even arise.
3. (Bhasya 23). Words are used in a generic sense. Sup supa means that any
single case-inflected word is to be compounded with any single case-inflected
word. The answer given in Bhasya No. 22 is denied.
The last interpretation of sup supa is correct, but it does not answer the ques-
tion whether words taken in a generic sense will also apply to groups of indi¬
viduals. The next Bhasya , while accepting that generic sense covers more than
just one individual case, denies that generic sense applies to groups.
Nagesa*s interpretation is to be preferred to that of Kaiyata for the following

reasons:
1. The wording of Bhasya No. 23, taken literally, is a denial of the view
that a word stands for one single specific individual. It cannot be a denial of
Kaiyata*s interpretation of Bhasya No. 22, which already assumes that the word
sup stands for any single case-inflected word.
2. According to Kaiyata, Bhdsya No. 23 intends to point out that a word

taken in a generic sense stands for a group also. This is not what the text literally
says. If Patanjalfs intention would have been such, he would probably have used
the phrase: nanu ca bho dlflrtis tu samuddyepi parlsamapyate (see f.i. Mbh.
Vol. I, p. 41, line 13).
3. Suppose Bhasya No. 23 means what Kaiyata thinks it means, viz., gen¬
eric sense applies (to individuals as well as) to groups, and Bhasya No. 24
denies the latter, then the statement in Bhdsya No. 24: ‘True, that is so* would
Samarthahnika
31
be out of place. Because this is, in fact, what Bhasya No. 24 denies. In Nagesa’s
interpretation the statement: ‘True*. etc. fits well, because Bhasya No. 24 does
not deny what was stated in Bhasya No. 23, but accepts the view that a word
does not stand for only one single specific individual, but for any individual.
24. (Bhasya: Ansrver)
True, that is so. Generic sense, however, applies fully to each individual,
not to a group. To whatsoever the word pratipadikdt : ‘after a nominal
stem 5 fully applies, after that much we should generate (a suffix), and it
fully applies to each individual {pratipadika ), (but) not to a group (of

pratipadifas ). So also here: to whatsoever the expression sup supa fully
applies, of that much compounding should take place. And it (viz. the
expression sup supa) fully applies to two (words), not to many.
Kaiyata 43 :
(On) ‘Generic sense, however’. Knowledge comprised within a generic

notion refers to each individual separately and not to a group. This
being the case, just as (we cannot say that) a group of pratipadikas
is a pratipadika, (and) so we cannot add case-suffixes after it, so
also, because a group of case-inflected words cannot be regarded as
a case-inflected word, we cannot form a compound (of mahat and /fasta) with
(the word) srita. Since a suflix which we want to employ (cifirsyasya)
(P.4.1.2) and a group of case-inflected words which we want to compound
(cilftrsyasya) (P.2.1.24) form part of the predicate phrase ( pradhanaivat ) (in
P.4.1.2 and P.2.1.24) and since (the expression) ‘(after a) nominal stem’
(continued in P.4.1.2 from P.4.1.1) and the two case-inflected parts (of a
compound, referred to by the words sup and supa continued in P.2.1.24 etc.)
form part of the subject-phrase, (therefore) the singular number, which concerns
the (individual as the) substratum (of the generic notion), is intentionally used.
But, because in killing a group of brahmins we go against the spirit of the in-
junction, the singular number (which, regularly, should be regarded as used
intentionally) is not intentionally used in the prohibition ‘a brahmin should not be
killed*.
43. p. 318: 3rri?fM^rfcr \
f^TcT^r *T*mn*TT3: i
Ptt* w
32
Mahabhdsya (P.2.1.1)
Nagesa 44 :
(Pare tu . . .). But others say that the intention of the statement: ‘the ex-
pression sup supa is there’, made in the Bhdsya , is brought out later on by the
words: ‘generic sense, however, applies fully to each individua!’.
(Itaras tu . . .)• But the other (i.e. the purvapaksin) — thinking (that the
intention of the siddhdntin in Bhasya No. 22 is this) that the singular is intention-
ally used (in the words sup and supa) (and) that therefore only one single
(specific) case-inflected word can be compounded with one single (specific)
case-inflected word, — raises a doubt (about this interpretation) by saying ‘But
stili, sir\
Note (27):
The final answer to the question raised in Bhasya No. 21 is that, even when
we take the words sup and supa in a generic sense, they will apply to individuals
separately and not to groups, i.e., two or more individuals at the same time. So
the expression sup supa definitely excludes *three-or-more-word* compounding.
In his example given with Bhasya No. 23, Kaiyata shows that the prohibition
of killing with regard to a brahmin generically represented applies to individual
brahmins as well as to a group of brahmins. The latter application is now
denied. Generic sense does not cover groups. In his comment on Bhasya No. 24
Kaiyata brings in a Mimamsa doctrine concerning intentional use of number.
Why does he do that? The answer might be that there is stili another possibility
of making the words sup and supa apply to groups of words, or rather to words
in groups. If generic sense applies to individuals why cannot it apply in a suc-
cession to individuals in a group? That means we will apply the generic sense,
in a succession, as many times as there are individuals in the group, because we
cannot apply it simultaneously to the group as such, according to Bhasya No. 24.
Suppose the group consists of ten brahmins. By applying the prohibition in its
generic sense of brahmin ten times in a succession to the ten brahmins we will
save the individuals and, practically, the group also. In this way we could apply
the generic words sup and supa each to two or more words forming part of a
group. But this is not allowed, because the singular of sup and supa is intention-
ally used. We cannot apply each of these words twice or thrice or more times
within the same group of words, no more than we are allowed to kill more than
one animal in the same sacrifice. To indicate where the singular is intentionally
used Kaiyata refers to the Mimamsa doctrine: in the predicate, number is in¬
tentionally used, not so in the subject (see note on Bhdsya No. 134).
44. P. 318: 5 JfTTfo STcT^T
sregjrw srranr: «f^tt
^fgrn
Samarthahnika
33
25. (Bhasya : Objectiori)
Then why cannot we make it (viz. the compound kastasritah) out of

two words ( kastam and sritah )?
Note (28): See note 22, possibility Ib.
26. ( Bhasya : Answer)
a. (Answer). Because semantic connection (between kastam and

sritah) is not there.
b. (Objection). How (can you say that there is) no semantic con¬
nection?
c. (Answer). That which requires (an outside word, i.e. a word out-
side the compound as its qualifier) is (treated as) semantically unconnected.
Kaiyata 46 :
This (statement: sape^sam asamartham bhavati) is a (semantic) principle.

In making a word-composition ( vrtti ) the qualifying word ( upasarjana , say
A) should convey the meaning of the main compound member ( pradhana ,
say B). But if (A) requires (C as) its own qualifier, then (A) becomes
the main member (with respect to C), so how could one word (A) be at the
same time the main member (with respect to C) and how could there be
ekarthiibhdva: ‘single integrated meaning* (of AB where A functions as a
qualifier of B) ?
Note (29):
The compound AB conveys one single integrated meaning. Here the sub-
ordinate member (say A) assumes the meaning of the main member and loses
its independent status, i.e., it becomes inseparable from the whole AB (see
note 7). We will say that a word enjoys the status of being independent, when
it can be qualified by some other word. But if there is a word C outside the
compound AB which qualifies A, then, with regard t6 C, the member A has
to retain its independent status. If it-does so, it cannot function as a qualifier of B
at the same time. It cannot be semantically connected with B, let alone its entry into
a compound with B.
To say that A is qualified by C amounts to saying that A is separable from B.

Therefore, in an uncompounded word-group where A qualifies B, it (A) can
in its turn be qualified by C, because A is separable from B. This is not so in
word-composition. Here A is not separable from B. This is indicated by
45. P. 318: SRcftfcM ^nTPTJT \
F. 3
34
Mahdbhdsya (P.2.1.1)
Kaiyata’s use of the word eJ^drthlbhava. For the meaning of sape^sa see
note (30).
27. ( Bhasya : Objectiori)
If (we accept) the statement: ‘what requires an outside word is

treated as semantically unconnected’, (then) the word-composition
( rdjapurusa : ‘king-man’) in the expressions rdjapurusah abhirupah:
‘handsome king-man’, rdjapurusah darsarnyah: ‘goodlooking king-man’
would not resuit (from the uncompounded word-groups abhirupah
rdjnah purusah and darsaniyah rajnah purus ah).
Kaiyata 46 :
Another (i.e. the -purvapaksin) , thinking that this (statement: sape^sam etc.)
is a rule, raises a question by saying: ‘if . . . what requires’.
Note (30):
If we cannot form the* word-composition hastasritah, where hasta (A) is

qualified by the outside word mahat (C), then how can we form the word-
composition rdjapurusah , where purusah (B) is qualified by the outside word
abhirupah (C) ? According to the purvapa^sin , both examples show a similar
pattern insofar one of the compound members is qualified by an outside word.
Whether the compound member is subordinate or predominant is stili a point
for later discussion. The statement sapehsam asamartham bhavati is not restricted
so far to the subordinate member.
The word sdpefysa may be used with regard to each of two words which
stand in a relation of qualifier and qualified. If A is the qualifier of B and B
is qualified by A, then we will say that they require each other, i.e., A is
sapehsa of B and reversely. This does, of course, not mean that B can never
be used without A or reversely.
Nothing wrong here. (Because it is here) the main member which

requires (an outside word). And compounding does take place, even if
the main member requires (an outside word).
Kaiyata 47 :
(On) ‘And does take place*. Because it does not involve contradiction (when
we say) that it is qualified by more than one qualifier, (and this is so) prescisely
for this reason, that (the main member retains its) status of main member (i.e.
predominance, even when it is qualified by an outside word).
46. P. 319: qf? II
47. P. 319: vrsrfFr %f?T i i
Samarthahnika
35
Nagesa 48 :
(Yady api . . .). Even if in the case of the compound ( rdjapurusah , the
quali fymg term darsanlyah) is construed with the whole (i.e., pufusah as
qualified by its relation to the king) and we cannot, therefore, say that the main
member (viz., purusah) requires (the outside word) darsamyah , yet, when we
construe the word darsanvyah with rdjapurusah , we do so, not because purusa :
‘man* is related to rajari: ‘king’, but because the man himself only becomes the
criterion for being qualified. With this in mind Patanjali makes his statement
l : ke that, so we should understand.
Note (31):
(Explanation of Kaiyata). Suppose that in a sequence of uncompounded

words, indicated as C - A - B, both C and A qualify B, then this will not affect
the status of B as the qualified word. But, if in the same sequence A qualifies
B and C qualifies A, this will affect the status of A, which now becomes that
of qualifier (subordinate member) with regard to B, and that of qualified (main
member) with regard to C. This is contradictory.
(Comments on the remark of Nagesa). Nagesa argues that the property ‘good-
looking’ inheres in a man and has nothing to do with his being in the Service of a king.
Stili, if the function of the adjective is to restrict the meaning of the word qualified,
we may say that it is not just the man who is goodlooking, but the man who
is employed by the king. So darsamya as a restrictive adjective qualifies the
whole rather than a part of the compound. See further note (7). So Nagesa
cannot justify Patanjali.
Then, where the subordinate member requires (an outside word),

there word-composition, as in devadattasVa gurukulam : ‘Devadatta^
teacher-family’, devadattasya guruputrah : ‘Devadatta’s teacher-son’,
devadattasya ddsabhdrya : ‘Devadatta ? s slave-wife’, would (actually) not
resuit (from the corresponding uncompounded word-groups).
Note (32):
Here the genitive word devadattasya qualifies the subordinate members guru
and ddsa in the compounds quoted. Thus the expressions mean: [Devadatta’s
teacher] ’s family, etc. The Bhasya says that compounding should not be allowed
here, because the subordinate member is qualified by an outside word.
48. P. 319: zrcrfq* fqfw rjcTFQ *T ^ OTTpT ^T^fbT^T-
36
30. (Bhasya : Answer)
Nothing wrong here. Here the (word in the) genitive requires (i.e.
qualifies) the whole. It requires (the word) gurukulam: ‘teacher-family’
as a whole.
Kaiyata 49 :
(On) ‘requires the whole’. The genitive case devadatiasya is used after the
relationi 50 with the whole gurukulam, etc. has been formed. (But the fact is,)
Devadatta is related with the whole (i.e., the teacher-family) through the part
(i.e., the teacher) by implication. There fore, we have to accept that (the
genitive word while touching the whole) touches the qualifier-part also (i.e., the
word gutu). This has been stated:
‘Which (meanings or words) enter into a relation with the whole guruû/a,
etc., those (meanings or words, like devadattasya) , being (first) connected with
parts (of that whole), are subsequently construed with what contains those
(parts) ’ 51 .
Note (33):
While forming a relation with the whole, the outside qualifier forms a rela¬
tion with the part. This is not an independent relation with the parts, but the
whole functions as a medium here.
31. (Bhasya : Ansrver rejected)
I. Then, where (the word in) the genitive does not require (i.e. qualify)
the whole, there your word-composition ( kimodanah , saktvadhakam ,
pdtaliputrakah ) as in kimodanah salinam : ‘rice of what (kind of) grains’,
saktvddhakam dparyiydndm: ‘a certain measure of barley grains offered
for sale’, kuto bhavdn pdtaliputrakah: ‘from which part of Pataliputra
49. P. 319: I TCfarfoTT WttWl SPTWf?T#
N3 c
tfJfrW I
5 ipsior w n ii
50. The word translated as ‘relation’ is vyatireka. This term is used for the genitive
relation which exists between two different things, as to be distinguished from
the relation expressed by syntactical agreement, where only one thing is referred
to. See Vdkyapadiya III 14, 150 and Helaraja’s commentary on that: patasya
suklah : ‘the white (quality) of the cloth’ is vyatireka, whereas suklah patah :
‘white cloth’ is samdnddhikarana-rel&tion (syntactic agreement).
51. Vdkyapadiya of Bhartrhari, ed. by K. V. Abhyankar and V. P. Limaye, Poona,

1965, p. 120 (III. 14.48)
Samarthdhnil(a
37
are you, sir?’ (or ‘from which Pataliputra are you, sir?’) would (actually)
not resuit (from the corresponding uncompounded word-groups).
Note (34):
In the first expression (kimodanah safinam) fam is compounded with odanah ,

although no semantic connection is there. Semantically J(im goes with sali: ‘grain’
which lies outside the compound. The expression means ‘rice of which grains*
and not ‘what kind of rice prepared from grains* 52 . In the second expression
salitu: * barley* is compounded with adhala: ‘measure*, but it is qualified by
dpcmiya: ‘offered for sale*, which is an outside word. In the third expression the
word-composition patalipuiraka is formed according to P.4.2.123 (with the
suflix vutf in the sense of tata agatah: ‘coming from there*) from the word
pataliputra , although this latter word requires the outside word fiutah.
(Bhasya continued)
II. And also here (word-composition would actually not resuit):

devadattasya gurukulam : ‘Devadatta’s teacher-family’, devadattasya
guruputrah: ‘Devadatta’s teacher-son’, devadattasya dasabhdrya: ‘Deva-
datta’s slave-wife’. If the (word in the) genitive requires (i.e. qualifies)
the (compound as a) whole, then we would not necessarily understand
the following (meaning): ‘(the man) who is Devadatta’s teacher, his
son\ Then what (else could we understand)? ‘Son of somebody else’s
teacher, also connected in some way or other with Devadatta (but not
necessarily as a teacher)’. This meaning might be understood. But since,
in fact, we understand necessarily the following meaning: ‘(the man)

who is Devadatta’s teacher, his son’, therefore, we think that this (word
in the) genitive does not require (i.e. qualify) the (compound as a)
whole.
Kaiyata 53 :
(On) ‘And here also*. If it is assumed that (the word outside the compound)
is connected with the (compound as a) whole (and not with a part of the com-
52. The word kim in kimodanah does not denote the sense of ‘bad’, as f.i. in the
compound kimsakhd (Kirdtdrjumya 1,5), because then kim could not be con-
strued with the outside word sdtindm. P.5.4.70 prescribes compounding with
kim only, if it expresses censure of the meaning conveyed by the directly fol-
lowing word.
53- p - 319: ^ =sn«fjf=r i srftrcfwsrerf n
*frT: I
■o
frrrefa ^ ii ifa w
38
Mahdbhasya (P.2.1.1)
pound), (then) the (undesired) possibility of understanding (the relation ex-

pressed by the word in the genitive in the sense of) nearness etc. also would
arise, this is what the passage means.
(On) ‘this . . . does not\ Here (in the word devadattasya) the genitive case
is employed with respect to a teacher, and word-composition ( vrtti , i.e. com-
pounding) does take place, because (the word guru: ‘teacher’) is a correlative
word and because it cannot give up its requirement (of the other correlated word,
viz., devadatta , which lies outside the compound) even in (forming) word-
composition (i.e., when it becomes part of a compound), just as (it does not
give up) its own meaning (i.e., ‘teacher’). This has been stated:
‘Every correlative word is employed as showing invariably requirement (of

the other correlated word). And (its) interdependence (with the other cor¬
related word) is not abandoned even in (forming) word-composition, just as
(it does not give up) its own meaning’ 54 .
Note (35):
What Kaiyata in his comment on ‘And here also’ means by ‘nearness* is that
we may take the undefined relation expressed by the genitive devadattasya as
one of nearness: ‘son of the teacher who is standing near Devadatta*.
In this section of the Bhasya Patanjali shows that the statement sapefasam
asamartham bhavati must be qualified in several ways to make it fit current usage.
In the Bhasya Nos. 27-28 Patanjali takes the expression darsamyah raja -
purusah as correct usage. The main member of a compound may be qualified
by an outside word, i.e., a word outside the compound. In addition to this,
Patanjali argues that the semantic principle sapeJ^sam etc. must be relaxed even
with regard to the subordinate member of the compound. In a number of ex-
pressions like devadattasya gurukulam the outside word is construed with the sub¬
ordinate member. We cannot say that the genitive word devadattasya is con¬
strued with the compound as a whole, because, in that case, we might misunder-
stand the meaning of the expression as is pointed out in the Bhasya.
Bhartrhari in the passage quoted from the VaJ^yapaddya makes a proviso for
compounding where the outside word is construed with the subordinate member.
It is allowed in case of ‘correlative* words. The term ‘correlative’ refers to the
words like ‘father*, ‘son’, ‘teacher’, ‘pupil*, which invariably imply a relation
of the one to the other. In such cases we may use the uncompounded expression
devadattasya guroih putrah and also devadattasya guruputrah. This made it
possible for Nagesa in his comment on svdrthavat : ‘just as (it does not give up)
its own meaning* to interpret the word svdrthavat as svdrthamatropasthapaka-
vakya: ‘(like in) a sentence where (every word) presents only its own mean-
54. Vakyapadiya, p. 119 (III 14. 47).
Samarlhahnil(a
39
ing 55 . There fore, modern editors 56 have changed the original reading svarthavat
into vakyavat.
According to Bhartrhari, the semantic principle sapeksam etc. is relaxed in the

case of ‘correlative* words. But, as is shown by the examples kimodanah etc.,
the principle is also relaxed in the case of words which are not correlative.
(Bhasya coniinued)
III. Elsewhere also, in fact, where (the word) samartha : ‘semanti-

cally connected’ is mentioned, (we see that) an operation applies (to a
word) in spite of the fact that the word requires (stili another word).
Where elsewhere? In (the illustration of) P.8.3.44: brahmanasya sarpis
karoti: ‘brahmin’s ghee he makes’. Therefore, we cannot formulate this
(semantic principle): sapeksam asamarthaA bhavati.
Note (36) :
The examples up to now were concemed with eiârihibhava :*single integrated

meaning*, as resulting from vrtii : ‘word-composition*. The present example shows
how the semantic principle sapeksam etc. is relaxed also in the case of vyapeksa:
‘meaning-interdependence’ (of words in a sentence). P.8.3.44 (see note 8)
prescribes change of s into s for particular endings of words which must be se-
mantically connected. If we accept the principle sapeksam etc., then, in the sentence
quoted, the word sarpih cannot be regarded as semantically connected with
karoti , because it requires (i.e., is qualified by) the outside word brahmanasya.
But according to usage change of s into s does take place. So the semantic prin¬
ciple does not even apply here. See further Bhasya Nos! 163-164. The example
mentioned by Kaiyata on this passage occurs in Bhasya No. 162.
32. ( Bhasya : Objection , serving as an introductian to Bhasya No. 33.)
Then why cannot we form the word-composition ( kastasritah ) from

(the uncompounded word-group) mahat kastam sritah?
Note (37) : . " . .
The possibility of ‘three-^word* compounding is denied in Bhasya No. 24.

The possibility of ‘two-word* compounding, ‘right-side’ analysis, is rejected in
Bhasya No. 26, on the authority of the principle sapeksam etc. In Bhasya
No. 31 this principle itself is rejected. That means that the undesired possi¬
bility of ‘two-word’ compounding, ‘right-side* analysis, is not excluded. The
qnestion put in Bhasya No. 25, therefore, remains open and the present Bhasya
is a reminder of that.
55. In a compound the subordinate member presents the meaning of the main
member, see note (7).
56. The Nimaya-Sagar Press edition of the Mahabhasya reads vakyavat in the
stanza quoted.
40
33. ( Bhasya : Ansiver (first pari of a rcphrasing of the semantic principle))
A rule should be made to the effect that no word-composition (i.e.

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

of qualified words, or that a qualifying word is not (to be) used, once
word-composition has (already) taken place, (then) word-composition
(gurukulam, guruputrah, dasabharya) y as (we have it) in (the expres¬
sioris :) devadattasya gurukulam : ‘Devadatta^ teacher-family’, devadat -

tasya guruputrah : ‘Devadatta 5 s teacher-son’, devadattasya dasabharya :
‘Devadatta’s slave-wife’, would not resuit (from the corresponding uncom¬
pounded word-groups).
Note (39):
Bhasya No. 33 answered the objections made in Bhasya Nios. 32 and 25,
and in Bhasya No. 31 sub III. Stili the objections made in Bhasya 31 (sub
I and II) have not been satisfactorily answered. The present Bhasya reminds
us of that.
56a. ^f^q-nTTffTfirfff |
tTcffrer: n
Samarthdhnika 41
35. (Bhasya : Ansiver (sccond pari of a rephrasing of the semantic principle ))

The rule (stated in Bhasya No. 33) should be made to the effect that
(the compounds) guruputrah etc. are excepted.
Note (40):
This is an answer to Bhasya No. 31 (sub I and II), in the form of a proviso
added to the rule as formulated in Bhasya No. 33. The word ‘etc*. in the
Bhasya includes the cases mentioned in Bhasya No. 31 (sub I).
36. ( Bhasya : Ohjection)
Then a rule should be made to this effect: No word-composition (is

allowed) of qualified words, or a qualifying word is not (to be) used,
when word-composition has (already) taken place, except (in the case
of the compounds) guruputrah etc.
37. ( Bhasya : Ansiver)
a. (Answer) The rule need not be made.
b. (Objection) Then why cannot we form the word-composition

( kastasritah keeping the word mahat as an outside qualifier)?
c. (Answer) Because (the partly compounded expression mahat
kastasritah) does not convey the (same) meaning (which we understand

from the uncompounded expression mahat kastam sritah ). Here the un-
compounded word-group and the compound should convey the same
meaning. But the meaning which is understood from the uncompounded
word-group mahat kastawi sritah: ‘he has made a painstaking effort’ is not
at all understood from the compound mahat kastasritah? 1 * For that reason
we say: ‘because it does not convey the same meaning, (therefore such com-
pounding is not allowed)*. We do not say (that such compounding is
not allowed for the reason that) it makes a wrong word. But where the
same meaning is conveyed (by the uncompounded word-group and the
compound), there word-composition does take place. Take the examples:
devadattasya gurukulam : ‘Devadatta’s teacher-family’, devadattasya
guruputrah : ‘Devadatta’s teacher-son’, devadattasya ddsahhdrya :
‘Devadatta’s slave-wife’.
Kaiyata 58 :
(On) 'mahat kastasritah'. (The partly compounded expression mahat

kastasritah) we may understand as: ‘one who has made effort does a big thing*,
57. For its meaning see Kaiyata below.
58. P. 320: I ^ ^fcffarrf? Sfftfcf, fw-
37 *T^sf STcft^T, ^ § q refeW W II i|JT ^T| STfSnTRCT

.«nvemrwr ^ i 5 fer
Infers wriT 1 jpfWFrt 1 TTfaw-
^frr*r4; n
42
or we may understand (it in such a way) that bigness qualifies the verb and
not (the noun) kasta, (as: ‘who has greatly made effort’ and not as: ‘one who
has made great effort’).
(On) ‘We do not say\ About (a word or a compound) used in daily speech
we discuss whether it is correct or not, just as (we do in case of) the words
go, gavt etc. 59 . But this (partly compounded expression) mahal I?astasriiah is
not at all used in the sense of the uncompounded expression mahat fastam
sritah. But this (i.e. grammatical system) gives an explanation of (words)
actually used. There fore, we will not form a compound ( kastasritah ) here
(from mahat fastam sritah ), this is the meaning of the passage.
Nagesa 60 :
In this way the partly compounded expressions fyimodanah saUnam etc. are
justified, for the only reason that they convey the same meaning (as the corre-
sponding uncompounded expressions). Although (the partly compounded expres¬
sion devadattasya gurukulam is established as correct by the argument: ‘because
it is a correlative word’ etc., as given by Kaiyata 61 , (stili this) cannot estab-
lish (the partly compounded expressions) Iîmodanah etc. as correct. Therefore,
only what is stated in the Bhasya (i.e. agamakatva) is sound 62 .
Note (41):
First the semantic principle was formulated as sapeksam asamarlham bhavati.

This proved to be too wide. The principle was formulated anew as savisesananam
vrttir na etc. and an exception was added to it. This provides the answer for
59.
60.
61.
62.
See Mbh. Vol. I, p. 2, line 24; p. 5, lines 21-22; p. 10, line 8. The reference
to go, gavx in this context is misleading, because the question of Prakrits is
brought in here vvhich were considered at bad usage in toto. But the point here
is to decide correctness with regard to the usage of the Sanskrit speaking com-
munity only. If this community uses compounding of semantically unconnected

words, how could Panini prevent that?
P. 320: TTcf fsprff^T: l
“TTrfWq' fqFlft?*T
In his comment on Bhasya No. 31 sub II.
I.e. Bhasya No. 37. The principle for forming cornpounds is [a)gamakatva, i.e.
compounds will be formed, when they convey the same meaning as the cor-
responding uncompounded word-group. Samarthya, i.e. semantic connection, can¬
not serve as such a principle, because then all asamartha compounds (the consti-
tuents of which are not semantically connected) would be considered as in-
correct usage. Stili many asamartha compounds are used by people who are
regarded as normative speakers. The reason why these compounds are used at
all can only be that they are gamaka.
Samarihahnika
43
the points brought out in Bhasya 31 sub I (Jîmodanah salinam etc. could be
included in the guruputradi list), II & III. But finally Patanjali thinks that
this principle even in its new wording is not required, since the simpler principle of
( a)gamakatva (uncompounded word-group and compound should convey the
same meaning as decided by usage) will serve the same purpose.
Patanjali is cautious in adding new rules to the body of Panim’s system. If he

can avoid to do so, he will avoid it. Here he can, because (a) gamafyatva is a
principle already accepted by Panini in his rule 2.1.11, which allows com-
pounding optionally for uncompounded word-groups. For further explanation
see Bhasya No. 72.
38. (Bhasya : Refutation)
If the reason is that the same meaning is not conveyed, (then) there
is no point in using (the word) samartha (in P.2.1.1). Also here, in the
expression bharya rajnah puruso devadattasya : ‘wife of the king, man of
Devadatta’, the meaning which we understand from the uncompounded
word-group, the (same) meaning we do not understand at ali from the
(partly) compounded (expression) bharya rajapuruso devadattasya:
‘wife, king-man of Devadatta’. Therefore, there is no point in using (the
word) samartha.
Note (42):
The compound ‘king-man’ is rejected, because it does not have the same mean¬
ing as the uncompounded words, ‘king, man’ in the first example quoted. Then
why does Panini use the word samartha in his rule? The purpose of the word
samartha is fulfilled by (a) gamakatva also. Unless we show that by the mention
of the word samartha we achieve what we cannot achieve by (a) gamafyatva,
the word samartha cannot be purposeful, because (a) gamaâtva will reject com-
pounding, when the uncompounded expression and the compound differ in mean¬
ing. Patahjali’s fear is that, in using the principle (a) gamafyatva, not only the
reworded principle savisesandnam vrttir na etc. becomes superfluous, but
Panini’s rule 2.1.1 also. So Patanjali must show that what is achieved by
samartha cannot be achieved by (a) gamafyatva or reversely. He must show that
both principies answer different requirements.
39. (Bhasya : Refutation refuted)
Then this (must be) the reason (behind the use of the word samartha ):
We have compounding with the negative particle where semantically
unconnected words are compounded and where (the same) meaning is
conveyed (as in the corresponding uncompounded word-group), f.i. in
akmcit kurvanam: £ not—whatsoever doing’, amasam haramdnam: c not—
44
Mahdhhasya (P.2.1.1)
pulse taking 5 , agadhad utsrstam : ‘not-from-the-deep risen’ (and the pur-

pose of mentioning the word samartha in P.2.1.1 is) that these (expres-
sions) would not be (regarded as) correct.
Kaiyata 63 :
(On) ‘compounding with the negative particie . . . where (the same) meaning
is conveyecT. (A compound,) even if it is incorrect, is used in speech, if it is
accepted as conveying (the same) meaning (as the corresponding uncompounded
word-group), just as the (incorrect) words gavi 64 etc. (are used in speech side
by side with the correct forms go etc.). If the word samartha is not mentioned,
(then) there is a chance to treat such a word (i.e. compound) as correct.
Therefore, to prevent that, this (word samartha) is there. This is what the
passage means. The negative compounds (i.e. compounds formed with the
negative particie), (mentioned) here, have the meaning: ‘not-doing whatsoever*,
‘not-taking pulse’, ‘not-risen from the deep’.
Note (43):
In these examples the negative particie, although compounded with the noun,
semantically goes with the verb. We could justify compounding here by saying
that the compounds convey the same meaning as the corresponding uncompounded
word-groups. If we accept (a) gamakatva as the criterion, the compounds will
be considered correct; not so, when we acccpt samarthya instead. That means,
we cannot replace samartha in P.2.1.1 by (a)gamal?a. Stili, these compounds,
although they are gamafya : ‘conveying the same meaning as the corresponding
uncompounded word-group*, seem not to have been accepted in Standard speech,
because they are not included in the enumeration of asamartha , gamaâ, negative
compounds given in Bhasya No. 40. For Standard speech see Patanjali*s re-
marks on P.6.3.109.
40. (Bhasya : Rejectiori of the word samartha justified).
This is not the reason (behind the use of the word samartha) either.
The correctness of some compounding' with the negative particie which
is formed of semantically unconnected words, (and) which conveys (the
same) meaning (as the corresponding uncompounded word-group), is to
be necessarily stated by a rule. (The enumeration of the compounds
asuryampasya, apunargeya, asraddhabhojin and anapurhsakasya as they
occur respectively in the expressions) asuryafnpasyani mukhdni: £ not-sun-
63. PP. 320-21: ^ |
mj&ft srr<r ii
64. See Kaiyata on Bhasya No. 37.
Samarthahnika 45
seeing faces’, apunargeyah slokah : ‘not-to-be-sung-again stanzas’,

asraddhaboft forahmanah: ‘not-funeral-oblation-eating brahmin’ (and)
anapumsakasya (in P. 1.1.43) will serve as a restriction. Only this (group
of enumerated compounds) we accept as correct, no other (group
of asamartha, negative, gamaka compounds). Therefore, there is no point
in mentioning (the word) samartha.
Kaiyata 05 :
(On) 4 anapumsaâsya . When we take the view that the negative particle
is construed with a verb, (then) we have here (in the word ctnapumsakasya:
4 the neuter suffixes are not included*) a case of compounding of semantically
unconnected words. In order to have a clue that some negative compounds
formed of semantically unconnected words are correct, the word cmapumsakasya
is treated as (a case where) the negative particle is construed with the verb.
And also, 66 if (we take it as a case where) the negative particle is construed
with the noun, no harm is done. The matter (is) like this: when the word
samartha is mentioned, we have to state these (compounds), in order to (justify
them by a special rule which then becomes) vidhi: ‘ruie teaching something new
which cannot be obtained by a general rule’, (and) when (the word samartha)
is not mentioned, that same statement (of the compounds in question) will serve
as a restriction.
(On) ‘Only this*. (Patanjali) uses the singular (in etasya), because he as¬
sumes non-differentiation (of individual instances). (If we do not assume use
of the singular in this sense) the plural should have been used, because there are
many (individual instances).
Nagesa 67 :
(On) ‘Will serve as a restriction*. And thus expressions like akrrhcit £urp<mam,
mentioned before, are incorrect. This is what (Kaiyata) means to say. Because
65. p. 321 : l Tsprrajrrer: i
srftr: i srsfsqf i&zifeqwm fiwirpf
1I I qfrqT I
66. The word api in the text is rather difficult to explain. It gives the meaning
that even in the case of paryudasa : ‘negation construed with the noun’ no harm,
i.e., no difficulty, is there; the compound will stili be asamartha : ‘formed of
semantically unconnected words’, just as in the case where we take the negation
to be construed with the verb. This is obviously incorrect. The original reading
may be conjectured to have been as follows: paryudase hi tv atra na kfatth :
‘but, as is ciear, in the case of paryudasa no difficulty is there’ (because the com¬
pound would be samartha : ‘formed of semantically connected words’).
67. P. 321: 1 <7^ =*lf%F^T f TfarfacSTreq-: Jpft»TT: Hfp ffTT
srarsrr 5 % mcu srnpaFri srt
srm i sf?r irr?: 11
46
the compounds, aswryampasya etc., mentioned above, which are to be con-

sidered as correct, are many, the singular (in etasya) is inappropriate. There¬
fore, (Kaiyata) says ‘non-differentiation*. What the Bhasya means to say by
etasya eva is: pragulîasya: ‘mentioned above* (i.e. asuryampasya , etc.).
Note (44) :
The rule P. 1.1.43 States that the first five case-endings (see P.4.1.2) are
called sarvanamasthana , with the exception of the neuter suflixes.
1. Why does Kaiyata bring in the question of vidhi and niyama? This has
to do with his view that the compounds mentioned in Bhasya No. 39 are in-
correct. They are incorrect, if we apply the criterion of samarthva , so Bhasya
No. 39 says, and, therefore, we need the word samartha in P.2.1.1.
Suppose the word samartha is there to prevent compounds like afyimcit

Jturvanam. Then the same word samartha will prevent the formation of asuryam -
pasya etc. mentioned in Bhasya No. 40. In that case we would have to make
a special statement to the effect that asuryampasya (A), apunargeya (B),
asraddhabhojin (C), and anapumsalâsya (D) are correct usages, in spite of
the word samartha.
Suppose now that the word samartha is not there. We can no more prevent
the formation of alîmcii kurvanam etc. mentioned in Bhasya No. 39. But,
kaiyata says, we can stili prevent this formation without the help of the word
samartha. How? For this the Mtmdmsa doctrine of vidhi and paasaml^hya (i.e.
niyama in the terminology of the grammarians) will provide the means 68 .
When the word samartha is not mentioned in P.2.1.1 we are allowed to form
asamartha compounds. Therefore, a special rule to the effect that A, B, C, D,
which are asamartha, are correct usages, is not required. They are justified by
the general rule. Yet we find that a special rule in the form of enumeration is
made to declare the compounds A, B, C, D as correct. What does that indicate?
It indicates restriction. Out of all asamartha negative compounds only A, B, C
and D are correct.
To put it briefly, when the word samartha is there (in P.2.1.1), the special
rule becomes vidhyartha, i.e. it prescribes compounding which we cannot form
according to the general rule, because the word samartha prohibits it.
When the word samartha is not there, we can form the compounds in ques¬
tion by the general rule. Nothing is there to prohibit them. The special rule,
formulated nevertheless, does not prescribe some new operation which we could
not have from the general rule, but it, in fact, prescribes the same thing. This means
68. See T antravarttika 1.2.4, as quoted in the Mimamsdnyayaprakasa, ed. Bhandarkar

Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1937, p. 202.
Samarthahnika
47
that the special rule is restrictive. The special provision made for A, B, C
and D applies to these compounds only. No other compounds, although they are
asamartha , negative and gamafca, are regarded as correct.
In Kaiyata’s explanation anapumsakasya iti should not be taken by itself,

leaving out the expressions mentioned immediately before. The word iti goes with
the whole group, in which anapumsakasya is only the last member.
The question remains, why are not the compounds mentioned in Bhdsya
No. 39, which are asamartha , negative and gamaka, just like the ones men¬
tioned in Bhdsya No. 40, included in the enumerationi From the compound-
forms themselves no criterion. for exclusion can be inferred. The reason for non-
inclusion may have been that these compounds, a!(hhcit kurvdnam etc., were not
accepted by the sistas as belonging to Standard speech. See Note (43).
Among the compounds included in the enumeration given in Bhdsya No. 40

two go back to Panini: asuryampasya (P.2,3.36) and anapumsakasya
(P. 1.1.43). It is not ciear where Patanjali got the other two compounds from.
Perhaps these might be usages of his times.
2. The argument may be summarized as follows:
a. In Bhdsya No. 38 it i$ argued that mention of the word samartha is not
required to prevent the formation cf the compound rajapurusa from the exnress’on
bharyd rajnah puruso devadatlasya , because we can prevent it by applying the
criterion of (a) gamafyatva. Does this compound convey the same meaning as
the corresponding uncompounded word-group or does it • not? .This is itself a
question of meaning, not to be decided by rule, but by usage. Srnce in this case
a compound is not used, we infer that it does not convey the same meaning as
the corresponding uncompounded word-group.
b. Bhdsya No. 39 denies the validity of this criterion. We cannot always
achieve by (a) gamakatva what we can achieve by (a) samarthya. Are the words
in the uncompounded expression from which these compounds,... mentioned in
Bhdsya No. 39, have been built, semantically connecfed or not? Obviously they
are not. But we may say that the compounds aJ(imcit harvdnam etc., mentioned
in this Bhdsya , are correct, judging by (a) gamakatva, But we cannot say so
when we apply the criterion of (a) samarthya which would declare them in-
correct, as they, in fact, are. So, in order to have this desirable resuit, viz., in-
correctness, the word samartha in P.2.1.1 is required.
c. Bhdsya No. 40 denies that the word samartha in P.2.1.1 is required to

make the compounds akimcit kurvanam in Bhdsya No. 39 incorrect. We can
make an enumerative statement of a restrictive character like the one given by
Patanjali, starting from asuryampasya and ending with anapumsakasya . This
will do to declare all other compounds of similar structure incorrect.
48
Mahabhasya (P.2.I.I)
3. The following table will make ciear that Patafijali by applying his
(a) gamal?atva ~criterion is able to give a more precise account of what is re-
garded as correct usage in his time, than by applying the criterion of (a)sa-
marthya.
gamaka/
agamal?a
asamartha
correct/
incorrect
a.
Three compounds in
Bhasya No. 31, sub I.
gamaka
asamartha
correct (see
Nagesa on
Bhasya No. 37)
b.
Three compounds in
Bhasya No. 31, sub II.
gamafca
correct
c.
Kastasritah (where
mahai is the outside
word), Bhasya No. 32.
agamalâ
»»
incorrect
d.
Rajapurusah (from
bharya rajnah
etc.) in Bhasya
No. 38.
agamalâ
incorrect
e.
Three compounds in
Bhasya No. 39.
gamaka
incorrect
f.
Four compounds in
Bhasya No. 40.
gamaka
correct
Taking (a)samarthya as the criterion to decide that compounds are correct

or not, we find that ali of them are incorrect. But we know that those mentioned
under a, b, and f, are correct. The desired resuit, viz., correctness, can only be
obtained, when we take ( a)gamakatva as a criterion. This is why Patanjali
substitutes this criterion for that of (a) samarthya. Only in the compounds men¬
tioned under c, and d, both criteria give the same resuit. In the case of e, the
criterion gamakatva does not work. From the special enumeration of negative
compounds it appears that the compounds in Bhasya No. 39 are not accepted
by the sistas.
4. In his Bhasya on P. 1.1.43 ( Mbh . Vol. I, p. 101, line 5) Patanjali

says that the word anapumsakasya is to be regarded as a compound of seman-
tically unccfnnected words (asamarthasamasa ). At the end of this Bhasya he
says (lines 14-16): *With regard to what you also say, viz., that the word
anapumsakasya is to be taken as asamarthasamasa , (I reply that), even if this
should be stated as a rule, (stili) it would cover many instances (like that).
Which? Asuryampasydni mukhdni; apunargeyah slokali ; asraddhabhoji
brahmanah.
Samarthahnika
49
Kaiyata, on this Bhasya, remarks that the word anapumsakasya , since this
lengthy form is preferred to the shorter form sinpumsayoh: ‘in the feminine and
masculine*, gives us a clue, viz., that negative compounding does take place, even
if the words concerned are not semantically connected.
The word anapumsakasya may thus be interpreted in two ways:
(A) as the final member in a restrictive enumeration, as indicated by Patanjali,

when he uses the word nlyamartham in Bhasya No. 40;
(B) as a sample of the class of asamartha , negative, gamaka compounds,

serving as a criterion to justify asamarthasamasa , as indicated by Patanjali in
his Bhasya on P. 1.1.43.
According to interpretation (A) the compounds mentioned in Bhasya No. 39

are incorrect, because they are not included in the enumeration. According to
interpretation (B) they will be correct, because they show the same pattem as
the word anapumsakasya. In this case the compounds mentioned in the table
sub e. will be correct.
How to interpret Bhasya No. 39 in the light of interpretation (B) ? An

attempt may be made as follows: The purvapaksins argument is that the word
samartha in P.2.1.1 is deliberately used by Pajiini to deny that the compounds
aklmclt kurvdnam etc. are correct. The purvapaksm here assigns a wrong pur-
pose to the word samartha , as is pointed out by the siddhantln in Bhasya No. 40.
If we assign this intention to the use of the word samartha , it would involve
Panini himself in a contradiction, since he uses the word anapumsakasya which
shows a pattem similar to the other compounds and which must be regarded as
correct. Since anapumsakasya stands as the representative of a class of compounds,
it will justify the compounds in Bhasya No. 39 which are also asamartha ,
negative and gamaka. So the word samartha cannot have the purpose assigned
to it by the purvapaksln.
The difficulty in interpreting in this way is the word nlyamdrtham in Bhasya

No: 40. We have to explain it in the sense of jnapaka : ‘clue*. But Patanjali
invariably uses niyama in the sense of the later Mimaihsaka’s parisamkhya. This
means that we cannot but interpret it in the sense of an enumeration of a restrictive
type. This is what Kaiyata does. As a consequence, the compounds in Bhasya
No. 39 are declared to be incorrect. But in the Bhasya on P. 1.1.43 the word
niyama does not occur and Kaiyata explains the word anapumsakasya as being
jnapaka. Consequently, ali compounds showing the same pattem are justified.
In his comment on Bhasya No. 40 Kaiyata also uses the idea of jnapaka , when
he says kesamcit sadhutvajnapanaya : ‘in order to have a clue for the cor-
rectness of some (words) *. By using the word 'kesamcit* Kaiyata tries.to recon-
cile the idea of jnapaka and that of restrictive enumeration.
(HERE ENDS THE SEGTION ON THE PURPOSE OF THE samarthaparibhasa)
50
IV
(NOW STARTS THE SEGTION IN WHICH THE DIFFERENT CHARACTER

ISTICS OF SEMANTIC CONNECTION ARE EXAMINED)
41. (Bhasya : Question)
Now, apart from the question whether (the word) samartha should
be mentioned in P.2.1.1 (or not), (when) you say samartha, what do
you really mean by samartha ?
Kaiyata 69 :
(On) ‘Now, apart from the question whether ... is mentioned*. It means
that, even if mention (of the word samarthah in P.2.1.1.) is accepted, (it is)
for the sake of enlightening the ignorant.
(On) ‘what do you really mean by samartha . Although it was already dis-
cussed whether semantic connection means ‘single integrated meaning* or ‘meaning-
interdependence’ 70 , stili this is the right place to discuss it. (These words),
however, have been used before, (only) after (taking into account) what has
been established here.
Nagesa 71 :
(On) ‘ignorant*, What (Kaiyata) means to say is that for people who have
only the grammatical rules to guide them (laksanaikacaksuska) (in deriving the
formations) it is difficult to know everywhere, whether a compound conveys (the
same) meaning (as the corresponding uncompounded word-group) or not. Ir-
respective of the fact whether the word samarthah is there (in P.2.1.1) or not,
all (correct) usages are provided for (by this grammar), only (after taking into
account the criterion of) gamakatva etc. which can be known (to us) through
traditional teaching (only), so we should understand.
I, (Varttika : Ansiver)
The word samartha (means) single integrated meaning of words which

(when uncompounded) have separate meanings (of their own).
69.
70.
71.
P. 321: 3psj- I SRSRtsRTO II f% grpif
fTTirfa i jrtPt gr*rwf ^«tt
^ «i^rc f*r: n
See Bha$ya No. 8.
P. 321: I
%fir irr^: i ftpr
Samarthahnika
51
42. (Bhasya : Explanatiori )
(When) we say samartha (it means) single integrated meaning of

words which (when uncompounded) have separate meanings (of their
own).
Kaiyata 72 :
(On) ‘which have separate meanings (of their own)\ First, he examines
semantic connection as single integrated meaning. Subsequently, he will examine
the definition of meaning-interdependence. (From) prthag arthah yesam
padanam , tani: ‘which words have a meaning of their own, those (words), (we
derive the compound) prthagarihani padani : ‘words having a-meaning-of-their-
own*. In the uncompounded word-group rajndh purusah : ‘king*s man\ as we
know, the word ‘king* conveys only the meaning *king\ and the word ‘man’ also
(conveys) only the meaning ‘man\ But in the compound rdjapurusah: ‘king-
man* the word ‘king’ also conveys the meaning ‘man* only. In this way single
integrated meaning arises out of two (words, viz., ‘king* and ‘man’). Altematively,
the designation ‘single integrated meaning* is given to what arises as a quite

different meaning of the whole (and) which does not correspond to the meanings
of the parts, since it has become one, like muddy water. Even if a compound
( vrtti ) is a word totally different (from its constituents) (and its) consti-
tuents are meaningless like speech-sounds in a word, stili, taking into account
the identity of the (whole with the constituent) words, (the vdrttikd) says:
‘single meaning of (integrated) words which have separate meanings (of their
own in the unintegrated form)*.
(On) ‘the word samarthavacana . It means: the sense denoted by the word
samartha. (The suffix) LyuT is added (to the root vae-) in the passive sense. 73
Note (45):
The two different interpretations of ‘single integrated meaning* given by

Kaiyata correspond to the altematives ajahatsvartha vrtti and jahatsvartha vrtti .
See Note (7). In the first altemative the subordinate member in the compound
takes on the meaning of the main member. In rdjapurusah the constituent raja
72. P. 321:
Mi A îqiMWcqiII
73. P.3.3.113."
52
takes on the meaning rdjasambandhavan : ‘king-related\ In the second alternative

the constituents cease to retain a meaning of their own as they merge in one
single meaning conveyed by the compound as a whole. The meaning of each
constituent is inseparable from that of the whole, just as water and mud are
inseparable from muddy water.
43 . (Bhasya : Question)
But where (do words) have separate meanings (of their own), (and)
where (do they) have a single meaning?
Kaiyata 74 :
(On) ‘But where’. It is impossible (to say) that within one and the same
sphere (words) have separate meanings (of their own) as well as a single
meaning, because this is contradictory. So a question is raised.
44 . ( Bhasya : Answer)
In the uncompounded word-group (words) have separate meanings (of

their own), like in rdjnah purusah: ‘king’s man’. But in a compound,
(words) have a single meaning, like in rdjapurusah : ‘king-man’.
Kaiyata 75 :
(On) *king’s man’. The word rdjnah : ‘king-related’ which conveys the mean¬
ing ‘king,’ whose relation has become revealed with (regard to something yet)
unspecified, functions as a qualifier. The word purusah : ‘man’ conveys the meaning
‘man’ which is self-contained (and) which functions as the main member, because it
belongs to the predicate.
In the compound the genitive is not employed, because the difference (between
separately presented meanings) is eliminated and the relation requiring that
(difference) is included (in the compound-meaning itself).
This natural non-appearance (of case-ending) is prescribed by the rule

P.2.4.71 in order to have the desired (grammatical) resuit which comes as a
consequence of (adding) the case-sufhx.
74. P. 322: ^ =3* ^ 5HFT:i I
75. P. 322: j
I =3* FrPTTMt gqft
r-cn wRct u
Samarthdhnil(a
53
Note (46):
The word rajnah acts as a qualifying word and, therefore, requires a qualified
word, which, as such, may be any noun. The word purusah on the other hand,
does not require a qualifying word. In the expression ‘in relation to rajan purusa
is there’ the word purusa is vidheya: ‘predicate*.
A compound has single meaning. The relation expressed by rajnah: ‘king-

related’ becomes part of the compound-meaning in rajapurusah and is, therefore,
no longer separately indicated by a case-suffix. A relation, as expressed by a
case-ending, requires two different things presented by two different word-meanings.
To express this relation between two separate word-meanings is possible only in
the uncompounded word-group.
Since the relation expressed by the case-ending is included in the meaning of

the compound, why then, when forming the compound, employ case-endings and
drop them again? This procedure is adopted for grammatical purposes. F.i. we
cannot drop the -n of rajan in a compound by P.8.2.7, unless the case-ending is
there, so that the designation pada: ‘finished word* will apply to it. See P. 1.4.14.
P.2.4.71 prescribes Zu/^-elision of case-endings, when a word becomes a verbal

or nominal stem.
45. (Bhdsya : Objectiori)
Why do you say: ‘(words) having separate meanings (of their own)’?
Because when we say: ‘let the king’s man be brought’, the king-man is
brought. And (when we say): ‘(let) the king-man (be brought)’, the
same (man is brought).
Kaiyata 76 :
(On) ‘Why do you say*. For, if one single qualified meaning (i.e. ‘man’
qualified by ‘king-related’) is not conveyed, then (we might say that) words
in the uncompounded word-group convey a separate meaning (of their own).
And if from the compound ( rajapurusah ) we understand only (the meaning) ‘man’,
(then we might say that the compound conveys) single integrated meaning. But
since by compound and uncompounded word-group one and the same meaning
is conveyed, therefore, there cannot be a difference in (type of) semantic con-
nection either.
76. P. 322: I ^ % «Tm 'T3Ht fe PwiqT
*T urrVjfa i s i ^ferrwrt^r qsrr#:
54
Note (47):
The point made by the purvapaksin here is that even from the uncompounded
word-group we may understand single meaning, in the form: ‘man qualified by
relation to a king*. Also, in the case of a compound, the meaning conveyed is
not simply ‘man* without the relation to a king acting as a qualifier. So, since
both, compound and uncompounded word-group, convey the same meaning
after ali, how can one say that the uncompounded word-group has a different
meaning ( prthagartha ) from the corresponding compound? The words prthag-
artha and ef^drthibbava in the Varttika denote two different ways of presenting
the same meaning. In the case of the uncompounded word-group the word-
meanings separately presented by the inflected words are linked together by some
relation indicated by the inflectional suffixes. In the case of the compound this
separate presentation of the meaning of the constituents and of their relation does
not occur. The compound as a whole denotes single meaning in which the rela¬
tion also obtains the status of word-meaning.
This contrast is brought out by the terms prthagartha and ekdrthibhdva. But
the purvapaksin misunderstands the word prthagartha and thinks that it means
‘having a different meaning\ i.e., an uncompounded word-group has a meaning
different from that of the corresponding compound. With this (wrong) meaning
in mind, the purvapaksin raises his objectioni if the expressions have a different
meaning, how can the resuit be the same? See further Kaiyata on Bhdsya
No. 46. When Kaiyata, there, mentions ‘difference in meaning’, he means to
say, ‘difference in presentation of meaning*.
We do not say at ali that a different person is brought.
Kaiyata 77 :
(On) Ve do not say at ali*. In the uncompounded word-group, even if the

words present separate meanings, we understand qualified meaning on the basis
of the ‘qualifier-qualified relation*, due to mutual requirement and compatibility
of word (-meanings). In the compound also the same qualified meaning is con¬
veyed by the two words rajan and purusa , so where is a chance to bring a
different person? But this does not mean that compound and uncompounded word-
group have the same meaning. Just as brdhmanandm satam bhojyaiam : ‘five score
of brahmins should be fed*, and satam brdhmandh bhojyantdm : ‘one hundred
77. P. 322: ^rfq’ f'TWT^fq’
1 ffe
1 r i mi m
Samarthahnika
55
brahmins should be fed\ These expressions do not involve (any) difference in

the act to be done, yet there is a difference in word-meaning (as regards its
presentation). The same thing here also, such is the meaning of the passage.
(HERE ENDS THE SECTION IN WHICH THE DIFFERENT CHARAGTER-

ISTICS OF SEMANTIC CONNECTION ARE EXAMINED)
(NOW STARTS THE SECTION IN WHICH EXAMPLES OF SINGLE

INTEGRATED MEANING ARE EXAMINED)
47. (Bhasya : Question by an adherent of the meaning-intcrdependence vfen?)

Then what special feature is brought out by single integrated meaning?
48. (Bhasya Varitika 78 : Ansrver (special features brought out by single

integrated meaning ))
Non-disappearance of case-ending; intervention (by another word);

connection of one (word) with the other (i.e. word-order) as we wish;
accent.
Note (48):
These are the special features of words in an uncompounded word-group as

contrasted with a compound.
49. ( Bhasya : Illusiraiion for non-disappearance of case-ending )
Non-disappearance of case-ending. occurs in an uncompounded word-

group, like in rajnah : purusah: ‘king’s man\ But in a compound it does
not occur, as in rajapuru?ah : ‘king-man\
Note (48):
TTie rule conceming disappearance of case-endings is P.2.4.71. The word

bhccvaii in the Bhasya text may have both meanings: ‘occurs* and ‘is allowed*.
50. ( Bhasya: Illustration for nwrd-intervention)
Intervention (of a word) occurs in an uncompounded word-group,

like in rajnah rddhasya purusah : ‘man of a - - rich - - king 5 . But in a
compound it does not occur, like in rdjapurusah : ‘king-man’.
78. The term Bha?ya-Vdrttika is used with reference to those Vdrttikas which
are not attributed to Katyayana by Kielhortc. We cannot decide whether they
are, in fact, written by Patanjali or whether Patanjali paraphrases Vdrttikas
written by another scholar, See F. Kielhorn, Katyayana and Patanjali , 2nd
ed. Varanast , 1963, p. 15.
56
Kaiyata 79 :
Intervention (by another word) also is observed in an uncompounded word-
group, when different meanings are presented, as in bharya rdjnah puruso

deVadallasya: *wife - - of the king, man - - of Devadatta*. When (different mean¬
ings) are not presented, it is not observed. Because in the middle of the word
4 devadatta we cannot insert another word.
Nagesa 80 :
(On) ‘wife of the king’. Between (the words) bharya and devadallasya (the
words) rdjnah purusah are inserted, so we should understand.
51. (Bhasya: Illustralion for free ivord-order)
Connection of one (word) with the other (i.e. word-order) as we

wish occurs in an uncompounded word-group, like in rdjnah purusah :
‘king’s man’ (and) purusah rdjnah: ‘man of a king’. In a compound
it does not occur, as in rdjapurusah \ ‘king-man.’
Kaiyata 81 :
(On) ‘as we wish*. In an uncompounded word-group words are used with-

out a fixed order. But in a compound order is fixed. This originates from (the
fact that a compound has) one single meaning. Just as, when we should use (the
sequence) we do not use (the sequence) r-£-a-£-a.
Note (49) :
Just as in a word the order of phonemes is fixed and we cannot have the same
word when the sequence of phonemes is changed, so also in a compound the
order of constituent words is fixed. Word-order in a compound is regulated by
P.2.2.30 etc.
52. ( Bhasya : Illustration for accent )
In an uncompounded word-group (consisting of two words) there are

two accents, like in rajhah purusah : ‘king’s man’. In a compound, how-
ever, (there is) one only, as in rdjapurusah: c king-man\
79. P. 323: ^ TRT: JWT I
5f I 11
80. P. 323: ^ | wvtf W: JSq*
Mf sflWT II
si. p. 323: i q?Rf snffr: i 3 ftw-
qfafar: 1 1 ^ snrtRR 11
Samarthahnika
57
Kaiyata 82 :
(On) ‘two accents’. Difference in meaning brings along difference in accent,

as in devadatta gam abhyaja : ‘O Devadatta, drive the cow away\ If no
difference in (meaning), (then) (no difference in accent) is observed, as in
(the word) ghatah : ‘jar\ Here both the words rajnah and purusah take
udatla on the first syllable, according to (P.6.1.197). .(The compound)
rajapurusah takes udatla on the final syllable (by P.6.1.223).
Note (50);
The accent of devadatta is by P.6.1.198; that of gam by P.3.1.2 and

P.8.2.5; that of abhyaja by P.8.1.70, P.8.2.5 and P.6.1.162; that of ghatah
by P.3.1.134 and P.6.1.163; that of r&jan by Unadi No. 162 88 and P.6.1.197;
that of purusah by Unadi No. 523 and P.6.1.197.
53. ( Bhasya : Answer rejected by the adherent of the meaning-intcrdepcndcnce
view)
These are not special features brought out by single integrated meaning.
Then what (are they)? These are stated by a rule. For the revered
master has said: supo dhatuprdtipadikayoh (P.2.4.71); upasarjanam
purvam (P.2.2.30) (and) samasanta uddtto bhavati ( vrtti : ‘gloss’ on
P.6.1.223).
Kaiyata 84 :
Also in the case of non-difference in meaning (i.e. of single meaning) non-

disappearance of case-ending is observed, as in vatsdsujah: ‘bom in the rainy
season’, gosucarah: ‘moving among cows* (P.6.3.14). Also, even in a com¬

pound free use of words (i.e. word-order) is observed, as in aniadl: ‘the end
and the beginning* (and) adyantau: ‘the beginning and the end’ (P.2.2.32-33) ; in
jalapuirah : ‘to whom a son is bom’ (and) putrajatah 1 ‘to whom a son is bom*
82. P. 323: £t W I
h i m Tm: jw i 3rPr i
83. See Siddhantakaumudi, Unadi- section.
84. P. 323: 3T«rW^ ? gTOtTt f*?: I W « wTffl: *T>TTO tl TOT ffTRpT
TOfrrftrot srerpr : 55RT?r ffa i to TOtf fr Tforot
toto \ * f| TOfff ^ gfftw to ffrni toto* * *m-
‘stTO* TO3PTT I * STOTO:—‘ TO#, TOTto’ ffir I
“ 3RTTO WRT ” “ TO - wrfe ” <TO TOC II
•o *\ «
58
(P.2.2.37). In the uncompounded word-group the use (i.e. order) of (the

particle) ca: ‘and’ is fixed, like in dhavas ca khadiras ca : ‘both Grislea
Tomentosa (or Anogeissus Latifolia) and Acacia Catechu*, and ca J^hadiras
ca dhavah is not allowed. Also, single accent is observed (to occur) in an
uncompounded word-group, as in tlJ(snena parasuna. vrscan: ‘O you, who cut
down with a sharp axe’ (P.2.1.2 and P.6.1.198). Also, in the case of single
meaning, different accents (are there), as in It&rtavai: ‘in order to do* (and)
anvetavdi : ‘in order to go along*; accent according to (respectively) P.6.1.200
and P.6.2.51.
54 . (Bhasya : Another ansiver b\) the adherent of the single integrated

meaning vien>)
Then the following are the special features brought out by single inte¬
grated meaning: (indication of) particular number; ciear indication of

meaning; qualifier to the subordinate word; connection by means of (the
particle) ca: ‘and’.
55. (Bhasya: Illustration for indication of particular number)
(Indication of) particular number occurs in an uncompounded word-

group, as in rajnah purusah : ‘man of a king’, rajnoh: purusah : ‘man of
two kings’, rajnam purusah: ‘man of many kings 5 . In a compound it does
not occur, as in rajapurusah : ‘king-man’.
Kaiyata 85 :
(On) ‘(Indication of) particular number’. In an uncompounded word-group

the subordinate (i.e. qualifying) words, since they express the case-meaning
85. PP. 323-24: I 3TW
srf^^FT^T crf faffcfir II
qf^r^TT^f^riWT *r i
«wrr i
smrm ?r ii
qqF^rg ^qrf^fqrF^sqrftgr^Fcr i Fsgq: qTftrsrfirm tn?
swfirn: ii mqqfcft ^ n sffiqvfafir srr%-
i mwm fafire-
r II
Samarihahnika
59
(and indicate particular number), convey their own meaning as associated

with a particular number. But in a compound, since (the subordinate words)
convey the meaning of the main member in which their own meaning has become
merged, they convey singular number without difFerentiation (i.e., non-committal
singular number). As has been stated:
Just as the juices of ali medical herbs, while keeping their medicinal
power in the honey-elixir (with which they are mixtured), exist there with¬
out being separately cognised, similar (to that), number is regarded 86 .
Alternatively, ‘singular number without difFerentiation’ means number in

general, without particularity. This has been stated:
Or, after (its) aspect of generality has become operative, number as such,
since distinction (of particularity) has been eliminated, is so characterized that
it functions by means of removing distinction.
Just as we may call an object coloured, because it has some indistinct colour,
although no specific colour like white is understood, (the same is true of
number) 87 .
But in some cases (of compounds) particular number is clearly indicated,

for instance dviputrah: ‘having two sons’, triputrah: ‘having three sons’, etc.,
where the meaning of the nominal stem itself is a particular number. In (the
word-composition) tava^mah: ‘belonging to thou\ mdmafflnah: ‘belonging to
me’, the substitutes (iavaka and mamaka) indicate singular number 88 . In the
form saurpifyam : ‘measured by one wmnowing basket’ 89 we apprehend singular
number, because the nominal stem indicates a well-defined measure. Similarly,
from (the compound) mdsajdtah: ‘one month old’ 90 we understand singular
number, because (this word) is used to convey a particular (period of) time.
In the same way, elsewhere also, delimitation by particular number by different
means should be observed.
Note (51):
Kaiyata wonders what number do we understand from the subordinate mem¬

ber of a compound? In compounds like rdjapurusah : ‘king-man’ we do not know
whether the man belongs to one king, two kings or more than two kings. In
these cases the question is whether the subordinate member conveys the idea
of a particular number or of no number at ali. Kaiyata’s answer is that in word-
composition we apprehend abhedailâfvasamkhyd: ‘singular number without dif-
ferentiation’. Following Vafyyapadiya, Kaiyata then offers two different inter-
86. Vdkyapadiya III, 14.102 (ed. Abhyankar-Limaye, p. 124).
87. Ibid, III, 14. 103-4, p. 124.
88. P. 4.3.3 The restriction to singular number is expressly made.
89. P. 5.1.26.
90. When we want to convey the meaning ‘two months old’, the word dvimasajdtah
is invariably used.
60
pretations of abhedaibaivasaml^hya. . According to the first view, from a word-

composition we apprehend singular number which includes other numbers too.
The notion of other numbers also exists in singular number, because it is in-
separably associated with the notion of singular number. In this view the sub-
ordinate word expresses singular number, which is non-committal and may
represent any number. The second view says that abhedaikatvasamkhya means
notion of number in general without specification being made. In a word-
composition the subordinate word expresses this notion of number in a general
way, without conveying any specific information about it.
56. ( Dhdsya : Anolher reason for non-apprchcnsion of particular number)
There is a reason why this happens to be so. What is that reason? Be¬
cause that word (i.e. inflectional suffix) which expresses the specific
(number), that (inflectional suffix) is not there (in a compound). You
better pronounce it (i.e. the inflectional suffix in the compound), sir,
(and then you will see that) this specific (number) will be understood
(even from a compound).
Kaiyata 91 :
(On) ‘Because it is not there.’ It means that the case-ending is removed by

/u£-e lision 92 .
57 . (Bhasya: Rejeciion of the additional reason)
a. But don’t you think that it should not be necessarily so? Meaning, in
fact, should not suit words. Words, in fact, should suit meaning.
Kaiyata 93 :
(On) ‘But stili*. The Teacher has certainly not prescribed elision (of the
case-ending), when the (case-ending’s) meaning is there (i.e. when the function
of case-ending is there), but rather the natural absence of the word (i.e.
inflectional suffix) is observed, because (its) meaning is not there.
(On) ‘should suit meaning’. Because a word is used to convey the meaning
desired to be conveyed.
(Bhasya coniinued)
b. Look at this here from this angle: meaning is of such a nature here
(i.e. in the case of a compound) that from it (compound) we do not
91. P. 324: I II
92. P. 2.4.71.
93. P. 324: ^ | 3Tf>T FRT
^ in ST*?** sm: n i sr^fafaftrerr*?-
VfcTTKKR 4W»H>||< II
Samarthdhnika
61
understand a specific (number). And this must necessarily be taken in

this way. But who thinks that a specific (number) is not understood,
because there is no word (i.e. inflectional suffix) which expresses the
specific (number), he would understand specific (number) here:
apsucarah; ‘moving in the waters’, gosucarah; ‘moving among cows’,
varsdsujah : c bom during the rainy season’.
Kaiyata 94 :
(On) ‘ gosucarah *: A cock is called gosucarah , who moves with one cow,
or with many cows, ali of these are indiscriminately called so (viz. gosucarah ).
Note (52) :
dn all these examples alufy : ‘non-elision* (of case-ending) takes place by

P.6.3.14. From the number indicated by the inflectional suffix nothing can be
inferred with regard to its actual appearance in the meaning of the word. The
word apsucarah means a tortoise or a fish swimming or moving in the waters.
Gosucarah means a cock which moves with cows. Varsdsujah means a fire-fly
(indragopa ) appearing in the rainy season. These words as a whole denote mean¬
ing: ‘a tortoise*, ‘a cock*, or ‘a fire-fly.* Whether the animal in question swims
in water taken as one body, or in many watery places; or walks along with one,
two, or more cows; or appears during one, two or more rainy seasons, is of no
importance. The number ‘many’ indicated by the inflected member of the
compound, does not find expression in the single integrated meaning denoted by
the compound.
58. ( Bhasya : Illustration for clarity of meaning)
Ciear indication of meaning occurs in an uncompounded word-group,

as in brahmanasya kambalas tisthati: ‘the brahmin’s blanket lies
there.’ But in the compound ciear indication of meaning is not there,
as in brahmarriakambalas tisthati:'' the brahmin-blanket lies there’, or
c o brahmin, the blanket lies there’. (Here) doubt arises, whether this (viz.
brahmana in brahmoWakambala ) is vocative or (a constituent of) a
genitive compound.
Kaiyata 95 : **'
(On) 'brahmanakambalah'. AJthough here we can decide (meaning) by

(difference in) accent, stili, what this (Bhasya) means is that we cannot decide
94. P. 324. TftrpfT I «ftyrc Spje I qf*
95. P. 325: I ^TTf%r«f^<TTpT 5T5?fÔTmf?R^rT-
i *mPr
ferret, cmfa *n*»PT I
62
it by the form of the word only. Even where there is no difference between the
accent of the vocative and that of the genitive compound, as in tisthati brahmana -
kambalah : ‘there lies the blanket, o brahmin*, or ‘there lies the brahmin-blanket*,
even there decision can certainly be made on account of context etc. The word
kambala has its final syllable accented either by the Phit-sutra 1.21 96 or by the
nipatana-x\Ae P.5.1.3. What we call non-clarity of meaning is (really) a special
feature brought out by single integrated meaning, because, when this (single inte-
grated meaning) is there, case-endings which convey a relation requiring difference
(between separate meanings) are absent.
Note (53):
a. The vocative brahmana in brahmana kambalas tisthati is accented by

P.6.1.198 (accent on first syllable). P.8.1.19, which prescribes loss of accent,
is not applied, because brahmana is not preceded by another word. Kambala
will have a separate accent by Phit-sitira 1.21 (accent on final syllable).
b. If brdhmanakambalah is a genitive compound it will have one accent (on

the final syllable) by P.6.1.223.
c. The vocative brahmana in tisthati brahmana kambalah will be unaccented

by P.8.1.19, because it is preceded by the verbform tisthati The word kambala
has the accent on the final syljable by Phit-sutra 1.21. So both in the case of
vocative and of compounding with a genitive word the expression brahmana(-)
kambalah in tisthati brahmana(-) kambalah has the same accent.
59 . ( Bhasya : Rejectiori of the special feature)
This is not a special feature (of a compound) either. Because it happens

that something which is not ciear in an uncompounded word-group be-
comes ciear in a compound. As for what is not ciear in an uncompounded
word-group (we have the example) : ardharh pasor devadattasya : ‘half
of beastly Devadatta’, or ‘half of the beast of Devadatta’. (Here) doubt
arises, whether (this expression means) ‘half of Devadatta who has the
quality of a beast/ or rather ‘half of that which is called ‘beast’, insofar
it has got a conventional name (‘beast’). But that becomes ciear in a
compound, as in ardhapasur devadattasya : ‘half of the beast belonging
to Devadatta’.
Kaiyata 97 :
(On) ‘This . . . either*. Because (lack of clarity of meaning in a compound)

is not everywhere. The word api is meant to include ‘non-disappearance of case-
endings*, etc.
96. G. V. Devasthali, Phit-sutras of Santanava, Poona, 1967, pp. 48, 83.
97. P. 325: nrq^ftfrT I ^T^TTTTT I 3TfoiT®?: II
Samarthahnika
63
Note (54):
It is admitted by the Bhdsya Nos. 55-57 that absence of indication of specific

number (in the subordlnate member) is a special feature of a compound. The
word api in the present Bhasya cannot refer to this absence of specific number
and mean that this is not a special feature either. Therefore, Kaiyata says that
api refers to the ‘non-disappearance of case-endings* mentioned in Bhasya No. 49.
This ‘non-disappearance* of inflectional suffix is not a special feature of an un-
compounded word-group only, because inflectional suffixes are retained even in a
compound, as in gosucarah: ‘moving with cows*.
60. ( Bhasya : Illustration for a qualifier to the subordinate word)
A qualifier to the subordinate word occurs in an uncompounded word-

group, as in rddhasya rajnah purusdh : c man of a rich king 5 . In a com¬
pound it does not occur, as in rdjapurusah : ‘king-man’.
Kaiyata 98 :
(On) ‘rich*. In the uncompounded word-group the word rajam ‘king* does
not give up its own meaning, nor does it take on the meaning of the other word
(in the word-group) and so it is fit to form a relation with a qualifying word
(outside the group). But in the compound, since (the word rajan here) conveys
the meaning of the other word (which acts as the main member and) its own
meaning stands as a qualifier (to the main member), it is not fit to enter into
relation with a qualifying word (outside the compound).
Note (55):
For explanation see Kaiyata on Bhdsya No. 42 and Note (7). Only the
Principal member of a compound can be qualified by a word outside the com¬
pound, see Bhasya No. 28.
61 . (Bhasya : Rejection)
This is not a special feature (of a compound) either. A qualifier to the

subordinate member occurs in the case of a compound also. Take an
example: devadattasya gurukulam : ‘Devadatta’s teacher-family’, deva-
dattasya guruputrah : ‘Devadatta’s teacher-son’, devadattasya ddsabhdrya :
‘Devadatta’s slave-wife 5 .
98. P. 325: j% I W TefFd
64
Kaiyata":
(On) ‘This . . . either*. Because (absence of a qualifying word for the sub-
ordinate member of a compound is) not (a feature which) covers ali cases (of
compounding).
Note (56): See Bhdsva Nos, 29-39.
62. (Bhasya : Illustralion for connection by meam of the particle ca)
Connection by means of (the particle) ca: ‘and’ occurs in an uncom-

pounded word-group: as connection by means of ca with what is owned,
and as connection by means of ca with what is the owner. (Example for)
connection by means of ca with what is owned: rajno gaus eas vas ca
purusas ca: ‘and cow and horse and man belonging to a king’. In a
compound it does not occur, as in rajno gavasvapurusah : ‘cow-horse-
man-s belonging to a king.’ (Example for) connection by means of ca
with the owner: devadattasya ca yajnadattasya ca visnumitrasya ca gauli:
‘and Devadatta’s and Yajnadatta’s and Visnumitra’s cow’. In a com¬
pound it does not occur: devadattayajnadattavisnumitrdnam gauli:
‘Devadatta-Yajnadatta-Vi$numitra-s cow’.
Kaiyata 100 :
(On) ‘connection by means of ca \ The particle ca is used in an uncom-

pounded word-group to indicate aggregation requiring distinction (of the group-
constituents). But in a compound, since (its) single meaning becomes manifest
as a whole, (and) distinct ; on (of constituents) ceases to be there, the particle
ca, although it is indicative (of conjunction), ceases to be, since there is nothing
to indicate (any more).
(HERE ENDS THE SECTION IN WHICH THE SPECIAL FEATURES OF

SINGLE INTEGRATED MEANING ARE EXAMINED)
VI
(NOW STARTS THE SECTION IN WHICH IT IS EXAMINED WHETHER

DENOTATION OF WORD-MEANING IS NATURAL OR TAUGHT BY
GRAMMAR)
63. (Bhasya : Question )
Now, when (you say that) these are the special features (of a com¬
pound) caused by single integrated meaning, (the question is) whether
99. P. 325: \ swrfl^RT II
100. P. 325: 5 % j 3TOT TOTfarf =3^:
^rrPr n
Samarthdhnika
65
denotatiori of meaning by (compound-) words is natural or rather

(taught) by grammatical rule?
Kaiyata 101 :
(On) ‘Now, when . . . these\ What the Bhasya means to say is this: If
denotation of meaning is (taught) by a grammatical rule, then—even if we do
not accept that single integrated meaning is denoted (by a compound), because
the dvandva compound is prescribed in the sense of ca 102 and because the meaning
ca is expressed by the dvandva compound itself—, (the particle) ca will not
be used (and) we cannot infer (either) that (a compound denotes) single in-
tegrated meaning, because (the special features brought out by single integrated
meaning) can be justified otherwise. But if (denotation of meanmg by a com¬
pound is) natural, (then) the rule cdcthe : ‘in the sense of conjunction* 103 will
^be meaningless.
Note (57):
Among the special features brought out by way of contrast in uncompounded

word-group and compound the use of the particle ca is mentioned. It is not used
in a compound, but it is used in the uncompounded word-group. This is, because
conjunction between two meanings is possible, when they are separately presented.
Since a compound denotes single meaning, there is no chance for ca.
Now the purvapaksin says that, in order to justify non-use of ca, we need not
refer to single meaning in a compound. Panini prescribes the dvandva compound
m the sense of conjunction (P.2.2.29). Once the meaning ‘conjunction* is al-
ready denoted by the compound, we cannot use ca in the compound, because of
the maxim uktdrthdnam aprayogah : ‘(words) the meaning of which has already
been denoted (somewhere else) are not used again* 104 . The objection that
Panini cannot prescribe the dvandva compound in the sense of conjunction, be¬
cause words denote meaning by nature and not by grammatical rule, is met by
the remark that in that case P.2.2.29 will be redundant.
He says: (denotation of meaning) is a natural thing. Why is that so?

Because there is no teaching of meaning. Meanings are surely not taught
(by rule).
101. P. 325: I 3TCT TO :—Qfe
TOFT I 5 II
102. P. 2.2.29.
103. P. 2.2.29.
104. See note (78) on Bhasya No. 96.
F—5
66
Kaiyata 105 :
(On) ‘Because there is no teaching of meaning’. (For instance,) in the rule

acaturavicatura etc. (P.5.4.77). This is what (the Bhasya) means.
Note (58):
Probably the word ‘He’ refers to Panini. See Bhasya No. 65. The passage
means that denotation of single integrated meaning by a compound is natural,
because words convey meaning not on the authoritv of grammatical rules. but of
the usage established by the speech-community. Kaiyata illustrates this by
quoting the mpatana rule P.5.4.77 which simply lists compounds without indi-
cating their meanings.
But how can he say so: ‘meanings are not taught’, when he (himself)
teaches meaning? Because the revered master has stated: P.2.2.24;
P.2.2.29; P.4.1.92; P.4.2.1; P.4.2.68.
Kaiyata 106 :
He thinks that by forming (two) different sentences (we can establish that)
meaning is taught: (1) subantam anebam anyapadarthe variate : ‘(a group of)
two or more case-inflected words denotes anyapadartha\ (2) lac ca bahuvnhi -
samjnam: ‘and this (group of words) is called bahuvnhi\ In this manner forma -
tion of different sentences should be observed elsewhere also.
Note (59):
Here the term Vakyabheda: ‘formation of two different sentences out of one*
does not mean splitting a sentence into two parts, as is the case in yogavibhaga,
but interpreting the same sentence in two different ways. Each interpretation re¬
quires, in fact, a different sentence. Here Kaiyata gives two interpretations of
the rule anekam anyapadarthe. If we accept the first interpretation given, we may
say that Panini teaches meaning also.
Anebam anyapadarthe (P.2.2.24) : ‘two or more words (ending in the nomi¬

native case are compounded) to denote the meaning of another word (not in-
cluded in the compound and such a compound is called bahuvnhi )\ F.i. the
compound piiambarah: ‘wearing yellow garments’ denotes the meaning * Visnu \
which is not denoted by any of the constituents of the compound separately.
105. P. 326: $«faT^PTTfefcr I «TTW: I
106. P. 326:^^^ ^ ’ cT^
*RPT’ II l^RPTTfq- ?5T?T>r: l|
Samarihdhnika
67
Carlhe dvandvah (P.2.2.29) : ‘two or more words (ending in the nominative

case are compounded) to denote the sense of ca: ‘and* (and the compound so
formed is called 4 dvandva* . F.i. ramakrsnau: ‘Rama and Krsna*.
By the word apatye: ‘in the sense of “descendant” * Patanjali refers to the
rule tasyapatyam: ‘(the suffixes aN etc. are added to a word ending in the
genitive case, in the sense of) “his offspring”* (P.4.1.92). F.i. aupagavah:
‘offspring of Upagu*.
By the word ral(te: ‘in the sense of “coloured” * Patanjali refers to the rule
tena raptam ragat : ‘(the suffix aN is added to a word ending in the instru-
mental case and denoting a particular colour, in the sense of) “coloured by
that” * (P.4. 2.1). F.i. kdsdyam : ‘a clolh dyed by a yellow-rcd colour*.
By the word nlrvrlte: ‘in the sense of “built by** r Patanjali refers to the
rule tena nirvrttam : ‘(the suffix aN is added to a word ending in the instru-
mental case, in the sense of) “built by him” * (P.4.2.68). F.i. ka usdmbi: ‘(a
city) bu‘It by Kusamba*. See also P.5.1.79; 6.4.170; 5.4.32; 4.4.19.
66. ( Bhasya : Ansiver)
These (rules) are not (for) teachin^ of meaning. Of these words, which
are naturally endowed with these meanings, explanation is jrfven by wav of
guidance (or condition) .Take an example: kupe hastadaksinah panthah ;
‘the path is on the right-hand side of the well’, abhre candramasarh pasya:
‘look at the moon in the doiid’, in this way explanation is given, by way
of guidance, of that path and of that moon, which are (already) naturally
located there. In the same way also here; what denotes the meaning of
ca: ‘and’ is (called) dvandva; what denotes the meaning of another word
(not included in the compound) is (called) bahuvnhi.
Note (60):
The rules referred to in the previous Bhasya are not formulated to teach mean-
ings yet unknown to us. The meanings indicated here jrepresent the condition for
applying designations like dvandva or bahuvnhi or for employing taddhita suf¬
fixes Iike aN.
P.2.2.29 (carthe dvandvah) does not prescribe the meaning ca: ‘and* for
dvandva compounds, but it prescribes the designation dvandva to a group of two
or more words like ramakrsnau: ‘Rama and Krsna*, which indicates conjunc-
tion. The sense ‘conjunction* which we understand from this compound is esta-
blished by the usage of the speech-community and does not originate from
Panini*s rule. To explain this point examples aTe given. The statements ‘the
path is . . .* and ‘look at . . .’ do not confer a new position upon the path or the
moon, but their existing location is explained with the help of distinctive signs,
‘well* and ‘cloud*. Similarly, the sense ‘conjunction* is mentioned in P.2.2.29
as a sign or condition for the application of the designation dvandva .
68
67 . (Bhasya : Objectiori )
But why are meanings not taught (by rule)?
Kajyata 107 :
(On) ‘But why’. Let there be teaching of meaning by vafyabheda: ‘forma-

tion of two different sentences out of one’ 108 , just as there is teaching of stem
and suffix.
Note (61): For the e:;planation see Note (59).
68. (Bhasâ : Ansrver)
But this is for the sake of economy. It is for the sake of economy that
meanings are not taught. Because by a man who is going to teach mean¬
ing necessarily, meaning (of the word A) must be determined with the
help of some word (B). And with the help of which word (C) mean-
while (the meaning) of that (word B) is determined by which you deter-
mine the (meaning of A). With the help of which word (D) do you
determine (again) (the meaning ) 1 of that (word C)? Then of that
(word D) with the help of which (word E) is (meaning-determination)
made? (And) of that (word E again), with the help of which (word F)
is (meaning-determination) made? And so we get into a regressus ad
infinitum. To teach meaning is, in fact, impossible. For who, really, is
capable to teach the meaning of verbs, nominal stems, suffixes and par-
ticles?
Kaiyata 109 :
(On) ‘for the sake of economy’. The word laghu stands for laghava :
‘economy*. For the sake of economy meanings are not taught. Otherwise, lack
of economy and regressus ad infinitum would resuit. To explain more full.y: If
(we assume that) meanings are taught by means of valâbheda: ‘formation of
two different sentences out of one’, as in (1) ‘(a group of) two or more (words)
denotes the sense ca : “and” *, (2) ‘and that (group) is cailed dvandva’ 110 , then
the following question might be raised: ‘but what is the meaning of caV With
107. P. 326: {% ^flfrT | T^FT<r VT?: II
108. See Note (59).
109. P. 326: I I snreWPWTT I 3PT«n
^ 3TT r ^>f% I OTT
5T«2ar ‘ 'gpczvf ’ fpT,

cprersqr^TcT I cffi". ^PTF^TT:,
V3
110. See Kaiyata on Bhasya No. 68,
Samarthahnika
69
regard to this the teacher woufd have to answer: ‘(the meaning of ca

is) samahara: ‘collection’ and itaretarayoga: ‘mutual connection*. This would
lead to regressus ad infinitum of question and answer in the form: \vhat (is)
mutual connection?*, and lack of economy would be the consequence.
69 . (Bhasya : Objection)
But don’t think that, when the meaning of a suffix is mentioned, the
meaning of the stem is not mentioned. When a quality is referred to, the
thing in which that quality inheres is certainly understood. Take an
example: ‘white’, ‘black’.
Kaiyata 111 :
(On) ‘But don’t think*. What (the Bhasya) means to say is that the meaning
of a certain element (say ‘suffix’) only is stated, but we understand (the mean¬
ing of) another element (say ‘stem’), because it is connected (with the first
element).
(On) ‘is*. The affixes sU etc. 112 are prescribed in the sense of the qualities
‘singular number’ etc. and by (those) qualities the thing having (those) qualities
is implied, because it is impossible to have qualities without a substratum.
(On) ‘Take an example “white” *. (Even if the word suilla: ‘white*)

denotes the quality only, (stili by it) the thing possessing the quality is implied,
this is what the passage means. Similarly, when a suffix is prescribed in the sense
of apa/pa: ‘descendant’, mention of the person possessing offspring, which is the
meaning of the stem, is implicitly made, as a consequence (of the mention of
suffix-meaning).
NageSa 113 :
(On) ‘when the meaning of a suffix is taught*. When the meaning of a suffix
is mentioned, it is not necessary to mention the meaning of the stem, because one
111 . p. 327: ?r ' ^srfirfr i g sRftftr-
Thrcftftr 11 1 Ffmt
3rr^> PrcmT^r 11
JTpTPT srraTT I a^TTSTP? S^T SPParfeTlJrarT: 5TfK?r«Jf?Tra'Tr-
ftr?5r: fa^rfcr n
112. Svadi stands for the case-suffixes prescribed by P. 4.1.2.
113. P. 327: ffrf I STftftiTmsfrq-
H 'PTJT lTT«r: II SRtPTT^ H
frf II q# ^ sr?Rtff?R$fr II
70
can understand the meaning of the stem simply because of its relation (with the
sense of the suffix). This is what (the Bhasya) means to say. The literal meaning
is: one should not form the idea that, when the meaning of a suffix is mentioned,
the meaning of the stem is not mentioned. And thus it is not necessary to mention
the meaning of a stem, this is what (the Bhasya) means.
Note (61):
When f.i,, the suffix aN is mentioned in the sense lasya apatyam, we know
by implication that the stem-word must mean ‘a person having offspring*. Simi-
larly, when we hear the words ‘white, black\ we understand also the thing
which is white or black. Colours do not exist apart from the coloured things.
When Panini States that the nominative singular case-ending denotes the
sense of singular number, it means, by implication, that the stem denotes an
object in which singu^r number inheres. Wilhout the notion of dravya it is im-
possible to speak of singular number. Therefore, the purvapaksm says that Panini
indicates the general meaning of the stem also while stating the meaning of the
suffix.
70 . (Bhasya : Answer)
You put the matter in the wrong way. In this manner these (words)
would be words denoting general meaning (of a stem) 114 . And words
denoting general meaning (of a stem) without context or qualified (word)
do not present particular meanings. But because, when one says vrksah:
‘tree’, (the word), in fact, necessarily stands for some particular (meaning
and not for any single object) by nature, therefore, we think that these
(words) are not words denoting general meaning (of a stem). If they
are not words denoting general meaning (of a stem), the stem denotes
(the particular meaning of) the stem, (and) the suffix denotes (the
meaning of) the suffix (only and not stem-meaning in a general way).
Kaiyata 115 :
(On) ‘in the wrong way\ Just as the quality ‘white’, ‘black’ implies any thing
possessing that quality, and not a particular thing possessing that quality, in the
114. I.e. the stem-meaning implied or the stem-meaning presupposed without which
the suffix-meaning cannot be conceived. F.i., in the word aupagavah , formed
with the suffix aN, the stem-meaning required is that of ‘generator of offspring*.
The word samanyasabda does not stand for generic meaning here.
115. P. 327: fcppT ^fcT | *T«TT 5TTO: fWT TO «T tfw-
fojpTOT i ^ fiT: i sftwgqfa -
*rr?jf JTTsffw, mfa strert srftraffo ckt saruro-
FrWcf fMmsrcimr ?T RlTrl I ^ I
'O ^ c.
Samarihahnika
71
same way, from (the words) vrksah : ‘tree* (and) plaksah : ‘Ficus Infectoria*
also we would understand any substance ( dravyamatra ) which can be the loca-
tion of singular number (as conveyed bv the nominative s : ngular suffix). If we
do not accept that meaning is determined by daily usage, nor either that meaning
should be instructed with reference to every stem by grammar, then (the words)
vrksa etc. would stand for any substance (dravâmaira) , (and) so, when con-
text etc. are not there, we would not understand a particular (lexical) meaning.
But we do understand (a particular lexical meaning). Therefore, even if we do
not want to, we have to accept, on the basis of reasoning, that the relation
between word and meaning arises only from the way in which older persons
communicate.
' Note (62):
The illustration offered in Bhdsya No. 69 is wrong, so the siddhanlin says. In

Bhasya No. 69 it is argued that mention of the suffix-meaning implies mention of the
stem-meaning. To show how the one implies the other, the example, su\lah is
given. Bhasya No. 70 points out that, from the point of view of vyavahara:
'language-communication*, the word suklah implies the notion of any substance
possessing that quality. Only the extra-linguistic situation or a qualified word like
patah in suklah patah restricts the general meaning of these words to a par¬
ticular object.
In the case of aupagavah and vrksah the suffix-meanings 'offspring* and 'sin¬
gular number* would imply any person who has produced offspring and any
single object. The case of suklah is different, because here the general implied
meaning of any white substance is sufficient for the purposes of communication.
But in aupagavah and vrksah the general implied meaning is not helpful in
communication. People do not understand any single object from the word
vrksah , but necessarily a tree. Nor do we understand from aupagavah the child
of any father, but rather the child of Upagu . To teach these particular meanings
used in daily communication is beyond the scope of grammar.
71. (Bhasya : Another ansrver)
We do not, in fact, intend to teach meaning. For there are many words
the meanings of which are not known, as jarbhan turph&ntu , 116 Without
the use of words, in fact, many meanings are understood, by winking, and
by gestures of the hand. There is really no point at ali in explaining
meaning which has (already) been understood (from usage) . Whosoever
says that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, (or) that molasses
is sweet, (or) that ginger is pungent, what purpose is achieved (by him)
in saying so?
116. RigVeda X, 106.6.
72
Kaiyata 117 :
(On) ‘(words) the meanings of which are not known’. The meanings of the
words svarga : ‘paradise*, apurva: ‘merit’, deva: ‘god’ cannot be understood as
‘this means this\ because (these meanings) cannot be delimited by visual per-
ception 118 . This being so, how could their meanings be pointed out. This is
what (the Bhasya) means. Their meanings are understood only, because people
familiar with the three Vedas use them.
(On) ‘winking*. Just as we understand meaning by means of these (gestures),

because they are used (to convey a particular meaning), so also (we under¬
stand meaning) by means of words. This is what (the Bhasya) means to say.
(On) ‘really no ... at all\ Because grammar is formulated to prevent mix-

ing of correct words with incorrect (words), it does not aim at explaining mean¬
ings (already) known (to us) from daily communication of people.
Note (63):
Words like ‘paradise*, ‘god’ do not possess a meaning which we can clearly
point out as having a “one-to-one” correspondence with a given object. They
do not refer to objects having a particular perceptible shape to which we can
point. Stili, from the use of these words by the learned we understand some
meaning, in the form of: ‘the thing is there’. Grammar which deals with linguistic
analysis is not interested in meaning as determined by vyavahara: ‘daily usage*.
The capability of conveying meaning is not restricted to language only. Gestures
may also function as signs to which we attribute some meaning.
Kaiyata finally remarks that grammar is mainly interested in teaching which

words are correct and which are incorrect. Grammar will not achieve any gain by
teaching meanings which are already known to us from daily; communication.
II ( Varttika : Stalement about economy in ihe vierv that denotation of mcan~

irif by wofd is natural)
117. P. 327: ZTTPTTt I *;wr<Tfr5#3T-
ii ^ 13 i
WWfaWH 5T«ft3RpTFcT II
118. Vakyapadiya , ed. Abhyankar-Limaye, Poo.na, 1965, p. 26 (II, 119): ‘The

thing is there, such is the characteristic of the conveyable meaning of all words.
It is stated that this (‘it exists’) is the same in the case of ‘merit’, ‘god’ and
‘paradise’, as it is in the case of ‘cow\
Samarthdhnil(a
73
And the statement of option 119 is redundant, because this (option)

(with regard to use of the compound or of the non-compounded expression)
is naturally there.
The statement of option is redundant. Why? Because it (viz. option)

is naturally there. Two alternative views are here: the view of Wtti :
‘integration’ and the view of ai/rtti: ‘non-integration\ And this is natur¬
ally there: compound and non-compounded expression. This being so,
since the domain of integration is a natural datum (and, consequently,)
compounding does resuit invariably, with what else could the statement
of option be connected other than the designation (‘compound’)? But
application and non-application of the designation (‘compound’ to the
integrated form) is not desired. Therefore, there is no point in stating
option.
Kaiyata 120 :
(On) ‘the statement of option is redundant’. Here, in the case of meaning-

interdependence, there is no compounding, in the case of single integrated mean-
ing there is no uncompounded word-group. Therefore, since their domains (of
operation) are different, there will be no badhyabadhalcabhdva: ‘relation where the
one prevails over the other’ between them. So there is no point in (stating)
option. Because option refers to what has one and the same purpose (or meaning).
(On) ‘But . . . of the designation . . . not’. In the view of single integrated
meaning the (integrated) form ciiragu: ‘possessing brindled cows*, is only desired,
and not an expression like citrah gavah : ‘brindled cows’. Similarly, the form
rajapurusah: ‘king-man’ is desired, and not the expression rajnah purusah :
*king*s man’. Oneness of word, oneness of accent, oneness of case-ending are
always desired in the case of single integrated meaning, this is what the passage
means.
119. P.2.1.11. Normally the word ca in a Varttika indicates that to something already
stated, something else is to be added. This is not the case here. We cannot
connect this Varttika with the previous one. Patanjali, while paraphrasing the
Varttika, has left out the word ca.
120. PP. 327-28: %% | ^
srm srpnmspFTrr-fr ^ irfeRcfrfa rrrsff i
II IT ^ gsTTITT ?fcT I
^ 5 f^TT *TTT I cTTT ^ g TT5T: I
farer n
74
Note (63) :
P.2.1.1 1 prescribes that compounding is optional. The sense ‘man in Service

of a king* can be expressed by the uncompounded expression rajnah purusah ,
as well as by the compound rdjapurusah. The purvapaksm now points out that
to make this statement about optional formation of compounds is redundant,
because the domains of the compound and that of the uncompounded word-
group are different. Compounds show some special features in distinction from
the uncompounded word-group, as: one accent, one case-ending, one word-
form. The choice between compound and non-compound entirely depends upon the
speaker*s decision. Sometimes he may use the compound, sometimes the non-
compound. So why state that compounding is optional? This statement of option
can, of course, not mean that the designation samasa optionally applies to com¬
pounds, because the compound is invariably designated as samasa.
(HERE ENDS THE SEGTION IN WHICH IT IS EXAMINED WHETHER

DENOTATION OF MEANING BY WORDS IS NATURAL OR TAUGHT BY
GRAMMAR)
VII
(NOW STARTS THE SECTION ON DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF INTE¬

GRATI ON)
73. (Bhasya : Questlon)
Now, those who form integration 121 , what do they mean (by inte-
gration) ?
Kaiyata 122 :
The question is: which definition do the l(dryasabdiluas : ‘adherents of the view
that words are derived (transformed) by grammatical operation* give, who think
that integration is formed optionally from the uncompounded word-group only?
But the naiiyasab diluas : ‘adherents of the view that words are underived (not
transformed)* think that integrated form and uncompounded word-group have
invariably a different domain.
74 . (Bhasya : Ansrver )
They say that ‘integration’ means conveying the meaning of some-

thing else.
121. I.e. those who tum, transform, the uncompounded expression into a compound.
The expression vrttim vartayanti actually refers to the generative aspect of
grammar (karyasabdapaksa), as opposed to the descriptive aspect of grammar
(nityasabdapaksa). See Introduction.
122. P. 328: 3T^frT | fWrfl^r fawTRTT f%
im: ii fac# fafa^rfar# ii
Samarthdhnilta
75
Kaiyata 123 :
Where the meaning of one word (viz. the main member of the compound)
is conveyed by another word (viz. the subordinate member), that is integration,
such is the meaning of the passage. Just as in the word rdjapurusah: ‘king-man*
the word rd/a- conveys the meaning of (the word) purusa , which is not (so) ex-
pressed in the stage of the uncompounded word-group.
Note (65):
In a compound the subordinate member will take on the meaning of the main
member. See Note (7).
Now, for those who say so, is it so that (they take the view of)
jahatsvartha iffttih: ‘integration which involves loss of the constituents’
meaning’ or rather ajahatsvartha z/rttih : ‘integration in which the consti¬
tuents retain their own meaning’? And what difference does that makc?
If (we take the view of) jahatsimthd vTttih, (then,) when we say raja-
purusam anaya: ‘bring the king-man’, the resuit is that any man might
be brought (and,) when we say aupagavam anaya : ‘bring the offspring
of Upagu’, (the resuit is that) any offispring might be brought.
If (we take the view of) ajahatsvartha vrttih the resuit would be dual
number 124 , since both (constituents) retain their own meaning. Which
(view of) integration (would) now (be) the proper one?
Kaiyata 125 :
(On) ‘Now, for those’. But in the view of an adherent of the theory which
says that words are not generated by grammar, (compound) words like rd/a-
purusah ,—the parts of which show resemblance to the words (rajan and
purusah) in the uncompounded word-group, (but) which are found to have no
meaning, just as phonemes (which form part of a word) are in reality wholly
without parts,—are merely analysed by resorting to the fictional device of gram-
matical derivation.
123. P. 328: | 'TOT ffT
124. P.l.4.22.
125. P. 328: 3T«T ^rrf^fa’ I 3
n <T<?rfa *mt wt ii l
cr^TT q^rfaeST
II fecTER I iWT II
76
(From) jahali paddni svartham yasyam sa : ‘that in which the words (i.e.
constituents) abandon their own meaning’ (we derive) jahatsvdrthd.
(On) ‘of any man\ If (you argue that) the use of the word rajan is meaning¬
less, then (the answer is that the words purusa and rajapurusa would be
synonyms, just as the word yava: ‘barley* and ydvafya: ‘barley*.
Note (66):
The point is made that, if the subordinate member (rajan) conveys the mean¬
ing of the main member (purusa) then the subordinate member would be redun¬
dant. The answer given by Kaiyata is that, even if the part rajan in rajapurusa
is meaningless, we may consider rajapurusa as a synonym of purusa. To explain
this, Kayata presents the analogy of ydva and ydvalâ. Here the sequence l?-a-v-a
in yava\a appears as similar to the independent word ydva : ‘barley’. But we
cannot derive the meaning of the word ydvafya from that of the arbitrary seg-
ments ydva and ka, where J(a is meaningless anyway. Yet we say that the word
ydva is a synonym of ydvaka.
Similarly, the word rajapurusa is not a combination of the words rajan and
purusa. Its meaning cannot be derived from that of these two words. Rajan
never denotes the sense purusa in an uncompounded word-group. Yet there is
no objection in considering the words rajapurusa and purusa as synonyms.
See Vakyapadlya II, 11-12; II, 14 (the part brahmana in brahmana-

kambalah: ‘brahmin-blanket’ has no meaning) ; II, 52-60 (meanings of words
cannot be derived from meanings of parts, i.e., phonemes) ; II, 38 (the gram-
matical devices for analysis are only a beginner’s help and are to be discarded
in a later stage of learning, cf. also II, 238).
Jahatsvdrthd: ‘(integration which involves loss of the constituents’

meaning)’.
Kaiyata 126 :
(On) * Jahatsvdrthd'. As long as it does not give up its own meaning, it is

certainly impossible (for the subordinate member) to take on the meaning of an-
other word, because it (i.e. the subordinate member) is (stili) under the con-
trol of its own meaning.
But (do you think that) it would be proper that integration should be
called jahatsvdrthd?
126. P. 329: 1 T2RT&II
SamarthahniJca
77
Kaiyata 127 :
(On) ‘But . . . proper*. Because the meaning which is assumed (by the
subordinate member) is not given up. just as fire (does not give up its) heat.
78. (Bhasya : Answer )
It is certainly proper. For thus we observe in daily life: the man when
he takes on a job (assigned to him) by somebody else, abandons his own
work. Take an example: a carpenter, when he takes on a job (assigned
to him) by a king, abandons his own carpenter’s job. In the same way,
it is proper that (the word) rajan : ‘king 5 , when it is used in the sense of
purusa : ‘man 5 , should abandon its own meaning. And (the proper name)
Upagu, when used in the sense of ‘offspring 5 , should abandon its own
meaning (too).
Kaiyata 128 :
(On) ‘a carpenter . . . on a job (assigned to him) by a king*. When a
carpenter is called upon by a king to act as a messenger, then he leaves his

own job.
Note (67):
Kaiyata seems to think of a person who abandons his own profession in order
to take up a new one, assigned to him. This is not necessarily what Patanjali
means. The example might mean that the carpenter gives up the work he was
doing at the moment of the king’s assignment and starts doing some carpentry
work for the king.
79. (Bhdsya : Reminder of the objectiori)
But stili, was it not pointed out that, when we say rajapurusam anaya :
‘bring the king-man’, the resuit is that any man might be brought? And
when we say aupagavam anaya : ‘bring the offspring of Upagu’ (that)
any offspring (might be brought) ?.
Note (68): See Bhasya No. 75.
No difficulty here. Although this (i.e. the subordinate member) gives

up its own meaning, it does not do so entirely. That meaning of its own,
which is incompatible with the meaning of the other (word, i.e. the main
127. P. 329: TTftff I c^T^TPn^TcT I II
128. P. 329: cT;IT Rf I VWT cTSTI cP2tf FFF
78
member) is abandoned. Take an example: a carpenter, when taking on

a job (assigned to him) by a king, abandons his own carpenter’s job, but
he does not stop hiccuping, laughing and scratching. And this (sub-
ordinate) meaning, which, in fact, acts as a qualifier is not incompatible
with the meaning of the other (i.e. main word). Therefore, it will not
abandon that (i.e. its own meaning).
Kaiyata 129 :
(On) ‘not . . . entirely*. Integration is called jahatsvartha with regard to the

mere (fact of) abandoning (of meaning), but it does not mean total abandon-
ment (of its own meaning). Because this is retained in order to give ass : stance
to the other (i.e., main meaning). And if (the subordinate member) would
give up its own meaning totally, (then,) because it is not capable of giving
assistance to the other (i.e., main meaning any longer), it (subordinate mem¬
ber) would in no case be retained (in the compound), since it has no function
(there). This is the meaning of the passage.
(On) ‘And this meaning’. If one would ask what is now the special feature
(of the subordinate member) in compounding, since the meaning rajan: ‘king’
serves as a qualifier equally in the uncompounded word-group, (then the reply
would be that) in the uncompounded word-group, (even) if we apprehend a
relation of its own (i.e., of the subordinate member) with a word (outside the
construction), there is no loss of semantic connection (with the ma ; n, qualified
word). (But) in the compound, because its own meaning (i.e. that of the
subordinate member) has become subordinate, it (subordinate member) is capa¬
ble of giving assistance to the main meaning. Therefore, there will be loss of
semantic connection (with the main member), in case if we apprehend a relation
of its own (i.e., of the subordinate member) with a word (outside the com¬
pound) .
Note (69):
The statement that constituents give up their own meaning should not be
taken too literally. They only give up their own meaning, insofar it would be
contrary to the meaning of the main member. If a constituent of a compound
presents its meaning as predominant, it is allowed to be qualified by a word
outside the compound. The construction rddhasya rajapurusah is not allowed.
129. P. 329: \ ?T g ^TFT: ‘
erefrrreFTRr i ** ?m*Nrrir
TTSIWT TOT II 7T3TOJI
frft fircfr fftr %r, mWffasmr: i
^rnr^TPr. n
Samarthdhnika
79
But the uncompounded word-group rddhasya rajnah purusah is allowed, be¬

cause, the meaning of rajnah can be predominant with respect to that of the
word rddhasya. In the compound-form the word raja - does not retain its pre¬
dominant character and, therefore, it cannot have a qualifier outside the com-
pound. This does not mean that the word raja - gives up its meaning entirely. It
retains it, insofar it may serve as a qualifier of the main member. See Notes
on Bhasya Nos. 26, 27 and 28.
81. ( Bhasya : Another ansrver)
Or rather, it (i.e. raja - in rdjapurusa) will act as a differentiating

(word), because of (its) connection (with the following member purusa ).
Take an example: ghrtaghatah: ‘ghee-not\ tailaghatah: ‘oil-not 5 . Even
when the ghee or the oil is poured out, (stili) (they) act as differentiating,
because of the (former) connection (between liquids and pot, which serves
to make us recognize): ‘this is the ghee-pot’, ‘that is the oil-pot.’
Kaiyata 130 :
(On) ‘because of . . . connection*. The word rajam ‘king* (first) transfers

its distinctive character, caused by its own meaning, to the meaning of (the
word) purusa: ‘man\ (and then) gives up its own meaning, but (this does
not mean that) appearance of distinctive character, caused by that (meaning
of the word rajan) ceases to be in (the meaning of the word) purusa . Just as
the colour of a pot which originates from heat produced by (its) contact with
fire, does not cease to be there (in the pot), even when the contact with fire
is no longer there. This is what the passage means.
Note (70):
Even if the subordinate member gives up its own meaning, the latter does
not totally disappear. It can be utilised to differentiate the meaning of the main
member. Patpnjali tries to illustrate this by the example of ghee-pot and oil-
pot. Even after removing the ghee and oil the pots can be distinguished from
each other by the traces left of ghee and oil. The example presents the difficulty
(as is pointed out in the next two Bhasyas) that the traces of ghee and oil
will disappear after some time and the pots can no longer be distinguished.
Kaiyata tries to remedv this by his own example of the colour-change produced
in a pot by heating. This change is permanent, just as the traces of the word
rajan are permanently present in the word purusa forming a part of the com-
pound rajapurusah. This is the reason why not any man is brought, when some-
body says ‘bring the king-man*,
130. P. 329: I JWP? FTTsf fcT,
ffcffraW Fr^sFq- ^ n | n
80
82. ( Bhasya : Rejectiori of the sccond answer)
You put it the wrong way. For in that (pot) there is a quantity of
matter whatever and however much it may be. You better put the ghee-
pot on the fire and scrub it with a grass-brush, sir, (and you will see that)
the difference (produced by traces of ghee) will not be perceived (any
more).
Note (71): See Note (70).
83. ( Bhdsya : Ansrver juslified)
Then take this example: jasmin- (or) campaka- flower wrapped up in

leaves. Even when the flowers are scattered from (the wrappers), (stili)
they act as differentiating, because of their (former) connection. (with
jasmin- or campaka- scent): ‘this is the jasmin- wrapper’, ‘that is the
campaka- wrapper’.
Note (72): See Note (70).
84. ( Bhasya : Another ansrver)
Or rather, this adhikara-rulc: samartha etc . 131 is framed with regard to

word-composition, Semantic connection means (either) differentiation or
relation. Some other (grammarian) says: semantic connection means both
differentiation and relation. But what (do you mean by) differentiation
or relation?
When we say rdjnah : ‘kingV any (word denoting a) thing owned has
a chance to be supplied here (in connection with the word rajnah). When
we say purusah’. ‘man\ anv (word denoting) owner has a chance to be
supplied (in connection with the word purusah). When we say now
rajapurusam maya: ‘bring the king-man’, (the word) rdjan here keeps
the man away from other owners (and the word) purusah on its part,
keeps the king away from other things owned. When delimitation is made
in this. way on both sides, if that (word rdjan) gives up its own meaning,
let it do so. In no case whatsoever will just any man (without relation
to a king) be brought.
Kaiyata 132 :
(On) *is framed with regard to word-composition*. And if in word-composi-

tion there would be no differentiation and relation, then there would be no
131. P.2.1.1.
132. P. 330: I ^ ^ * TOT HHTwfw ?T
i v?: wnf
snf i xm n *pt: ^riTfYf% \ 3*t
srffrq^r \ zfwt
V -V 'P
Samarthdhnil(a
81
semantic connection at all, because this is the nature of semantic connection.

This is what the passage means. Here differentiation, insofar it implies relation,
is regarded as semantic connection, because (the one, i.e., differentiation) is
inconceivable without (the other, i.e.,) relation. Or relation is regarded as
semantic connection, insofar it implies differentiation, because (relation) is
inconceivable without differentiation. Or both (differentiation and relation),
conceived together, are regarded as semantic connection. This is what the pas¬
sage means.
(On) ‘any . . . owner’. This statement is made in view of the knowledge
we may have of the dependence of the man from some other source. Otherwise,
when we say ‘man', we would (simply) understand that he exists and there
would be nothing to infer any owner. This being so, when we accept the view
that semantic connection is regarded as differentiation, (then the word) rajan
keeps the man away from other owners (and) gives up its own meaning. But
(the word) ‘man', even without abandoning its own meaning, keeps the king
away from other things owned. And, when the meaning ‘king', having ful-
filled its purpose, gives up its meaning, let it do so. But if it would give up its
meaning without having fulfilled its purpose, (then) there would be no com-
pounding at ali. The same can be said about (semantic connection as) relation.
Note (73):
The meaning of the compound rdjapurusah is that a king only is the master
of the man, and that the man only is the king's belonging. The word ‘man’
eliminates other belongings of the king and the word ‘king’s' eliminates all other
owners, i.e., masters. This is meant by the term 'differentiation’ ( bheda ). The
mutual connection between the words “kingY' and “man” is called relation
(samsarga ). Kaiyata says that differentiation implies relation and vice versa,
because the one is inconceivable without the other.
85. (Bhasya : Ajahatsvartha accepted)
Or again, let us accept ajahatsvartha integration.
. But is it proper that integration should be called ajahatsvartha?
Kaiyata 133 :
(On) 'But is it proper’. It is improper (for a word, i.e., the subordinate

member of a compound) to take on another meaning (i.e., of the main member),
^rrcT, 5 mfamuwT :; lihnra tt^tt PreR
srfrfa 1 r fsmf tt^ft fMr&raffir 1 farofar
pRpT: I I ^ ||
133. P. 331: 'mm \\
F.—6
82
as long as it does not give up its own meaning and stili remains under the con-
trol of it. This is what (the Bhasya) means to say.
87. ( Bhdsya : Answer)
Certainly, it is proper. For thus it is observed in daily life: the mendi¬

cant does not give up previous alms, when he receives alms for the
second time. His mind is set upon storing (food) only.
Kaiyata 134 :
(On) ‘upon storing*. So also, a word having one meaning only in some
sphere (i.e., when uncompounded), may have more than one meaning in some
other (sphere, i.e., when occurring as a part of a compound).
Note (74):
In the compound rajapurusah: ‘king-man’, analyzed as rajasambandhavan

purusah: ‘man related to a king’, both words refer to one and the same man.
The constituent rajan takes on the meaning ‘man* (i.e., rdjasambandhvan ),
while restricting this sense by presenting its own meaning (i.e., rajan) as a
qualifier to it. This is what is meant by ‘storing*: the word rajan takes on the
meaning rdjasambandhavan: ‘king-related’ (i.e., man), in addition to its own
meaning as a qualifier of ‘man*. In the uncompounded word-group rajnah
purusah : “king’s man’* the word rajan (in rajnah) conveys its own meaning
only.
88. (Bhasya : Remnder of the objection)
But was it not (already) pointed out that the resuit would be dual
number, according to (P.l.4.22), since both (words) retain their own
meaning?
Note (75): See Bhasya No. 75.
89. (Bhasya : Counterobjection)
But dual number of which (case) would resuit?
Kaiyata 135 :
(On) ‘of which*. Because one and the same case-ending cannot convey two
meanings, (one of which is) the subordinate one and (the other is) the main
one. Therefore, the question is raised.
134. P. 331: I <pf rT^ t 4: Scire: II
135. P. 331: I ^TTfinTOTT WmRWm 3PTCTPT
rerfcfo spFT: ii
Samarthahnika
DO. (Bhasya : Intentiori of the objectiori)
83
Of the nominative case.
Kaiyata 136 :
(On) ‘Of the nominative case’. Because the subordinate meanings yield to the
main meanings, the nominative case, which is the case for the main meaning,
must be takcn on by the subordmate meanings also. This is what (the Bhasya )
means to say.
(The word) rajan : ‘king’ is not fit to be used in the nominative case.
Kaiyata 137 :
(On) ‘not fit to be used in the nominative case’. In case we use nominative
dual the relation of subordinate and main (meaning) itself (which is present
here) cannot be conveyed, because (from the nom native case-ending) we do not
understand the (owner-owned) relation.
Note (76):
The nominative case is used only to express the meaning of the nominal
stem (Pratipadikdrtha) . Here the word rajan is taken to convey the idea of
the owner-owned re^tion which cannot be expressed by the nominative.
92 . ( Bhasya : Another intention of the objection)
Then (dual) of the genitive would apply.
Kaiyata 138 :
(On) ‘Then . . . of the genitive*. Because (the genitive) expresses relation

and because that (relation) ex : sts between both (words rajan and purusa).
93. (Bhasya : Ansiver)
(The word) purusa is not fit to be used in the genitive case.
Kaiyata 139 : "
(On) ‘not ... in the genitive case*. If there would be genitive dual, then
a relation of both words together with regard to another related (word) would
136. p. 331: srqirpTr l 5r«rRPTf^Tf^K jyirFTf spsptt
TTFr: II
137. P. 331: ?T I 5T*Pnf5WT WSrepPTTC
138. P. 331: I II
139. P. 331: Tf | Vfk ^T^RTCT-
^qrr ^T; il
be conveyed, because (then) they (the words rajan and purusa) would be
on the same level.
Note (77):
If we apply genitive dual ( rajapurusayoh ) we have to show another word

which is connected with both rajan and purusa. With regard to this other word
outside the compound, rajan and purusa are on the same level, i.e., the outside
word must be construed with the genitive of both rajan and purusa.
94. ( Bhasya : The previously stated intention accepted)
Then (dual) of the nominative case only would apply.
95. ( Bhasya : Reminder of the rejection)
But was it not (already) pointed out that (the word) rajan (in raja -
purusa) is not fit to be used in the nominative case?
96. ( Bhasya : Intention of the objection justified )
That (genitive meaning), being (already) expressed (bv the compound-

form) (and thus being included in the compound stem-notion), has
become bare-stem-notion. This being the case, dual of the nominative
would apply only, according to (P.2.3.46).
Kaiyata 140 :
(On) ‘being . . . expressed’. Sometimes meaning, although expressed (by

another grammatical element than the nominal stem), is not included (in the
bare-stem-notion). F.i., in rajnah: “king’s” the relation expressed by the genitive
case-ending, is nowhere included (in the bare-stem-notions rajan : ‘king’ or
purusa: ‘man’).
Sometimes (meaning), although included, (i.e., implied) (in the bare-stem-

notion), is not expressed. F.i., in the latpurusa- compound rdjasa\>hah: ‘king*
friend* the meaning ‘the king is his friend’ is included (i.e., impiied), but it is
not expressed (by the compound).
140: P. 331: I STF^fT: I TRff ffa TOm
q-Tcr: ii ^nfVrf^T: i
TT3TT WTRc*T2ffs^=rf>r ?T II cT*TT
tfer: ii srrRrqft®FPf sfa
i 5 pt sto sfa arf^rrsrqrrs
TOsrfrrro srF^frfar n
Samarthahnika
85
Also, sometimes meaning (which has some connection with the bare-stem-
notion) is expressed (by a grammatical element other than the bare stem),
(and it) is included (also in the meaning of the word which contains that
grammatical element, but not in the bare-stem-notion). F.i., in pacati: *he cooks*
the meaning ‘agent’ expressed (by the verbal ending) is included (in the verb-
mcaning), because (the notion of agent conveyed by the word-form) stands as
subordinate (to the action denoted by the verb). But this (meaning ‘agent’)
is not the meaning conveyed by the bare stem (although the bare stem agrees
syntactically with the verb).
In this way three (words) are mentioned (as a condition for nominative
case meaning). Th ; s being so, since (the genitive relation in the compound
rajapurusa: ‘king-man’) cannot be detached (from the bare-stem-notion).
nominative dual would apply, because the (genitive) relation is expressed,
included (and) has become bare-stem-notion.
Note (78) :
Pratipadil(drtha: ‘bare-stem-notion’ (i.e., notion conveyed by the bare nominal

stem of either compounded or uncompounded word) is expressed by the nomi¬
native, according to P.2.3.46. Antarbhula means ‘included, implied’, either in
the bare-stem-notion or somewhere else. Abhihiia means ‘expressed*, either by the
bare stem or by some other grammatical element. Kaiyata now wants to explain why
there is a chance for applying the nominative (dual) by showing possible com-
binations of the three terms prdtipadil(artha , antarbhula and abhihiia in three
examples.
(1) If some grammatical notion is expressed somewhere else than in the bare-
stem-notion, it is not regarded as a bare-stem-notion, although it may some¬
times be expressed by and included in the bare-stem-notion. The example is
rajnah where the (genitive) relation is expressed by the genitive case-ending and,
consequently, it does not form part of the bare-stem-notion, although in the
compound rajapurusali the genitive relation is part of (i.e., expressed by and
included in) the bare-stem-notion.
(2) Even if some notion is included in the bare stem, but not expressed by
the pratipadika , then it is not bare-stem-notion, although it may sometimes be

expressed by and included in the bare-stem-notion. The example is the genitive
lalpurusa-c ompound rajasaJ(ha , where the meaning ‘the king is his friend* is in¬
cluded (i.e., implied) but it is not expressed by it, and consequently it does not
form part of the bare-stem-notion, although this meaning can be quite well
expressed sometimes by and included in the bahuvnhi form rdjasafyhd.
(3) If some grammatical meaning is included somewhere else than in the

bare-stem-notion and if it is expressed somewhere also, it is not bare-stem-notion.
86
although it might be included sometimes in the bare-stem-notion and be ex-

pressed by it. In the example pacati the notion of agent is not included in or
expressed by the subject to be supplied, f.i. devadattah , but included in and
expressed by the verbal ending -/i. 141 Here the notion of agent stands as
subordinate to the notion of action expressed by the verbal root. The form
devadattah agrees syntactically with the ending -/i. Since the ending refers to
an agent, the form devadattah stands for bare-stem-notion and not for agent.
In this way the nominative form devadattah results. But sometimes the notion
“agent” may be included in and expressed by a bare-stem-notion also, as in
the_case of palata: ‘cook’.
III. {Varttika : Ansrver }
Because the whole has one single meaning, there is no (question of)
case-ending on account of the number of constituents.
Note (78):
The word aifydrthya: ‘oneness of meaning’ occurs in the following relevant

passages in Mbh.:
(1) Vol. I, p. 31 (Varttika 13), where Patanjali glosses it as. eJâtvam
arthah: ‘the meaning (of a whole), is oneness’ (i.e., the following singuiar num¬
ber indicates that the meaning of the whole is one) ;
(2) Vol. I, p. 229 ( Varttika 1), where Patanjali explains: iasâilâtvdd
ekavacanam eva prapnoii: ‘because of its oneness singuiar number only applies’;
(3) Vol. I, p. 240 (Varttika 27), where Patanjali says that ail^drthyam
means el(drthah: ‘one single meaning (leading to singuiar number).
From these passages it seems that the word aiJ^cvlhya is used in the special
meaning ‘one single meaning of a whole, leading to the use of singuiar number’.
It does not just mean el(drthlbhava: ‘single integrated meaning’. The term
ekdrlJnbhdva means to say that the word as a whole conveys a single meaning
which differs from the sum of the meanings of the parts. Whether this unified
meaning of the whole occurs in one, two or more instances is immaterial. F.i.,
the word mloipala : ‘blue lotus’ as a whole conveys one single meaning. This
does not exclude the use of dual or plural: mlotpale , mlotpaldni.
97. (Bhasxia : Explanatiori )
The meaning of a whole is oneness. Therefore, there will be no (ques¬

tion of emploving) case-endings on account of the number of constituents.
141. See Bhasya on P.2.3.1, Varttika 4. {Mbh. Vol. I, P. 440, lines 14-15). Here
Patanjali gives the example pacaty odanam devadattah : ‘Devadatta cooks the
rice’, and States that singuiar number etc. are expressed by the finite verb.
Kaiyata commenting on this passage says that the ending -ti expresses singuiar
number belonging to the agent.
Samarthdhnilâ
87
Kaiyata 142 :
(On) ‘of a whole*. Here the case-ending is to be employed after the word
rajapurusa : *king-man\ taken as a whole. And by that whole a special meaning,
characterized by singular number, is conveyed, to which tbe constituents render
assistance. Therefore, the singular is used, based on that (oneness of the
whole), and not the dual, based on the number of constituents, which are
(merely) subordinate (to the whole). That is the meaning of the passage.
Nagesa 143 :
Although the whole conveys one single meaning, (stili) there is a chance
for dual (as we have it) in the (integrated) whole dhaval^hadirau: ‘Grislea
Tomentosa (or Anogeissus Latifolia) and Acacia Catechu’ there would be
dual. Therefore (Kaiyata) says: ‘Here’.
IV. ( Varttilta: Aliernative view)
Some (say that) semantic connection (is) mutual requirement.
98. (Bhasya : Explanatiori)
Some prefer (to take that) semantic connection as mutual require¬

ment 144 . But what (do you mean by) requirement between two words?
We do not say: ‘between two words 5 . What then? Between two mean-
ings. When we say rajnah purusah : ‘king’s man’, (the word) rajan:
‘king’ requires (the word) puru?a: ‘man 5 , saying: ‘he (i.e. man) is mine
(i.e. king 5 s)\ (The word) purusa also requires (the word) rajan , say¬
ing: ‘I (i.e. man) am his (i-e. king’s)\ The genitive case serves to
express the relation between these two. Take an example: (in the ex-
pression) kastam sritah: ‘who has made a hard effort 5 the accusative
serves to express the relation between kriyd : ‘action 5 and karaka :
‘operator 5 .
Kaiyata 145 :
(Cn) ‘the relation between . . . ‘action’ and . . . ‘operator’ *. By the word
. . . .— - —- - - t -
142. P. 332: I I
•O CN
143: P. 332: 3ttf- ||
144. Vyapeksa: ‘meaning interdependence’ implies that word meanings require each
other. In the present Bhasya the meanings ‘require’ and ‘requirement’ seem to
be more fitting to the examples given.
145. P. 332: I garysB ? i
i fertam mwTcr fe*r*i^*tanr.
WH4 , i | iixh j I 11
88
I(draka: ‘operator’ here a thing is denoted in which a capacity 140 (to enter into
meaning-relations) is located. Since it is the cause 147 of the relation between the
action and the thing, the capacity itself is (regarded as) a relation. Accordingly,
the accusative expresses the capacity (of the thing to enter into the meaning-
relation) ‘grammatical object’. That is the meaning of the passage.
Or, by the word karalâ that capacity itself is denoted. And the accusative
expresses that capacity. (But) it is said in the (above) Bhasya that (the
accusative) expresses the relation between action and operator, because (through
that capacity) we understand (the relation) by implication.
Note (79):
The word saliti: ‘(innate) capacity’ refers to the capacity of a thing to

enter into different meaning-relations as expressed by the case-endings of the
word used to denote that thing. This (innate) capacity makes it possible for a
thing to appear in various meaning-relations. Now the question is raised whether
the case-ending expresses the meaning-relation or it expresses the capacity itself.
The first view says that, actually, the capacity is the cause of the relation, but
it is not conceived as different from the relation. The relation implies, pre-
supposes the capacity. The second view says that the accusative expresses the
capacity, but, since through the capacity we understand the relation also, we
may say, in a secondary sense, that the accusative expresses the relation between
action and thing. The capacity implies the relation.
Now suppose we take semantic connection as single integrated mean¬

ing only, or (alternatively) semantic connection as meaning-inter-
dependence (only), (the question is), whether the rule as it is will do,
or whether we have to add (something to the rule) in view of either of
those (two) alternatives.
Kaiyata 148 :
(On) ‘Now suppose only’. If we understand from this rule (2.1.1) that
semantic connection can be interpreted in two ways, then an examination of
146. The doctrine of sakti is mentioned in the Vakyapadlya II, 131: ‘Whether (the
thing) has no (innate) capacity (for being used in various ways) or whether
it has all kinds of capacities, assignment (and assumption) of definite (pur-
posive function like) action etc. with respect to one and the same thing is
brought out by words only’.
147. I.e. since it gives expression to the relation, etc.
148. P. 333: 3T«T I STT*r*7?*r tfUcW cKT
«Tfar^f^RW JHF5T ST^: II
Samarthahnika
89
yul(ldyul(la: ‘which is proper and which is not* is appropriatc, otherwise not.

Thercfore, the question is raised.
ICO. (Bhasya : Ansrver )
It will do (as it is), he says. 149 How? (In the word samartha) sam - is
compounded with the word artha . But sam - is a preverb. And preverbs
again are of such nature: where a word expressing action is used, there
they indicate a special feature of the action.
But here not any word expressing action is used with which sam -
could be semantically connected. This being so, we have to infer from
v the use of sam - that certainly some word which deserves to be used (and)
with which sam - can be semantically connected, is not used here. For
instance, when we have seen smoke, we infer that there (is) fire; (and)
when we have seen a tripod, (we infer) that (there is) a samnyasin :
‘ascetic’.
But which is that word which deserves to be used (and) which is

not used? We answer:
(1) samartham stands for samgatartham: ‘mingled together’ (or)
(2) samartham stands for samsrstartham : ‘fused together’ (or)
(3) samartham stands for sampreksitartham : ‘seen together’ (or)
(4) samartham stands for sambaddhartham: ‘bound together’.
Therefore, when first semantic connection is taken as single integrated

meaning, we will make the meaning-analysis as follows: (from) sara-
gatarthah (we derive) samarthah (and from) samsrstarthah (we derive)
samarthah. For instance, (when) we say samgatam ghrtam: ‘ghee is
mingled together (with something)’ (or) samgatam tailam : ‘oil is
mingled together (with something)’, we infer that it has become one
(with something).
When semantic connection is taken as meaning-interdependence, then

we will make the meaning-analysis as follows: (from) sampreksitarthah
(we derive) samarthah , (and from) sambaddharthah (we derive)
samarthah.
But what is the meaning of (the verb) sambandh- here? Sambaddha

is said (with reference to an animal) which, by means of a rope, is joined
to an iron bar or a post. (But the verb) bandh- is not necessarily used
in the meaning of ‘joining to’. What (else) then? It is also used in the
meaning ‘not abandoning’. For instance, we say: ‘these two bulls are
bound together’, when they do not leave each other.
149. By saying ‘he’ Patafijali probably refers to himself as the siddhantin.
90
Or, it also happens that (the verb) bandh - is used in cases of such
kind. For instance, ‘we have relations with the Gargas’ (or) ‘we have
relations with the Vatsas’. ‘Relation’ means ‘connection’.
Kaiyata 150 :
(On) ‘But sam- is a preverb’. The use of the word (i.e., preverb) sam-
implies a suitable action, since it cannot be convincingly argued that it is seman-
tically connected with the word artha which means ‘thingh This is the meaning
of the passage.
(On) ‘in cases of such kind’. That means, in cases showing meaning-
interdependence.
(On) ‘we have relations’. It is seen that the word sambandha is used with
regard to (relations) established by (transmission of) knowledge etc., even
when abandoning is there 151 . That is the meaning of the passage.
Nagesa 152 :
Parasparasarhsrsta . . . The meaning of the term cltdrtfnbhdva is stated in an

absolutely ciear way by this (statement of Patahjali’s, where he says) that it
means only presentation of meanings which have (inseparably) fused together 153 ,
and not presentation of separate (meanings).
Nanu sarhbaddhau . . . But (in the example) ‘these two (bulls are) bound
together’ the relation ‘bound together’ refers only to the single presentation (of
inseparable meanings), but this is not the case in the subject under discussion
(viz. vyapeksa: ‘meaning-interdependence’), because meaning-interdependence
refers to separate presentation (of meanings). But in that case (i.e., of meaning-
interdependence) there is separation only (and), therefore, (Patanjali) says:
‘or, it also happens that’.
Note (80):
From the present Bhasya it appears that the word samarlha in P.2.1.1 may
refer to both types of semantic connection, eltarthibhdva and vyapefysd. It ali
150. F. 333: | ct»T SWS^r cT
| li T ffcT I ft-
frcn^THri n
151. Kaiyata refers to the relation of guru and sisya.
152. P. 333: ^
II
spr ^ 5Tf% i fasrtqftsrftr*
i <r=r 5 snf—sfq- gr =#^ 1 % l
153. The Bha?ya says: samsrstdrthah samarthah.
Samarthahnika
91
depends on the meaning-analysis given. There are four ways of meaning-

analysis. The first two refer to presentation of inseparable meaning, as is, the
case in elârtfnbhdva, the next two refer to presentation of separable meanings,
as is the case in vyapcksa. A doubt is raised about the latter two analyses.
They do not exclusively refer to v\)apeksa.
The verb bandh - is used in three meanings:
(1) ‘to fasten to’, by physical, extemal means. This illustrates vyapeksa.
(2) ‘to bind together*, by a feeling of belonging together. This illustrates

elfdrthibhava.
(3) ‘to have relations with’, in the sense of the relation between teacher and
pupil, etc. According to the commentators this illustrates vyapeJ?sd.
In the uncompounded word-group rajnah purusah the relation between rajan

and purusah is indicated by extemal means, viz. the case-ending of the word
rajan , like the rope which fastens the animal to a post. In the compound raja -
purusah the constituents are not externally connected, but presented as in¬
separable, like the two bulls.
It is not ciear what the third example means to illustrate, ekarthlbhava or

vyapefysd.
The word evamjdhyakesu : ‘in cases of such kind’ in the text of the Bhasya
presents a difficulty. It may refer to the example of ahdni : ‘non-abandoning,
non-separation’ mentioned just before, or it may be taken to refer to the examples
of the relations with Gargas and Vatsas mentioned subsequently.
In the first case the relations with Gargas and Vatsas exemplify relations
established by non-external means f.i., a feeling of belonging together. In the
second case the relations with Gargas and Vatsas exemplify relations established
by external means. This is how the commentators^ explain it. According to
Kaiyata, it may be a relation of teacher and pupil, where oral transmission of
knowledge functions as the external indicator.
The first case goes with ekdrthlbhava, the second case with vyapeksa. The
point which should be kept in mind is that the discussion is not about the per¬
manent or non-permanent character of the relation itself, as might be suggested
by the use of the words ahdni and hani. The question is whether the relation is
indicated by some extemal means (case-ending, rope), or is not indicated by
an external means (absence of case-ending, feeling of belonging together). The
non-compounded word-group rajnah purusah shows a relation between two
meanings which are presented as separate and the connection of which is indi¬
cated by a case-ending. The compound rajapuffusah shows the same relation
92
of two meanings, but presents them as non-separable. The verb bandh - can be
used to refer to connection with and without extemal means of indication.
By these illustrations it is pointed out that samarthya can be interpreted in two

ways: ckdrthibhava samarthya and vyapeksa samarlhya. In the next section
Patanjali rejects the second interpretation.
(HERE ENDS THE SECTION ON DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF INTE¬

GRATI ON)
VIII
(NOW STARTS THE SECTION IN WHICH OBJECTIONS BROUGHT

AGAINST ‘SEMANTIC CONNECTION’ ARE REFUTED.)
101. (Bhasya : Shortcomings in the view of meaning-interdependence ) 153a
But if we take this semantic connection as meaning-interdependence,

(then) special features brought out by single integrated meaning should
be stated (by separate rules for meaning-interdependence).
Kaiyata 154 :
(On) ‘But . . . this’. If we do not accept that in word-composition semantic

connection takes the form of single integrated meaning, then, just as in the un-
compounded word-group we have particular number, qualifier to the subordinate

word, etc., (so also) they would emerge (in the compound). Therefore,
(their) non-application has to be established by a special rule, and a rule for
optional application (of compounding) has to be made for the sake of non-
rejection (of the use) of the uncompounded word-group which has the same
meaning. So, in this way the form of the word is sometimes conceived as
natural (i.e., not the product of grammatical derivation), by resorting to the
view that (words are) not (grammatically) derived. Sometimes, for the sake
of enlightening the unenlightened, (it is conceived as derived by grammatical
procedure) by resorting to the view that words are grammatically derived. But
in the view that words are grammatically derived many properties belonging to
word-composition would have to be established by a special rule (and this)
would involve loss of economy.
153a. The present Bhasya only points out shortcomings in the vyapeksd-v iew. But the
next two Bhasyas, according to the commentators, point out shortcomings both
in the ekarthibhava- and the vyapeksd-view.
154. P. 333-334: 3T^rfcqffjf% |
whrsrcisppjfr 11 3 mrt sr*rt
srfaTRTT % fa «rVwirf : 1
Samarthdhnika
93
Note (81):
According to the view that words are naturally given, the statement about
optional formation of compounds is not required, because both uncompounded
word-<?roup and compound are naturally there in speech. But, according to the
second view, the compound is derived from the uncompounded word-group and
so a statement that the compound is optionally formed from that word-group
is necessary, otherwise compounding would invariably take place of such a
group.
The present Bhasya says that a special rule to the effect, that the subordinate
member in a compound cannot be qualified by a word outside the compound,
is necessary, if we assume that in the compound the constituents present their
meanings separately. But if we assume that the compound denotes single meaning,
the special rule is not required, because the meaning of the subordinate member
is not separately presented. So there is no chance for it to be qualified by
another word. Similarly, if we take the view that compounds are derived from
uncompounded word-groups, then in the compounds nisfyausdmbih: ‘departed
from kausambf, gorathah : ‘a chariot to which oxen have been yoked*,
ghr'aghatah: ‘a jar filled with ghee’. w? have to assume that the first member
stands respectively for niskrdnta: 'departed*, goyukla: ‘to which oxen have been
yoked*, and gkrtapwrna: ‘filled with ghee*. This assumption makes it necessary
to formulate a special rule for dropping the verbal forms krdnta , yu1?ta and
purna. But if we assume that the compound as a whole denotes single meaning,
such a special rule is not required any more, because we can say that the
meanings £ranta. i jukta and purna appear in the compound-meaning, because
the constituents have become integrated in the whole. These meanings do not
belong to any constituent, but arise due to integration. Compounds are not
derived from the uncompounded word-group and so the question of dropping
parts of the latter does not arise.
V. ( Varttika : a sharlcoming poinled out)
In this case (we should make a rule stating) prohibition of loss of

accent and of substitution for yusmad and asmad, after (what is called)
nandkaraka.
In this case (i.e) when we take semantic connection as meaning-

interdependence, loss of accent and substitution for yusmad and asmad
would resuit after (what is called) nandkaraka . A rule should be made
stating prohibition of these (substitutions).
(Example for) loss of accent: ayafh dando haranena : ‘here is a stick,

catch with it’. Due to the consideration that there is meaning-inter-
Mahabhasya (P.2. J. 1 )
94 ’
dependence between danda and (the verb) hr- y loss of accent would
resuit (.which is not desired).
(Example for) substitution for yusmad and asmad : odanam paca
tava ' 1 bhavisyati: ‘cook the rice, yours it will be’, odanam paca
mama bhavisyati : ‘cook the rice, mine it will be’. Due to the considera¬
tiore that there is meaning-interdependencc between odanam (on the one
hand) and yusmad and asmad (on the other), substitution by ya'm,
nau etc. would resuit (which is undesirable). A rulc should be made
stating prohibition of these (substitutions).
Kaiyata 155 :
(Qn) ‘in this case . . . after . . . ndnal^draka* . The word nana expresses
prthagbhava: ‘different actions’. Therefore, that karaka: ‘(different) “operator’*
in relation to a different verb’, is (called) nandJ{draka. Just as in ayam dando
hardncna (the word) danda is the agent of the (impl ed) verb asti , not of the
verb - haratid™ Also, nana (means) bhinna (which means anyat and so we
analyse;) anyat I?dra!{am yasya: ‘(an action) which has a different operator’ 157 ,
that (action) also (is called) ndnd!(dra!(a.
Just as in odanam paca tava bhavisyati the word tava : ‘yours’ is not used
as a kdraba of the (verb) pac-: ‘to cook’, therefore no substitution for yusmad 158
resuits for (tava), which follows after the verb pac - 159 .
In some (manuscripts), however, there is a reading pacaudanam tava

bhavisyati: ‘cook the rice, yours it will be’. Odanam is (object~) operator with
regard to the verbform paca and not with regard to the action of becoming
(i.e. bhavisyati) . Therefore, (the status of operator belonging to odanam is
155. P. 334: cl^ I ffrffTSRT: | f^PTT:
zrsftrs i sstt 3nr * 5
11 3«rr fa>r*Rr^R^ urt *Rfr ffRR7R^*r i ^T~3f<R <rt <r
1 Trfw TTfeszRffa <rre: 1 ^-fcrf^rt srfh
* 3 3T0\fcT ffRI^TR^R II
156. It is an instrumental operator with regard to harati.
157. I.e., an operator other than yusmad and asmad.
158. Tava which belongs to the yusmad paradigm cannot now be substituted by te.
159. The present Varttika prohibits substitution of te for tava when the latter word
is preceded by ndmukdraka. This term refers to the verb {paca) which has a
karaka different from yusmad. In the sentence odanam paca tava bhavisyati
the verb paca is connected with odanam by the action-operator relation, whereas
no such relation between paca and tava exists. Therefore, the verb paca becomes
nandkaraka: ‘having an operator different from (the following yusmad- form
taba)'
Samarthdhnika
95
called) nandlj;dral?atva, because it is l^dralâ: ‘operator’ with regard to a different'

action.- G0
Note (82) :
The rules P.8.1.20 - 23 (which prescribe substitutes for yusmad and asmad)
and P.8.1.28 (which prescribes loss of accent for a verb, when preceded by
a word which is not a verbform) are mentioned under the section-heading rules
padasya and padat (P.8.1.1 6-1 7). Therefore the rules P.8.1.20-23 and
P.8.1.28 prescribe grammatical operations for finished words. Now the question
arises whether P.2.1.1 supplies the condition samariha in these rufes, so as to
make the operations applicable to finished words in semantic connection with other
words, or not.
(a) Suppose the condition samariha: ‘semantically connected* is restricted to
the domain of cl^drihibhdva: ‘single integrated meaning* which exists in Word—

composition only. In that case, rules dealing. with uncompounded word-groups
where semantic connection exists in the form of vyapcJ^sd: ‘meaning-interdepend-
ence* will not come under P.2.1.1. : * > v
The rules P.8.1.20-23 and P.8.1.28 deal with words in the sentence, not
with words in a compound. So the condition samariha will not be supplied. The
consequence is that these rules will apply to words which occur in immediatfe
sequence without having semantic connection. Thus, in the uncompounded, group
ayam dando harancna , P.8.1.28 (which prescribes loss of accent; for the verb)--
will apply becaue the verbform hara is immediately preceded by the non-
verbform dandah, even in the absence of semantic connection between them.'
Similarly, in the uncompounded group odanam paca tava bhavisyati r ,Pt8.1.22
will apply and cause substitution of tava by /e, even if paca is not semantically.
connected with tava. This, however, is not desired. To prevent. the operatiqns
prescribed by the rules under discussion a special rule must be iormulated.
(b) Suppose the condition samariha is to be supplied in the case of vyapel(Sa:

‘meaning-interdependence* as existing in uncompounded word-groups. Then the
rules P.8.1.20-23 and P.8.1.28 will apply to words in uncompounded groups,
only when they are semantically connected. In the uncompounded group ayam
dando harancna semantic connection exists between dandah and hara , because
danda , referred to by anena, is the instrument-operator of the action of harana :
‘catching*. Accordingly, P.8.1.28 would apply and the verbform hara would
be unaccented. In the uncompounded group odanam paca tava bhavisyaii the
word tava will be substituted by te , because semantic connection exists between
160. The word odanam is a karaka with respect to the verbform paca (A), but not
so with respect to the verbform bhavisyati (B). Here the term nannkdraka refers
to the karaka which functions as stich with respect to an action A, but not so
with respect to the different action B. Tava is not now substituted by te, because
it is preceded by the ndndkaraka odanam .
96
paca and iava through odanam. This is somewhat more clearly shown in the
wording of the variant read : ng paza odanam tava bhavisyati. Odanam is seman-
tically connected with tava by the owner-owned relation. But the loss of accent
for hara and the substitution of ie for tava are not desired, because they are at
variance with usage. To prevent the operations prescribed by the rules under
discussion a special rule must be formulated.
(c) Conclusion: Both when the condition samariha is restricted to the case
of cl(arlhibhdva and when it is restricted to the case of vpape/fsa, a special rule
to prohibit undesirable consequences is required, because, in the former case,
the said ru ] es would operate even in the absence of semantic connection, and.
in the latter case, the rules would operate, because there is semantic connection
between the words concerned (see fn. 153a).
103. ( Bhdsya : Objectwn)
Why do you say “after ndnakdraka : ‘different operator ( : n relation

to a different action)’”, when you take hold (of a branch with a stick
and) catch (the fruit) with that same (stick)?
Kaiyata 161 :
(On) ‘when you take hold . . . with that same*. And, therefore, because the
(samc) stick is the operator with regard to the action of catching (also), there
cannot bc the status of different operator. Therefore the question is raised.
Note (83):
The purvapaJ^sin s point is that the same stick is used for the two actions:
holding and catching. We cannot say that there is a different operator. The
wordmeaning danda : ‘stick’ goes with the implied verb astu as well as with
the verbform hara. Here the purvapafysm applies the term ndnakdraka to the
thing ‘stick’ rather than to the different forms of the word danda denoting the
stick. The term ndnakdraka is used here in the first meaning mentioned by
Kaiyata on Bhasya No. 102.
We do not say at all that we take hold (with one thing and) catch
with another. Then what (do you say)? We believe in the word as our
authority. What the word says, that is our authority. And here the word
denotes existence: ayam dandah: ‘this (is) a stick’. (The verbform)
asti : ‘is’ is understood. That (word) dandah : ‘stick’, which has become
161. P. 335: I srfar sFTTqFcW-fi?*
5T^: I!
Samarthahnika
97
the agent (with regard to asti) , becomes the instrument when being
connected with another word (viz. hara). For instance, somebody asks
somebody: ‘Where is Devadatta?’ He answers.him: ‘He is in the tree\
‘In which one?’ ‘The one standing (there in front of you)\ (Here the
word) ‘tree’, which was used as a location (viz. ‘in the tree’), becomes
agent when being connected with another word (viz. ‘stands’).
Kaiyata 162 :
(On) ‘this (is) a stick'. Where another verb is not heard, there the action
asti: ‘is* is understood only, because it comes quickest to our mind. Therefore,
since (the word) danda is agent of the verb asti, certainly the status of
ndndl(dra}?a: ‘different operator in relation to a different verb* is there.
(On) ‘Where is Devadatta?* When many men are standing at a distance,

then these questions and answers arise.
(On) ‘The one standing*. When other treeshave been cut down, but one
(only) stili stands, then Devadatta is pointed out as having a particular tree
as his location.
Nagesa 168 :
(On) ‘The one standing*. Forming a conj unet ion with the upward region
(i.e. standing upright) is also a meaning of (the verb) stha that is what
(Kaiyata) means to say.
Note (84):
The answer of the siddhantin is that the term ndndfydraka does not refer to a
thing, but to a wordform. Although the same stick is used in both the actions,
the word dandah as an agent-operator to the verb asti is different from the word
anena (i.e. dandena) as the instrumental operator to the verb hara . Thus there
is a different operator in relation to a different verb.
The expression pas tisthati in the Bhdsya singles out one particular tree, ex-
cluding others. Kaiyata explains this by assuming that only one tree is left
standing, whereas the others have been cut down. This assumption is not
required. The expression pas tisthati actually means 'the tree standing in front
of you.' Thus it will refer to one particular tree, in distinction from other trees
162. P. 335: 3TT I fWT* *
I ll I
ftqrrfadT STfiHTST# II
163. P. 335: | ^fcT W?: II
98
which are not in front of the person addressed. Kaiyata seems to think that
ti§thaii can only mean ‘stands upright (in a vertical position)*.
VI. ■( Varttika : Another shortcoming pointed out)
Prohibition of compounding, when (a word which forms part of) an

aggregate t0 be connected with a word outside that aggregate).
Prohibition of compounding is to be stated, when (a word which forms

part of) an aggregate (is to be connected with a word outside that ag¬
gregate). (For instance, from) rajno gaus ca$vas ca purusas ca\ ‘king’s
and cow and horse and man’ (we derive) rdjagavasvapurusdh : ‘king-
cow-horse-man’.
Kaiyata 164 :
(On) ‘when ... an aggregate*. That means: when someone wants to ex~
press (a relation with) more than one related word 165 . In the example given,
(the word) go: ‘cow* is semantically connected with rajan: ‘king’, asva: ‘horse’
arid purusa : ‘man.*‘ This being so, both (designations) dvandva and tatpurusa
would apply simultaneously. Or first (the designation) tatpurusa (and) then
dvandva . Since there is no conflict, because the two designations dvandva and
tatpurusa apply to different ways of grouping, we cannot settle the question by
applying tKe para- rule 166 .
When we take here ( rajago ) as a genitive tatpurusa , then (the suffix) TaC
would apply according to (the rule) gor ataddhilalulfi 167 . And the meaning
(also) differs: when we say rajagavasvapurusdh : ‘king-cow (and) horse (and)
man’ no connection would be understood between asvapurusa and rajan . 10S
Note (85):
1. According to P.6. 1.123, which States Sphotayana' s opinion, the stem go

becomes gavaN xvhen follorved by a vowel: go + asva > gava + asva
164. P. 335: 5T5RT \ I TTWTfa BTWT-
I tf* sn*T5T: l stt I
far ** fa i Pwra’
165^ I.C., when a .wprd which forms part of an aggregation is also to be semantically
connected with a word outside that aggregation.
P. 1.4.2, which States that in case of a conflict between two rules the later rule
prevails.
167. F.5.4.92, see fdllowing Note sub. 2.
168. I.e.y il wer first form the compound rajago. Kaiyata seems to take the word go
to mean ‘bulP here. If it is taken to mean ‘cow’ the form should be rdjagavy-
Qsvapurusah.
Samarthdhnika
99
> gavasva: ‘cow (and) horse*. Since P.6.1.123 is an optional rule, the form
gosva, according to P.6.1.109, is allowed too. *
2. According to P.5.4.92 the stem go takes the suffix TaC when occurring
at the end of a tatpurusa- compound: rajan . + go + TaC > rajan + gav +
a > raja + gava > rajagava + NlP (P.4.1.15) > rajagavi : ‘king-cow’.
3. If we first form a dvandva- compound (‘cow-horse-man*), then there are
two possibilities, either with avaN or without it. In the first case, the form will
be gavasvapurusah. In the second case, we will have gosvapurusah. ?TTiese
forms, when connected with rajan as genitive tatpufusas, will read rajagavasva-
purusah and rajagosvapurusah. Both forms are desired in the sense *king*s
cow-horse-man*.'They are not desired in the sense ‘king-cow* (and) horse (and)
man* which is the desired meaning of rdjagavyasvapurusdh. •' >i
4. Now the question is raised: why not first connect go with rajan , since go
is 1 equally connected with rajan as it is with asva and purusa ? Or why not
simultaneously connect go with rajan , asva and purusa ? Both of these possi¬
bilities would give the form rajagavi: ‘king-cow*, debarring 4,he other forms
rajago or rajagava , as explained sub 3. This form rajagavi , when connected
with asvapurusa: ‘horse (and) man\ would give rajagavyasvapurusdh. But

this form is not desired in the sense ‘king’s cow-horse-man*.
5. Nagesa remarks that, according to the view of semantic connection as sin&le

integrated meaning, a word outside an aggregate cannot be connected witlv a
constituent of the aggregate. The aggregate as such conveys meaning; its part?
do not. So either go or asva or purusa cannot be separately connected with
rajan , if first the dvandva-compound is made. But what about the stage before,
i.e. when the dvandva- compound has not yet been formed? Here go is seman-
tically connected with rajan , which lies outside the aggregation, and with asva
and purusa wbich form part of the aggregation. Why now first connect go with
asva and purusa and not simultaneously with ra/an, on the one hand, and with
asva and purusa on the other? Why cannot go form single integrated meaning
with rajan and with asva and purusa at the same time? This is the difficulty
in the e^drthlbhava view.
According to. the view of semantic connection as meaning-interdependence

any constituent of the aggregate can be connected with the outside word rajan.
But there is one condition, and that is contiguity^ In the sequence rajnah Hh
[gauli + asvah + purusak ] the words asvah and purusah cannot be connected
with rajnah because they do not follow immediately. The word gtjuh intervenes.
But gauh can be connected with rajnah.., So .even when go is part of the aggre¬
gation, i.e, of a (dvandva-compound, it can form an independent connection of a
different type (viz. tatpurusa- construction) with rajan. This is not desired.
100
Therefore, both the el(drthibhava~v iew and the vyape/^sa-view present diffi-
culties. In the first case the difficulty arlses before the dvandva-compound has
been formed; in the second case, the same difficulty, viz. that dvandva and
tatpurusa- compound can be formed simultaneously, is there. But there is an
additional difficulty, viz. that, even if the dvandva is formed first, stili the possi-
bility of connecting go with rajan remains there.
Patanjali*s Bhasya from the beginning of this section gives the impression
that these difficulties only arise in the vyape£sa-view, but the commentators think
differently (see fn. 153a).
VII. (Varltika : The second shortcoming removedy
Or (we will allow compounding of words which are) more likely to be

connected (than other words).
Note (86):
Instead of stating a prohibition we will allow compounding of such words

which strike us as being more connectible, more easily to be combined semanti-
cally and grammatically, than other words in an utterance.
106. (Bhasya : Explanaiion)
Or, compounding will take place of those words which are more
likely to be connected. But which are (those words) more likely to be
connected? Those which will make a dvandva-compound. Why is that
so? Because their integration results more easily. Take an example:
When we say: ‘This man is more qualified ( samarthatara) for study’,
(then the meaning:) ‘He grasps a book more easily’ is understood.
Kaiyata 169 :
(On) 'Their . . . results more easily*. The nominative case, being prescribed
m the sense of bare-stem-notion does not require an outside object (to establish
its meaning), but the genitive, because it requires an external correlative, is
exogenous ( bahiranga ). In the example given, dvandva (-compounding) comes
first, because it is based upon the nominative case which is endogenous (i. e.
antaranga , i.e. does not require any external correlative). Compounding with
the genitive case does not take effect, when a dvandva-compound is to take
effect, in accordance with the rule: 'That which is bahkanga does not take
effect, when that which is antaranga (is to take effect) 170 .
169. P. 335: XKR I ^3
170. F. Kielhorn, Paribha$endusekhara of Ndgoji Bhatta, Paribhdsa, No. 50 f
Samarthahmka
101
Note (87):
A word in a nominative case is self-contained. It does not express a relation

between two correlated terms. But the genitive case added to a word A shows
that A is related to another word B. Unless B is there the genitive cannot
function. Therefore, the dvandva (-cornpound) gavasvapurusa will come more
quickly to our mind than the genitive tatpurusa compound rajago (i.e. rajagavl).
Since the word go is first connected with asva and purusa it cannot form vyapeksa
or ekdrtfnbhdva connection with rdjart simultaneously.
107. ( Bhasya : Another explanation)
Some other (grammarian) has said: Or, compounding will takc

place of those words which are more likely to be connected. But which
are (those words) more likely to be connected? (Those) which will make
a dvandva- compound. Why is that so? Because those (i.e. words forming
a dvandva ) appear with the same case-ending, (whereas the word)
rajan (forming a tatpurusa compound with purusa) appears with a
different case-ending. There is a difference between one’s own brother
and the son of the patemal uncle.
Kaiyata 171 :
(On) ‘They\ The fact of belonging to the same genus (i.e. appearing in
the same case) will act as the immediate criterion to establish (either of the
semantic connections:) meaning-interdependence and single integrated meaning
(between gauli , asvah and purusah).
Note (88) :
The first explanation of the present Varttika takes the semantic point of view:
the genitive ending, in addition to its stem-meaning, requires a meaning for
relating its own meaning to. This is not the case with the nominative, which*
so to say, is self-contained. A dvandva-compound which unites nominative mean-
ings prevails over a genitive compound.
The second explanation States the structural point of view, viz. that of
pattern-congruency. Dvandva- compounding is based upon uniformity of case-
pattern, and so takes precedence over genitive tatpurusa compounding which
shows dissimilarity of case-pattem. Since the dvandva and tatpurusa cannot be
formed simultaneously, we cannot say that go is connected with rajan and asva
simultaneously.
VIII. (Another Varttika which removes the second shoricoming)>
Or, (the purpose is achieved), because (we assume that) the aggre¬
gate (as such) is connected (with the outside word).
171- P. 335: i ffiHTWftiraf ^ WTT^rgfT I
102
Or again, this is achieved, because (we assume that) the aggregate

(as such) is connected (with the outside word). The (word) rajan is
semantically connected with the aggregate as such, not with a part (of
the aggregdte).
Kaiyata 172 :
(On) ‘semantically connected with the aggregate as such’. The word rajan
functions as a qualifier of the meaning of the whole dvandva , therefore, it is
semantically connected (with the dvandva) , not with a part (of it).
Nagesa 173 :
Nanu. dvandve . . . (Objection). But if (we first form) a dvandva , just as

we have semantic connection of the meaning rajan with the aggregate, so also
we have semantic connection (of rajan ) with the word go which forms part of
the aggregate. Therefore, the designation lalpurusa would apply to the part
(rajago ) also, (just as it is applicable to the aggregate rdjagavdsvapurusah ),
and so there would be a possibility of adding (the suffix) TaC. If (you argue)
like this, (our answer is) that there is no difliculty. Here, after (the expres-
sion) ‘not with the part’ (in the Bhasya) we have to supply: ‘(not with that
part) which requires (i.e. is bound together with) asva and purusa\
Note (89) :
‘Achieved*. i.e. the form rdjagavdsvapurusah is derived correctly. See Note
(85).
The previous Varttilâ (No. VII) prohibits simultaneous formation of dvandva

and iatpurusa , because go should be first connected with asva and purusa. Once
the dvandva- compound has been formed, go cannot be independently connected
with rajan according to the e^dr/fith/iava-view, because a part of a whole (i.e.
aggregate) does not function independently. But in the vyapeksa-v iew, accord¬
ing to which constituents can function independently, because they retain their
own meaning, go can be connected with rajan , even if the dvandva is first formed.
The present Varttika now says that the outside word rajan forms semantic con¬
nection with the whole as such and does not form independent relation with a
part of that whole. So even in the v$apeksa-\ iew the word rajan cannot be
172. P. 336: I ^
*T TO II
173. P. 336: ^ §?£ tfTRmTT ^^«Pftas^TTfq- TTTOre**
Samarthdhnika
103
separately connected with go to form the taipurusa- compound rdjago. According

to Kaiyata, the present Varttika says that rdjan cannot be separately connected
with go, because rdjan functions as a qualifier to the whole. Therefore, it must
be connected with the whole.
109. (Bhasya: Another arrangement of the same Vdrtlika-texl for the salte
of another explanatiori)
(a) Some other (grammarian) says: Or, (we will allow compounding
of words) which are more likely to be connected, because (we assume
that) the aggregate (as such) is semantically connected (with the out-
side word).
(b) (Bhasya: Explanation)
Or there will be compounding of words which are more likely to be

connected. Why is that so? Because the aggregate as such is semantically
connected (with the outside word).
Kaiyata 174 :
In this view the meaning-connection with the aggregate (as such) is the
cause for being more likely to be connected. But when connection with the ag¬
gregate is there, the connection with the part is also inferred. With this in
mind, we understand (the use of) the comparative degree. 175
Note (90):
Connection with the whole is superior to connection with its parts. Connec¬
tion with the parts is inferred on the basis of the first connection. The word
rdjan is connected with the whole (i.e. aggregate), made up of go, asva and
purusa first, and only then with its single constituents. So the direct connection
of rdjan is with the whole gavasvapurusa , and not with go, asva, or purusa
independently.
110. (Bhasya : Objectian)
In this view 175a , (the word) va : ‘or’ (in the new interpretation given
in Bhdsya No. 109) becomes redundant.
Kaiyata 176 :
(On) ‘In this view*. Option is there when two different reasons are given
for one thing to be established. But here one reason is for one thing and another
reason for another thing.
174. P. 336: 3 ^ I 3FT ««RfPUmW |q: I
175. I.e. connection with the aggregate prevails over the inferred possibility of
connection with the part.
I75a. I.e. in the new interpretation given in Bkd?ya No. 109.
176. P. 336: arftrpT q-$T ^fcT I I %%
104
Note (91):
I. First Explanation:
(a) Varttika VII says that dvandva is first formed, because the word go is
more easily connected with asva and purusa than with rajan. Once the dvandva
has been formed, the compound as a whole will be connected with rajan. The
reason for fornrng the dvandva first (and not the tatpurusa) is samarthalaralva:
‘the status of being more easily connectible*.
(b) Vdrttxka VIII says that the word rajan cannot be separately connected
with parts of a whole (i.e. aggregate), because it functions as a qualifier of the
whole. It must, therefore, be connected with the whole. The reason for con-
necting rajan with the whole is samudayasamarthya: ‘semantic connection with
a whole*.
(c) The two VarttiJtas give alternative reascns for the same fact, viz., that
dvandva is formed first.
II. Second Explanation:
Bhasya No. 109 connects the reasons given in the Varttikas VII and VIII
in a different way, as follows: Why is dvandva formed first? Because its
constituents are samarthatara : ‘more easily connected’. Why are they more
easily connected? Because the word rajan has samuddyasamarihya , ‘connection
with a whole*. The fact A is established by a reason B which in its turn is
established by a reason C. So here the two reasons B and C establish different
things. We cannot say that B and C are alternative reasons for the same fact A.
a. ( Answer ). And yet this (word va) is significant. How? (Because

the word) rajan here which requires (i.e. qualifies the words) asva and
purusa (also), cannot at all form a compound with (the word) go
(only).
b. (Objection) . Then what (else is to be compounded with what)?
c. (Answer). (The word) go which requires (i.e. is qualified by)

rajan can form a compound with asva and purusa. In that case, go
becomes the main member here. And compounding does take place,
even if the main member requires (an outside word). 177
Kaiyata 178 :
(On) ‘And yet this*. The word va: ‘or’ telis us that (the word) rajan is
not compounded with go, because it (i.e. rajan) is treated as asamartha : ‘not
177. See Bhd§ya No. 28 and Note, (30).
178. P. 336: | ^Tq^TcJÎTT^TT? Wt
srftrnW: n
Samarthahnika \ 05
semantically connectecT, because it qualifies (the outside words asva and

purusa).
Note (92):
(a) The word va in Bhasya No. 109 is significant, because two reasoifs are
presented for not compounding first rajan with go:
1. The dvandva- compound of gauli, asvah and purusah is first formed, be¬
cause the word rajan is connected with the whole as such, and not with go only.
This is called samudayasamarthya.
2. The word rajan cannot be compounded with go, because the principle
sapel?sam asamartham bhavati (Bhasya No. 28)forbids it. According to this
principle a qualifying word, when connected with a word outside the compound-
construction, cannot enter into a compound (see Bhasya No. 33). The word
rajan is connected with the words asva and purusa which lie outside the com-
pound-construction of rajan and go. Therefore, rajan cannot be compounded
with go.
3. The first reason says that rajan cannot be connected with a part, because
it is connected with the whole. The second reason says that rajan cannot form
a compound with go, because rajan is asamartha. Why? Because rajan is con¬
nected with the whole.
(b) The purvapaksin now raises the question what to compound with what?
If rajan cannot be compounded with go, because rajan is connected with outside
words, the same logic would apply to go also. The word go cannot form a
compound with asva and purusa either, because it is semantically connected with
rajan which lies outside the compound of gauli, asvah and purusah.
(c) The siddhantin answers that go, asva and purusa are main members.
Even if they are semantically connected with the word rajan , which lies out¬
side the dvandva- compound, they can form the dvandva- compound. The prin¬
ciple sape^sam asamartham bhavati is restricted to the subordinate member
(see Bhasya No. 28).
(HERE ENDS THE SEGTION IN WHICH SHORTCOMINGS WITH

REGARD TO SEMANTIG GONNEGTION ARE REMOVED.)
IX
(NOW STARTS THE SECTION ON THE DEFINITION OF THE

SENTENGE)
IX. ( Varttika: Definition of the sentence)
A finite verb together with indeclinable, operator (indicating case-

relation with the verb), and qualifying word makes a sentence.
106
112. ( Bhdsya : Explanation)
(a) A finite verb, together with indeclinable and noun (i.e. operator)
and noun-qualifying word, receives the designation ‘sentence’, so (a
definition) should be stated.
(Example for) ‘together with indeclinable’: uccaih pathati : ‘he reads

a loud’, mcaih pathati: ‘he reads softly’.
(Example for) ‘together with noun (i.e. operator)’: odanam pacati:

‘he cooks the rice’.
(Example for) ‘noun-qualifying word’: odanam mrduvisadam pacati:

‘he cooks the rice so that it becomes soft, without the grains glueing
together ’. 179
Kaiyata 180 :
(On) ‘A finite verb’. In order sometimes not to apply or to apply 181 loss of
accent etc. after (what is called) ndnditdraJta, loss of accent and substitution for
1 )usmad and asmad will be taught later on as conditioned by samdnavdkyc : ‘within

one and the same sentence* 182 . The sentence is technically defined (here), so as to
prevent taking ‘sentence’ in its non-technical 183 sense (there). 184 Indeclinable,
operator, qualifying word are taken individually as well as collectively, just as
(in the prohibition) : ‘no entry for sttdras’. 185 Compare (the rule) atJ(upvannum
vyavaye *pi. 186
179. If we read mrdu and visadam as separate words, odanam must be neuter. If
mrduvisadam is read as one word, the gender of odana may be neuter or
masculine.
180. P. 336: I WfafT SIW* ^
i a* srm n
STctRT tfiTfeciTfa I
| ^ I STPRTcrfafcr I I
<rt ^ ^ i
TRfa Tg-rftRRt arPt sr?it% sri^r^FgRTci!;

fjm<rnr*rî?r ii
181. For loss of accent see the example stated under Varttika XIII: rvadyas tisthati
kule . Even in absence of semantic connection between nadydh and tisthati loss
of accent takes place, because both words occur in the same sentence.
182. In Varttika XI.
183. The non-technical definition of ‘sentence’ according to Ndgesa is suptihantacayo

vakyam: ‘sentence is a group of noun(s) and verb(s). See Nagesa fn. 208.
184. In Varttika XI.
185. The prohibition applies to individual sudras as well as to groups of them.
186. The rule P.8.4.2 says that (n is substituted by n) even when letters belonging
to (the pratydhara) at, letters belonging to the ku or pu class, the preposition
a, or the augment nUM intervene. That means, each of them separately, or
some of them together.
Samarthdhnilâ
107
And when (the author of the Vartliâs) says ‘a finite verbform’, he wants
to indicate singular number, because he gives a technical definition 187 . And in
the same way, with regard to (the rule) ttnn aiinah 188 (the author of the
Vdritiâs) will state that the exclusion of lin: ‘finite verb* (by stating atin ) is
redundant, because the section deals with what is the same sentence. 189 In (the
sentence) bhavati pacati: * “he cooks” 190 comes into existence*, although a
relation of action and operator 191 is there (which may give us the idea of one
sentence), (yet) loss of accent (in pacati) is not possible, because there are
two finite verbs, and, consequently, there is not one sentence.
Note (93):
The verbform pacati in the example bhavati pacati will not suffer loss of accent,
since it is preceded by iin : ‘finite verb\ This is in accordance with P.8.1.28.
But Katyayana*s view would be that in this example there are two finite verbs,
and so there are two sentences. Because of that pacali cannot lose its accent.
(Bhasya continued: Adverbs included in the definition)
(b) And along with the adverb, so (an addition to the definition)
should be stated.
(Example:) susthu pacati: ‘he cooks nicely’, dusthu pacati: ‘he

cooks badly’.
Kaiyata 192 :
(On) ‘And along with the adverb*. Since (the word visesana in Vdrttilâ IX)
is put near (the word Itdrafya), it implies that visesana means kdrakavisesana
only and not kriyavisesana: ‘adverb*. And by (the word) akhydta: ‘finite
verb’ predominance of (the idea of) action is indicated, so that even (construc-
187. From the non-technical use of the term ‘sentence’ vve already know that it must
contain a verbform or verbforms. Since ‘sentence’ is technically defined as con-
taining a verbform, this must mean one verbform only. In a technical definition
every element is significant.
188. The rule P.8.1.28 says that a finite verb after what is not a finite verb (is
unaccented).
189. See Varttika XI. P.8.1.28 prescribes loss of accent under a certain condition.
Since this rule applies in what is the same sentence,—which according to

Katyayana can have one finite verb only—, the condition that the preceding
word must be atin : ‘not a finite verb 5 is redundant, because it could not be any-
thing else.
190. I.e. the action of cooking of which he is the agent.
191. Here sadhya means ‘the action to be achieved’ and sadhana ‘the means’, i.e.
‘operator which brings the action into resuit*.
192. P. 337: | SWSTvJTT Rfekw 'JW, *T 3
sfi- n wiwrtr ^
108
Mahabhasya ( P. 2.1.1)
tions) which do riot contain a finite verb, as devadaitena sayitavyam: ‘Devadatta

must go to sleep’ 193 are rightly regarded as a sentence.
Nagosa 194 :
(The word) savisesanam in itself would take care of Ipiydvisesana also, that
is why (Kaiyata) States: ‘Since ... is put near’. Even if (the word /edra/fa)
includes (kriydvisesana) also, because it is regarded as a baraâ: ‘operator* 195 ,
yet the point is, that this (separate mention) also, like the mention of avyaya:
‘indeclinable* (in Vdrttil(a IX), is for the sake of specification, so we should
understand.
Note (94) :
In Vdrltil(a IX the words bdral(a and visesana are parts of a dvandva-

compound. But since visesana follows immediately after bdral(a t we may take
it to mean l(drakavisesana : ‘noun-qualifying word’ and not kriydvisescrna:
‘adverb*. Nageisa remarks that the word saliar akam would include even avyaya
and l?riydvisesana.
113. ( Bhasya : Anolher formulation of the definitiori of the sentence)
Some other (grammarian) says: ‘The finite verb together with a
qualifying word (makes a sentence)’; that’s ali. Because all these (i.e.
avyaya etc.) are qualifying words (to the verb).
Note (95):
See Vdkyapadlya II, 4: ‘What contains parts (i.e. words) which, when
isolated (from the sentence-context), require (each other), (but) the words
of which (when not isolated) do not require (other words outside the sentence) ;
where the verb (action) dominates; what contains subservient (i.e. qualifying)
words (and) what has a single purpose, is regarded as a sentence*. According
to this definition the sentence is considered as an autonomous meaning-whole.
No outside word reference is needed 196 .
X. ( Varttika : Another definition of the sentence)-
What contains a single finite verb (is called ‘sentence’).
193. The form sayitdvyam is not a verbform, but a form ending in a &rf-suffix used
for deriving nouns from verbal roots. See Note (99).
194. P. 337: I
195. A paribhasa says kriydvisesaridndm karmatvarh napumsakalihgata ca: ‘adverbs

function as object and take neuter gender’. See K. V. Abhyankar, Pari -
bhasasamgraha, fchandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1967, pp. 221,
347.’
196. ^ | ^fjT«TTfr II
Samarthahnika
109
114. ( Bhasya : Explanatiori)
What contains a single finite verb receives the designation ‘sentence 5 ,

so (the definition) should be stated. (Example) bruhi bruhi: ‘speak,
speak!’.
Kaiyata 197 :
(On) ‘What contains a single finite verb’. The word e1(a : ‘single’ expresses
(the idea of) ‘identical’, and not (the idea of) ‘numerical*. And this (word
cratiri) is a bahuvrihi-compoxmd.
(On) ‘speak, speak*. In the expression bruhi bruhi devadatta: ‘speak, speak,
Devadatta!’ loss of accent for the vocative rightly takes place, because (the
expression) forms a sentence.
Nagesa 198 :
But since (the word) e!(a is mentioned (in the definition just given), it remains
stili very difHcult to justify (the designation ‘sentence’ for the example bruhi
bruhi). That is why (Kaiyata) says: ‘The word e£a: ‘single’.
Note (96):
We cannot explain how to apply the designation ‘sentence’ to bruhi bruhi ,

according to the definition dl(hydtam etc., 199 because there is no visesana:
‘qualifier’, nor according to the definition cratiri just given, because, numerically,
there are two verbforms.
Nagesa 200 :
(On) ‘The word e£a*. Because there is no point in applying the designation
‘sentence’ to a single word (Kaiyata) says bahuvrihih : ‘( e!(ath is) a bahuvrihi-
compound*. That means, a word-group containing a single finite verb.
But others say that the non-technical definition albatam savisesanam

vd/ftjam, 201 which also applies to (the example) pacati bhavati , 202 is only ap-
197. P. 337: j I It
wftfa i 5Tf? ftrwrfcr n
198. P. 337: anf-lTcf^ II
199. The definition given in Bha$ya No. 113 and Vdrttika IX.
200 . P. 337: ^RlTfrerPTt | ^
n 'T^r^TRr sfasFPf esr* sfir
201. Bhasya No. 113.
20^. See Kaiyata on Bhasya No. 112.
proved by Panini, since he mentions (the word) atin in the sutra : tihn
atinah. 203
Note (97):
The implication of the sutra ‘when following after what is not a finite verb,
a finite verb (is not accented)’ is that Panini accepts the possibility of a sen¬
tence containing more than just one verbform. Otherwise the word atinah would
be redundant. In ‘others’ Nagesa includes himself. The words pare tu are to
be connected with dhuh at the end of Nagesa’s comments.
Nagesa 204 :
This being so, the outcome is that if we isolate (words from the sentence-
context) they will require each other (as complements to their own meaning),
because (within the sentence words show) the qualifier-qualified relation.
Npte (98) :
If we detach the word rajhah from the phrase rajhah purusah : *king’s man’,
then its meaning remains in mid air, because it serves as a qualifier to that of
purusah.
Nagesa 205 :
The word df?hydta there (i.e. in the definition dl(hyaiam etc.) indicajtes a
word in which the idea of action is predominant. Therefore, examples like ivapd
sapi.avyam: ‘you rnust go to sleep’ are included.
Note (99):
Technically sayHavyam is not tinanla y but ffrdanta. Nevertheless the idea of

action (kriya) is the main idea conveyed. A word like Inarta: ‘agent’ on the other
hand, is not Jtriydpradhana, but lârtrpradhdna. It conveys the idea of agent
as its main idea. Therefore, it cannot be akhpdta: ‘finite verb’.
Nagesa 206 :
The word savisesanam: ‘along with qualifier’ means ‘along with that qualifier
which qualifies directly or indirectly’. Therefore, in the sentence nadpas tisthali
Itule: ‘it stands on the bank of the river’ 207 we are justified (in saying that)
nadyah etc. come in the same sentence.
203. P.8.1.28.
204. P. 337: ^ HSSTIT 1
205. P. 337: I cR FFTT I
206. P. 337: J]frcWT 3T I ^?JT-
207. The examplc is given in Bhd$ya No. 120,
Samarthahnika
111
Note (100):
The word fûle is directly connected (semantically and grammatically) with

nadyah and indirectly (yuktayukia) with tisthaii
Nagesa 208 :
With this same intention ‘sentence* is defined in the Amarafôsa as expressing

action construed with operator (lâraâ), which (definition) may apply to (each)
one (out of three) categories: (1) a group of nouns, (2) a group of finite
verbs, (3) a group of noun(s) and verb(s), according to the statement
supt : nantacaô vafojam kriyti va kâk^nvita: ‘a sentence is a group of nouns
and of verbs and of noun(s) and verb(s) combined, if (the word denoting
action) is construed with an operator*. 209
Here the word Va means ‘if’. But whether the operator is to be expressed by
a finite verb or a different word is another matter. (The word) suptinantacaya is
used to prevent that (i.e. sentence-status) for one (word only).
Note (101):
Ksirasvamin, commenting on the above quoted passage from the Amarakosa

has the following to say:
‘A group of finite verbs’, f.i. * “he cooks” comes into existence’, which means:
‘cooking is being undertaken’ 210 .
‘A group of nouns*, f.i. ‘this (is) inbom in noble people*. The supplied verb
bhavaii : ‘is* is merely expletive here 211 .
208. p. 337:
209. Amara’s Namaling&nus&sanam, ed. by H. D. Sharma and N. G. Sardesai,

Oriental Book Agency, Poona, 1941, p. 42, where also K?Irasvamin’s comments
are given. -fagSSRPTgt I WT-
sr^fcrffl^ftrr fjr (fnfo), i
farar nmvmsr sjRsr i snfaiwsimt-
3rf*ra?5r cnw g-pPTfST
?£trj- i.., wjtsPT-^r^ssnwjrf i
. *T l rW? J f>T ? f II qpr 5I®5Tc*T ? Tfal5*t?r*T*P? , T II
210. See fn. 190.
211. This is a quotation from Bhartrhari’s NItisataka, stanza No. 52: ‘Expletive’,
i.e. even without bhavati this will be a sentence.
112
Aetion construed or connected in sense with an operator (makes) a sentence:

‘Devadatta, drive the white cow with a stick’ 212 .
In all these (three categories) the definition (of a sentence refers to a)

syntactical construction (formed of words) owing to (their) interdependence
and to their semantic compatibiKty. This is stated by Jaimini: ‘A sentence is
considered one which serves one single purposs, if (its words, when) isolated
(from the sentence-context), require other words to complete their scn:c 21 \
Bhatta also says: saJ(dnksam etc. 214 One (part of the) definition (in the
AmaraJôsa) refers to the nature of the word, the other (part of the) definition
takes meaning also into account, so some say’. 215
Nagesa 210 :
Etat samandrthakam eva . . . That (the definition) akhydtam etc. 217 has
absolutely the same meaning as this one (in the Amaraôsa) is, of course, ciear.
This (definition al(hydtam etc.) only we should take as the definition of a single
sentence which contains one subject (-phrase) and one predicate (-phrase).
This was stated by (Bhartr-)hari. 218
Nagesa 219 :
The meaning of this word vakya: ‘sentence’ (in Vakyapadlya II, 4) is: a
single sentence. Because of the rule (stated) by Jaimini: arthaikalvad eJ(am
212. The example devadatta garri etc. partly occurs in Kasikd on P.8.1.8.
213. Jaiminimlmamsdsutra II, 1.46:
214. K§Irasvamin quotes here Vakyapadlya II, 4. For translation see Note (95). The
verse is not from Kumdrilabhatta as Kslrasvamin supposes but from Bhartrhari,
Vakyapadlya II, 4.
215. One part, i.e. suptinantacayo vakyam, the other part, i.e. kriya va kdrakdnvita.
' 216 . p. 337: i ' ’ it
3ft«PT i afRT i
II
\3 ^
217. I.e. akhydtam savisesanam, Bhasya No. 113 and Varttika IX.
218. Nagesa quotes here Vakyapadlya II, 4. See fn. 214.
219. P. 337: mwfacSR: II WPR %fsr*TR
WTfefw ^fafa^rrai ^ jfRra-
Wfsefta: IIW 5Tc5THTCR11 m i<?4I
o o ^
Samarthahnika
113
(etc.). 220 Precisely for that reascn a sentence is no longer one, when it con-
tains more than one subject (-phrase) and more than one predicate (-phrase),
so the Mtmdmsalâs claim.
When, however, Kaiyata says that this (definition akhyatam etc.) 221 is the
technical definition, he is wrong. And he is also wrong, when he denies that the
phrase pacati bhavati is a sentence, 222 by assuming that singleness (of finite verb)
is intended (in the definition d^hyatam etc.). For we do not gain anything (by
assuming that) singleness (of finite verb) is intended (here), because in accord-
ance with (the explanation of) the Bhdsya given before 223 the status of
af(h\)dia in its full sense is applicable to one verb only. 224
Note (102):
We do not gain anything, because, even if the sentence contains more verbs,
one verb will be considered the main one and the rest is subordinate. Stili the
sentence is regarded as one.
The logical paraphrase of the expression pacati bhavati is: yatkvthcitkartrkd

pacifyriyd bhavati: ‘the action of cooking, the agent of which may be anybody,
comes into being*. This is also stated by Patanjali on P. 1.3.1: ‘the action of
cooking etc. becomes the agent of the action of coming into being*. 225
From this paraphrase it is ciear that the main verb is bhavati and that pacati
functions as the agent of bhavati. Although pacati bhavati contains two verb-
forms, the status of verb belongs to bhavati only. By the term kriyapradhdnatva
the word pacati is excluded from verb-status, since it functions as agent
(karirpradhdna). See also Note (99).
Nagesa 226 :
Also, because it would be wrong to understand that the status of sentence
belongs to (a phrase containing) one single finite verb, and not to another
(containing more than one verb), according to the maxim stated in the Bhasya :
vyaktipaksc na brdhmanam hanyad ilyadau ekarh brdhmanam ahatvd kfli
syat: ‘when one takes the view that words denote individual things (rather than
genus), one would comply with the injunction ‘don’t kill a brahmin’ by (just)
not killing one (unspecified) brahmin. 227
220. See fn. 213.
221. The definition given in Bha$ya No. 112.
222. See Kaiyata on Bha^ya No. 112.
223. See Nagesa fn. 201 and 205.
224. I.e. to the main verb in the sentence.
225. Mbh. Vol. I, 256, line 28; p. 257, line 13.
226. P. 337:
227. Nagesa quotes rather freely from Mbh. See Vol. I, p. 243, lines 1-2. See also
the discussion in the Paribha$endusekhara of Ndgojxbhatta , ed. by F. Kielhorn,
Part II, trsl. p. 193 (See ed. by K. V. Abhyankar, Poona 1960).
F.—8
114
Note (103):
If singleness of finite verbform is intended in the definition albatam etc., the

question is whether to take singleness as referring to the individual or to the
genus. In the first view the designation ‘verb’ will apply to one particular verb
only, f.i. to bhavati , and not to any other verb. In the second view the desig¬
nation ‘verb* will apply to any representative of the verb-class, i.e. any verb
or group of verbs would make a sentence. So nothing is gained by taking single¬
ness either as vyaJ^ti: ‘individual’ or as jaii : ‘genus’.
Nagesa 228 :
Moreover, although by assuming that singleness (of finite verb) is intended,

this (status of single sentence) is denied for an expression, such as pacati fyaroti
ca which contains two verbs of equal status, 229 (yet) it is impossible to deny
(sentence-status to verbs), when they are paired in view of (the relation of)
qualification 230 , because a finite verb, when accompanied by a qualifier (-verb)
is regarded as single.
But by this (i.e. first definition) the expression bruhi bruhi cannot be covered
either, because the (verb bruhi cannot be regarded as) being accompanied by
a qualifier, since (the other form bruhi ) is not put here as a qualifier. But the
gain resulting from sentence-status (can be shown) by assuming that we have
here question and answer (by supplying the question) ‘Shall I teli (you)
something?’ (to which the answer ‘speak, speak!’ is given). Here vowel-
protraction ( pluta ) in the last syllable of the sentence is achieved by the rule
anantyasyapi prasndI?hydnayoh . 231 Therefore he gives the technical definition
ekatin: ‘containing one single finite verb’ suited for his own Science (i.e.
grammar).
Note (104):
In the answer bruhi bruhi vowel-protraction (and svanVa-accent) is applied

to both verbforms, according to the rule just quoted. This rule is restricted to
228. P. 337: f% 'T^fcT %c3TT^ cTSTCWsfa
fff : i i § ‘mi
1 srt: 11
229. I.e. two main verbs, no relation of principal and subordinate being there.
230. I.e. the qualifier-qualified relation, in which the main verb is the qualified one.
231. P.8.2.105 States that in case of question and answer even the final vowel of a •
jion-final word in a sentence is protracted and receives svarita- accent.
Samarihahnil?a
T15
words occurring in the same sentence, because the word valtyasya is continued
from P.8.2.82. The expression bruhi bruhi cannot be a sentence according to
the definition dJ^hyatam savisesanam ( Bhasya No. 113), no qualifying words
being there. But the e/?afin-definition is not conditioned by the presence of
qualifying words, so the designation ‘sentence’ applies and we can justify vowel-
protraction. The gain of assuming sentence-status for bruhi bruhi lies in this
that we can now apply P.8.2.105 here.
The difference in the interpretations offered by Kaiyata and Nagesa amounts

to the following:
(1 ) According to Kaiyata the definition albatam savyaâlfdrakavisesanam ,

otherwisc formulated as d^hyatam savisesanam , is a technical definition. Ac¬
cording to Nagesa it is a non-technical, popular ( laukifai) one.
(2) According to Kaiyata singleness of finite verb is intended in the defi¬

nition d!(hydtam etc. According to Nagesa it is not.
(3) According to Kaiyata the phrase pacati bhavati is not a sentence. Ac¬
cording to Nagesa it is.
Nagesa 232 :
As for the fact that Kaiyata explains the example m the Bhasya (viz.)
bruhi bruhi by supplying the word devadatta, this is wrong, because (this ex¬
pression) can be justified (as a sentence) by the previous definition too. 233 And
the double expression (viz. bruhi bruhi) would be meaningless. By this
232. P. 337: ??T affc «P W,
fs ri: i fesrft^rwr w vfa
vzrzrit&t ^ ^ satare
^ ii u srt
tT^ flI tT^SR^
f? HtSTW FTRT I f? I
ir^crfs : ^Tr^tf^ 5 r ? rT'ft^%Rrvj»r:?-rm^PK*rii tfqRsnw srarrfirtPT

;raf=sra ^rfcrfef^ 1ara wfg i ara
ff-r ^ wjf^Tr^fgr^r^TT
?r ^ g-irmm I f^% jRT ^ g^raw i ^
gf^cnr ii Ffrt^fooratarTf: 11
233. I.e. the definition ekatin.
116
(argument) the (following) statement of Kaiyata in the eighth (section) 234

is refuted: ‘this other definition (viz. el(aiin) is formulated to make ciear that
singleness of verbform is intended (in the definition dkhyatam etc.) by removing
the doubt whether singleness of verbform (was or) was not intended in the
earlier definition (viz. dkhyatam savyayal(drakavisesanam) . 234a
Even if we accept that in the word-repetition agrc 'gre: ‘in the very front’
the second word is (a) separate (utterance), so that we can apply purvarupa
(-el(ddesa) 235 —and when this is granted, how can there be the status of a single
verb (for a group of verbs as) in bruhi bruhi ?—yet (we will say that) a
group of (identical) finite verbforms showing the same sequence (of phonemes)
forms (a single) sentence, because (the word) ekatin is a hahuvri/n-compound 236 .
Consequently, the expression pacati: ‘cooks’ only (in pacati bhavati) is not a
sentence (.because it contains two non-identical verbs).
The fact that, according, to this definition, (the word) atinah : 'preceded by
what is not a finite verb’ is rejected, 237 is a different matter. Precisely for that
reason the revered master has not used the word ca: ‘and’ or the word vd: ‘or*
in the expression ekatin valeam: ‘a sentence contains one singlte finite verb*.
because the scope 237a (of this definition ekatin) is (quite) different (from
that of the previous definition). He would definitely use that (word ca or vd),
if the scope were the same 238 , because we observe that such is the style of the
revered master. So the first definition (viz. dkhyatam etc.) is common to
grammar, as in the case of vakyasya teh: ‘the last vowel of a sentence (is
protracted and has udatta) , 239 and to non-technical usage. Precisely for that
reason protraction of vowel occurs in paca pasya ca devadatla3: ‘cook and see,
o Devadattaa!*. If only ekatin had been stated (as a definition), then one
234. Kaiyata on Bhd§ya on P.8.1.28.
234a. The definition ekatin , according to Kaiyata, explains the meaning of the earlier
definition dkhyatam etc. It was not ciear to us whether the singular in the form
dkhyatam was intentionally used or not. This doubt is now removed by inter-
preting the word dkhyatam as ekatin.
235. P.6.1.109 States that a single substitution- in the form of e and o replaces e and
o occurring as word finals and following initial a. In order to apply P.6.1.109
we require two finished words. The first word must end in e and the second
must begin with a . Whether the utterance of two words consists of identical
words or of different words is immaterial.
236. It means ‘what contains a single finite verb’. Therefore, it implies that there
must be something else in addition, but not a different verb. Although we utter
the word bruhi twice, it is regarded as the same verb, because it has the same
meaning and sequence of phonemes.
237. See Note (97) on Nagesa fn. 200.
237a. Kaiyata thinks that the scope of these definitions is the same, see fn. 234a.
Nagesa thinks they have a different scope, see summary given in Note (105).
238. In that case ekatin would be an addition to or an alternative of the previous

definition but leaving its scope unaltered,
239. P.8.2.82,
Samarthdhnika
117
would form the wrong notion that this only (should be applied) also there 240 ,
(and not the earlier one) 241 . For that purpose (viz. to remove this wrong
notion) this (definition dkhyatam etc.) is given.
The definition ekatin applies to (the sec]tion) samanavakye: ‘within the same
sentence* 242 and (is applied) sometimes (to achieve) protraction of vowel 243 .
That is precisely why the example bruhi bruhi is appropriate 244 . That is pre-
cisely why in the Bhasya on the rule tinn atinah , 245 while interpreting the
Vdrttilca: “the word atin is meaningless, because the section is headed by (the
expression) ‘within the same sentence’ *\ 246 (Patanjali) States that in one and the
same sentence no two finite verbs occur. And by this same ( Bhasya ) it is pointed
out that ekatin is a hahuvn/n-compound. 247 It will be ciear (to us) at once that
this meaning (of the definition ekatin) is demonstrated here in the subsequent
Bhasya also.
Note (105):
Patanjali had to choose such an example for the new definition ekatin , as
would not be covered by the earlier definition. For such an example, three pos-
sibilities present themselves: (1) a single finite verb only, (2) a single finite
verb accompanied by one or more qualifying words, (3) repetition of the single
finite verb.
The single finite verb bruhi cannot be a sentence according to the definition
akhydiam etc., because qualifying words are lacking. It is, however, a sentence
240. I.e. to P.8.2.82.
241. I.e. the wrong notion that only the definition ekatin is taken into account in
order to apply protraction in the sentence just mentioned. We can apply the
definition ekatin if a sentence contains only one finite verb. But the expression
paca pasyn ca contains two finite verbs. Therefore Nagesa points out that in
order to apply protraction etc. the first definition has to be taken into account.
This is the purpose behind the first definition.
242. The section dealing with anuddtta and substitution for yu§mad and asmad
(P.8.1.20) should come under the heading samanavakye, i.e. this latter word
is to be read in P.8.1.18.
243. P.8.2.105.
244. Because the verb group bruhi bruhi forms one sentence according to the defi¬
nition ekatin and takes pluta by P.8.2.105. See Note (104). The expression
‘that is precisely why’ means: because ekatin is also applicable if protraction of
vowel is wanted.
246. Atinvacanam anarthakam samanavdkyddhikdrdt (on P.8.1.28).
245. P.8.1.28.
247. I.e. where the Bhd$ya on P.8.1.28 says: na ca samanavakye dve tihante stah:
‘within the same sentence there are no two finite verbs’. If we take ekatin as
a karmadharaya-compound, a sentence would consist of only one finite verb,
no other words being allowed. Since the statement quoted here denies that a
sentence does not consist of more than one finite verb, it implies that a sentence
may contain more than just one finite verb, i.e. verb -f- noun, but not two finite
verbs. Therefore ekatin must be bahuvnht.
118
according to the definition elâtm . There is one difficulty here: if bruhi is the
example for elâtin, we will not know whether the word el(al n is a karmadharaya -
compound, meaning ‘consisting of one single finite verb’ or a bahuvrihi-
compound, meaning ‘containing one single finite verb’. The only alternative left
for Patanjali which can indicate both that the utterance should not contain
two or more different verbs and that elâtin as a bahuvnhi compound allows
other words in addition to a single verb, is to repeat the word bruhi . The sentence
bruhi bruhi cannot be covered by the definition al(hydiam etc., because no
qualifying word is there.
If Patanjali had chosen any other form than to repeat bruhi, and stated his
example as bruhi devadatta : ‘speak Devadatta!*, the expression would be covered
by the definition al?hydtam etc. Kaiyata misunderstood Patanjali here. By
supplying the word devadatta after bruhi bruhi he has obliterated the significance
of the example, for which he was duly criticized by Nagesa.
Summary showing which definition applies to which example:
1. uccaih pathati , mcaih pathati , susthu pacali , dusthu pacati are sentences
according to both the definitions. The number of finite verbs is one. The same
is true in case of odanam pacali , odanam mrduvisadam pacati.
2. bruhi bruhi is a sentence according to the definition el?atih, but not accord-
ing to akhydtam etc. The same holds gcod of the one verb sentence bruhi.
3. paca pasya ca devadatta (example given by Nagesa) is a sentence ac¬

cording to d^hyatam etc., but not according to eJâtin.
4. pacati (example given by Nagesa) is a sentence according to eâtin,

although Nagesa denies that. He thinks that, eJâtin being a bah uvn/ii-compound,
there should be something more in a sentence than just a finite verb. This is
not correct. Compare the term el(dc: ‘monosyllabic’ and the discussion in the
Paribhdsendusckhara of N;agojibhatta, ed. F. KlELHORN Part II, trsl.
pp. 134-3 (sec. ed. by K. V. Abhyankar, Poona 1960).
3. bruhi bruhi devadatta (example as supplemented by Kaiyata) is a sen¬

tence according to both definitions.
6. pacati bhavati (example mentioned by Kaiyata) is a sentence according

to akhydtam etc., but not according to eJ?atin.
XI. (Varttika: Purpose of the definition of the sentence )
Within the same sentence loss of accent and substitution for yusmad
and asmad (takes place).
115 . ( Bhasya : Explanation )
The word samdnavakye: ‘within the same sentence’ being put as a

section-heading, loss of accent and substitution for yusmad and asmad
Samarthdhnika
119
are to be stated (as coming under this heading). For which purpose?
So that loss of accent etc. would not take place, when (preceding non-
verb and following verb occur) in different sentences. (For imstance,)
ayam dando haranena: ‘here is a stick, catch with it’, odanam paca
tava bhavisyati: ‘cook the rice, yours it will be’, odanam paca mama
bhavisyati: ‘cook the rice, mine it will be’.
Nagesa 248 :
(On) ‘within the same sentence’. The word samana : ‘same* is (used here
as) a synonym of eâ: ‘one’. It means within one (and the same) sentence
as defined in that way 249 .
Note (106):
According to the definition a^hyatam savyayakdrakavisesanam (VarttiJâ
IX), the examples given in the present Bhasya might be regarded as single
sentence, because the Vdrttiâ does not make a restriction with regard to the
number of verbforms allowed in one sentence. According to Nagesa 250 the
definition given in this Vorttilâ applies to an utterance containing more
than one vreb also, if one of them is principal and the rest subordinate. In the ex¬
amples ayam dandah etc. hara and bhavisyati are the principal verbs. The
implied verb asti and the verb paca are subordinate, because the actions of
existing and cooking are subservient to those of catching and belonging to.
Consequently, the verb ham would be unaccented by P.8.1.28, because it is
preceded by a word which is not a finite verb and which occurs in the same
sentence. Also, substitution for tava and mama will be there.
But according to the definition elâtih ( Vdrttil?a X) the rule P.8.1.28 does
not apply to the example ayam dandah haranena , because the preceding word
dandah , which goes with the implied verb asti , cannot be considered as a part
of the sentence in which the verb hara occurs. Consequently, hara will retain its
accent (on the first syllable by P.6.1.162). In odanam paca etc. the words
tava and mama are not replaced by te and me, because the immediately pre¬
ceding wtord paca does not belong to the same sentence.
In the word samanava^ye and the follownig discussion, val^ya: ‘sentence* is

to be taken as defined by eâ/m, insofar as loss of accent and substitution for
yusmad and asmad are concerned.
248. P. 338: | I
249. I.e. as ekatin.
250. See Nagesa fn. 228.
120
XII. ( V arttika : A shortcoming pointed oui)
Prohibition (should be stated), when there is connection with ca:

‘and’, etc.
116 . (Bhasya : Explanatiori)
When there is connection (of yusmad and asmad) with ca: ‘and’,
prohibition should be stated. (For instance), grdmas tava ca svarii mama
ca svam : ‘the village is your property as well as mine’.
Nagesa 251 :
(On) ‘When there is connection . . . with ca etc.’. According to somc the

meaning (of this Bhasya) is that (the condition) samanavdkye: ‘within the
same sentence* is not supplied in the rule na cavahahaivayuklc . 252 This is wrong,
because it goes against the next Bhasya which says that in case of connection
with ca etc. (things go strictly) according to the rule 253 as we have it. More-
over, in your (just mentioned) interpretation, the gain is that you can apply
this prohibition (of substitution for yusmad and asmad) evcn if (the word
preceding yusmad and asmad occurs) in a different sentence also. Since in such
a case there is no (possibility to) apply substitution, the prohibition is totally
useless. Therefore (we must interpret this Varttika) to mean only prohibition of
substitution for yusmad etc.
Note (107):
VarltiJâ XI is interpreted m two ways:
1. Substitution for yusmad and asmad is not allowed, when these words are
connected with ca etc. But this is merely repetition of P.8.1.24. Thus the Vartlika
appears to be superfluous. Therefore, the next Bhasya says that Katyayana’s pur-
pose in repeating the sutra is to indicate that in the case of connection with ca
etc. he agrees with Panini and that his Varttika isamanavakye cannot take care
of this prohibition.
2. According to some the Varttika means: cadibhir yogc samanavdkye iti

etasya praiisedhah: ‘when there is connection with ca etc. (the Varttika)
251. P. 338: ^ ffa
;pfsrsrer erer i ^ i fa ^
ftrsrarwsfa cITStPT I <HÎSIT»*q*rT^r
tqszrfe i ra<s*r<tfTTîT5rfa$sr n
252. This rule, P.8.1.24, States that substitution for yu?mad and asmad is not allowed,
when they are connected with the particles ca, va, ha, aha, and eva.
253. I.e. according to P.8.1.24.
Samarthdhnika
121
samanavdkye does not apply*. That means substitution for yusmad and
asmad is prohibited, when these words are connected with ca, irrespective of
the fact whether the word preceding yusmad and asmad occurs in the same
sentence or not. For instance, in the expression Variate gramah . Tava ca mama
ca ayam patah : ‘There is a village. This cloth is yours as well as it is mine*,
the yusmad- form tava is preceded by a word gramah which belongs to a different
sentence. Since there is a preceding word, P.8.1.20 (which comes under the
adhiJ(dra-ru[e P.8.1.17 padat: ‘after a word* i.e. immediately preceded by a
word), would apply and cause substitution for tava. The present Varttika ,
however, in nuirifying the condition samanavafae for P.8.1.24, wants to prohibit
substitution for tava , when it is connected with ca. This implies that substitution
for lava when connected with ca would take place, if the condition samanavaf^ye
for P.8.1.24 is retained. But, as a matter of fact, this condition itself prohibits
the substitution, because the word gramah which precedes tava belongs to a
different sentence. So there is no gain in nullifying the condition samanavdkye.
Moreover, abolishing samanavdkye for P.8.1.24 would be regarded as a new
teaching. It would give the impression that Katyayana accepts samanavdkye
as a section-heading (i.e. condition) in case there is no connection with ca, and
rejects it when this connection exists, whereas Panini has stated a special rule
(P.8.1.24) regarding the substitution in case of connection with ca. But
Patanjali in the next Bhasya , says that in case of connection with ca things
go strictly according to P.8.1.24.
117 . (Bhasya : Objectiori)
Why is this (Varttika) stated? According to the rule 254 (as we have it),
prohibition is already stated, when there is connection with ca etc.
Nagesa 255 :
(On) ‘Why is this*. The question is raised why the prohibition 256 is stated
and the defmition of the sentence in the form of akhydtam savyaya- etc. 257
(is given). Precisely for this reason 258 the statement: ‘the designation “sen¬
tence** etc.’ in the text of the answer becomes appropriate.
Note (108):
The question is not restricted to Varttika XII, but refers also to the Varttikas
X and XI, because Patanjali, while answering the question, includes these
254. P.8.1.24.
255. P. 338: I ^
^ fWTfafr 5T^r: II «TcT II
256. Varttika XII.
257. Varttikas IX and X.
258. I.e. because the question refers to both prohibition and sentence-definition.
122
Mahabhasya ( P. 2.1.1 )
earlier Vdrttikas too by mentioning vdJ&asamjna: ‘the designation “sentence” *

and samanavdl())ddhif{dra: ‘the section-heading rule “within the same sentence” \
Something new is introduced here, (viz.) the designation “sentence” 259 ,

and the section-heading rule “within the same sentence”. One might
think that this 260 is an objectionable thing, because this leaves everything
open to doubt . 261 Therefore, our teacher 262 explains in a friendly way,
that in case of connection with ca etc. (things go) strictly according to
the rule 263 (as we have it).
Note (109):
Panini has accepted the sentence-definition given in Vdrttiâ IX, so Nagesa

says (see fn. 200). Panini also added a special prohibition of substitution for
yusmad and asmad , when they are connected with ca etc. (P.8.1.24). Katya-
yana, however, has given a new sentence-definition (ekatin, Vdrttilâ X) and
has introduced a new section-heading rule (samanavdfye, Varttika XI). This
might give the feeling that Panini and Katyayana teach different things, with
the resuit that everything is left undecided. Therefore, Patahjali warns us and
says that the Varttikas X and XI must be taken as a supplement to Panini’s
rules. P.8.1.24 is not to be considered as being at variance with Katyayana*s

Vdritikas and, therefore, to be discarded. According to Patahjali, this is what
Katyayana himself suggests by his Vdrttilâ XII which repeats P.8.1.24.
Patahjali indicates that not only P.8.1.24 is to be retained, but also the first
sentence-definition (see fn. 232).
119. (Bhasya: The purpose of the sentence-definition ekatin and of the

section-heading samdnavdJ?ye is pointed out)
Both this designation vdkya : ‘sentence’ and the section-heading

sammavdkye must be necessarily stated.
XIII. ( Varttika: Purpose of the nexo rules )
If loss of accent applies to semantically connected words, inclusion is

to be made of words which syntactically agree 264 and of words connected
259. I.e. the sentence-definition ekatin in Varttika X.
260. I.e. introducing the Vdrttikas X and XI.
261. Nagesa renders vikalpate as vydpnoti : ‘covers’. The sentence might then be
translated as follows: ‘one might think that that (i.e. Varttika IX and P.8.1.24)
is to be discarded, because this (i.e. Vdrttikas X-XII) covers everything’.
262. Katyayana.
263. P.8.1.24.
264. I.e. those words which refer to one and the same thing. They are not regarded
as semantically connected, because semantic connection requires two related
things. In the case of syntactical agreement there is only one thing. See note (111).
Samarihahnika
123
with connected words 265 , since they cannot be considered as semantically

connected.
Note (110):
Katyayana wants to introduce the section on nighata: ‘loss of accent* under

the heading samanavahye (V arttika XI), instead of under the samartha-
paribhasa. For that reason he defines what is Vakya: ‘sentence*. The present
Varttika States an objection against bringing the nighata- section under the domain
of the samartha-paribhasd .
120 . ( Bhasya : Explanatiori )
If loss of accent applies to semantically connected words, inclusion

should be made of words which syntactically agree and of words
connected with connected words.
(Examples) for words which syntactically agree: patave te dasydmi:

‘to you who are skilful I will give 5 , mydave te ddsyami: ‘to you who are
tender-hearted I will give 5 . So much for words which syntactically agree.
(Examples) for indirectly connected words: nadyas tisthati ku*le: ‘it

stands on the bank of the river 5 , vyksasya lambate sakhdydm : ‘it hangs on
the branch of the tree 5 , salinam te odanam dadami : ‘of grains I give you
rice’, salinam me odanam dadasi : ‘of grains you give me rice’. But why
is (loss of accent) not achieved? Because (the words concerned) are not
semantically connected.
Kaiyata 266 :
(On) ‘if loss of accent applies to semantically connected words*. (The word)
nighata is used in wider sense. It includes also substitution for yusmad and asmad.
(On) ‘to you who are skilful*. In this (example) there is lack of semantic
connection (between ‘you* and ‘skilful*), because of the special statement
samanadhikaranam asamartham bhavati : ‘when words syntactically agree, they
are regarded as not semantically connected.* 267 If the section-heading samana-
265. I.e. indirectly connected words. They are not regarded as semantically connected,
because the genitive case nadyah is not construed with the verb tisthati , but
with the noun kule. The same holds good of the other examples.
266. P. 338: | frsffir I WTctf>T5T*5T r srfr ||
3Rrfer
«jrpf JT ?*n?r i
267. See Bhasya No. 162.
124
Va/fpe 208 were not here, no substitution for yusmad and asmad would take
place 209 . In the case of indirectly connected words, grammatical operation would
evidently not take place, because there is no semantic connection.
Note (111):
In the examples of indirectly connected words the verb is unaccented according

to P.8.1.28: ‘a finite verb is unaccented when preceded by what is not a
finite verb*. This rule is a padavidhi (see Notes 82 and 83), since two finished
words are mentioned as conditions for its application. In the example rtadyas
tisthati l{ule the word nadyah is atin: ‘other than finite verb* and tisthati is
tin: ‘finite verb*.
The samarthaparibhasa (P.2.1.1), when brought to bear upon P.8.1.28,

States that loss of accent occurs in the finite verbform, when this is semantically
connected with what is not a finite verbform. The present Varttiâ says that, if
we adhere to the samartha principle, special statements are required for words
which stand in syntactical agreement and words which are indirectly connected.
In the example nadyas tisthati , l(iUe the verb is not semantically connected
with the preceding genitive, but it is indirectly connected, through the word kuie.
The verb tisthati goes directly with kule , because the action is located in Jûla.
With reference to nadyas the word Ifule is \)u^ta: ‘connected* and the word
tisthati is yul(taûl(ta: ‘indirectly connected*.
In the example salinam te odanam dadami semantic connection is between

salinam and odanam on the one hand, and between odanam and te on the other.
This means that te is Tju/fhnju/f/a with reference to satinam and reversely.
If the samarthaparibhasa is applied here, the rules P.8.1.22 and P.8.1.24

. will find scope within these sentences. But if we replace samartha by
samanavakya , these rules will find scope here, because the words concemed
occur in one sentence, according to both definitions of the sentence in VdrttiJ?as
IX and X.
In the example patave te dasyami , the words patave and /e, which syntactically
agree, refer to the same person. So semantic connection which requires two
different things is out of the question (see Bhasya No. 162 and fn. 264).
Therefore, te could never have been substituted for tava except by the present
Vdrttifya.
The Kielhorn-Abhyankar ed. p. 38, 1. 7 reads vr/fsaspa lambate sakhd.

The Banaras reading . . . sakhdyam is preferable, because in this way the
example shows a symmetrical structure with the earlier example nadyas . . .
kule. Tbe translation is based on the Banaras reading.
(HERE ENDS THE SEGTION ON THE DEFINITION OF THE SENTENCE)
268. This section-heading replaces the condition samartha supplied by P.2.1.1.
269. Because in the above examples semantic connection is regarded as to be lacking.
Samarthahnika
125
(NOW STARTS THE SECTION ON THE FORMATION OF THE COM-

POUND rajagazftk&ra)
XIV. (Varttika : Objectiori)
In the form rdjagavlksira : ‘king-cow-milk’ there is a possibility of two

(ways of) compounding, because two genitive cases are present here.
In the form rajagarflkslra : ‘king-cow-milk’ there is a possibility of two

(ways of) compounding. Why is that so? Because two genitive cases are
present (here). For here are two genitive cases: rajnah goh ksiram:
‘king’s cow*s milk\
Kaiyata 270 :
(On) ‘In . . . rdjagcriiksira’. The form rajagoksira would also resuit (which
is undesired) in the sense ‘milk of a cow, which (cow) belongs to a king* 271 .
Nagesa 272 :
Since both the compounds are desired in different meanings, how can there
be an undesired resuit? Therefore, (Kaiyata) says: ‘which belongs to a king*.
What it means is that (the form rajagoksira) would resuit in a particular sense
(viz. ‘ (king-cow) *s milk* ). We should understand that (we would obtain)
this undesired resuit in all views 278 .
Note (112):
From the uncompounded expression “king*s cow*s milk*’ two ways lead to
a compound, this depending on the priority we give to internal compounding of
the constituents of the compound to be:
270. P. 338: jK ?ff I TTSlt *TT ^«T^TT: SrWJTcfafomsT TPTiftST
sn^TrFr n
271. Rdjagavikstra means: ‘(king-cow)’s milk* and rajagoksira means: ‘king*s (cow-
milk)’. The compound rajagoksira is not desired in the meaning ‘(king-cow)*s
milk’.
272. P. 338-339: STTf-Tlffr I aP?fa<iNr
aTTTftrFTRr ?TT*r: i «fisam ii
273. I.e. in the vyapek$a- and in the ekdrthlbhaua-view. For the resulting meaning
it does not make any difference whether the compound-constituents retain their
meaning or not.
126
I. (king-oow) ’s milk,
II. king*s (cow-milk).
As will be shown in the following technical compound-formation, the t

ways of compounding do not resuit in the same compound-form.
J273a.
| [(rajan + Nas + go + sU)

{ [rajan 4- go
{[raja 4- go
{[rdjago + TaC
{ [rdjago + TaC + NlP
{ [rdjago + a + NlP
{[rajagav + a + NlP
{[rajagava + l
{[rajagav -f I
{ rajagavl
rajagavlksira
rajagav lustram
+ Nas] + [ksira + am]

+ Nas] + [k?i r a + am]
4* Nas] + [k?ira + am]
+ Nas] + [£stra + am]
+ k&ra
}+ am
}+ am P.2.4.71.
}+ am P.8.2.7.
}+am P.5.4.92.
}+ am P.4.1.15.
}+ am
}4- am P.6.1.78.
}+ am
}+am P.6.4.148.
}+a/n P.2.4.71.
+ m P.6.1.107.
II.
{ [rajan + Nas] + [ (go + Nas) + (ksira + am) 4- am] } 4 - am
{ [rajan 4- Nas] 4- [go + k?ira 4 - am] }+am P.2.4.71.
{ [rajan 4- Nas] 4“ [goksira

{ rajan 4- goksira
{ raja 4- goksira
{ rajagoksira
rajagoksira
rajagoksvram
4- am] }4 - am
}4 - am P.2.4.71.
}4 -am P.8.2.7.
}4- am
4- m P.6.1.I07.
When the taddhita-sufhx TaC is added (in the compounding I), then the
feminine ending NlP has to be used for expressing feminine gender. In the com¬
pounding II no TaC is added, because go does not occur at the end, but at
the beginning of the (intemal) compound.
The question now is whether the form derived according to I can have the
meaning of the form derived according to II. The answer to this is provided
by the next Varttika : siddham tu rajavisistayd ....
273a. First stage constituents are indicated by ( ),
second stage constituents by [ ],
third stage constituents by { J
Samarthahnika
127
122. (Bhasya : Objection refuted )
Why do you say: ‘possibility of compounding two words (in the

genitive with a third word)’? Because (in the rules dealing with com-
pound) c with one case-inflected word’ is present 274 (there is no possibility
for compounding two words with a third word).
Kaiyata 275 :
(On) ‘Why do you say*. He puts the question thinking that the meaning (of
dvisamasaprasanga ) is: ‘possibility for compounding two words which end in the
genitive case (with a third word) 1 .
(On) sup supa. Because (Panini) wanted to express (a particular) number 276
(in the expression sup supa) and because a group cannot be considered as
ending in a case-termnation, there is no possibility of compounding (two genitive
words with a third word).
Note (113):
According to the sup supa. rule a compound of more than two case-inflected
words at the same time is not allowed. An uncompounded group of two or more
case-inflected words cannot be regarded as itself being one case-inflected word.
Therefore, this group cannot be compounded with another word.
The technical compound-formation of the three words together would be:
[( rajan + Nas) + ( go + ftas) + (Jsira + am)] + am
[ rajan + go + £s5ra ] + am P.2.4.71.
[ raja + go + lustra ] + am P.8.2.7.
rajagoksira + am P.6.T.107.
rajagofysiram
No internal compounding of constituents is first made. The taddhita-sufiix TaC

(P.5.2.94) cannot be added, because go is not the final member of a compound.
It remains, however, ambiguous whether go goes with rajan or with £sTra.
Consequently, the compound may have two meanings: * (king-cow) *s milk* and
‘king’s (cow-milk) 1 . But the sup supa rule forbids this kind of compounding.
123 . (Bhasya: Intention behind the objection)
We do not take dvisamasaprasanga to mean this: ‘possibility of com¬

pounding two case-inflected words (with a third word)’. How then?
274. See Bhasya No. 22 and Note (25).
275. P, 339: | SOT: fcTO *T;^T II
276. I.e. the singular. See Kaiyata on Bhasya No. 22.
128
(We take) dvisamas apras an ga (to mean): ‘possibility of compounding

in two ways\ (Thus) the compound rdjagoksira would resuit also (in
the sense ‘king-cow’s milk’.)
124 . ( Bhasya : Third objeciion )
But (do you mean to say that this) should not be allowed ? 277
125 . ( Bhdsya : Answer to the third objeciion)
It should be allowed, when we use the following way of compounding:

(from) goh ksiram : ‘cow’s milk’ (we derive) goksiram: ‘cow-milk’;
(from) rajno goksiram: ‘king’s cow-milk’ (we derive) rajagokslram:
‘king-cow-milk’. But when we use the following way of compounding:

rajno goh k&ram: ‘(king’s cow)’s milk 5 then it should not be allowed,
and (yet) then there is a chance of making it. Why is it not allowed then?
Kaiyata 2 ™:
(On) ‘It should be allowed*. That is to say, in a different meaning 279 . And
thus the following (meaning) is conveyed (by the compound rajagol(siram):
‘milk characterized by cow, which (cow) belongs to a king\ But (the meaning)
‘(milk of) a cow qualified by a king’ is not conveyed.
Note (114):
The meaning conveyed is: ‘king*s cow-milk* and not ‘king-cow*s milk*. The
question is, why is not rdjagoksira formed in the sense ‘king-cow*s milk*?
XV. (Vdrttika : Answer)
But (what we want) is achieved, because (the word) goh: ‘cowV is

semantically connected with ksira : ‘milk’ which is qualified by rajan:
‘king’.
126 . (Bhdsya : Explanation)
This is achieved. How? Compounding takes place of (the word) goh:

‘cow’s’, which is qualified by rajan : ‘king’, with ksira : ‘milk’ (and) not of
(the word goh) alone. Is this to be stated by a special rule? Not necessarily.
How shall we understand it, unless a rule to that effect is being stated?
Just as (a person) is keen (to have milk) of a cow, and is not satisfied
277. For bhu meaning ‘to be, to be allowed’, see Note (48).
278. P. 339: I 11^^ Sftt TT^Wrfin-fjTftr
3cft*J?r i ifteg TtsrfafisreCT n
279. I.e. in the meaning ‘king-cowV milk\
Samarthahnika
129
with just any milk. In the same way, (a person) is keen (to have
milk) of a king(’s cow), because (he wants) milk of that cow which
belongs to a king.
Kaiyata 280 :
(On) ‘of . . . qualified by rajari. And therefore (the word) go is first joined
with rajari (and) afterwards with £szra. This is what (the Bhasya) means.
Nagesa 281 :
(On) ‘of (the word) go . . . first*. In which order we group words, in the
same order the rules of compounding are applied. That is what (Kaiyata)
means to say.
Note (115):
It is not just milk which is wanted, but cow’s milk. Then it is not just cow*s
milk, but king~cow’s milk. Thus the order of grouping referred to by Nagesa is:
first we group ‘cow* and ‘king* and then 'king-cow* and ‘milk*. Since in this
case go is qualified by rajari , the word go alone has no semantic relation with
ksdra, but rajago has. Therefore, no compound of go with /?svra can be in-
dependently formed.
127 . (Bhasya : Another answer)
Or again, in cases like this, there is no chance at all for compounding

(the word) goh: ‘cowV, which requires 282 rd;fln: ‘king 5 , with ksira :
‘milk’. Why (not)? Because there is no semantic connection. How (is
there) no semantic connection? ‘What requires an outside word is treated
as semantically unconnected’ 283 .
Kaiyata 284 :
(On) ‘Or ... no ... at alP. Since the word.go is connected with both
( rajari and £stra), go cannot be compounded with ksira according to the state-
ment ‘what requires an outside word is treated as semantically unconnected*.
But it can be (compounded) with rajari , because with respect to rdjan (the
word) go is the main word (of the resulting compound rdjago).
280. P. 339: yjsrfafWFTT 5% I ^ TT3TT tfspS: II
281. P. 339: jff- | II
282. I.e. ‘is qualified by*.
283. See Bha$ya No. 26 and Note (29).
284. P. 339: ^ | SWrfWTfe
*ft: SpTft', TT5TT 5 »T>: STsnsqTcT II
F.—9
130
Note (116):
If we first want to compound go with kslram, the word go would be the

subordinate member in the compound. If a subordinate member requires, i.e.
is qualified by, a word outside the compound, as is the case with go , then the
subordinate member is considered asamartha: ‘unfit (for semantic connection) \
This means that go cannot be compounded with ksira, since it is qualified by the
outside word rajan.
128 . (Bhasya : Objectiori)
Then how can we compound (the word) go with rajan, when it (i.e.
go) requires (i.e. qualifies) ksira ?
Then go becomes the main member there 2S5 . And compounding does
take place with the main member, even if the main member requires
(i.e. is qualified by word outside the compound) 286 .
(HERE ENDS THE SEGTION ON THE FORMATION OF THE COMPOUND

rajagavtkstra)
XI
(NOW STARTS THE SECTION DEALING WITH THE PURPOSE BEHIND

THE USE OF THE WORD padavidhi)
130 . (Bhasya : Question)
But why is the section-heading samartha : ‘semantically connected’

made with regard to padavidhi : ‘operation dealing with finished words’
(only) ?
Kaiyata 287 :
(On) ‘the section-heading samartha ’. The word adhil?ara: ‘section-heading*

is used in the meaning of paribhdsa : ‘interpretative rule\ because both of them
are meant for the sake of other (yidhi- rules). For adhil(dra means ‘commission*.
And this (meaning) also applies in the case of paribhdsa. And thus it will be
285. I.e. in the resulting compound.
286. See Bhd^ya No. 28.
287. P. 339: ^«nfsnfTR ?f=f I 'TITrzT^T^ ?TfT^rsf^T^S^n^T I fafrqtjft
^ffsppTT: i set ^ qfTsrnmtJPsrftar i rr«rr w 37. «ft ,y ^ A' tT
s r f s R n ft ftsmT sf* n ^ i sw
II
Samarihahnika
131
stated (in the Bhasya) on the rule kupvoh r ka - pau ca 288 that what is called
adhikdra is threefold 289 . Here the objection regards the use of (the word) pada :
‘finished word*. The rule should only read samartho vidhih : ‘a grammatical
operation (applies only to what) is-semantically connected’.
Nagesa 290 :
(On) ‘commission*. (It means) presentation (of a word) in another rule.
Note (117):
Kdsika on P. 1.3.11 has the following to say: Adhikdro viniyogah.

svariiagunayuktam sabdarupam adhikrfalvad uttarairopalisthalc : 4 Adhikdra
(means) commission. The word-form which is marked with svan/a-quality
presents itself in the subsequent rule, because it is commissioned (to do so)\
The passage in the Bhasya referred to by Kaiyata 291 is a repetition of an

earlier passage 292 . The following kinds of adhikdra are enumerated:
1. Located in one place, yet elucidating the whole grammar, just as a bright
lamp located in one place lights up the whole house.
2. Dragged along. Just as a piece of wood to which rope or iron has been
fastened is dragged along, in that way what is dragged along by the particle ca
is also adhikdra.
3. Presenting itself where needed from rule to rule, so that it need not be
stated (again and again). 293
A paribhasa (1 ) is applicable throughout the grammatical system. It is not

restricted to a particular ssction. It is not necessarily continued in subsequent rules.
It becomes operative in a rule which contains the condition for its application 294 .
Anuvrlti (2) refers to the process of continuing a rule having an independent

meaning of its own, or parts of that rule, in subsequent rules. The continuation
is generally without break. No intermediate rule can be left out. It does not function
as a section-heading. For instance, within the section armbhihiie (starting from
F.2.3.1), the word dviitya (from P.2.3.2) is continued without break up to
P.2.3.5.
Adhikdra (3) is a section-heading which functions only when connected with

the rules mentioned in that section. It is not dragged from rule to rule, but the
288. P.8.3.37.
289. See Kaiyata on Bhd?ya No. 5 and Note (4).
290. P. 339: | 5TT^T?cf^ ^Tf^fcT: II
291. Mbh. Vol. III (ed. F. Kielhorn, 1909), p. 341.
292. Mbh. Vol. I, p. 119, lines 9-12.
293. See Varttika 1 on P.l.3.11: Pratiyogarh tasydnirdeharthah.
294. For examples see Note (6).
132
connection of adhlâra and rule belonging to that section is direct. For instance
P.2.3.1 is the heading of the third part of the second chapter in the Astadhydyi,
but it is not continued in each subsequent rule. Discontinuation of this heading
occurs in case of P.2.3.8; P.2.3.1 6; P.2.3.32 and other rules.
XVI. ( Varttika : Ansrver )
The word samartha (is stated as a condition) with regard to padavidhi :

‘(rule prescribing an) operation for finished words’, because in case of
a rule dealing with phonemes we understand (that the operation applies
only) when (the phonemes concerned occur) in immediate sequence.
131 . (Bhasya : Explanation)
The section-heading samartha : ‘semantically connected’ is stated with

regard to padavidhi: ‘(rule prescribing an) operation for finished words’
(only), so that we should understand that in case of a rule dealing with
phonemes an operation (is to be performed) only (when the phonemes
concerned occur) in immediate sequence . 295 (Examt>les: ) tisthalu dadhy
asana tvath sakena: ‘leave the curds, eat vegetables’; tisthatu kuman-
cchatram hara devadatta : ‘don’t bother about the girl, take the umbrella,
DevadattaP.
Kaiyata 296 :
(On) ‘only ... in immediate sequence*. That means even without semantic
connection being there.
Note (118):
The question is why the section-heading samartha is restricted to padavidhi

only. The Varttika says: because in a rule dealing with phonemes immediate
sequence ( samhita , P.6.1.72) only is considered as the condition for gram-
matical operation, and not meaning-connection. Here the difference is stated
between varnavidhi : ‘(rule prescribing an) operation for phonemes’ and
padavidhi : ‘(rule prescribing an) operation for finished words*. The immediate
sequence of -i and c/i- in /fumari chatram causes the application of the augment
tUK as follows:
kuman + tUK + chatram P.6.1.75,
kuman + t A-chatram P. 1.3.2 and 3,
kuman + c + chatram P.8.4.40,
kumanc chatram .
In the case of dadhi asana also the rule P. 6.1.77 applies even in absence of
semantic connection between the words concerned.
(HERE ENDS THE SECTION DEALING WITH THE PURPOSE BEHIND THE
USE OF THE WORD padavidhi)
295. I.e. without taking into account whether the phonemes belong to words which
are semantically connected or not.
296. P. 340 : 3^r?[TrfqTTRr ffo I foTlfa ||
Samarthdhml(a
133
(NOW STARTS THE SECTION IN WHICH THE OBJECTION THAT P.2.1.1

IS MEANINGLESS IS REFUTED)
XVII. ( Varitika : Objection)
The use of the heading samartha : C semantically connected’ is meaning-

less, because it stands in syntactic agreement with the vidheya: c what is
to be prescribed’ (i.e. ‘predicate’).
This heading stands in syntactic agreement with the predicate. And

what is the predicate? Gompounding. To say samarthah padavidhih:
‘a grammatical operation deaiing with finished words is semantically
connected’ amounts to saying: ‘compounding is semantically connected’.
But in this (final) stage (of compound-formation) rajapurusah: ‘king-

man’ the heading samartha can neither allow (us) nor disallow (us) to
form anything (i.e. a compound). The use of the heading samartha is
meaningless, because it stands in syntactic agreement with the predicate.
Kaiyata 297 :
(On) ‘of the heading samartha\ The word vidhi is taken here as derived
in the passive sense only. 298 Its meaning should be taken as (grammatical opera¬
tion in the form of) compounding etc., deaiing with finished words. And the
Word samartha is taken as its appositional noun. This being so, it means that
nothing can be achieved by (using) the word samartha , because compounding
of words which are not samartha is not prohibited.
To explain more fully: a compound (formed) of words which are samartha is

automatically samartha . A compound also of words which are not samartha ,
(like that of rajnah and purusah in the expression) bharya rajnah puruso deva-
dattasya: ‘wife of the king, man of Devadatta’ is anyway formed, because
there is nothing to prohibit it. Even for a compound (formed) of words which
297. P. 340: 1 Wto I? tpT SW:,
*nmrrfirc«ff ^ *pt4 i
^ i ott i m
sraro: sr ^ i sfanmfrr ^ : snfq- fSpmr-
3rfW^r ?T^nmn :
298. See Kaiyata on Bha?ya No. 1.
134
Mahabhasya (P.2.1T)
are not samartha , no purpose is served by this (use of) the word samarlha ,
because (a compound of words which are not samartha) is produced (anyway),
and because (its) correctness is settled by anolher rule. 200
The negative compounds like alfimcit lûrvana: ‘doing nothing-whatsoever’
formed of words which are not samartha are discarded, because (all negative
compounds formed of asamartha words, insofar they are accepted) are enumerated
(and the rest is considered incorrect 300 ). Therefore, (the ruie samarthah
padavidhih ) is not meant for rejecting (compounds made of words which are
not samartha).
Note (119):
The word samasa generally means ‘compound’ as the finished product of the
process of compound-formation, like rajapurusah. In the present Bhasya , how-
ever, samasa refers to the process of compounding. Patanjali says that padavidhih
which is the vidheya : ‘predicate’ (literally: ‘what is to be prescribed’) stands
for samasa . Since padavidhi means ‘an operation for finished words’ it follows
that samasa must refer to the operation of compounding, and not to the resuit of
the operation. Thus the rule samarthah padavidhih comes to mean: ‘compounding
is semantically connected’. But what can that mean? Patanjali says, this is
meaningless. The rule thus interpreted does not contain any information about
the conditions in which compounding should or should not take place.
This is further explained by Kaiyata, as follows. The rule States that com¬
pounding is semantically connected. Compounding itself takes place either of
samartha or of asamartha words.
a. Suppose compounding takes place of samartha words, i.e. words which are
semantically connected. This is, in fact, desired. But it is not achieved by the
rule ‘compounding is semantically connected’. This rule only says that the process
of compound-formation must be semantically connected, whatever that may
mean. The rule does not say that a compound must be formed of words which
are semantically connected.
b. Suppose compounding takes place of asamartha words, i.e. words which

are not semantically connected. An example would be the compound rajapurusah:
‘king-man’, when formed out of the expression bharya rajhah puruso deva -
dattasya: ‘wife of the king, man of Devadatta’. Such a compound is undesired.
But the rule ‘compounding is semantically connected’ cannot prohibit it. The
rule does not say that a compound must not be formed of asamartha words. The
rule does not refer to the constituents of the compound at all.
Since the rule thus interpreted cannot be made significant with regard to com¬
pounding either of samartha or of asamartha words, Katyayana feels that the
299. P.3.2.36.
300. See Notes (43) and (44).
Samarthahnika
135
word samartha in the rule must somehow refer to the constituent words of the
compound, and not to the process of compounding. In the actual wording of
P.2.1.1, however, samartha is used in apposition to padavidhi , i.e. compounding,
and cannot, therefore, refer to the compound-constituents. This is why Katyayana
in his next Vartiil?a proposes a change in the rule and reads samarthanam pada~
vidhih: ‘compounding (takes place) of semantically connected words\ This
excludes words which are not semantically connected. Such a change in the rule
is necessary, so Katyayana feels.
XVIII. ( Vdrltil(a : Anstocr)
But (what we want) is achieved by reading (the word) samarthanam :

‘of (words) which are semantically connected’ 300a .
133 . ( Bhasya : Explanatiori)
This is achieved. How? The rule should read samarthanam padanam

vidhir bhavati: ‘an operation applies to words which are semantically
connected’.
Kaiyata 301 :
(On) ‘this is achieved’. Vacandi : ‘by reading (in the genitive)’ means
vydl?hydnat: ‘by interpreting (in the genitive sense)’. Padavidhih, is said to be
samartha in a secondary sense, because it concerns (words which are) seman¬
tically connected.
Note (120) :
The rule samarthah padavidhih , when taken literally, does not make any
sense. Katyayana proposes to change the rule and read samarthanam. Kaiyata
thinks it is not necessary to change the rule. We only need to interpret the word
samarthah in a secondary sense to mean samarthanam. See further Note (122).
(But) even so, it 302 would not be effective for one (word) or two
(words).
Kaiyata 303 :
Itaras tu . . . But somebody else, thinking that this is a rephrasing (of the
rule), says: *(but) even so*. Because just as in (the injunction) pasund yajeta:
300a. I.e. instead of samarthah in P.2.1.1 samarthanam is to be read.
301. P. 340: fg-g j I ^faf^TSTTCT-
302. I.e. the rule 2.1.1 in which the plural form samarthanam is mentioned.
303. P. 340: ^rg; TOfafafr I JTOT 'T5T f TT
II See Note 122 sub D.
136
Mahabhaspa (P.2.1.1)
one should sacrifice by means of an animal* number is intentionally used in the

(logical) subject (of the injunction), so also here 304 plural is intentionally used.
Note (121):
The objection says that strictly according to the plural form samarthanam,
since it requires a minimum number of three words for the application of P.2.1.1,
the condition samarlhanam would not be provided in the case of a grammatical
operation concerning one word (which would require the singular samarthaspa in the
rule), nor in the case of a grammatical operation concerning two words (which
would require the dual samarthapoh ). Kaiyata in his example refers to a
Mimamsa-doctune known as grahaifyalvanpdpa: ‘principle of singular number
for “cup” \ based upon the J aimimmimdmsdsulra 3.1.13: el(atvapulftam
efyaspa srutisavipogat: ‘(a word) is connected with singular number, because a
direct statement refers to one single (object)’.
According to the Mimamsakas the sentence graham sammarsti : ‘he cleans

a cup’ is paraphrased as sammarjanena graham bhavapel: ‘one should produce
the effect desired in a cup by cleaning’. 305 This again means graham uddispa
sammarjanam vidbdpalc: ‘with reference to a cup, cleaning is prescribed*.
The injunction pasund pajeta is paraphrased as pasund pagam bhavapet:

‘one should bring about a sacrifice by means of an animal*. This means "pagam
uddispa pasur vidhipate : ‘with reference to a sacrifice an animal is prescribed*.
Several things are to be noted here:
1. ‘Cup’ functions as the subject ( uddespa , i.e. that with reference to which
something is prescribed). The subject is the thing already known to us. ‘Clean¬
ing’ functions as the predicate ( vidhepa , i. e. that which is prescribed with
reference to something). The predicate is the thing newly communicated to us,
not known before.
2. The subject is guna: ‘subsidiary’ with regard to the predicate and the
predicate is pradhana: ‘principal’ with regard to the subject.
3. In the subject, number (and gender) are not intentionally used, i.e. have
no special significance attached to them. ‘Cup’ stands for any cup, not for one
particular cup. But, in the predicate, number (and gender) are intentionally
used. Therefore, in pasund number (and gender) are significant. Sacrifice should
be performed with one (male) animal.
304. I.e. in the rephrased or reinterpreted rule samarthanam padavidhih.
305. According to Mtmdmsa a verbal meaning can be paraphrased or construed as

an instrument ( karana), or as an object ( sadhya). The instrument-construction
is shown in the example graham, sammarsti , where sarhmrj - is paraphrased as
sammarjanena bhavayet. The object-construction is shown* in pasund yajeta,
where yaj- is paraphrased as yagarh bhavayet. For details see The Mimam-
sanyayaprakasa by Apadeva, ed. by V. S. Abhyankar, Bhandarkar Oriental
Research Institute, Poona 1937. p. 24.
Samarthahnika
137
Nagesa thinks that Kaiyata’s reference to pasum yajeta is incorrect, because

here pasu is the predicate. whereas in samarthdndm padavidhih the word
samarthdndm is a subject. According to the A/tmdmsd-doctrine the number of
the subject is not relevant. Therefore, Nagesa says that Kaiyata does not follow
the grahaikatva- principle, but rather presents an illustration: just as in pasima

number is intentionally used, so also in samarthandm .
XIX. {Vdrttilta : Ansrver)
Or, because (the form samarthdndm 300 ) is mentioned as ekasesa:

‘retaining of one (only) 5 .
135. (Bhasya : Explanation)
Or rather, this 307 is mentioned as ekasesa : ‘retaining of one (only) 5 .

(From) samarthasya : ‘(applying) to a semantically connected (word) 5 ,
and samarthayoh : ‘(applying) to two semantically connected (words) 5 ,
and samarthdndm : ‘(applying) to many semantically connected
(words) 5 , we derive samarthandm: ‘(applying) to many semantically
connected (words ) 5 . 308
Note (122):
(a) The expressions siddham tu and el(asesanirdesad vd in a sequence of

Vartliâs occur in several places in Mbh . 309 In ali of these cases siddham tu
serves as an answer by the siddhantin to an objection raised by the purvapaJ(Stn.
The alternative answer is indicated by vd. In the present case this means that
the Varitikas XVIII and XIX are alternative answers to the objection stated in
Varltil(a XVII, which points out that the word samarthah in P.2.1.1 is mean-
ingless. Vdrttiâ XVIII says that P.2.1.1 should be formulated differently as
samarthdndm padavidhih: ‘an operation concerning finished words applies to
semantically connected words*. Varttika XIX should state—although Pataiijali
gives a different explanation—that the word samarthah in P.2.1.1 may be taken
as an ekasesa- form representing ali cases and numbers of the word samarthah.
This means that samarthah is equal to samarthasya, samarthayoh , samarthdndm ,
samarthat , samarthe. Thus the rule comes to mean: ‘an operation concerning
finished words applies to one, two or more semantically connected words (them-
306. Or samarthah ? This latter is possible in case we take Kaiyata’s view that the
form samarthah in P.2.1.1 need not be changed into samarthdndm , but only
be taken in a secondary sense. See Note (122).
307. I.e. samarthdndm or samarthah.
308. ‘Derive’, that is by means of ekasesa. This is a kind of word-composition or

word-integration in Panini’s system. It is formed in the sense of ca: ‘and’ of
words which are alike in form and meaning, and which end in the same case.
See P. 1.2.64.
309. For instance, Mbh. on P.l.1.3; 4.3.120; 6.3.68; 8.4.68 and see also 2.4.58.
138
selves), (and also applies to a word) when it is preceded by a semantically

connected word ( samarthat ), (and also applies to a word) when it is followed
by a semantically connected word (samarthe) , 310 In the first case the word
samarihah refers to the word which is operated upon, in the other cases the
word samarihah represents the condition for the operation. 311
(b) Katyayana prohibits ckasesa of wordforms ending in different cases,

because it would involve contradiction in meaning. Varttil?a XIII on P. 1.2.64
States ckavibhaktyantandm iii tu prthagvibhal?tipratisedhdrtham : ‘the condition
ckavibhalttyantdnam: “of wordforms ending in the same case”, however, should
be stated in order to prohibit ckasesa of (wordforms having) different cases*. The
next Varttilâ says na varthavipratisedhad 1 jugapad vacanabhavah: ‘or (the
preceding Varltika need) not (be stated, because) wordforms (ending in
different cases) are not (construed) together (with one case-goveming word),
since (it involves) contradiction in mean : ng*. For instance, the form brdh -
manabhyam: ‘to both brahmins’ or ‘by both brahmins’ cannot mean brahmanaya:
‘to the brahmin’ and brahmanena: ‘by the brahmin’ together, when it is to be
construed with the verb in the expression brahmandbhydm Iflrtam: ‘done by
the two brahmins*. Here brahmandbhydm stands for brahmanena brahmanena ca
and not for brahmanena brahmanaya ca. Similarly, when brahmandbhydm is to
be construed with the verb da- in the expression brahmandbhydm dehi: ‘give to
the two brahmins’, the form brahmandbhydm cannot stand for brahmanaya
brahmanena ca , but only for brahmanaya brahmanaya ca. This implies that
ckasesa of words ending in different cases is theoretically allowed, when syn-
tactical construction does not involve contradictions as far as meaning is concemed.
But this is nowhere stated explicitly, nor do we have any example cited by
grammarians to support this.
(c) Why does Patanjali not explain the word samarihah in P.2.1.1 as
ekasesa} He cannot do so for two reasons: (i) El?asesa cannot be formed of
different cases. We cannot say that samarthasya samarthat samarthe is equal to
samarihah. (ii) An e/easesa-form does not occur in the singular. For ckasesa
the form should read samarihah. This is also the reason why Patanjali cannot
take the ekascsa-Vdrttilâ as an alternative answer to Vdrttifya XVII where the
word samarihah in P.2.1.1 is referred to. Patanjali is forced to connect the
ekasesa-Varttika with the directly preceding Varltika: siddham tu samarlhanam

etc. Here is a plural form samarlhanam which can be explained as ekasesa . The
difficulty was that the plural form samarlhanam would not cover the singular
samarthasya: ‘(applying) to one semantically connected word*, nor the dual
310. An example of samarthat is P.8.1.28. For samarthe see P.8.1.69. The technical
meaning of the ablative and locative cases in samarthat and samarthe is laid
down resp. in P. 1.1.67 and P. 1.1.66.
311. See paribhdM No. 10 in The Paribhasendusekhara of Nagojibhatta, Part II,
trl. by F. Kielhorn, p. 51.
Samarthahnika
139
samarlhayoh : ‘(applying) to two semantically connected words* 312 , if we con-

sider that plural is intentionally used. This difficulty is solved, if we take
samarthanam as an ekasesa- form, as stated in Varttika XIX.
There is, however, another difficulty. If we take the genitive samarthanam as

ekasesa to stand for (i) samarthasya (singular), (ii) samarthasya ca
samarthasya ca (dual), (iii) samarthasya ca samarthasya ca samarthasya ca
(plural), 313 how do we account for other case-endings than the genitive, as
samarthat , samarthe ? Katyayana has not considered this problem and
Patanjali is left to his own resources, without the help of a Varttika. Patanjali
tries to solve the difficulty by resorting to a somewhat farfetched way of
utlarapadalopin compounding as explained in Bhasya No. 139. The purpose of
Patanjali*s five way compounding expounded there is to show that the word
samarihah in P.2.1.1 may cover everything, all numbers and cases, independently
from Katyayana’s Varttikas. Patanjali’s explanation, however, leaves three things
unexplained:
(i) The use of the word Va in the ekasesa-Varttika.
(ii) Why should Katyayana in the ekasesa-Varttika give an interpretation of

the preceding Varttika: siddham tu etc., which was meant to be a rephrasing of
P.2.1.1? Katyayana never gives interpretations of his own Varttikas.
(iii) Why does Patanjali make such an effort to include other cases than the
genitive? They are, in fact, covered by the ekasesa- form samarthanam . This
word also stands for one semantically connected word. When a grammatical
operation is performed upon a semantically connected word ( samarthasya ),
conditioned by a following or preceding word, then the following or the preceding
word must necessarily be semantically connected also. That is to say, samarthasya
pade paraiah : *(a grammatical operation is performed) upon a semantically
connected (word), when followcd by a word’ cannot but mean: samarthasya
samarthe pade: *(a grammatical operation is performed) upon a semantically
connected word, when followed by a semantically connected word’. Similarly,
padat parasya samarthasya: ‘(a grammatical operation is performed) upon a
semantically connected word, when preceded by a word’ cannot but mean
samarthat padat samarthasya: *(a grammatical operation is performed) upon a
semantically connected word, when preceded by a semantically connected word*.
In order to have this meaning it is not necessary to supply the words samarthe
and samarthat in addition to samarthasya.
(d) Kaiyata seems to have no difficulties. He takes the Varttika: siddham

tu etc. as an interpretation ( vydkhydna ), not as a new formulation of P.2.1.1.
312. See Bhasya No. 134.
313. See Bhasya No. 135. The second case represents samarthayoh, the third case
samarthanam.
140
The word samarthah in this rule is interpreted in a secondary sense to stand for
samarthanam. Panini says padavidhi is samarlha. Really, padavidhi is not
samartha , but since padavidhi applies to samarlha words it may be called
samartha in a secondary sense, so Kaiyata explains. And if we can take samartha
secondarily to mean samcerthanam , we may as well take it to mean secondarily
samarthat and samarthe. Thus different case-endings will be included.
Kaiyata*s interpretation, in spite of the fact that it was based on Kasi!(d on

P.2.1.1 and followed by Bhattoji Diksita, cannot be accepted, because vacandi
never means vydlthydndt. Kaiyata is quite aware of the fact that Patanjali’s
explanation differs from his own. Patanjali thinks that the Varltilâ: siddham tu
samarthanam etc. is a rephrasing of P.2.1.1, as is, in fact, Katyayana’s intention.
But the plural form samarthanam will not of itself include other numbers than
plural and other cases than the genitive. Therefore, Patanjali gives his elaborate
explanation in Bhasya No. 139.
Kaiyata*s opinion is that this elaborate explanation is not required. The as-
sumption of secondary meaning for the word samarthah in P.2.1.1 will take
care of everything. Now Kaiyata’s problem is what to do with Patanjalfs ex¬
planation. To solve this problem he divides Patanjali into two persons, a
siddhantin and a siddhantyekadesin , 314 The siddhaniin Patanjali agrees with
Kaiyata, or rather the other way round, in saying that the word samarthah
is to be interpreted in a secondary sense to mean samarthanam. The siddhan-
tyckadcsin Patanjali is of the opinion that samarthanam is a rephrasing of
samarthah and tries to solve the difficulties connected with this view in the
Bhasya Nos. 133-139. That Kaiyata intends to make such a division is quite
ciear from the two short comments he makes: itaras tu patho *})am ili matva (on
Bhasya No. 134) and sarvam etad Vacandam ili malva: ‘considering that ali
this pertains to the new formulation’ (on Bhasya No. 138).
Kaiyata does not comment on the Vdrttil(a: el?asesanirdesad va. From his
point of view the Varttil?a is superfluous, the other numbers and cases being
covered by his interpretation of samarthah. This relieves him of the task to
explain the word va in this Vartti1(a. He need not bother whether efyasesanir-
desad va refers to the word samarthah in P.2.1.1 or to samarthanam in the
new formulation given in Varttil(a XVIII.
(e) Nagesa does not explicitly show approval or disapproval of Kaiyata’s

interpretation. In his comment on the words evam api: ‘even so* (on Bhasya
No. 134) he points out that the word va in Vdrttilâ XIX in Patanjali’s ex¬
planation is left unexplained. Bhasya No. 134 States the difficulty that the
form samarthanam would not include the singular samarlhasya nor the dual
samarthayoh. To remove this difficulty VarttiJâ XIX States: ‘or because (the
314. See fn. 7.
Samarthahnika
141
form samarthanam) is mentioned in ekasesa (representing other numbers also).

This, at least, is Patanjali’s opinion. But the word va: ‘or* indicates that this
is not the only one possible answer to solve the difficulty. There should be an
alternative. The alternative is now supplied by Nagesa, as follows:
1. The plural number in samarthanam is not intentionally used, it is non-

restrictive, i.e. it is not restricted to just plural, but includes singular and dual
also.
2. Or the form samarthanam is to be taken as ekasesa , and will, therefore,

include other (cases and) numbers also.
(f) Neither of the three explanations given successively by Patanjali, Kaiyata

and Nagesa is satisfactory. As stated before, according to Katyayana*s style,
Varttika XIX should be an alternative answer to Varttika XVII. There are
two difficulties in thus connecting the Varttikas XVII and XIX.
1. The singular form samarthah cannot be taken as ekasesa.
2. Ekasesa cannot be formed of words in different cases.
A way out of these difhculties, while yet adhering to Katyayana’s style, can
be suggested as follows:
ad 1. In the rules following after P.2.1.1 we do not want the plural or dual
of the word samarthah . Even if plural or dual were required we could use the
singular as non-committal number. We will retain the ekasesa- forms ghatau:
‘two jars\ ghatah : ‘(more than two) jars’ if we want to convey a particular
number to the exclusion of other numbers. By retaining the ekasesa- forms
samarthanam or samarthah we would limit the application of P.2.1.1 to
expressions where three or more semantically connected words occur. Since such
a limitation is not desired here, the singular is retained as a non-committal
ekasesa- form which will represent ali numbers as required by the subsequent
rules.
«i*
ad 2. Katyayana States that ekasesa cannot be formed of words ending in

different cases by saying: ‘since (it involves) contradiction in meaning*. This
may be taken to imply that ekasesa of words ending in different cases is allowed,
when no contradiction in meaning ensues. The word samarthah in P.2.1.1 which
is to be supplied in the subsequent rules requires different case-endings as suiting
to its construction in each particular rule. This would involve contradiction, if
all different case-forms were to be presented together m each subsequent rule.
But each rule will only select one case-form as is suitable to its construction. Of
these different case-forms of the word samartha , ekasesa is formed. The resulting
ekasesa- form is the word samarthah. The question of contradiction in meaning
does not arise in P.2.1.1, because the different ca$e-forms included under the
142
Mahabhasya ( P.2.1.1)
heading samarthah are not construed with a goveming word in that rule. F.2.1.1
merely States that the word samariha is to be continued. Formation of ekasesa
is meant to indicate that, instead of using the same word twice or more times,
its single mention wili represent ali. In offering the possibility of ekasesa for
the form samarthah Katyayana means to say that separate mention in the genitive
or ablative or locative is not necessary. The mention of the genitive plural form
samarthanam in Varitil?a XVIII limits the application of the rule P.2.1.1 to a
particular case and number. In opposition to this the nominative singular is not
committed to any number or grammatical case. See Mbh. Vol. I, p. 133, lines
11-13, where Patanjali States that wherever a word in the nominative is used
to indicate bare-stem-notion only, we are free to choose whatever case-ending we
want. See also Kaiyata on this passage. The nominative case does not express
more than the bare-stem-notion samariha. See further Note (31) on abhedai -
kalvasamkhya and Mbh . Vol. I, p. 95, line 25 ekavacanam utsargah karisyale :
‘a general rule will be formed (to say that) singular (is used without com-
mittment to any number)*. We are also not certain that an ekasesa- form does
not occur in the singular. Patanjali takes the word dvirvacanc in P. 1.1.59
(Mbh. Vol. 1, P. 156, lines 18-19) as an ekasesa- form, even if it occurs in
the singular and has two different meanings.
(g) The whole discussion of the commentators on P.2.1.1 starting from

Katyayana’s rephrasing is based upon the assumption that in this rule the word
padavidhh is vidheya: ‘predicate’ and that samarthah is uddesya: ‘subject*.
Once the rule is analysed like this the re is no other possibility to extract sense
out of it but to change the word samarthah into samarthanam. But once the word
samarthah is taken as vidheya and padavidKh as uddesya the rule comes to
mean: yatra padavidhih latra samarthah ili adhikriyate: ‘where an operation
concerning fmished words is prescribed, there the word samarthah : “semantically
connected’* is to be supplied*. Thus the rephrasing as well as the ensuing dis¬
cussion in the Bhasya to interpret the word samariha becomes futile.
136. (Bhasya : Objection)
Even so, (the condition samarthah ) would be effective from six

(words) onwards only, because ekasesa : ‘retaining of one (only)’ is
found to be fully applicable where six or more (words) are concerned.
Nagesa: 315
(On) ‘from six . . . onwards*. By not taking into account the kapinjaladhi-
karananyaya: ‘principle with regard to the topic of the partridges*.
Note (123) -:
Singular (samarthah) plus dual (samarthas ca samarthas ca) plus plural

(samarthas ca samarthas ca samarthas ca) makes s’x. Nagesa refers to the
discussion on the J gimmimlmamsasutra 11.1.38 bahuvacanena sarvaprapter
315. P. 341: II
Samarthahnika
143
vikalpah syat: ‘in using plural number, option should be there to take any
number (from three onwards)’, The problem is to determine the number of
partridges in the statement J?apmjalan alabheta: ‘one should kill partridges\
where the plural form is used. According to the pun>apal?sin the plural refers
to any number from three onwards, but, according to the siddhantin , plural is
restricted to three objects. The notion ‘three* will occur earlier to our nrnd than
that of ‘four* etc. By killing three partridges we can comply with the injunction,
we need not go for more. There is no authority to abandon the idea of ‘three’.
In the case of the plural form samarthanam also, we should restrict ourselves
to three samartha-w ords. Therefore, Nagesa says, Patanjali by mentioning a
minimum number of six, does not take into account the kapinjalanydya.
Actually, Nagesa misses the point. Patanjali does not explain efyasesa by
saying that samarthasya , samarthasya , samarthasya makes samarthanam , but by
saying samarthasya , samarthayoh , samarthanam. If we take the plural samar~
thanam as efcasesa for singular, dual and plural, the nrnimum number of objects
represented will be six, just as in the case of Jtapinjalan the minimum number
will be three. The kapinjalanyaya States that the minimum number should be
taken and this is exactly what Patanjali does.
137. ( Bhasya : Ansrver)
Nothing wrong here. A sentence (-meaning) fully applies to each
(word) separat ely, so (the rule 2.1.1) will apply even to one or two
words.
Note (124):
See Varttlka XII on P. 1.1.1 pratyavayavam ca vdl(yaparisamdpteh: ‘and

bccausc (the meaning of a sentence) is fully applicable to each constituent
part*. Patanjali illustrates this by the sentence: ‘Devadatta, Yajnadatta and
Vi§numitra have to be fed.* We do not say: each of them individually. But
the meaning of the root bhuj~ applies to each of them individually. The example for
the opposite view, that sentence-meaning fully applies to the whole only, reads:
‘The Gargas should be fined 100 coins*. Kings covet gold and (yet) do not
fine individually. What Patanjali means is the idea expressed by a sentence
applies to each individual separately or to ali individuals collectively. Following
the same principle Bhartrhari States that the sentence-meaning adheres to each
individual word as well as to the whole sentence. See Vakyapadlya II, 18
and 43.
138 . ( Bhasya : Objection)
Even so, (the condition samarthmam) would not be effective, when

(conditioning) words (are mentioned) in the case-endings other (than
the genitive). (For instance, a grammatical operation conditioned by) an
144
immediately preceding or following (word would not necessarily apply

to a word which is) immediately preceded or followed by a word seman-
tically connected (with the word undergoing the grammatical opera¬
tion). 315 *
Kaiyata: 316
(On) ‘Even so’. Thinking that ali this 317 is a rephrasing 318 (the purvapaJ(sin)
inquires again. (Example for) samarthat (paddt :) tinn aiihah. 319 (Example for)
samarihe ( pade :) lûisane ca supy agotradau 320
The V drtliiâ: el?asesanirdesad vd States that a grammatical operation like
compounding, loss of accent etc. applies to one, two or more semantically con¬
nected words. These are the words undergoing the operation. The rule 2.1.1
is effective only for the words on which the grammatical operation is performed.
That means that words mentioned as a condition for grammatical operations, like
paddt: ‘when preceded by a finished word’ (P.8.1.17) and pade: ‘when fol¬
lowed by a finished word’ (f.i. in P.8.1.28 and P.8.1.69) will not come
under the rule P.2.1.1, because they are not themselves operated upon.
In P.8.1.28 the condition paddt is continued from P.8.1.17. Patanjali wants

to interpret P.8.1.28 as follows: samarthat paddt atinah parasâ tinah
anuddtlo bhavati: ‘a finite verb, when preceded by what is not a finite verb
and which is semantically connectcd (with it), is unaccented’. Similarly,
P.8.1.69 is interpreted to mean: sagalir agalir api tin anudattah samarthe
subante: ‘a finite verb, whether it is connected with a word called gati 321 or not,
is unaccented, when followed by a case-inflected word denoting censure, which
is semantically connected with the preceding finite verb’. Patanjali fears that
P.2.1.1 will not supply the condition samariha , when words like paddt or subante
(i.e. pade) are mentioned which do not refer to words undergoing the gram¬
matical operation, but which function themselves as conditions for the applica-
tion of a grammatical operation to a following or a preceding word. Therefore,
Patanjali thinks that a special provision for such cases is required. It seems
that Pataiijali’s fear is without base. Suppose P.2.1.1 does not supply the con-
315a. Patanjali’s short statement samarthat samarthe paddt pade means that where
we have paddt, pade we want samarthat, samarthe also. But this is not possibie,
because paddt, pade do not refer to a word undergoing a grammatical opera¬
tion, but to a condition for the operation.
316. p. 34i: {rcripftfa -1 *iwr ^t: 11 grpsrffefa |
td^-Rfa ii q-TPT ffr i ^ wifoftr n
317. Vdrttika XVIII.
318. I.e. of the word samarthah in P.2.1.1.
319. P.8.1.28.
320. P.8.1.69 .
321. See P. 1.4.60 ff.
Samarihahnika
145
. dition samarlha in the form samarthdt or samarthe when the grammatical opera-
tion is conditioned by word$ like paddt, po.de, We can, however, certainly supply
the condition samarthasya with reference to tinah: 'a finite verb’ which is to be
operated upon. In that case the rules quoted above mean respectively atihantdt
padat parasya samarthasyq tihantasya anudatto bhavati: ‘a finite verb seman-
tically connected with a preceding word which is not a finite verb loses its
accent* and samarthasya tjnah anuddito bhavati fyutsane subante pare: *a finite
verb semantically connected with a following case-inflected word expressing
censure is unaccented*. far as the resulting operation is concerned it does not
make any difference whether we supply the condition samarlha to the conditioning
words padat pade 322 or to the word tinah which stands for the verbform under-
going grammatical operation.
As for P.8.1.28 Pollini does not teach here that a verb occurring at the
beginning of a sentence is accented. This rule is only obtained in Panini*s system
by applying the samartha-paribhdsa. When the word samartha is supplied,
P.8.l!28 comes to mean: ‘a finite verb is unaccented when preceded by a
word which is not a fiqite verb and which is semantically connected (with it)*.
When a verb occurs at the beginning of a sentence, it may be preceded by what
is not a finite verb as the final word of the preceding sentence. But the finite
verb would not lose its accent, because the preceding word is not semantically
cbnnected with it, since it does not belong to the same sentence. For instance,
the finite verb parsi in Rgv. VI, 4.8 stands at the beginning of a sentence and
is not semantically connected with the preceding non-finite-verb pathibhih. There
are several examples of this kind in the Veda.
If (the difficulty is) such, then (the words) samartha and pada are
compounded with the word vidhi in such a way that ali case-endings (of
samartha and pada are represented) : 323
4-1. (from) samarthasya vidhih (we derive) samarthavidhih :

‘operation applicable to (a word which is) semantically connected’.
A.2. (from) samarthayor vidhih (we derive) samarthavidhih: ‘opera¬

tion applicable to two (words which are) semantically connected’.
A.3. (from) samarthdndm vidhih (we derive) samarthavidhih: ‘opera¬

tion applicable to (more than two words which are) semantically con¬
nected’.
322. See Note (122) sub C.
323. The wrod sarvavibhaktyanta does not necessarily mean all case-endings. It may be
taken to mean as many case-endings as we require. Samdsah sarvavibhaktyantah
does not mean a compound ending in all case-terminations, but a compound
the first member of which ends in all cases required for our purposes. See Mbh.
Vol. I, p. 133, line 9, and Kaiyata and Nagesa on that passage.
F—10
T46
A.4. (from) samarthad vidhih (we derive) samarthavidhih : ‘opera¬

tiori applicable to (a word) which follows directly after (the word)
which is semantically connected (with it)’.
A. 5. (from) samarthe vidhih (we derive) samarthavidhih: ‘operation

applicable to (a word) which directly preceeds (the word) which is
semantically connected (with it)’.
B. l. (from) padasya vidhih (we derive) padavidhih \ ‘operation appli¬

cable to an inflected word’.
B.2. (from) padayof vidhih (we derive) padavidhih : ‘operation appli¬

cable to two inflected words’.
B.3. (from) padanam vidhih (we derive) padavidhih : ‘operation appli¬

cable to (more than two) inflected words’.
B.4. (from) paddd vidhih (we derive padavidhih : ‘operation applicable

to (a word) directly preceeded by an inflected word’.
B. 5. (from) pade vidhih (we derive) padavidhih : ‘operation appli¬

cable to a word directly followed by an inflected word’.
C. l. (A 1) samarthavidhih ca (A 2) samarthavidhih ca (A 3) samar¬

thavidhih ca (A 4) samarthavidhih ca (A 5) samarthavidhih ca (make) :
samarthavidhayah.
C. 2. (B 1) padavidhih ca (B 2) padavidhih ca (B 3 1 ) padavidhih ca

(B 4) padavidhih ca (B 5) padavidhih ca (make) : padavidhayah.
D. (from) (C 1) samarthavidhayah ca (C 2) padavidhayah ca (we

derive): samarthah padavidhih.
The first compound 324 shows loss of its final member. A case-ending 325
is (added) as one pleases.
Kaiyata 326 :
(On) ‘the first compound . . . member*. That means that the word vidhih
is dropped, because its meaning is understood. That means that the word
324. I.e. samarthavidhayah.
325. Here the emphasis is on the number indicated by the case-ending.
326. P. 341: ijf: *TqT'T I 3^4: I *pt4’-
i =3r 'T^rsq-fzr
fkwfakfr i <srtef%5reTT*rrP;Tczr wnm
f*T fcq«T: 11
Samarthahnika
147
samartha can only refer to vidhih: ‘operation\ because (it is only vidhi which)
concerns words which are samartha: ‘semantically connectecT. And since the
word pada ending in the genitive case, which expresses relation in general, is
compounded with the word vidhih , the meaning of another case-ending is implied
also, (and) therefore everything is accomplished by the rule 327 itself.
(on) ‘case ending ... as one pleases*. When it is possible (to choose
between) specific and non-committal intention of statement, we opt for non-
committal (and therefore the word samarthah) is put in the nominative case.
Note (126):
After Patanjali has formed the compounds samarthavidhayah padavidhayah

and has dropped the first -vidhayah, the problem remains, why Painini has not
formulated the rule as * samarthah padavidhayah* . Patanjali*s answer is:
yadrcchikH vibhakiih , that means, the singular is regarded as a general number.
See Mbh ., Vol. I, p. 95, line 25: ekavacanam utsargah karisyate: ‘singular will
be made as the general rule (of which dual and plural are exceptions) \
Kaiyata is not satisfied with Patanjali’s five way derivation of samarihasya

vidhih padasya vidhih. He thinks that Paninfs rule means: samarihasya vidhih
padasya vidhih , where the genitive case samarihasya and padasya will include
other numbers and cases also, because the genitive expresses relationship in
general. It is, therefore, not necessary to take samarthavidhayah and pada -
vidhayah as ekasesa- forms. In Kaiyata*s explanation padasya vidhih is repre-
sented by padavidhih , whereas the vidhih belonging to samarihasya is actually
implied by the word samarihasya , so no need for dropping it arises. Now the
problem is, why Panini has used the nominative case samarthah padavidhih
rather than the genitive. Kaiyata’s answer is: yadrcchiltf, vibhakiih which he
takes from Patanjali, although he uses it in a different meaning, namely that the
case-ending (not the number) is added as one pleases. Kaiyata says that the
nominative case is a non-committal one and is to be preferred to any other case.
So, in the end, the suira is to be retained as it is formulated by Panini, since
it accounts for everything. Throughout this passage Kaiyata quietly insists upon
his opinion that the new formulation by Katyayana and the elaborate explana-
tfon by Patanjali are not needed. By just resorting to secondary sense ( upacdra)
the sutra can be explained so as to cover ali numbers and cases required and
no change in the formulation is necessary. This is the explanation which Kaiyata
tries to impose upon Patanjali*s interpretation.
As for Patanjali, his concem is to reject Katyayana’s new formulation by

a laborious analysis and to retain Panini’s own wording. Katyayana prefers to
read samarthanam instead of samarthah, although he suggests ekasesa as an
327. P. 2.1.1.
148 Mahdbhasya (P.2.1.1)
altemative possibility. But all of the commentators stumble over the word
samarthah.
(HERE ENDS THE SECTION IN WHICH THE OBJECTION THAT P.2.14 IS

MEANINGLESS IS REFUTED)
XIII
(NOW STARTS THE SECTION IN WHICH THE QUESTION OF SYNTAC-

TIC AGREEMENT IS EXPLAINED)
XX. ( Vdrttika : Objectiori)
Because semantic connection is lacking there, inclusion should be made

in the case of words which syntactically agree. 328
Inclusion is to be made in the case of words which syntactically agree:

(from) vir ah purusah: ‘brave man’ (we derive) virapurusah : ‘bravc-
man’. But why cannot we make (this form without the help of the
special statement i.e. Vdrttika XX)? Because semantic connection is lack¬
ing (here). How is there no semantic connection?
XXI. (Vdrttika : Answer)
(Semantic connection will be lacking,) if one takes the view that the
individual object is the word-meaning.
If the individual object is (taken as) the word-meaning, then semantic

connection is lacking (there). But if quality is (taken as) the wqrd-
meaning, then semantic connection is there. For ‘.bravery’ is one quality
and ‘manhood’ anothey.
1 Kaiyata 329 :
(On) ‘in the case of words which syntactically agree*. Some teachers have
accepted (the view) that individual object is the word-meaning. Others (say)
328. Words which syntactically agree are to be considered as semantic l ally uncon-
nected, see Vdrttika XIII and Bhasya No. 121. The word samdnddhikaranti has
twp meanings: 1. referring to the same object ( adhikarana meaning dravya:
*objectY see also Bhasya No. 161), 2. syntactically agreeing (adhikarana meaning
vibhakti, i.e. either case-ending or verbal ending). Throughout the following dis-
cussion the first meaning is used. The discussion introduced by Katyayana hcrc
has philosophical connotations rather than grammatical ones.
329. p. 341 : jpn 7 nfa’ 3 f>T | irf^f?r i 'r^nf srfirr^rr: i %^r?T|rfar«T ; i
Samarthdhnilâ
149
dlfrti: ‘genus* (is the word-meaning). The word guna: ‘quality’ also refers to
genus, as in yasya gunasya bhavad: ‘because of the nature of its quality*. 33 *
(And) because of the (following) definition of guna: ‘whatsoever is (al-

ways) connected 331 (and whatsoever) differentiates (and whatsoever) is
operative 332 , this is declared in Science to be quality, because of the fact that
it (always) depends on something else’. 333 If with regard to the example given
we take the view that individual object is the word-meaning, (then) the two
words virali purusah denote one single object, and not ‘bravery* and ‘manhood*
(separately). This being so, compounding will not take place, because semantic
connection is lacking, since it is impossible (to postulate) here a connection
which requires difference (of wordmeanings). For there is no difference (in
objects referred to, and so) a special statement (is required).
(On) ‘But if quality*. ‘Bravery* and ‘manhood*, although located in one

and the same individual, are denoted by these (two different words vir ah and
purusah ), so there is a relation which requires difference, that is what (the
Bhasya) means to say.
334: P. 341:
(On) ‘genus*. The word ‘genus’ refers to the cause of employing (a par-
ticular word with reference to a particular object).
Note (127):
Relation involves two things related.. If. a word is.taken to stand for an indi¬
vidual 1 object, then, the expression ‘brave man* would refer to only one object,
namely ‘man*. So we cannot speak of a meaning-relation here. But if we be-
lieve that a word stands for quality, we may say that the expression quoted
refers to two qualities: ‘bravery* and ‘manhood*. In this way meaning-relation
is possible even though both qualities are situated in the same object. See also
Vdtttika XIII and Bhasya No. 120.
tfsfwrer hsjtttp; smtafr i
«TwsmfrRpf ^5rrwrf g ogfryK finforfr h 5
^ 1 rpr 'fcrflTOTJTW 3Rrftr *rr*r®T ?r
jrMWfr^Tw 11 srq- f| Tpr 1
330. Varttika 5 on P.5.1.119.
331. I.e. with a substratum.
332. I.e. having purposive function
333. I.e. on its substratum. The qUotation is from Vakyapadxya III, 5.1.
334. P. 341: 3TTffafafcT I srrffaST#! STffTTftfarnrei# II
150
What Nagesa means to say is that we use a particular word for a parlicular
object, because the object possesses certain qualities. Therefore guna : ‘quality’
becomes pravrttinimitta : ‘cause of employing (a particular word for a parti¬
cular object) \
142 . ( Bhdsya: Refutation of the opinion that difference is the reason for
semantic comection)
(One can) not (say that) semantic connection is there just because
difference is there. For Devadatta is different from both cows and
horses. But just because of that (one cannot say that) there is semantic
connection (between the word ‘Devadatta’ and the words ‘cow’ and
‘horse’).
Kaiyata 335 :
(On) ‘difference*. Semantic connection arises (between the two meanings)

not just because they are different (from each other), but (it arises) when they
intend to point out (mutual) assistance.
Nagesa 336 :
(On) upali&ra. Upal(dra means (here) assistance (given by words) in form-

ing the connection (between the two wordmeanings) through the relation of
qualifier and qualified. 337
143 . ( Bhdsya : Counterobjection)
What difference (do you have in mind when saying) that there would
be semantic connection, if we take quality as wordmeaning, and not, if
we take individual object (as wordmeaning)?
144 . (Bhdsya : Ansrver to counterobjectwn)
The difference is this: both (qualities) have the same substratum (i.e.
inhere in the same individual object). (But the qualities are different,
because) ‘bravery’ is one quality, ‘manhood’ another.
'Kaiyata 338 :
(On) ‘both (qualities) have the same.* So by means of these (qualities)

the relation of qualifier and qualified is there.
335. P. 342: | OTtfTCfwrWf Sn*T®f STPTcWrWrJrf: II
336. P. 342: \ I
337. To particularize the object endowed with the quality of ‘manhood* (i.e. ‘man’)
the assistance of the quality ‘bravery’ which also resides in that object (‘man’)
is utilised.
338. P. 342: I II
Samarthahnifya
151
145 . ( Bhasya : Ansxver rejected)
Then even to him who accepts individual object as wordmeaning

there would be semantic connection, because different qualities are there.
Kaiyata 339 :
(On) ‘even to him who accepts individual object as wordmeaning’. (Words

referring to) even one single object undergo bhedak&rya: ‘grammatical opera-
tion based upon (a relation which requires) difference*, because the relation
(which exists between two wordmeanings) exists between (two) different
qualities.
Nagesa 340 :
(On) bhcdakarya . (That is) a kind of mutual relation of qualifier and

qualified. 341
Note (128):
Kaiyata probably means by bhedaJ?drya a grammatical operation like com-

pounding which requires a relation between different meanings. For this inter-
pretation we have to supply the phrase ‘words referring to’ in Kaiyata’s state-
ment. But Nagesa interprets bhedal(drya as adjective-noun relation. He may
have taken the word /fdnja in its literal sense of ‘to be produced, to be effected’,
since the adjective-noun relation is to be effected by, i.e. is produced by a
difference (in denoted meanings). Probably Nagesa could not interpret the
term bhedakdrya in the statement dravyam bhedaâryam labhate to mean ‘gram¬
matical operation’, because drav\)a cannot be said to undergo a grammatical
operation, but it can be treated as different owing to the difference in the qualities
inherenf in it.
146 . ( Bhasya : Ansrver justified)
For a man who takes individual object as wordmeaning it is impossible

to acknowledge help given by qualities (for establishing differentiation
witMn the same object).
Kaiyata 342 :
(On) ‘it is impossible’. Because quality, although it functions as the cause

jbr differentiation, is not denoted by the word. 343
339. P. 342: I ^ II
341. See fn. 317.
342. P. 342: | II
343. I.e. if one takes dravya: ‘individual thing’ as wordmeaning.
152
147 . (Bhasya : A nsjver rejecled)
But is it not a fact that (quality is within (the object))?
Kaiyata 344 :
(On) ‘But is it not so\ Because dravya: ‘individual object’ and guna:
‘quality* are invariably connected. This is what (the Bhasya) means.
148 . (Bhasya : Answer justified)
Even when it is within, stili it is not apprehended (through the word).

When (the word) ‘molasses’ is said, (the quality of) sweetness is certainly
not apprehended, nor (the quality of) pungency, when (the word)
‘ginger’ is used.
Kaiyata 345 :
(On) ‘Even when’. Because (the quality) is closely associated with the
(individual object), (it can) — even when (the quality) is not directly ex-
pressed — (be considered as being) within, because (the quality) is a cause
for differentiation.
(On) ‘stili . . . not apprehended’. That means, (the quality) is not explicitly
stated by the word.
Nageisa 346 :
Ayarh bhavaih . . . The idea is this: There are many qualities invariably
connected with an individual object. But not all of them are always preseat (in
our mind) through recollection. Therefore, unless (these qualities) are pre-
sented through words, it is impossible to say that they differentiate (the indi¬
vidual object). This is what (Kaiyata) means to say.
Note (129):
What is not expressly denoted by the word cannot help to differentiate tle
object. Nagesa interprets the word samnidhi: ‘neamess’ in the sense of smrti:
‘ (association caused by) remembrance*.
344. P. 342: =#% \ W?T II
345. P. 342: | 3T^F^^nTPftpT II ^ ^
I ^ ll
346. P. 342: 3PT WT:
Samarthahnika
153
149 . ( Bhasya : Answer rejecied)
Then even for him who accepts quality as wordmeaning it is im-

possible to acknowledge help given by the individual object to the quality?
Kaiyata 347 :
(On) ‘Even for him who accepts quality as wordmeaning*. That means,
if helpfulness of what is not expressly denoted is not accepted. Or, even if help-
fulness of what is not expressly denoted is accepted, then (this 348 ) wili be the
same in both views.
150 . ( Bhasya : Ansmer justified)
But suppose that he who accepts quality as wordmeaning does ac-

knowledge (help of the individual object to establish semantic connection,
what then?). ; v.
Nagesa 349 :
(On) In the Bhasya: ‘suppose that he . . . does acknowledge*. (Here) we

have to supply: ‘compounding of words which syntactically agree*.
Note (130):
According to Nagesa the Bhasya means this: ‘But suppose that he who
accepts quality as wordmean : ng admits compounding of words which syntac¬
tically agree*. In. the translation given above the object of pratijamte is upalâram
(as in Bhasya No. 149). Nagesa takes samasam as the object. Ultiniately.it
comes to the same, because in ,admitting upaâra :. _*help* of qualities, the pos-
sibility for a relation is created, which itself forms the j basis for compounding.
151 . ( Bhasya : Counlerargument)
(Then) why would not the man who accepts the individual object
as wordmeaning also acknowledge (help of the ^quality io establish
semantic connection)?
152. (Bhasya : Counierargument rejecied )
In this way (it is problematic whether) there would or would not be

semantic relation between those two (syntactically agreeing words vir ah
and purusah ).
347. P.
| II 3pq73T^r-
348. I.e. the fact that help is required. If we accept this help, sdmdnadhikaranya is
possible in both views, otherwise not. See also Note (131).
349. P. 342: ^ , ^TRKTfkîpTt: SfllWfafcf II
154
Note (131):
To maintain semantic connection between two syntactically agreeing words

the one meaning needs the help of the other meaning, either as an individual
object or as a quality. If mutual help is admitted, semantic connection will be
there, whether the word denotes quality or individual object. If mutual help is
not admitted, there will be no semantic connection, whether the word denotes
quality or individual object.
153 . (Dhasya : Counterobjectiori)
But where indeed would (the rule vis e sanam visesyena bahulamJ 50
without causing a probi em of semantic connection) apply 351 with a word
which syntactically agrees?
Kaiyata 352 :
(On) ‘But where indeed*. That means, if one does not accept help of what
is not expressly denoted by a word.
Nagesa 353 :
(On) ‘With a word which syntactically agrees*. That means a qualifier

(word) with a syntactically agreeing qualified (word). 354
154 . (Bhasya : Counterobjectian rejected)
Where everything is the same, as in indrah sakrah puruhutah puram -

darah (and) kanduh ko&hah kusutah.
Kaiyata 355 :
(On) ‘Where everything*. He thinks that (the word samanadhikarana in

samanadhikaranena samasah: ‘compounding takes place with samanadhikarana
350. P.2.1.57 States that often a qalifier (i.e. adjective) is compounded with a quali¬
fied (word, i.e. noun). In P.2.1.57 the word samanadhikaranena is continued
from P.2.1.49. The word samanadhikaranena in the Bhasya text refers to com¬
pounding prescribed for a word which stands in syntactical agreement. For this
compounding reference to two different meanings one of which functions as an
apposition to the other is required. Samanadhikarana- words, however, have the
same reference. See Note (127).
351. I.e. without giving rise to the problem whether we have to acknowledge help
of the individual object as wordmeaning or of the quality as wordmeaning.
Gan an instance be shown where this problem does not arise?
352. P. 342: ^ ^ | qWRffrWTRTR II
353. P. 342: I II
354. See P.l.2.42 and P.2.1.57.
355. P. 342-343: ^ | ZTFT
? i srfa wfitr ?rw xfirgi&m rst%5
Samarthdhnika 155
word) means having one adhil(arana , i.e. reference to the same object, i.e. with
a synonym. 356 And then where the cause of employing (a word with reference
to a particular object) is identical and also the (object) referred to is the same f
there (a case of samanadhikarana compound) arises. But how can there be a
relation of qualifier and qualified (in indrah sacrali etc.)? The answer is that
to someone that object is wellknown by some designation, but not so by an-
other designation. Therefore (the designation) which is wellknown will be
qualifier and that which is not wellknown will be qualified.
Note (132):
The words listed in the example are synonyms. The first four of them stand
for the name of Indra, the remaining three for ‘granary’. The names of Indra
are mentioned in AmaraJôsa I, 41 a: indro .... 41 b: puruhudah puramdarah ,
42a: . . . sa^rah. 357 Amarakosa III, 3,40 358 lists: . . . fôstha . . .
kusulo . . . , but not tyandu which is separately listed 359 in another meaning.
According to this view of samanadhikarana , compounds are only allowed of

synonyms, f.i. a (hypothetical) compound like indrasakrah. In the case of
synonyms the pravrttinimitta: ‘cause of employing (a word for a particular
object)* is, of course, the same. In the expression nilo ghatah: ‘black jar* the
vdcpa: ‘(object) to be referred to* is one, namely ‘jar\ but there is a difference
in pravrttinimitta. The word nila refers to the object *jar\ because this latter
possesses the quality rnlatva: ‘blackness*. The word ghata refers to the object,
because this latter has a particular shape, typical of a pot ( ghatatva ). But in
the case of synonyms there is no difference in pravrttinimitta , nor in vacya.
155 . (Bhasya : Countcrobjection justified )
We cannot form a compound of such (synonymous) words, nor do

we receive (any) information (from such a compound) either. Why
not? Words are used for the sake of understanding of meaning. I want to
convey a meaning, with that intention I use a word. This being so, we
should not use a second word 359a since meaning has (already) been ex-
pressed by one (word). 359b Why not? Because (words) are not used to
denote meanings which have (already) been expressed by other words.
Kaiyata 360 :
(On) ‘not . . . of such*. That means, because (synonyms) are not used to-
gether at the same time, and because there is no meaning-relation. 361
356. See fn. 360. The word adhikarana stands for vacya: ‘referent’.
357. Amara’s Ndmalingdnusdsanam, ed. by H. D. Sharma and N. G. Sardesai,

Poona 1941, p. 14.
358.. Ibid., p. 279. ...
359. Ibid., p. 206.
359a. I.e. a synonym of the first word.
359b. I.e. the first word.
360. P. 343: I II
361. See Note (127).
156
Note (133):
If it is not known to which object the word ‘Indra* refers, we may explain
by saying that ‘Indra’ has the same meaning as ‘Sakra*. What is conveyed by
the word ‘Indra* in this case is the word-form i-n-d-r-a only, and it does not
stand for any object. The statement indrah sal^rah usually points out that the
first word indrah is synonymous with the second word sakrah. They are not used
in language together to convey additional information. We can use them to-
gether when they differ in imaginative association and poetic values. But in that
case they cease to be synonyms of each other.
156 . ( Bhasya : Objection)
Then (do you mean to say that) the following compound is not ai-
lowed: bhrtyabharanlya: ‘servant’?
Kaiyata 362 :
Bkrtyabhararuya. The idea is that this is usage accepted by scholars.
Note (134):
Bhrtya and bharamya are synonyms, meaning ‘servant*.
157 . ( Bhasya : Ansrver)
These two (words are) not synonyms. In the example given one;
(word) is (derived by means of) a A?/y< 2 (-suffix) in the meaning ‘pos-
sible, 363 , the other in the meaning ‘worthy of’. 364 Bhrtya (means)
‘capable of being maintained’. Bharaniya means ‘worthy of being main-
tained’. (From) bhrtyah bharaniyah : ‘capable of being maintained as
well as worthy to be maintained’ (we derive) bhrtyabharariiyah.
Kaiyata 365 :
(On) ‘These . . . not*. That means that they have different meanings, be-
cause there is a difference in associative features.
Note (135):
The features associated with bhrtya and bharaniya are respectively sakyatva
and arhatva. Theoretically the difference in meaning between these two words is
this that the first word expresses the capability of the master to maintain a
servant, and the second word the worthiness of the servant to be maintained
362. P. 343: I ^TR: II
363. P.3.3.172.
364. P.3.3.169.
365. P. 343: | II
Samarthahnika
157
by the master. The compound bhrtyabharaniya is not a dvandva , but a

karmadharaya , because reference is to one and the same object. Compounding is
possible, because a relation of qualifier and qualified can be maintained between
bhriya and bharanlya.
If (you argue like this), then (syntactic agreement) should be wher-

ever there is something in common and (wherever is) some difference.
Then it would allso be here: (from) darsaniydyd mata : ‘mother of a
-beautiful (daughter)’, (we derive) darsantya mata : ‘beautiful mother’. 366
Here also (there is) something in common and there is some difference.
But what is that? Existence and difference.
Kaiyata 367 :
(On) ‘beautiful mother*. That means, if compounding is made by appealing

to something in common, although difference is (also) there, then, just as com¬
pounding is made by appealing to something in common 308 in the case of
virapurusah : ‘brave-man*, although dravya: ‘individual object* is not exprcssly
denoted, in the same way here also compounding 369 would resuit, because ex¬
istence is the common thing. 370 But will not genitive compounding resuit here,
because it is prescribed by the later rule? 371 This is not the case. The prohi-
bition samanadhikaranena na: ‘(compounding does) not (take place) with (a
word) in syntactic agreement’ 372 would apply. If one would object: what op-
portunity is there for the rule 3 ! 3 , (then our answer is that) no desired agree¬
ment could be made. 374 Also treatment as a masculine form as conditioned by
the last member of a compound which stands in syntactic agreement (with the
first member) would be applicable. 37VJ
366. The actual compound-form would be darsanlyamdtd. The Bhd§ya mentions only
the uncompounded form, but Kaiyata says the compound can be formed.
367. p. 343 : i ^ s*TR*rrfacJr faarct
wr *prH*rrfsrc*r *r*ri*r: f^r
HtrRT: II nrfinsrf?T I
i ^nrRrfsr^Tnjf^ srfim: sn^rtfa i stct for?
?qrer i <£rgT«r: srw ii
368. I.e. the common substratum in which the qualities inhere.
369. In darsantya mata.
370. Existence is the common thing for mother and daughter, even if it is not ex-
( pressly denoted.
371. The later rule is P.2.2.8, with respect to P.2.1.57 which covers all cases.
372. P.2.2.11.
373. I.e. what opportunity is there for P.2.2.8, since P.2.2.11 will always overrule it?
374. The presupposition being, that this interpretation of the word samanddhikarana
is accepted.
375. This treatment would apply to the first member even in the case of a genitive
tatpurusa, according to P.6.3.42,
158
Note (136):
In the example given, there cannot be syntactic agreement, because the words
concemed refer to two different objects. But according to the view just stated,
syntactic agreement should be there, because a common feature is there as well
as difference. If we accept this, the form darsamyamata would resuit in thie
meaning ‘mother of a beautiful daughter*. The common feature is declared to
be existence, that is, of mother and beautiful daughter. Difference is also there,
the mother being different from her beautiful daughter. The compound would be
a £armad/iara]ja in the form darsamyamata , according to P.6.3.42. Its analysis

showing syntactic agreement is darsanfya mata. Its meaning would be that of
a genitive tatpurusa , namely, darsantydyah mata.
159 . (Bhasya : Artstoer)
There is no instance where existence and difference are not there. Stili
it is stated: samdnddhikaranena : ‘(compounding takes place) with (a
word) which stands in syntactic agreement’. 376 In that (statement the
term samdnddhikarcfliena) will be understood as ‘(with a word which
syntactically agrees) in a higher degree’. Where we will have syntactic
agreement in a better (way), (there only we will form a compound of
syntactically agreeing words). But where (do we have) a better syntactic
agreement? Where everything is common: existence, difference and
individual object.
Note (137):
Summary: The compound virapurusah is a samanddhikarana ( karmadharaya )

compound. The question is how to account theoretically for its formation. Com¬
pounding can only take place on the basis of a semantic connection between
two different meanings. A samdnddhiârcma-compound, the constituents of
which stand in syntactic agreement, i.e. refer to one and the same thing, must
also show the connection between two different meanings. It is thought that
clarification of the nature of wordmeaning might be helpful to lead us out of
the impasse. Is the individual object to be taken as wordmeaning, or rather the
quality? The conclusion is that, in fact, both views are required, if we want to
justify a samdnadhil(arana compound. We will have to say that a samanadhi-
karana compound refers to one and the same object through difference in
qualities. The object functions as the common location of different qualities.
In the case of vlrapurusa the individual object ‘man* provides us with the com¬
mon location and the qualities ‘bravery* and ‘manhood* represent two different
meanings.
376. P.2.1.57.
Samarthdhnika
159
In Bhasya No. 158 the compound d cur sarti}) amata is proposed in the sense
of ‘mother of a beautiful daughter*. The difficulty here is that two individual
objects, mother and daughter, are referred to. The question arises whether we
can form the compound by taking existence as the common substratum, i.e. by
viewing the different individuals in their aspect of existence as one object, not
in their aspect of individuality. The answer given in Bhasya No. 159 is in the
negative. Existence is too common a link and makes, in fact, the statement
samanadhikaranena superfluous. In accepting existence as the connecting link
between different meanings we could form samanadhikarana compounds every-
where naturally. No special statement would be required. We cannot, of course,
dispense with existence, because it is the presupposition of connection and dif-
ference. But for forming samanadhikarana compounds existence as the com¬
mon factor will not be sufficient. We need something more specific than this.
Therefore, we will take the statement samanadhikaranena to mean samanadhi-
karanatarena 377 or sadhiyasa samanadhikaranena: ‘more syntactically agreeing*.
The syntactic agreement in this true sense occurs where the different qualities
reside in the same object. Therefore, to establish syntactic agreement reference to
the same object by the two wordmeanings in question is needed together with
reference to existence and to the different qualities. This Bhasya should not be
taken to mean that ‘existence* is required for forming samanadhikarana com¬
pounds. But when individuality is taken into account, existence, even if it is
taken into account, will not harm the formation. In any case the compound
darsariiyamdta in the sense proposed here is not allowed.
160 . ( Bhasya : Another answer)
Or rather, by the word samanadhikaranena: ‘(compounding takes

place) with (a word) which stands in syntactic agreement’ that con¬
necting link is referred to which (sometimes) is common and (some-
times) not. But this (existence can) not (be taken as) the connecting
link, (because) there is no instance in which it is not there.
Kaiyata 378
(On) ‘But this . . . not*. Since existence is everywhere, it cannot be taken

as a connecting link, because we cannot get away from it. The first answer 379
377. See Mbh. Vol. I. p. 331, lines 17-18: abhirupaya kanya deyd: ‘the girl should
be given to a handsome (bridegroom)’. This is what evcry father wants to do
naturally. Therefore, abhirupa must be taken to mean abhirupatama: ‘most
handsome’.
378. P. 343: q- =fx’?f=r I ?TtTfTr HI? Vm? S!rfVnTrTT*rrai5mft I
'rf-qrr «rin^vaqiR 3 ^ smfawftcr: 1
flrTTlIT: irfir frfiTTTcTm^^^rflTr^: 11
379. I.e. the one given in Bhdsya No. 159.
160
accepts the fact that (existence) may be the connecting link (and points
.out that it is not so here) by taking (the term samanadhiparanena
to mean ‘with a word which is syntactically connected) in a higher
degree’, because ( samanadhiltaranena ) is considered as a restatement showing
emphasis. 380 The second answer points out that existence cannot be taken as
the causs for saying (that two different objects are) one, because it is eommon
to everything.
Note (138):
From the expression mlah ghatah: ‘black jar* we can derive a compound,
because mlatvam: ‘blackness* is not invariably connected with ghatatvam: ‘jar-
ness\ When the property mlatvam resides in the jar, we will form the compound
nllaghatah , otherwise not. The use of the qualifying term mia aims at the eli-
mination of other qualifiers, like ‘red\ ‘white\ etc. 381 But we cannot justify
samanadhikaranya: ‘syntactic agreement’, which involves a relation of qualifier
and qualified, by taking ‘existence’ as a eommon basis in which different
qualities reside. ‘Existence’ as a eommon basis is too xommon, it cannot serve
as a eommon basis for two different qualities. It would destroy the function of
the adjective as a differentiating word. ''
161 . (Bhasya : Another answer)
Or rather, to say samanddhikaranetia : ‘(compounding takes place)

with (a word) which stands in syntactic agreement’ amounts to saying
samanadravyena: ‘(compounding takes place) with (a word) denoting
the same object’. For in daily usage (the word) dravya is used in the
meaning of adhikarana. For instance, (in the expressioris) ekasmin dravye
vyuditam : ‘there is a dispute about dravya : “thing” as a single entity’;
ekasminn adhikarane vyuditam : ‘there is a dispute about adhikarana :
“thing” as a single entity’. Similarly, in grammar, in the rule vipra-
tisiddham canadhikaranavdci 382 we understand (the word anadhi-
karanavaa) as adravyavad.
380. The word punahsrutya in Kaiyata’s comments is not uncommon wherever

Patanjali says prakarsagati. Punahsruti literally means ‘restatement’. It is used
with regard to a eommon practice which is accepted without a rule to that effect.
If stili a rule or statement is made to that effect, it means that it is to be taken
emphatically. See fn. 385.
.381. For a more elaborate discussion on this point see S. D. Joshi, ‘Adjectives and
Substantives as a Single Class in the ‘Parts of Speech’, Publications. of the
Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, University of Poona, Poona 1966,
• pp. 26-27! '
382. P.2.4.13. The rule States that dvandva- compounds consisting of words having
opposite meanings take optionally singular, . exccpt when they denotc concrete
things.
Samarthahnika
161
Kaiyata 383 :
(On) ‘Or rather*. The inquiry was whether the word adhikarana stands
for meaning (in general, like ‘existence*) (and) the answer is that it means
dravya: * object*. In the expression darsamydydh mata: ‘mother of a beautiful
daughter*, however, (we understand) a difference in objects (referred to). But
(if) existence (is considered as) the referent then, since it is common (to both
mother and the beautiful daughter) there would be sameness (of location).
Note (139):
Adhikarana stands for an individual object as the common location of quali-

ties residing in it, not just for a general wordmeaning 384 like ‘existence’ con¬
sidered as the common location of qualities. In darsamydyah mata the word
matr denotes both: the individual object ‘mother’ and ‘existence*, and darsamya
again denotes the individual object ‘beautiful daughter’ and ‘existence*. The
common location of qualities is now mother and daughter as well as any other
individual object viewed from the point of existence. The present Bhasya points
out that samanddhikarana does not refer to ‘existence’ as the common location
of the qualities ‘motherhood’ and ‘daughterhood* and consequently prohibits
the formation of the compound.
162. (Bhasya : Objection)
Even so, (stili) the following rule must necessarily be stated: sama-
nddhikaranam asamarthavad bhavati: ‘(a word) which stands in syn-
tactic agreement is treated as not semantically connected’. Why? Because
(we have) such (forms) as sarpih kalakam : ‘black ghee’, yajuh pltakam :
'Yajurveda drunk (and vomited)\ 385
Kaiyata 386 :
(On) ‘ sarpih â/a/fam’. To prevent change of s into s according to the rule

isusoTi samarlhye 387 a special rule must be formulated. Consequently, com-
pounding of syntactically agreeing words like vxrapurusah: ‘brave-man’ would
not take place either. This is what (the Bhasya) means.
383. P. 344: 3 ^ XWmVdV |
15 srvrm: **rra 11
384. See Vakyapadiya, II 119, quoted in fn. 118.
385. This expression probably refers to the story in the Vi^nupurdna III 5, 1-29.
According to this story Yajnavalkya had first swallowed the Yajurveda and was
then commanded by Vaisampayana to vomit it up. Pxta means ‘drunk, swal¬
lowed’. The suffix -ka must be explained as svarthe, see P.2.28-33. Pltaka can
hardly mean ‘yellow’ here, because no reference to a yellow branch of the
Yajurveda is known.
386. P. 344: I STHTSsf
387. P.8.3.44 States that ? is optionally substituted for the visarga of words ending in
-is and -us, when the words concemed are semantically connected.
162
Note (140):
The expression sarpih fyalakam and yajuh pilabam contain words in syntac-
tical agreement. Since these words are also semantically connected with each
other, P.8.3.44 would apply and the visar ga would be optionally changed into s.
This change, however, is not desired, because the accepted usage has visarga.
Therefore, a special statement is required to invalidate the condition samarlhyc
in P.8.3.44 for words in syntactic agreement. Only in this way optional change
of s into s can be avoided. But once this special rule samanadhikaranam
asamarthavad bhavati is stated, it will prevent compounds like virapurusa , where
the condition samartha is needed.
163 . ( Bhasya : Counterobjectiori)
If we state the special rule samanadhikaranam asamarthavad bhavati :

‘(a word) which shows syntactic agreement (with another word) is
treated as not semantically connected’ (,then) no change of s into s
would take place (in the expressions) sarpis plyate : ‘ghee is drunk’
(and) yajus kriyate : ‘Yajus is made’. 388
164 . (Bhasya : Counter objectiori rejected)
This 388a (would be the case, only if syntactic agreement) is not ex-
pressed by a (finite) verb.
Kaiyata 389 :
(On) *not expressed by a finite verb’. By the word dhalu: ‘root’ a suffix
accompanied by a (verbal) root is expressed (here). Therefore, when the ob-
ject-relation etc. is expressed (by a verbal ending), then (there will) necessarily
(be) semantic relation. 389 * This is the meaning (of the Bhasya text).
Note (141):
A samartha- treatment only applies when syntactic connection is not expressed

by a finite verb, but in some other way.
165 . (Bhasya : Summing up)
And when we look at the matter in this way, inclusion should be
388. The meaning of the word yajus is not ciear.
388a. I.e. the special rule quoted above will only apply when syntactic agreement is
not formed with a finite verb.
389. P. 344: I I
fnrfft ?nrf?r grar ^Tm-ir^sr: ii
389a. Because the term dhatu refers to a finite verb,
Samarihdhnilta
163
made of words which stand in syntactic agreement 389b , (so that from)
vir ah purusah : ‘brave-man’ (we may derive) ifirapurusdh : ‘brave-man’.
Why (is this inclusion necessary)? Because (words like these) are
asamartha : ‘not semantically connected’.
XXII. ( Varttika : Answer)
Or (inclusion need) not (be made), on the authority of the rule. 389c
Or (inclusion need) not be made. Why not? On the authority of the

rule. In cases like this 389d compounding will take place on the authority
of the rule. Authority of which rule? (The rule) samdnamadhyama -
dhyamavirds ca. Z90
Kaiyata 391 :
(On) ‘Or . . . not’. That means asamarthyam: ‘treatment as not semantically

connected’ (mentioned) in the statement 392 is overruled on account of (this)
rule. 393 But in the expression virah paean: ‘cooking hero* (Patahjali) con-
siders that compounding cannot take place 394 , because (the compound virapacan)
could not express the same meaning (as that of the uncompounded expression) 395 ,
when (syntactic agreement) is expressed by a verbal form; or because of (the
device) bahulam , 396
Note (141 A) :
P.2.1.58 prescribes that the case-inflected words purva . . . vira are com-
pounded with syntactically agreeing words; for instance, from purvah vaipd-
karanah: ‘foremost grammarian* we derive purvavaiydkaranah. The compound
cannot be formed, if syntactically agreeing words are treated as asamartha , be¬
cause P.2.1.1 prohibits compounding of asamartha words. The consequence is
389b. I.e. for compounding of words which syntactically agree a special statement
is necessary, since the general statement samanadhikaranam asamarthavad
bhavati prohibits their compounding.
389c. I.e. the rule which allows us to form such compounds.
389d. I.e. in virah purusah etc.
390. Patahjali quotes P.2.1.58 by abbreviation. See further Note (142).
391. P. 344: ^ 3TT«T5r I 5
^PTRn^f Ii
392. Samanadhikaranam asamarthavad bhavati, see Bha§ya No. 162.
393. P.2.1.58.
394. I.e. by P.2.1.58.
395. This does not mean that virapacan has another meaning than virah paean . It
is simply not used.
396. The word bahulam is used in P.2.1.57 to prevent such a compound. Conse-
quently, virah paean cannot be quoted as an instance of P.2.1.58.
164
Mahdbhasya ( P. 2.1.1)
that P.2.1.58 becomss redunant. This cannot be. Therefore we must assume
that this gives us a clue to understand that the statement samanadhikaranam
asamarihavad bhavati does not apply, when compounding of samanadhilârana
words is especially prescribed.
XXIII. ( Varttika : Extensiori of the scope of objeciion and ansrver)
Also in the case of (compounds where) vcrbal forms have been elided.
167 . ( Bhasya : Explanation)
Also in the case of (compounds where) verbal forms have been

elided 397 inclusion should be made. (Examples:) niskausambih : ‘de-
parted from Kausambl’; nirvdrdnasih : ‘departed from Varanasi’.
(Other explanation:) Also in the case of (compounds where) verbal

forms have been elided (inclusion should not be made). Why not?
Just because of the authority of the rule (compounding will take
place). Authority of which rule? (The rule) kugatipradayah. 398
Kaiyata 399 :
(On) ‘Also in the case of . . . which are elided’. This Varttika intends to
renew the statement (na va) vacanaprdmanydl . 40 ° But the author of the
Bhasya, for the sake of more detailed explanation, loaches inclusion and can-
celiation by forming two different sentences (out of what was originally one sen-
tence). 401 By the word di^hydta: ‘verbal form* verbal forms like fadnta etc. are
also included.
(On) niskausambih . (Patanjali) considers that there 102 is no semantic

connection between the first and the last member. Because preverbs are always
connected with a verb, they do not enter into relation with (a word denoting)
objsct.
397. See Note (81).
398. P.2.2.18 States that the word ku, the particles called gati and pra etc. enter into
a compound with other words ending in the nominative.
399 . p. 344: ^frf i i
irfrFfesn=T ^ i 5 ihtpt?
spRTrsrfa i i fvrrf^r-
c^TfT^TflTt ^^TWT^TcT II
400. Varttika XXII. I.e. the word ca in this Varttika refers to na va in Varttika
XXII and not to upasamkhyanam in Varttika XX.
401. This procedure is called vdkyabheda, for which see Note (59). The two dif¬
ferent sentences are luptakhyatesu ca kartavyam and luptakhyatesu ca na
kartavyam.
402 . Name.V, luptakhyatesu ca.
Samarthahnika
165
Note (142):
The Varttika is explained twice by Patanjali and therefore repeated in the

Bhasya. In the first explanation the word ca in the Varttika refers back to
Varttil?a XX and in the second explanation to Varttika XXII. According to
the latter explanation no special rule for inclusion of compounds where verbal
fornis have been elided is needed. That is to say, the Varttika: luptakhyatesu
ca (upasamkhyanam ) is not required, because compounding of words like
niskausambih can be justified by P.2.2.18, which States that pra etc. are com-
pounded with semantically connected words.
In niskausambih , analysed as niskrantah kausambhyah, the verbal form

kranta , with which the preverb nir is semantically connected, is understood. See
Varttika XIV on P.2.2.24: pradibhyo dhatujasya vd: ‘(compounding) of what
originates from a verbal root following after pra etc. (is to be stated as a
bahuvrihi and) optional (elision of the last member should be stated as well)\ 403
In niskausambih no semantic connection exists between nir and k au sdmbi.

Since P.2.2.18 cannot be applied in absence of semantic connection between the
first and second member of the compound, a special rule, which allows this kind
of compounding is necessary. Now Patanjali says that a special rule to this
effect is not necessary, because we can justify the compounds niskausambih
pracaryah etc. by P.2.2.18. These compounds are analysed as niskrantah
kausambyah: ‘departed from Kausambi’ and pragatah acaryah: ‘advanced
teacher’. The elision of the verbal forms /frdnfa, gata etc. is not prescribed here
by a special rule as it is prescribed in the case of the bahuvnhi compounds by
Varttika XIV on P.2.2.24. Panini assumes that the compounds pracaryah and
niskausambih as a whole denote the meanings ‘advanced teacher’ and ‘departed
from Kausambi, without adding the words gata , £rdn/a and subsequently
dropping them. But according to the condition samartha (P.2.1.1) we cannot
derive them from nir + kausambi and pra + dearma, when these words are not
semantically connected. Therefore P.2.2.18, which prescribes these compounds
without making provision for semantic connection in the form of supplying the
meanings Jtfunta, gata , etc. and for subsequently dropping these meanings, be-
comes redundant. Since we cannot give any example for P.2.2.18 where the
semantic connection between the two members is direct, without supplying mean¬
ings like /frdn/a, gata etc., we will have to assume that P.2.2.18 is effective
even when semantic connection between the two members is shown by under¬
stood meanings like /^ran/a, gata etc. Therefore, Patanjali says that no special
rule, i.e. Varttika XXIII, for the inclusion of these compounds is necessary.
See Note (81).
403. In the case of tatpurusas this Varttika does not prescribe elision of verbal forms
like kranta, but States that preverbs are compounded with the following word
to denote the sense kranta etc. This indicates that preverbs are not semantically
connected with a following member in the compound, unless verbal forms like
kranta are supplied. See Varttika III and IV on P.2.2.18.
166
168 . ( Bhdsya : Anstoer rejected)
There is another purpose in stating this rule. 404 Which? (Examples:)

suraja: ‘good king’; atirdja : ‘excellent king\
Note (143):
In pradi (P.2.2.18) the words su and ati are included. In compounds formed
with these words no verbal form is elided and semantic relation exists between
the members of the compound without a verbal form being supplied. There-
fore, we cannot say that P.2.2.18 would be vyartha : ‘redundant*. Since it has
a scope where semantic connection exists between the first and the second mem-
ber of the compounds like suraja , atirdja etc., it would not be applicable in
examples like niskausambih where the semantic connection is lacking. To in¬
clude these cases we will have to make a special rule luptakhyatesu ca (Varttika
XXIII).
169 . ( Bhdsya : Intendon of the answer )
We do not say: ‘on the authority of a staiement in the form of a

sutra which is provided with a gloss’. What then? (We say:) ‘on the
authority of a statement in the form of Vdrttikas (namely:) siddham tu

kvdnsvatidurgativacandt 405 (and) pradayah ktarthe , 406
Note (144):
Bhdsya 169 points out that by the statement vrttisutravacanaprdmdnyat we

do not mean that P.2.2.18 will be redundant, because we know that it
(P.2.2.18) has a scope in the examples suraja and atirdja, where we find
semantic connection between the two members without supplying the meanings
kranta, gata etc. But the statement vrttisvftravacanaprdmdnydt refers to the
Vdrttikas III and IV on P. 2.2.18. Varttika IV, pradayah fatadyarthe, prescribes
compounding of pra etc. with a word ending in the nominative, in the past par-
ticiple meaning gata etc. According to this Varttika , the compound pracdrydh
is analysed as pragatah acaryah. In the compound pracdryah we cannot show
that the constituents pra and acaryah are semantically connected, unless the
meaning gfjitah is understood or supplied. Now this Bhasya makes it ciear that
Varttika IV on P.2.2.18 will be redundant, unless we assume that the semantic
connection is effected through the supplied meaning gatah etc. Since, in fact,
this Varttilia assumes compounding where the meaning of a verbal form like
gata etc. is supplied or understood, the special rule luptakhyatesu ca (Varttika
XXIII) to this effect is not necessary.
404. P.2.2.18.
405. Varttika III on P.2.2.18 says: ‘but it (i.e. compounding) is achieved on ac-
count of the special rule conceming (the words) ku, an, su, ati, dur and (the
particles called) gati\
406. Varttika IV on P.2.2.18 says: e pra etc. (are compounded with a semantically
connected word) in the sense of past participle 5 .
Samarthahnika 167
Patanjali refers to Panini’s Astadhydyi by the name Vrttisutra.

See Kielhorn’s Mbh. Vol 1, P. 424» line 21 on P. 2.2.24.
Nagesa interprets vrttisutra as vrttiyuktam sutram : ‘rule provided with a
gloss’. He also notes another reading: vrttih sutravacanaprdmdnydi: ‘compound-
ing (takes place) on the authority of a statement in the form of a sutra *. This
reading occurs in many mss., see the Nirnaya-Sagar Press ed. of Patanjali’s
Vyakatana- Mahdbhdsya , Vol. II, Bombay 1912, p. 345, note 1. The
Kielhorn-Abhyankar ed. (Vol. I., p. 371, line 18) reads vrttisutra.
XXIV. ( Varttika : Another ansTver)
Or (compounding is achieved) because of tadarthagati : ‘(implicit)

understanding of its meaning\
170. (Bhasya : Explanation)
Or also, this is achieved because of tadarthagati : ‘(implicit) under¬

standing of its meaning’.
(The compound tadarthagati may be derived as follows:) (from)

iasya arthasya (we derive) tadarthasya : ‘of the meaning of that’; (from)
tadarthasya gatih (we derive) tadarthagatih : ‘understanding of its
meaning’; (from tadarthagatih we derive) tadarthagateh : ‘because of
understanding of its meaning’. The meaning of (the word)
which is semantically connected with (the word) kausambi, that meaning
is expressed 407 by (the preverb) nir.
Or rather (the compound tadarthagati is derived as follows:) (from)

sah arthah (we derive) tadarthah: ‘that meaning’; (from) tadarthasya
gatih (we derive) tadarthagatih : ‘understanding of that meaning’;
(from tadarthagatih we derive) tadarthagateh : ‘because of under¬
standing of that meaning’. The meaning which is semantically
connected with (that of) the word kausambi, that (meaning) is expressed
by (the preverb) nir .
Kaiyata 408 :
(On) ‘its meaning’. The meaning which we understand from the word Ipanla
is implied by the word nir, because it is semantically connected with (the mean¬
ing) belonging to action 409 (,and) through this (implied meaning) a seman-
tic relation between the first and the last member (of the compound) is
(established).
(On) ‘that meaning’. (The second derivation given by Patanjali) shows

that (the preverb) nir itself has the meaning of nislzranla, when compounding
is concerned.
407. ‘Expressed’, that means here, according to Kaiyata, ‘implied’.
408. P. 345: \ fr:5T3^T cTFTFTOT
409. As expressed by the verb kram -.
168
Note (145) :
In the compounds pracdryah and nislâusdmbih the words gata and krdnla
respectively are not elided, so the Varttilâ says. The first interpretation given by
Patanjali suggests that the meaning of these words is implied in the meaning
of the compound-members. Through this implied meaning the semantic con-
nection between the first and the second member is maintained. The second
interpretation, starting from atha va: ‘or rather’, says that nir in the compound
stands for nisfaranta and pra for pragata. Here the meaning of Inania and
gata is not implied, but actually expressed by nir and pra , when they form part
of the compounds nisfyausdmbih and prdcaryah.
(HERE ENDS THE SEGTION IN WHIGH THE QUESTION OF SYNTAGTIC

AGREEMENT IS EXPLAINED)
XIV
(NOW STARTS THE SECTION ON THE PROPER NUMBER OF CONSTI¬

TUENT WORDS IN A COMPOUND)
171. (Bhasya : Question)
But wherever is a possibility to form a compound out of many (words,

the question is) whether in such a case two words are compounded at a
time or rather (compounding takes place) without (such a) specifi-
cation . 410
Kaiyata 411 :
(On) ‘But where*. Where the first and second member of a compound are
specifically stated as in (the rule) dviftya srita . . . 412 , there is no possibility for
many words (to be compounded). But where specification is not made, as (in
the rules) anebam anyapadarthe 413 (and) carthe dvandvah 414 , there (this) doubt
410. I.e. restriction concerning number.
411. P. 345: \ zp* fafw 3W W fecffaj feffifcT 5TT
Hifer srgsri srsrff: i 5 fMnft fwm: arcsprwrrcw era
l vfe eTffcT clcfr îqr: I
m fsprrf =5T ffi re ff Fff TT 'fffeffszpr II *T f eR^5 u IT3[
STpTfffa TTTîTI **TRT I!
^Ts^>df«r i srpri *PTre: n
412. P.2.1.24 States that a word in the accusative is compounded with srita: *re-
sorted to* etc.
413. P.2.2.24 States that two or more words form a compound denoting a different
thing. See Note (59).
414. P.2.2.29 States that several words form a dvandva in the meaning of ca : ‘and’,
See Note (59).
Samarthdhnil?a
169
arises: If the phrase sup supa (saha samasyate ) 415 is continued, then compound-
ing should take place of two words at a time, because (here) 416 the number is
intentionally used. If it is discontinued, then as many words may be compounded
as we may want to compound in the sense of anyapadartha: ‘different thing’ and of
ca: ‘and*. 417 But (one might object) that (compounding) should take place
of many words, since the word ancisa: ‘two or more* is mentioned. 418 Otherwise
il 419 would be meaningless. (The answer is that) this is not so. The word
ancisa is mentioned for the sake of the designation upasarjana 42 °, which is meant
for shortening (of vowels) in words like citragu: ‘having brindled cows\ But
if it is argued that the designation upasarjana is justified, because the members
of the compound are used in one and the same case-ending, then the word aneka
is understood to have the purpose of discontinuing (the conditioning phrase) sup
supa. Therefore, compounding of many words would be justified.
Note (146):
P. 1.2.43 prescribes that what is referred to by a word mentioned in the

nominative case in rules conceming compounding receives the designation
upasarjana. In order to have the designation upasarjana for more than one word
in a bahuvrihi-compound the word anebam: ‘two or more* is mentioned in the
nominative case in P.2.2.24. In a bahuvrihi both members will, therefore, be
called upasarjana. In the bahuvrthi-compound citragu the vowel of the word
go: ‘cow’ has been shortened by P. 1.2.48. The shortening is only allowed, if
go is upasarjana.
But the designation upasarjana may very well apply by P. 1.2.44. This rule
prescribes the designation upasarjana for the word which always will stand in the
same case in the meaning-analysis of the compound. If that case-ending is in-
variably the same, the constituent will receive the designation upasarjana. For
instance, when we analyse the compounds niskausambih , nisfyausdmbim,
niskausdmbind , the paraphrase will be Jtausdmbydh nisl^rdntah , kausambyah
nisfarantam, kausambydh nisfyrdntena. Since fyausdmbydh appears in the same
case-ending throughout, the constituent Jâusambl will be called upasarjana. In
the case of citraguh both members will invariably appear in the same case-ending,
when analysis is made. Therefore, both constituents will be called upasarjana .
In the bahuvrihi- compound citragu both members will always stand in the
415. See Note (25). The phrase means that an inflected word is compounded with
an inflected word.
416. In sup supa.
417. I.e. as bahuvrihi and as dvandva.
418. In P.2.2.24.
419. I.e. the word aneka .
420. P.l.2.43.
170
nominative case when the compound is analyzed. 421 Therefore we do not need
the word anebam in P.2.2.24 to give the name upasarjana to the constituent
member go. What then is the purpose of the word anebam in P.2.2.24? Its
purpose is to discontinue the condition sup supa , i.e. discontinuation of the in&tru-
mental supa. Consequently, there will be no restriction for the number of words
to be compounded. Compounds of more than two words at a time are allowed.

But stili the half-condition sup will continue in P.2.2.24. It is to be construed
with anebam, which gives us the meaning that two or more case-inflected words
fcrm a fcahuvrl/ii-compound in the sense of a different thing.
172. (Bhasya : Question about the differencc betrveen the irvo alternalives).
But what difference is here (between these two alternatives as far as com-
pounding is concemed)?
XXV. ( Varitika: Shortcoming in the first alternaiive)
If a compound is (to be made) of two words at a time, then (the word)

aneka: ‘two or more’ should be mentioned in (the rule prescribing)
dvandva . 422
(Bhasya: Explanation)
If two words (only) are compounded at a time, then (the word)

aneka should be mentioned in (the rule prescribing) dvandva. (Then
the rule) should read cdrthe dvandvah anekam : ‘two or more words (are
compounded to make) a dvandva in the sense of ca: “and”’, so that
(compounding) would take place here also: plaksanyagrodhakhadira-
palasah: ‘Ficus infectoria and Ficus Indica and Acacia Catechu and
Butea frondosa’.
Nagesa 423 :
Bhasye ... In the Bhasya , by the statement: ‘(the word) aneka: “two or
more“ should be mentioned in (the rule prescribing) dvandva \ bahuvnhi is also
included.
Note (147):
If we consider that the singular in the statement sup supa is intentionally used,
only two words can be compounded at a time and we cannot form a dvandva
or bahuvnhi of many words at a time. Therefore, a special statement in the form
421. When a bahuvnhi is formed of words ending in the nominative case ( samanddhi -
karanabahuvrihi), then the compound-constituents are called niyatavibhaktika
or ekavibhaktika : ‘having the same case-termination’.
422. P.2.2.29.
423. P. 345: «TfsfttTfa II
Samarthahnika
171
of anefyam: ‘two or more* is necessary in the rules prescribing bahovrihi- and

dvandva- compounds. If, on the other hand, compounding is allowed of more than
two words at a time, we can dispense with anebam.
174 . ( Bhasya : Criticism rejected)
Nothing wrong here. In this case also two words will be compounded
at a time.
Note (148):
The compound will be formed as indicated in Bhasya No. 176. In this way
two words are compounded at a time.
XXVI. ( Varttiâ i Criticism justified)
If (one would say that) compounding will take place of two words
at a time (only), (then the answer is that this is) not (so), because in
many there is no two-ness . 424
175 . (Bhasya : Explanatiori )
If (one would say that) compounding will take place of two words
at a time (only), (then the answer is that this is) not (so). Why not?
Because in many there is no two-ness.
Kaiyata 425 :
(On) ‘because . . . notion of two*. But (one might object) in ‘many* we

find ‘two* also. For instance (the sentence:) ‘out of these brahmins bring two*.
This being the case, (then even) when reference is to many, only one desig-
nation dvandva applies to plausa and nyagrodha (at a time). A second (desig-
nation dvandva) applies to fyhadira and palasa (at a time). Again, a third will
424. That means, when we have many, i.e. more than two words to be compounded,
we cannot compound them at a time, because according to the statement sup

supa only two words can be compounded. This Varttika and Bha?ya No. 175
do not prohibit formation of compounds in pairs of two words at a time—which
is allowed by sup supa —but they prohibit the formation of a compound con-
sisting of many words at the same time. Kaiyata and Nagesa commenting on
this Bha?ya state that formation in pairs is not allowed either. But Bha§ya No. 176
shows how we can form a dvandva- compound by making combinations of two
words at a time.
425. P. 346: | I ^ Sfg* fasft I cTSTSTt-t^
fTrfarr ti i rafa 3^
HT^fVfer srfgTrcret 11
172
Mahabhasya ( P.2.1.1 )
apply to the group of dvandvas. 42G This objection does not hold good. Even
if in ‘many’ two are (also) there, yet when we want to express four (words)
together, each word in its tum will have four meanings. 427 Therefore, two (words
only) cannot be compounded, because it is impossible to form a compound (of
just two words) in the sense of ‘conjunction’. This is what is conveyed by this
(passage).
Nagesa 428 :
(On) ‘because “many” excludes the notion of two\ It means that when
we have ‘many* in our mind (we do not say that this group consists of two),
because the constituents (which make up the group) cannot be considered as
being two. When a man has three sons we do not say that he has two. If this is
so, then the statement that compounding takes place of two words is incon-
sistent. This is the idea.
Note (149):
Summary: The question put in the Bhasya No. 171 is how to form com-
pounds out of many, i.e. out of more than two words? The statement sup
supa 429 forbids it. Stili we fmd bahuvrlhis and dvandvas consisting of many
words. The possibility for bahuvrlh : s to be formed of many words is specifically

stated by the word anebam: ‘two or more* in P.2.2.24. This word suspends
the validity of the statement sup supa with regard to bahuvrlhis .
Bhasya No. 1 73 says that anekam should be read for the same reason in the
rule prescribing dvandva- compounds (P.2.2.29).
Bhasya No. 1 74 States that we can dispense with the word ancisam, because
compounds of more than two words can always be built up in pairs: From
A + B we derive AB; from AB +C we derive ABC, etc. Thus the state¬
ment sup supa could be maintained without exception.
Bhasya No. 1 75 makes an objection against this procedure of forming com¬

pounds consisting of many words. We cannot form a compound, when we have
many words. The reason is given in a somewhat cryptic phrase: na bahusu dvitvam
asti: ‘in many there is no two-ness’. It simply means that, when we want to
form a compound of more than two words at a time, we cannot do so, because
more than two words cannot be covered by the phrase sup supa , which allows
compounding of two words only. So when the Bhasya says that in ‘many’ the
notion of two is absent, this means that the phrase sup supa which stands for
426. I.e. the combination of the first and the second dvandua.
427. Each member of the compound denotes the meaning of the whole. See fn. 429,
428. P. 346: ^ I I
11 ^ ^ stft: «enmr n
429. See Note (25).
Samarthahnika
173
two only excludes ‘many’. The question of the formation of compounds in pairs
out of many words is not raised here at alL
According to Kaiyata this Bhas$a means that plurality is not built up in

pairs successively. To his opinion, ‘two* excludes ‘many’, but the reverse will
not be true. ‘Many’ may be built up in pairs. Then how to justify the Bhasya
which, as Kaiyata understands it, prohibits pair-wise compounding? This is

why Kaiyata appeals to the principle of sahavivaksa^ 30 When we want to form
a dvandva of f.i. four words together at the same time, there is no use in making
groupings of two within the compound. This may create doubts with regard
to the syntactic functions of the groupings. One might think that their syntactic
function is different from that of the whole (see the example in fn. 430).
Nagesa, as appears from the example he gives, understands the Bhasya to

mean: when we have many, we do not say we have two. Although ‘many* in¬
cludes ‘two’, we do not say ‘two’, when there are ‘more than two’, because
‘two* excludes ‘many*. In this manner ‘many* excludes ‘two*, for the sake of
precision. The reason why the Bhasya prohibits compounding of two words,
when there are many, as it does, according to Nagesa’s understanding — must
be asamarthya. Nagesa thinks that Kaiyata essentially refers to the principle of
asamarthya , when he mentions sahavivaksa.
According to Nagesa, the member A (of a dvandva consisting of four words

indicated as A, B, C and D) cannot be compounded with B, because between
A, on the one hand, and C and D, on the other, there exists meaning-inter-
dependence. Therefore, A cannot be compounded with B. The statement
sapel?sam asamartham bhavati (see Bhasya No. 26) forbids it. 431
176. (Bhasya : Objection rejected)
Analvsis (of the compound) is not necessarily to be made in this way:

plaksas ca nyagrodhas ca khadiras ca palasas ca. How then? Analysis will
430. The question of sahavivaksa : ‘desire to convey meanings simultaneously’ is dis-

cussed by Patanjali in the context of ekasesa, see Mbh. Vol. I, p. 238, lines
17-18. Application of ekasesa is based on sahavivaksa. Nagesa on sahavivak -
sayam ekase$ah (Mbh. Vol. I, p. 238, line 2) defines sahavivaksa as sarve$am
arthanam sarvaih sabdair yugapad bodhaneccha: ‘desire to convey all mean-
ings by all words simultaneously’. In this view each member of the compound
has the meaning of the whole. Patanjali does not use the term sahavivaksa with
regard to dvandva. But whatever is true of ekasesa is true of dvandva also. When
we make the ekasesa-iorm brahamanabhyam we do not construe each of the
constituents with a different verb (see Note (122) sub b). Similarly, when
we say ghatapatau anaya dehi ca: ‘bring the jar and the cloth and give (them
to somebody)’ this does not mean ‘bring the jar and give the cloth*. Both objects
are to be construed with each verb.
431. Nagesa seems to have forgotten that this applies to subordinate members in a
compound. In a dvandva there are no subordinate members. Therefore meaning-
interdependence cannot make members of a dvandva- compound asamartha:
‘unfit to enter into semantic connection’.
174
(also) be made as follows: (from) plaksas ca nyagrodhas ca (we derive)

plaksanyagrodhau ; (from) khadiras ca pal&sas ca (we derive) khadira -
palasau; (from) plaksanyagrodhau ca khadirapaldsau ca (we derive)
plaksanyagrodhakhadirapalasah,
Kaiyata 432 :
(On) ‘Analysis will ... as follows*. It means that (now the speaker) will
want to combine two (words) at a time, but not four togetber.
Nagesa 433 :
(On) ‘two (words) at a time*. Since the other (words) are not (yet) in our
mind, therefore, the (first) two words have no requirement of (the next words).
Note (150):
Bhasya No. 175 says that compounding of many words at a time cannot
take place without the word ariena being mentioned in the rule concerned, be-
cause the statement sup supa prohibits it. The present Bhasya allows compounding
of many words, when we proceed by making combinations of two at a time.
In commenting on Bhasya No. 1 75 Kaiyata says that, when we are to make

a compound of many words, we cannot proceed by making combinations of
two at a time, because the principle of sahavival(Sd forbids it. In his comment
on Bhasya No. 176 Kaiyata says that we can proceed by making combinations
of two words at a time, if the speaker’s sahavivaJ(Sa is each time restricted to
two words only.
Nagesa, in commenting on Bhasya No. 1 75 denies the possibility of making

two-word-combinations, when there are many words to be compounded, because
the two words to be compounded lack semantic connection, as they show meaning-
interdependence with the other words to be compounded. In commenting on the
present Bhasya Nagesa says that we can proceed by making “two-by-two”
combinations, if at the time of the first combination the other words to be com¬
pounded are not yet present in our mind.
177a. (Bhdsya : Objectiori justified)
Then we cannot form the compound hotrpotrnestodgdtdrah. The form

hotd-potd*nestd-udgdtarah would resuit.
432. P. 346: | 5 II
433. P. 346: | OTfc ^#1 II
Samarthdhnika
175
Kaiyata 434 :
(On) hotrpotrnestodgdtarah 9 . If a compound is formed of many (words

at the same time), then (substitution by) anAN will apply to one (word) only,
(namely that word) which is followed by the final member, occurring at the end
of all (members of the compound). But if two (words) at a time are com-
pounded, (substitution by anAN will apply to all members of the compound)
with the exception of one. 435 Also, in the example given, the word udgatdrah
has a (penultimate) long vowel on the authority of Patanjali's usage. Other-
wise it should not be so, because the mention of naptr etc. 436 has a restrictive
purpose. 437
Note (151):
P.6.3.25 prescribes substitution by anAN for final ~r of a word expressing

relationship through study or blood, when it is directly followed by the last
member in a dvandva compound. If we form a compound of all four words
simultaneously, the word nestr only would take substitution by anAN , because
it is directly followed by the last member udgatr and the form hotrpotrnestodga -
tarah will resuit. If we form the compound two by two, the word hotr will
be immediately followed by the final member, potr, and nestr by udgatr. If the
two dvandvas thus formed are themselves compounded, the word potr will be
immediately followed by nestodgatarau. So, finally, all members would take
substitution for their final -r by anAN with the exception of udgatr. The result-
ing form is hoidpoldnestodgatdrah. But the form hotrpotrnestodgdtarah is also
desired. This, however, would not resuit unless we form it of four words at a
time. “Two-by-two” combination will not give it.
177b. ( Bhasya : Counterobjection)
But (do you mean to say that) this should not be so?
177c. ( Bhasya : Counterobjection rejected)
(No), but it must be so, if analysis is made^like this: (from) hota

ca pota ca (we derive) hotapotdrau ; (from) nesta ca udgdtd ca (we
derive nestodgatarau ; (from hotapotdrau ca nestodgatarau ca (we derive)
hotdpotanestodgdtdrah. But (if we have to make internal groupings like
this) we cannot make the form hotrpotrnestodgdtarah.
434 P. 346: ?frT I «WT TOT
c e ^
«r g jfawreg-T *franr i
3pr i sRnn
fJTTcril
435. I.e. the final member.
436. In P.6.4.11.
437. The word udgatr is not induded in the list given in P.6.4.11.
176
Mahahhdsya (P.2.1.1)
XXVII. ( Varttika : Another shortcoming)
Also prohibition of samdsanta : ‘change taking place at the end of a

compound’.
Also prohibition of samdsanta should be stated (as a rule). (Example):

vdktvaksrugdrsadam: ‘speech, skin, wooden ladle and stone’. Otherwise
the form vdktvacasrugdrsadam would resuit.
Kaiyata 438 :
(On) ‘Also prohibition of samasdnta ’. If the designation dvandva (applies)

to two words at a time, then samdsanta would take place in each (resulting)
dvandva . This is what (the Bhasya) means. Even if we follow another method
of compounding, samdsanta should take place in each internal dvandva , just like
the substitute anAN. 4 ™ Yet, since compounding is not formed of more than
two words (at a time), a form in which only one samdsanta takes place would
never occur. 440
Note (152) :
P.5.4.106 prescribes the samdsanta- suffix TaC , if the dvandva ends in a

paâtal, t, s or h.
The compound can be formed in five ways. We will call its four members
A, B, C and D. Samdsanta will be indicated by\ so B' means: samasdnta
occurring in B.
I. Groupings of two by two:
a) A,+B makes AB'; AB’ +C makes AB’C’; AB'C’ +D makes
AB’C’D\
b) A + B makes AB'; C + D makes CD’; AB'+ CD’ makes AB'CD*.
c) B + C makes BC’; BC’ + D makes BC'D*; A + BC’D’ makes
ABC'D\
d) C + D makes CD’; B + CD' makes BCD*; A + BCD* makes
ABCD'.
438. P. 346: frcTSTTf% I STfcTS^ 5TFftafc
w4:ii srfw^ rrmPr^Tf
WTftra; srFfftRr sfo ii
439. See analysis I a below.
440. See analysis I.d in Note (152).
Samarthdhnika
177
II. Four words at a time.
a) A+B + C + D makes ABCD\
What Kaiyata in his comment an the present Bhasya means to say is that,
if we insist on groupings of two by two, the form ABCD* will not resuit. But
even then this form can be made, as is shown in the above analysis (I.d) and
as is also pointed out by Patanjali in the next Bhasya.
179. (Bhdsya : Objection rejected)
Nothing wrong here. Here also there will be compounding (starting)

with the subsequent member, as follows: (from) sruk ca drsac ca (we
derive srugdysadam; (from) tvak ca srugdT?adaih ca (we derive)
tvaksrugdrsadam; (from) vdk ca tvaksrugdrsadaih ca (we derive)
vdktvaksrugdr?adam .
Note (153):
180. (Bhasya : First objection reaffirmed)
If so, then we cannot form (the compound) hotrpotrnestodgdtdrah , 441
Note (154):
Unless we form the compound by combining four words at a time, the form
hotrpotrnestodgdtdrah will not resuit. The difference with the previous analysis
is that substitution by anAN takes place in the preceding member. Ali group¬
ings of two give the form A’B’C’0, where A* means: substitution by dnAfi
taking place in the member called A, as follows:
I. Groupings of two by two:
a) A+B makes A’B; A’B+C makes A*B*C; A’B’C+D makes

A*B*CD.
b) A + B makes A*B; C + D makes C f D; A’B + C*D makes A’B’C’0.
c) B + C makes B’C:
A’B’C’D.
B’C + D
makes
B’C’D;
A + B’C’D
makes
d) C + D makes C’D;
A’B’C’D.
B + C’D
makes
B’C’D;
A + B’C’D
makes
II. Four words at a time
a) A + B 4* C + D makes ABC’D.
Patanjali says that since the word aneka: *two or more’ is not mentioned in
P.2.2.29 ( carthe dvandvah) we are forced to compound two words at a time.
441. See Bhasya No. 177a.
F. 12
178
This will invariably give the form A’B’C’D. The alternative form ABC’D,
which is desired too, can only be obtained by compounding four words at a time.
181. (Bhasya : Another objectiori )
Also in the following cases: If compounding of two words (only) at

a time (is allowed), we cannot form (the compounds:) susuksmajatake-
sena: ‘by one having the hair made up of very thin tresses 5 ; sunatajinava-
sasa : ‘by one having a cloth of deerskin which hangs down very deep 5442 ;
samantasitirandhrena : ‘by one having white fissures on all sides 5 .
Kaiyata 443 :
(On) *susuksmajatal?esena . The analysis is susthu suksmah jatah fyesdh

asya: ‘whose hair is made up of very thin tresses’. If the word ariena is not
mentioned 444 , or, (even) if mentioned, it is understood (to be there) for the sake
of the designation upasarjana 445 , and if the statement sup supa is continued,
then a bahuvrihi of many (words) would not resuit here.
Nagesa 446 :
(On) susthu suksmah. On the authority of the Bhasya (the word) jata
ending in -a is used in the masculine as a synonym for ghana : ‘thick* or for jatd:
‘matted hair*.
yadyapi suksmah . . . Although (in making the following analysis:) (from)

suksmah jatah (we derive) suksmajatah; (from) suksmajatah kesah
(we derive) suksmajatakesah; (from) susthu suksmajatakesah yasya (we
derive) susuksmajatakesah and we will have the desired accent even in ‘two-
word* compounding as a bahuvrihi (su/suksmajatakesah ). Yet in this view
442. The meaning ‘hanging down very deep’ is given in Monier Monier—Williams,
A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Oxford, 1899, s. r. sunata, with reference to
this passage. V. Abhyankar, Vyakarana-Mahabha?ya, Mula ani Marathi
Bhasantara , Vol. II, Poona 1963 ( &ake) p. 258, translates : kamavlele katade :
‘tanned leather’.
443. P. 347: ( gs* g?HT3R:r: %5TT I *
fosrk, sft7H3r*rcT5Tr?r foa rek, g^fa rrerr
HlWtfk II
444. In P.2.2.24.
445. For this and for the following sup supa see Kaiyata on Bhasya No. 171.
446. P. 347: ^ r M| sRTafrft arewsrfift 3T I JTSrfa
g$JTT 5T2T: clT<5TI^r % gcs gs*TSTH%5TT
^fcr «rptfi frrasmitfT ftrsrfk mysr, ennPr m amitem
gsfjrfkSPrntTT 5T ga 1 *T gsjoii: I 'TSjg^qT—fafg^l <.H<i»i!fi<ii-
Samarthahnika
179
(i.e. ‘two-word’ compounding, right-side analysis) excellence (denoted by su)

will not literally qualify suJ^sma: ‘thin* (,because su qualifies suksmajatakesa
as a whole). And, therefore, compounding of several (i.e. more than two)
words at a time is desired. Moreover, the desired accent (susu}?smajatal?esah)
will not be achieved, because (‘two-word* compounding, right-side analysis)
would cause the last syllable of the uttarapada (i.e. suksmajatakcsah) to be
accented, according to the rule nansubhyam (P.6.2.172). But what we want is
the accent on su by (the rule prescribing) original accent of the first member
(P.6.2.1). This is just a hint. 446a
Note (155):
If we take jata to mean ghana , the compound would mean: ‘having (a) thick
(bunch of) hair made up of very thin hairs*.
The compounds mentioned here are bahuvnhis containing more than two
constituent words. Out of the three compounds mentioned, susuksmajatakesah
will serve as an example for analysis.
I. If we form a bahuvfihi of four words, P.6.2.1 applies and the desired

accent (i.e. udaiia on the first syllable su) is obtained. P.6.2.172 does not
apply, because the final member -£esah is not immediately preceded by su.
There is no question of internal talpurusa- construction, so P.6.1.223 cannot
apply.
II. If, however, we insist on compounding two words at a time we have to

resort to fcarmadharapa-construction first. This can be achieved in two ways,
either by starting from the first member of the compound (‘left-side* analysis),
or by starting from the subsequent member (‘right-side* analysis). 447
A. Kaiyata gives the ‘left-side* analysis as follows:
1. (Karmadharaya :) (from) su<ksmas cami jatas ca (we derive)
sul{smajatdh ;
2. ( Karmadharaya :) (from) susthu sul^smajataK (we derive) susul p-

smajatah. The accent here is according to P.6.1.223;
3. ( Bahuvfihi :) (from) susu^smajatak paspu (we derive) susu^-
smajatakesah.
When we form the bahuvfihi of two words (in stage 3), its first member
is susuksmajata. Its original accent will fall on the last syllable of the first
member. This is not desired.
446a. By adding it i dik the Sanskrit commentators mean that the whole of the
preceding passage must be taken as a short statement for guidance, not
as a detailed explanation. Further investigation should be carried out.
447. SeeNote (20).
180
B. Patanjali’s solution was to form a bahuvrihi of four words ( anebam ,

P.2.2.24) at the same time. Su then becomes purvapada: ‘first member’ and it
will have the desired accent by P.6.2.1. Patanjali says that, if we form ‘two-
word’ compounding, we will not have the desired accent susuksmajatakesah.
Kaiyata explains this by applying ‘two-word’ compounding, left-side analysis

in which susul?smajata becomes purvapada. Its original accent, which according
to P.6.1.223 falis on the final syllable, would be retained by P.6.2.1. This
is not desired. In order to have the desired accent it is necessary to form a
bahuvrihi of four words.
Nagesa first points out that by applying ‘two-word* compounding, right-side

analysis, su will become purvapada again. Its original accent would be retained
by P.6.2.1 and so Patanjali’s insistance on ‘four-word* compounding could
not be justified. The accent which Patanjali wants to achieve by adopting ‘four-
word’ compounding at a time, can be achieved by ‘two-word* compounding,
r : ght-side analysis. But then Nagesa says that even in ‘two-word’ compounding,
right-side analysis, the desired accent is not obtained, because P.6.2.1 is over-
ruled by P.6.2.172. The accent will fall on -£esah, as follows: (from)
suemas cami jatas ca (we derive) suksmajatah; (from) suksmajatas cami
kesas ca (we derive) suksmajatakesah; (from) susthu sul{smajatal(esah yasya
(we derive) susuksmajatakesah. The form su-suksmajatakesah will have
antodatta : ‘udatta on the final syllable* according to P.6.1.223. But P.6.2.1
supersedes P.6.1.223. The accent on the first syllable by P.6.2.1, is again
overruled by P.6.2.172. Thus in ‘two-word’ compounding, right-side analysis,
the form susuksmajatakesah will be antodatta by 6.2.1 72, which is not desired.
C. Patanjali deals with the problem of accentuation in Bhasya No. 193.

There a bahuvrihi of four words is formed first and subsequently intemal
tatpurusa- construction. The accent of the internal construction, i.e. antodatta
on susuksmajatakesa by P.6.1.223, would prevail over the feahuvrthi-accent by
Varttika XXXI. This is not desired. The accent caused by the internal con¬
struction made after forming a compound of four words at a time will be the
same as we have it in ‘two-word’ compounding, right- and left-side analysis.
Therefore, there will be no difference as far as accentuation is concerned, between
‘two-word* compounding and internal construction made after ‘four-word’ com¬
pounding. Thus, if internal construction is allowed, we will not have the des red
accent. Yet Patanjali says that ‘four-word’ compounding gives the desired
accent. This can only mean that he does not assume internal construction in
these cases. He is right in doing so, because Panini has not specially prescribed
it, as he did in the case of numerals and direction-indicating words by the rule
P.2.1.31. 448 See further summary in Note (20).
448. The word diksamkhye is continued in this rule from P.2.1.50,
Samarthahnika
181
182. (Bhasya : Second alternative accepted)
Then let us have (the altemative) ‘without specification’. 449

XXVIII. ( Vdrtlika : Objectiori)
If (a bahuvnhi) is formed without specifification, (then) there is a

possibility for more than two words (to be compounded at a time) in
a bahuvnhi.
183 . ( Bhasya : Explanatiori)
If (a bahuvnhi ) is formed without specification (of the number of

constituent words,) (then) there is a possibili ty for more than two words
(to be compounded at a time) in a bahuvnhi. If this is the case, what
difficulty will we have?
XXIX. ( Varttika : Shortcomings pointed out)
In this case we have difficulty in (explaining) the accent, the change

occurring at the end of a compound (and) treatment (of a feminine
form) as masculine.
184 . (Bhdsya : Explanation)
In this case we have difficulty in (explaining) the accent, the change

occurring at the end of a compound (and) treatment (of a feminine
form) as masculine.
(Examples for) accent: purvasdlapriyah: ‘who likes the eastern

chamber’; aparasalapriyah : ‘who likes the westem chamber’. So much
for accent.
(Examples for) change occurring at the end of a compound: pnnca-

gavapriyah: ‘who likes five cows’; pancandvapriyah: ‘who likes five
ships’. So much for change occurring at the end of a compound.
(Examples for) treatment (of a feminine form) as masculine:

khddiretarasamyam: ‘change produced in (the sacrificial apparatus)
consisting of a different sacrificial vessel which is made out of khddin -

wood’; rauravetarasamyam: ‘change produced in (the sacrificial ap¬
paratus) consisting of a different sacrificial vessel which is made out of
the hide of a Ruru deer’. 450
449. That is, without specification regarding the number of constituents to be

compounded at a time: either two only or all of them together. See
Bhasya No. 171.
450. The words khddiretarasamyam and rauravetarasamyam seem not to be

attested. Their literal meaning would be as indicated here.
182
Note (156):
I. On purvasalapriyah. If a bahuvrihi of three words is allowed, the analysis

will be purva sala priyd asya. Here the word purva will have udatta on the first
syllable, according to the Phitsuira II, 6 svdugasitdm adanlanam: ‘names of
parts of the body and pronouns ending in -a (have udatta on the first sylla-
ble)\ 451 According to P.6.2.1 the first member of a bahuvrihi retains its accent.
This would give an undesired accentuation. If bahuvrihi- compounding of three
words at the same time is not allowed, we first have to form a tatpurusa (i.s.
karmadhdraya) of two words: (from) purva sala, (we derive) purvasala , and
then again combine two words, in a bahuvrihi: (from) purvasala priyd yasya
(we derive) purvasalapriyah. Here purvasala as a tatpurusa has udatta on the
last syllabis by P.6.1.223. This accent is retained in the bahuvtlhi- compound,
by P.6.2.1, which is desired. When priya follows, the preceding vowel is not
shortened, by P.6.3.34.
II. On pancagavapriyah. If bahuvrihi-compoundmg of three words at a time

is allowed, the analysis will be pauca gavah priydh asya. Here the suffix TaC
cannot be added to the word go (P.5.4.92), because go does not occur at the
end of a compound. The resulting form would be pahcagopriyah. By the
same reasoning the form pancanaupriyah would be produced. These fornis
are not desired.
If ‘three-word* bahuvrihi-compoxmdmg is not allowed, we have to combine
two by two: (from) pauca + go + TaC (we derive) pancagavam; (from)

pancagavam priyam yasya (we derive) pahcagavapriyam . 452 This gives the
desired forms.
III. On bhadirctarasamyam. If bahuvrihi-compoimdmg of three words at a

time is allowed, the analysis will be khaditi ilara samya asya . Here f^hadin will
not be treated as masculine, because it is not directly followed by the final
member samya (P.6.3.34). The form itara only will be substituted by the
masculine form itara according to P.6.3.34. The resulting form would be
bhadiritarasamyd , which is not desired.
If bahuvrihi-compounding of three words at the same time is not allowed,

we have to combine two by two: (from) itara samya (we derive) itarasamya ;
(from) khadiri itarasamya yasya (we derive) khadiretarasamya. 453
451. G. V. Devasthali, Phitsutras of Santanava, University of Poona, 1967, p. 56.
452. Compare the analysis of rajagaviksiram given in Note (112). The only difference
is that rajagav% is feminine, whereas pancagavam , being a dvigu, is neuter
(P.2.4.17).
453. Treatment as masculine requires syntactical agreeinent, according to P.6.3.34.

The form khddintarasamyd , when analysed as khadiryah itara samya yasya has
a different meaning, namely ‘having a sacrificial vessel different from the
khadin--wood one’.
Samarthahnika
183
The example J^hadiretarasamyam shows taddhita- formation with the suffix aN

in the meaning tasya viJ?drah: ‘a product made out of that*. 454
IV. The desired forms are respectively:
I. purvasalapriyah, , II. pancagavapriyah , pancanavapriyah , III. khddiretara-

samyam.
XXX. (Vdrllilâ : Ansrver)
Or (the difficulty pointed out in Vdrttika XXIX does) not (arise),
because of (internal) tatpurusa-(iorztion) of the constituent words.
Or there is no difficulty here. Why not? Because (an internal)

tatpurusa is formed of constituent words. In the example given, the
part 455 has the designation tatpurusa. (Therefore) change occurring at
the end of a compound and treatment as masculine based on that
(designation) will be there.
Kaiyata 456 :
(On) ‘no*. In some cases, when a bahuvrihi is formed out of three words
(at a time), there will be internal tatpurusa (formation) of two words by the
rule taddhitarthottarapada (-samahare ca). 457 There is no conflict between the
designations bahuvrihi and tatpurusa , although they are mentioned in the section
eJ(asamjna : ‘(out of several designations mentioned in this section 458 ) one
designation (is to be applied)*, because they have different fields of applica-
tion. 459 In the example khadiretarasamyam , when tatpurusa is formed in order
454. P.4.3.134.
455. I.e. the internal construction.
456. P. 347: ^ %f% | 5ITT: 'T^T , ^rfern
i ?nrfer fafra: i
fieret
ftarer * 3 fare: i ^ srfirret 11
457. P.2.1.51 States that, when a final member (i.e. a third word) standing in
syntactic agreement follows, the preceding words are compounded as a
karmadharayaj when the first word is either a directiondndicating word or
a numeral.
458. P. 1.4.1 - P.2.2.38.
459. The designation tatpurusa is applicable to the internal construction (i.e. the
part) and the designation bahuvrihi to the whole.
184
to justify treatment as masculine, the bahuvnhi is formed out of two words 400
namely, /f hadifi (and) itarasamya , and not out of three words. Since the
( taddhita -) suffix is added in the sense of ‘product*, the prohibition (of treat¬
ment as masculine) according to the rule vrddhinimittasya (ca taddhitasya-
rakiavikare 461 ) does not apply. 462
Nagesa 463 :
(On) *In some cases’. In some cases 404 taipurusa is formed after the forma-
tion of the bahuvrihffi 5 , in other cases 466 first taipurusa is formed (and) then
bahtfvrihi* 67 , in this way (Kaiyata) shows the difference in the fields of appli-
cation. 468
Note (157):
The words na va in Katyayana’s Varttilâs occur in two contexts with dif¬

ferent meanings: (1) where Patanjali interprets them as na va karlavyam : *or
(the rule proposed need) not (be made)*, see f.i. V aritiâ XXII on P.2.1.1,
(2) where Patanjali interprets them as na vd esa dosah : ‘or (the difficulty
pointed out in the previous Varttika does) not (arise)\ see f.i. Varttika XXX
460. In the last case khadiri cannot be changed into the masculine form
khddira, since it is not directly followed by samya as the final member. What
kaiyata means is this: we first form a (non-internal) tatpurusa (i.e. karmadharaya)
as follows : from khadiri -f- itara we derive khddira -f- it ara; from khddira -f-
itard we derive khddiretara. Subsequently we may form a ‘two-word’
bahuvnhi as follows : from khddiretara samya yasya we derive khadiretara-

samyd. But in ‘three-word’ bahuvnhi compounding the word itara will change
into itara because it is followed by the final member (P.2.1.51). If now
internal tatpurusa ( karmadharaya -) construction is made between khadiri
and itara, this would change khadiri into khddira for the same reason. This
change is probably not accepted by Kaiyata, because P.2.1.51 allows internal
construction, where the first member is a direction-indicating word or a numeral.
461. P.6.3.39 States that a feminine form which is derived by means of a

taddhita suffix causing vrddhi of the stem does not take the masculine form.
But exception is made, when the feminine form means ‘dyed with’ or
‘product of’.
462. I.e. does not apply on account of the word araktavikdra : ‘excluding
words in the sense of rakta : “dyed with” and vikarta : “product of”.
463. P. 347: $ srpftffftfcr
II
464. I.e. in the examples under I and II.
465. Because the designation tatpurusa prescribed by P.2.1.51 is restricted to

compounds the first member of which is either a direction-indicating word
or a numeral.
466. In the example under III.
467. Because treatment as masculine cannot be applied to the word khadiri,

unless it enters into the tatpurusa ( karmadharaya) construction with itara.
468. I.e. of both designations. See fn. 459.
Samarthahnika
185
on P.2.1.1. Where Katyayana has used the words na vd, Patanjali will repeat
these words in his Bhasya. Otherwise Patanjali will say na fyartaryam; naisa
dosah.
The designations tatpurusa and bahuvrihi come under the rule P. 1.4.1 which
States that out of several designations only one is accepted, namely the one that
is para: ‘belonging to a later rule* (see P. 1.4.2) or the one that is anavaâsa:
‘without scope (elsewhere) \ that means, ‘special’ (see Siddhdntafyaumudt on
P. 1.4.2).
186. ( Bhasya : Objection)
What about accent?
Kaiyata 469 :
(On) ‘What about accent?’ In the words purvasalapriyah etc. bahuvrihi-

accentuation would apply, because it is specially prescribed. 470
Note (158):
According to Varttika XXVIII bahuvrihis can be formed of three words

at a time. But after forming such a tripadabahuvrihi the intemal construction
can be made as a tapurusa by P.2.1.51. As far as samasanta: ‘change occurr-
ing at the end of a compound’ and pumvadbhava : ‘treatment as masculine* are
concerned, there is no conflict between tatpurusa- designation which is applicable
to the part and bahuvrihi- designation which is applicable to the whole. Therefore,
operations based on both designations are applied. But in the case of svara : ‘ac¬
cent’ there is a conflict. When the bahuvrihi is first formed of three words at a
time, as follows: A + B + C makes ABC, and then internal tatpurusa is
formed, as follows: in [ABC] (A + B) makes [(AB)C], two different
accentuations would resuit:
1. The bahuvrihi- accent will fall on the first syllable of A.
2. The accent prescribed by the general rule P.6.1.223 will fall on the final
syllable of B in the intemal tatpurusa (AB) of [ (AB)C].
We cannot retain both accents at the same time, because P.6.1.158 prohibits
two udatta- accents for one word. The question is now, which accentuation pre-
vails. Kaiyata thinks that ha/ruvri/n-accentuation will take precedence, because
it is prescribed by a special rule. But the desired accentuation is udatta on the
final syllable of the intemal construction purvasala , by P.6.1.223.
469. P. 348: | STflsftfa II
470. By P.6.2.1.
186
Mahabhasya (P.2.J.1)
XXXI. (Varttlka : Ansrver)
The accent of this (word purvasalapriyah) falis on the last syllable 471 ,
because of vipratisedha : ‘conflict ’. 472
Should we accentuate the last syllable (or) retain the original accent
of the first member, that is the question. (The answer is that) the last
syllable is accentuated, in accordance with (the procedure adopted in the
case of) vipratisedha : ‘conflict’.
Kaiyata 473 :
(On) ‘because there is . . . conflict*. The word vipratisedha here stands for
conflict as such. 474 The reason for the (prevalence of the) accentuation of the
last syllable, however, is either antarangaiva: ‘the fact that its application re¬
quires a sequence of grammatical units which lies within the sequence of gram-
matical units required by another operation, 473 or nimittisvarabaliyastva : ‘the fact
that the accent of the conditioned (form) is stronger (than that of the condi-
tioning form)’. 476
Note (159):
Accentuation of the last syllable of the internal construction requires tatpurusa-

construction. And tatpurusa- construction requires combination of two words only,
whereas the bahuvrlhi- accentuation requires the combination of three words. In
this case the accentuation based on the tatpurusa- construction is aniaranga. There-
fore it prevails over the accent based on bahuvrihi- construction which is
bahirahga. See Paribhasd No. L in the Paribhasendusekhara .
471. I.e. of the internal tatpurusa- construction ending in -sala.
472. Here ‘conflict’ is mentioned as a reason for a particular accentuation.
^Conflict’ in itself can, of course, not be that reason. What is meant is

that in the conflict of two different accentuations, the accentuation of the
final syallable prevails over the accentuation of the first syllable. So
vipratisedha comes to mean : ‘prevalence in case of a conflict’.
473. P. 348: fcfsrf^gTfefa I I
^ II
474. And not for the conflict mentioned in P.l.4.2 ( paraviprati$edha ). See next
Bha$ya.
475. For the meaning of the term antaranga see F. Kielhorn, The Paribhasendu¬
sekhara of Nagojibhatta, Part II (sec. ed. by K. V. Abhyankar),
Bhardarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona 1960, p. 222, and nt. 1. See
also Kaiyata on Bhasya No. 106.
476. See Bhasya No. 190 and Note (162).
Samarthahnilâ
187
An operation or a rule becomes antaranga which requires a sequence of

grammatical units which lies within the sequence required by another operation
or rule (called bahirahga) . The tatpurusa- accentuation requires the sequence
AB, whereas the bahuvrihi requires the sequence ABC.
188 . (Bhasya : Ansrver rejected)
(This term) vipratisedha: ‘conflict 5 does not fit here. (Because) it is

stated: vipratisedhe param ( karyam ) : ‘in case of a conflict the later rule
(prevails ) 5 . 477 (Here,) however, (the rule which prescribes) accentuation
of the last syallable 478 comes first, (and the rule which prescribes retain-
ment) of the original accent of the first syllable 479 comes last.
Note (160):
The term vipratisedha , when taken to refer to P. 1.4.2, does not fit here,
because it would justify accentuation of the first member, as prescribed by the
later rule, i.e., the rule which comes later in the Astddhyaxji than the other rule
in question. What we want is accentuation of the last syllable of the internal
construction. For this the earlier rule should apply.
189 . (Bhasya : Intentiori of the ansrver)
We do not say paravipratisedha : ‘conflict according to the rule vipra¬

tisedhe param karyam \ 480 What then? Antarahgavipratisedha : ‘conflict
according to the antaranga-nile’ . 481
Kaiyata 482 :
(On) antaranga . . .Because according to the rule anudattam padam eJâvax-
jam U8S there cannot be two accents (for one word) and because there is no relation
where the one prevails over the other 484 , since they are applicable to different
spheres 485 , (the principle of) antarangatvam acts as a criterion in determining
the priority (of P.6.1.223), since it requires (only an internal) part. 486
477. P.l.4.2.
478. P.6.1.223. See fn. 471.
479. P.6.2.1.
480. P.l.4.2.
481. Paribha§a No. 38, the Paribhdsendusekhara of Nagojibhatta ed. by

F. Kielohrn, part II, p. 185.
482. P. 348: | 3fW?Ttf Slfc
55^: ii
483. P.6.1.158.
484 I.e. P.6.2.1 as the special rule does not prevail over P.6.1.223 as the general
rule.
485. P.6.1.223 applies to the part-construction as a tatpuru§a, whereas P.6.2.1

applies to the whole as a bahuvrihi..
486. As compared to P.6.2.1 which requires the whole.
188
Note (161):
The purvapaksin objects that P.6.2.1, being a special rule formulated for a
bahuvrihi-compound only, should prevail over the general rule P.6.1.223 which
applies to any compound, even if the latter rule is antarahga , because the
special rule ( apavada ) prevails over what is antarahga (see Paribhasa. No. 38,
The Paribhasendusekhara of Nagojibhatta ed. F. KlELHORN, Part II p. 185).
The siddhantin answers that the special rule P.6.2.1 does not supersede the
general rule P.6.1.223. There is no confiict between these rules, because they
are neither simultaneously applicable nor do they require the same grammatical
sequence for their application. The rule P.6.1.223, which applies to the internal
talpurusa- construction, has a possibility of taking elfect after the special rule
P.6.2.1, which is applicable to the whole bahuvrihi- compound, has taken effect.
Since these rules do not apply to the same sphere, i.e. to the same grammatical
sequence, there is no conflict between the rules. They do not stand either in
the relation of special and general rule. Therefore P.6.1.223, which is
antarahga , will supersede P.6.2.1, according to the Paribhasa No. 50.
XXXII. ( Variiilta : Another reason for the answer)
Or (accentuation of the last syllable prevails 487 ), because the accent

of the nimittin : ‘conditioned (form)’ is stronger.
Or rather a rule should be made to the effect that the accent of the
nimittin : ‘the conditioned (form)’ is stronger than the accent of the
nimitta : ‘conditioning (form)’. But what is the conditioning (form)
and what is the conditioned (form)? (Here) the bahuvrihi- compound is
the conditioning (form) and the (internal) tatpurusa (compound) is
the conditioned (form).
Kaiyata 488 :
Since the principle of anlarahgatva is inconclusive (here), because the accent

which is antarahga is overruled even by an accent which is bahirahga , 489 when it (i.e.
487. I.e. accentuation of the last syllable in the internal construction of parts oi
the compound prevails over retainment of the original accent of the first
syllable of the bahuvrihi- compound as a whole.
488. P. 348: 3Rf^pT srrsTcT
tTr^T I er^^JWtrTWrspft
WfsfttfafarTcsPT II
489. For the meaning of the term bahirahga see fn. 475.
Samarthahnika
189
the bahirahga-a.ccent) is satisista* 90 , therefore he States another reason.
(On) ‘because the accent of the . . . conditioned (form) is stronger*. After

the bahuvrihi has been formed, the (internal) tatpurusa, which depends on the
final member forming part of the bahuvrihi, should be formed out of (its) two
(preceding parts). Therefore, the bahuvrihi becomes the condition (for the
internal tatpurusa- construction).
Note (162):
When we form the tripadabahuvnhi : purva sala priya paspa, the bahuvrihi
becomes the condition of the tatpurusa- construction, because tatpurusa is pre-
scribed, when a final member ( uttarapada ) follows, according to P.2.1.51.
The ta'purusa is, therefore, the conditioned form ( nimittin ). The tatpurusa-
accent is nimittisvara , the bahuvrihi-accent is nimittasvara: ‘accent of the con-
ditioning form’. The nimittisvara is udatta on the last syllable of the internal
construction. The nimittasvara is the original accent of the bahuvrihi on the
first syllable.
In the compound purvasalapriyah the accent of the internal tatpurusa -

construction comes later than that of the bahuvrihi, because, as is obvious, the
tatpurusa- construction is only made after the bahuvrihi-compound has been
formed.
Then (do you mean to say that) a rule should be made to this effect:
the accent of the conditioned (form) is stronger than the accent of the
conditioning (form)?
192 . ( Bhasya : Ansrver)
(No,) it should not be made.
XXXIII. ( Varttika : Ansrver justified)
But the rule regarding the accent of (the word) ekasitipad : ‘having
one white foot’ gives (us) a clue for the fact that the accent of the con¬
ditioned (form) is stronger. -
490. For satisista (written as one word) see Siddhantakaumudx No. 3648 :
satisistasvarabalxyastvam anyatra vikaranebhydh : ‘the “satisista”- accent prevails

over (the other accents) excluding the vikaranas : “verbal infixes”’. See
also Kasika on P.6.1.158. The term satisista means ‘which is prescribed
(and takes place), when (something else) is (already) there’, i.e. that which
comes later in the process of formation, but which could not occur, unless
something else is already there. For instance, in deriving the verbform
cinutas we proceed as follows : (1) ci -}- tas (P.3.4.78), (2) ci -|-nw -{-
tas, because nu is a vikarana . The accent of tas prevails over that of the
satisista. In this example the accent of nu does not prevail over that of
tas, because nu is a vikarana. The accent of tas prevails over that of the
root ci.
190
The fact ls that (Panini) reads the word ekasitipad: ‘having one white
foot’ in the list beginning with yuktarohin : ‘who mounts a yoked
(animal)’ 491 , (and) by that fact the teacher gives (us) a clue that the
accent of the conditioned (form) (i.e. the intemal tatpurusa : ekasiti)
prevails over (that of) conditioning (form).
Kaiyata 492 :
(Ofc) ekasitipad. The word is read in the yuktarohin-Ust for the sake of
udatta- accentuation of the first member. And the word ef?a has udatta on the
first syllable, because it ends in £a./V 493 , or because (the rule) svangasitam
(adantanam) 494 applies (when we consider it as an underived word). If we
(first) make here a iripadabahuvnhi: ‘a bahuvnhi formed out of three words
at a time* and (subsequently intemal) tatpurusa (of two members), then the
fact that (the compound) has udatta on the first syllable is established by (the
rule) bahuvrihau praJflrtya (purvapadam) , 495 Therefore 496 it gives us a clue
to this effect. 49Z
Note (163):
If we first form ekasitipad as a bahuvnhi of three words at a time, and subse¬

quently the internal iaipurusa-c onstruction ekasiti is formed by P.2.1.51, then
question is whether to retain the bahuvnhi- accent (i.e. the original accent, udatta,
of the first member) by P.6.2.1, or have udatta on the final syllable of the
internal tatpurusa- construction by P.6.1.223. The two resulting forms would be
respectively ekasitipad and ekasitipad.
In case two different accent-rules apply, we leam from Varttika XXXII that
the accent of the conditioned form (i.e. the intemal tatpurusa : ekasiti) prevails
over the accent of the conditioning form (i.e. the bahuvnhi: ekasitipad).
Varttika XXXIII pointsout that Varttika XXXII is not an independent

statement or a rule but its authority can be deduced from the special mention
491. Ganasutra on P.6.2.81.
492. P. 348: | spmTT-pfscr '^'TcflSKIrflN: TTS: I
<f>5RTc3T?r ^T?T5 TtT: I rPT
fas 5rmT*f: m: n
493. According to the Unadisutra : inbhikapasalyatimarcibhyah kan (No. 323,

SiddHantakaumudi p. 539) the word eka is derived from the root i- by
means of the suffix kaN } where N indicates udatta on the first syllable, accoding
to P.6.1.197.
494. Phitsutra II, See fn. 451.
495. P.6.2.1.
496. Because inculsion of the word ekasitipad in the yuktarohin-list has no purpose.
497. Namely, that the nimittisvara will prevail.
Samarthdhnika
191
of the word ekasitipad in the yuktarohin-Wst. Suppose this last Varttika does
not exist, then the accent of the conditioning form would prevail over that of
the conditioned form. The resuit would be ekasitipad which shows the desired
accent. But this word ekasitipad has been listed in the yuktarohin- list (No. 15,
under P.6.2.81), in order to have udatta an the first syllable. The assumption
is that, unless the word is listed here, it will have udatta on the last syllable of
the interna! construction ekasiti. This assumption will only be correct, if the
accent of the conditioned form (i.e. the iatpurusa ) is considered to be stronger
than that of the conditioning form (i.e. the bahuvrihi). Therefore,
to justify the inclusion of ekasitipad in the 'puktarohin- list we must accept that
the nimittisvara is stronger than the nimittasvara .
194. (Bhasya : Clue rejected)
But who is compelled to read the word ekasitipad in the yuktarohin-

list? What you think is that (the word) is read (in the list) when you
make the following (meaning-analysis): (from) ekah sitih: ‘one white’
(we derive) ekasitih: ‘one-white’; (from) ekasitih padah yasya : ‘having
a one-white foot’ (we derive) ekasitipad. But this is not (the proper
analysis here). We will make the meaning-analysis in this way: (from)
ekah sitir esu: ‘who have one white’ (we derive) te ime ekasitayah:
‘those same are one-whites’; (form) ekasitayah padah yasya: ‘whose feet
are one-whites’ (we derive) ekasitipad . Even if meaning-analysis is made
(as suggested by you) in the following way: (from) ekah sitih (we
derive) ekasitih; (from) ekasitih padah yasya (we derive) ekasitipad,
stili reading (this word in the yuktarohin- list) does not serve any pur-
pose . 498 The accent (prescribed) by the rule 499 will prevail here . 500
Kaiyata 501 :
(On) ‘But who*. What (the Bhasya) means is that, since the (desired)
accent is achieved anyway, the word ( ekasitipad ) need not be read. 50 ? There¬
fore it does not offer a clue. (That is to say,) prevalence of the accentuation
of the conditioned (form) should be directly stated by a rule, and cannot be
established by a clue.
498. Because its accent can be achieved in other ways, see fns. 493 and 494.
499. P.6.2.29 States that under certain conditions the first member of a dvigu -
compound retains its accent. See fn. 526.
500. Namely over other possibilities of accentuation, i.e. over P.6.1.223.
501. P. 348: ^ <TT3t * 1
5 srrsrfNr * 3 11
502. Namely, in the yuktarohin- list.
192
Note (164):
In determining the accent of the word ekasitipad we find three possibilities:
(1) Suppose we take the word as a tripadabahuvrihi. Subsequently, we form

internal construction as a tatpurusa. The question is whether to retain the
hahumfii-accentuation or the accentuation of the internal tatpurusa- construction.
In order to make the talpurusa- accentuation prevail, the rule nimittisvaraball-
yaslvad va (Varttika XXXII) is stated. But this internal tatpurusa : ekasitih
will be dvigu (see under (2). Consequently, the tatpurusa- (i.e. dvigu-) accent
according to P.6.2.29, which is a special rule, will prevail over the (internal)
tatpurusa- accent by P.6.1.223, which is a general rule. Therefore the desired
accent (ekasitipad) will be achieved anyway, and there is no need to read the
word ekasiti in the yuktdrohin-list. Nor can it be assumed, as Varttika XXXII
does, that the inclusion of ekasiti in this list, gives us the clue that the accent
of the conditioned word is stronger than the accent of the conditioning word.
Whether we accept this clue ( Jnapaka ) or not, does not make a difference
for the desired accentuation of ekasitipad. Jnapaka will not make the inclusion
of ekasitipad in the yuktarohin-\lst purposeful. The desired accent can be
established independently.
(2) Suppose we first form the tatpurusa: ekasitih and subsequently the
bahuvrihi ekasitipad. Even in this case it is not necessary to include ekasitipad
in the yuktarohin-WsU because P.6.2.29 States that the first member of a dvigu-
compound (a subdivision of tatpurusa) retains its accent, if the second member
ends in -i, -u, -r, -l. When subsequently the bahuvrihi is formed, the compound
will stili have udatta on the first syllable according to P.6.2.1.
(3) Suppose we first make the inside 502a '•onstruction as a bahuvrihi (as
ekah sitih esu): ‘who have one white’ and subsequently the ‘three-word*
bahuvrihis ekasitipad . The accent will fall on the first member of the inside
bahuvrihu by P.6.2.1. This accent is not changed when, afterwards, we form
the whole as a bahuvrihi. 503 In this way the desired accent is obtained and there is
no need for a special statement (i.e. Varttika XXXII). Even if the varttika
were there, we cannot apply it because there is no mmttti-nimt tta-relation between

the two bahuvrihis.
Since in all three possibilities the accent will fall on the first syllable of
ekasitipad , as is desired, there is no reason to include this word in the
yuktdrohin- list. In brief the argument is as follows: Katyayana formulates the
Varttika: nimittisvarabaltyastvdd vd. Then he rejects his own Varttika by saying
that we can justify the desired accent by taking a clue from Panini*s procedure
itself. Patanjali rejects this latter suggestion, because the word ekasitipad cannot
give us a clue. And therefore, Patanjali says, a special rule is required.
502a. See fn.
503. For the original accentuation see Kaiyata on Bhasya No. 193.
Samarthdhnika
193
195. (Bhasya : Another objectiori)
Then the designation tatpurusa would apply to this (internal) pait

(-construction) of the (following) bahuvnhis: susuksmajatakesena,
simatajinavasasa, samantasitirandhrena. S0U What is wrong with that?
According to the ( Varttika) tasyantoddttatvam vipratisedhat 505 (the com-
pounds just mentioned) would have udatta on the final syllabi e 506 , because
of conflict. 507
Note (163):
See Note (133) where the resulting difference in accentuation is shown,

when first the tatpurusa ( karmadharaya ) suksmajatafyesdh is formed and then
bahuvrthi-constmction of the whole. In the present argument first a bahuvnhi
is formed of four words at a time and subsequently internal tatpurusa ( karmad-
haraya). Now the rule P.6.1.223, which overrules P.6.2.1 according to
Varttika XXXI, will apply. This gives the undesired accentuation susuksma -
jatakesah. But what we want is adyudatta: susuksmajatakcsah by P.6.2.1.
Therefore a special statement to reject the latpyrusa- construction is required, ex-
cept where P.2.1.31 is applicable. This is explained in the following Bhasya.
196. (■Bhasya : Answer)
Nothing wrong here. This ( Varttika ) 508 is not formulated as a special

rule sanctioning taf/mrus^-compounding) as a part of a bahuvnhi.
Then what (purpose does it serve)? Where we have (already) a special
rule sanctioning tatpurusa(-compounding) as a part of a bahuvnhi,
there ( Varttika XXXI States that) 508a the last syllable only 509 will be
accented, because of conflict. 51 *
Kaiyata 511 :
(On) ‘this ... is not*. If a new rule were made, namely bahuvrihyavayavas
tatpuru§o bhavati: ‘the part of a bahuvnhi becomes tatpurusa* , then there would
504. See Bha§ya No. 181.
505. V&rttika XXXI.
506. I.e. of the internal construction.
507. See fn. 472.
508. Varttika XXXI.
508a. This Varttika does not prescribe the tatpurusa compound, but prescribes
the udatta for the* last syllable of the internal tatpurusa prescribed by
P.2.1.51.
509. I.e. of the internal construction.
510. See fn. 472. — . - ~ ~ ' *
511. P. 349: I
F,—13
194
be a difficulty. 512 But since (internal) lalpurusa is prescribed (only) for direction-
indicating words and for numerals, when they are followed by the final member
(of the compound), there is no difficulty. 513
Note (166):
Not every ‘three-word* bahuvrihi allows internal part-construction as a tat-

purusa. This is restricted to a case where the first member represents a direction-
indicating word or a numeral (like eâsitipad) when followed by the uttarapada.
Therefore, in a bahuvrihi like susuksmajatakesah we cannot form internal tat¬
purusa- construction.
But for this also there is (a rule), isn’t it? Which? Visesanam visesyena
bahulam : ‘a qualifier(-word) is variously compounded with the (word
it) qualifies ’. 514
198. (Bhasya : Answer )
There will be no (internal tatpurusa-construction) , 515 because of (the

word) bahulam : ‘variously’.
Kaiyata 516 :
(On) ‘because of (the word) bahulam \ If compounding takes place of a

whole, the part does not take a different designation 517 , because of the word
bahulam 517 *, unless a (special) rule is made (to that effect).
Nagesa 518 :
(On) ‘because of (the word) bahulam \ This means: ‘because of (the word
bahulam) which has the meaning “somewhere something totally different (takes
512. The internal tatpurusa formed after the formation of the bahuvrihi will
have an accent on the final syllable, which is not desired.
513. Because the compounds susuksmajatakesah etc. do not come under P.2.1.51.
therefore the internal construction cannot be regarded as a tatpurusa.
514. P.2.2.57.
515. The rule P.2.2.57 cannot justify the designation tatpurusa for a part of a bahuvrihi -
compound, because the word bahulam implies that in that rule P.2.2.57
is not always effective.
516. P. 349: | gJRWFT f rT T^T^TF?! ffjTT pRT
sr§?FRRT5r 5T^T% II
517. I.e. different from the designation belonging to the whole.
517a. The word bahulam in P.2.2.57 implies that the internal construction between
a qualifier and a qualified word is not necessarily formed everywhere.
518. P. 349: | I 3R5T
qf«Tcr ?fcr
'TtRar: i
Samarthdhnika
195
place)**. 519 By this (statement) it is also indicated that this (word bahulam)
rejects the application of (rules) which amplify 520 and which are meant to give
a restriction with regard to the word which is to be placed first (in a compound).
Otherwise their 521 nature would be violated. 522
By this (statement) Kaiyata is refuted, who, while commenting on (the

words) mahat fastam sritah 523 , States that, after the formation of a tafpurusa
of three words, an (intemal) compound (-construction) of two words is formed
by the rule sanmahat (paramotiamotlflrstah pujyamanmh) . 524
Note (167):
In this context the word bahulam meaning £vacid anyai eva: ‘somewhere
something totally different* suggests that we are not supposed to apply P.2.2.57
for forming intemal constmction, i.e. ‘two-word’ compounding as an intemal
fatpurusa in a ‘three-word’ bahuvrihi. Therefore the intemal constmction
mahalfasta in the ‘three-word* compound mahatkastasrilah as proposed by
Kaiyata cannot be admitted. The word bahulam suggests that the internal con¬
struction is aliowed, if it is prescribed by P.2.1.51. The rule P.2.2.57 and
the rules which give an amplification of P.2.2.57 do not form the intemal con¬
struction independently.
199. (Bhasya : Another objection)
Then the designation tatpurusa will apply to this part (adhikasasti)

of the bahuvnhi: adhikasastivarsah: ‘having (a number of) sixty years
more’. What is the difficulty here? According to (the Varttika) tas-
yantoddttatvaih vipratisedhat* 2 * , (the intemal tatpurusa) would have
udatta on the final syllable, in keeping with (the procedure adopted in
the case of) vipratisedha : ‘conflict ’. 526
519. The words kvacid anyad eva form part of a verse in which four meanings
of the word bahulam are enumerated. The verse occurs in S&rasvata

Vyakarana , stanza 22. See Nirnaya-Sagar Press ed. f Bombay 1944 (Vikra-
maditya samvat) pp. 15-16. See also Laghusiddhdntakaumudi on P.3.3.113.
The word bahulam does not simply mean that the rule, in which it occurs
sometimes applies, sometimes optionally applies, sometimes does not
apply at all, but means also that something else which is not mentioned in
the rule may take place.
520. I.e. which give an amplification of P.2.2.57.
521. I.e. the amplificatory nature of these rules.
522. I.e. these rules are not supposed to teach something new which is not
taught by P.2.2.57.
523. See Kaiyata on Bhasya No. 16, sub Ilb.
524. P.2.1.61. This internal construction is not aliowed, because the word
bahulam prohibits the intemal construction, unless it is sanctioned by
P.2.1.51.
525. Vdrttika XXXI.
526. See fn. 472.
196
Kaiyata 527 :
(On) adhlkasastlvarsah . When we make a iripadabahuvrthi : *bahuvrihi -

compound of three words at the same time’; (and when) according to (the
Varttika) adhikagrahanam cdluki: ‘also (the word) adhika should be included
(in the numerals) when (the following suffix) is not elided* 528 , (the word)
adhtlâ receives the designation samJ(hya: ‘numeral’; (and) when (internal)
iatpurusa of two-members is formed, according to (the rule) iaddhitarihottarapada-
(samahdre ca) 529 , then (the compound) will have udatta on the final syllable. 530
This is what (the Bhasya) means. The word adhika has udatta on the first
syllable, because it ends in /?o/V. 531
Note (168):
According to Varttika XXXI the internal iatpurusa- construction adhikasasti

of the ‘three-word* bahuvr i/ii-compound adhikasastivarsa will have udatta on
the final syllable by P.6.1.223. But the accent desired is the original ac-
cent of the first syllable by P.6.2.1 (adhikasastivarsah ).
200. (- Bhasya : Objection refuted )
No difficulty here. According to (the rule) iganata ( kalakapdlabhagdla -

sardvesu) dvigau 532 , the (original) accent (of the first member) will
prevail here. 533
201. (Bhasya : Another objection)
Then what about the compound which does not end in z& 534 , like
adhikasatavarsah : ‘having one hundred years more’.
527. P. 349: 3rfsr?TTfew wfT I 3rf^T^f
^vPrr^rRT^rrr: i
528. Varttika VIII on P. 1.1.23. The complete Varttika reads adhikagrahanam

cdluki samasottarapadavrddhyartham : ‘the word adhika should bfe considered as
a numeral for tHe sake of compounding. (see P.2.1.51), and for the sake
of vrddhi for the final member (of a compound) (see P.7.3.15), when the
following suffix is not elided (see P.5.1.28).
529. P.2.1.51.
530. This is not desired.
531. P.5.2.73 is a nipatanasutra, which derives the word adhika by adding the
suffix kaN to adhi.
532. P.6.2.29 States that in a dazgM-compound the first member retains its original
accent when its final member ends in ik.
533. According to P.6.2.1 the original accent on- the' first syllable is retained.
According to Varttika XXXI this accent is superseded by that of the internal
tatpurusa. According to P.2.2.29 the accent on the first syllable is restored
again.
534. Jk is the pratyahara : ‘comprehensive designation’ for the vowels i, u } r, l.
Note (169):
Samarthahnika
197
In the compound adhikasalavarsah which is analysed as adhikam satam

varsdni yasya, the internal tatpurusa ( adhikasata ) does not end in -i, -u, -r, -l.
Therefore P.6.2.29 cannot be applied. Hence Varttika XXXI: tasyantodat -
tatvam vipratisedhat will apply and the compound wil) have udatta on the final
syllable of the internal tatpurusa. This ( adhiâsatavarsa ) is not desired. We
want ddhil(asatavarsa y according to P.6.2.1.
202. ( Bhasya: Appropriateness of a previous objectiori pointed out 535 )
But here also, in the form adhikasastivarsah change at the end of a

compound 536 would occur, according to (the Varttika) dacah prakarane
samkhyayas tatpurusasyopasamkhydnam nistrimsadyartham . 536a
Note (170):
The compound nistrimsa means nirgaldni trirhsatah : ‘(years) which have

passed beyond thirty*. 537 It is considered to be a tatpurusa according to the
VarWlta niradayah l^rantadyarlhe pancamya : ‘the words mY etc. (are com-
pounded) with (a word in) the ablative, in the sense of “passed beyond”
etc.*. 538 From nistrimsai + DaC we derive nistrimsa by P.6.4.143. Similarly,
the internal construction adhilâsasti will be a tatpurusa by P.2.1.51. Since it
ends in a numeral the abovequoted Varttika would apply and adhifyasasti will
take DaC. From adhiâsasti + DaC we will have adhifyasasta, which is an
undesired form.
203. ( Bhasya: Objection rejected)
No difficulty here. This ( Varttika ) is (conditioned) in such a way

(that it applies to a word which is) preceded by an indeclinable,
Note (171):
The rule which prescribes DaC applies only, if the first word is an indeclinable,
See Patanjali’s statement avyayader iti vaktavyam; * It should be stated that
(this Varttika applies to a word which is) preceded by an indeclinable\ 539
But adhika is not an indeclinable.
535. I.e. the objection stated in Bha§ya No. 199: ‘Then the designation tatpurusa
will apply to this part . . . . of the bahuvrxhi . . /.
536. I.e. at the end of the internal compound-construction adhika$a$ti.
536a. Varttika I on P.5.4.73 States that in the section on the samdsanta-suSix

DaC, inclusion is to be made of a tatpurusa which ends in a numeral, for
the sake of nistrimsa etc.
537. See Siddhantakaumudx no. 853 on P.5.4.73.
538. Mbh. Vol. I, p. 416, line
539. Mbh. Vol. II, p. 439, line 16.
Mahabhasya ( P.2.1.1)
204 . (Bhasya: Objectiori)
But why (is) this (Varttika conditioned) in such a way (that it ap-
plies to a word which is) preceded by an indeclinable?
205 . ( Bhasya: Ansiver)
So that it would not apply here: gotrimsat : ‘thirty cows’, gocatvarim-

sat : ‘forty cows ’.' 540
Note (172):
If DaC had been applied the forms would read golrimsah , gocaivarimsah.
But the first member of these compounds is not an indeclinable. Therefore DaC
does not apply.
206 . (Bhasya: Objection)
Then the designation bahuvnhi would apply according to (the rule)

samkhyayavyaydsanwdurddhikasamkhydli samkhycyc. 5 * 0 *
Kaiyata 541 :
(On) ‘Then the designation*. The idea is that in (the form) adhil(asastivarsa
also we have a difficulty. 542 If we make a tripadabahuvnhi: * bahuvnhi of three
words at the same time*, (then) bahuvnhi (-designation) would apply (to the
inside part adhikasasti) by (the rule) samkhyaydvyaya (- asannaduradhika -
samkhydh samkhyeye) 543 which, being the later rule, supersedes (the rule)
taddhitarthotiarapada ( samdhare ca) m (which prescribes internal) tatpurusa
of two words. And therefore there is a possibflity (to apply the samasanta-suffix)
DaC , according to (the rule) bahuvnhau samlthyeye (daj abahugandt) . 545
540. To render the genitive sense of this compound in English the translation
‘one score and ten of cows’ and ‘two scores of cows’ might be preferable.
540a. P.2.2.25 states that an indeclinable, (the words) asanna, adura, adhika and
a numeral (are compounded) with a numeral in the sense of ‘object to
be counted’ (and the compound is called bahuvrihi ).
541. P. 349: cT^ff^F | I
«rplfs:
gratia i aa*a aptfl' ii
542. I.e. adhikasasti will also be taken as an inside bahuvnhi - construction.
542a. For the difference between ‘inside’ and ‘internal’ construction see fn. 558.
543. P.2.2.25.
544. P.2.1.51. See also P.l.4.2.
545. P.5.4.73. When a bahuvrihi stands for ‘object to be counted’ the suffix DaC
will be added, exeept when the words bahu or gana occur at the end of
that bahuvnhi.
Samarthdhmka
Nagesa 546 :
(On) ‘in (the form) adhiJ(asastivarsa also’. In (the word) adhikasatavarsah

also there will be difference in accentuation, because (tbe suffix) DaC applies. 547
Note (173):
If a numeral stands for saml?hyeya: ‘(object) to be counted’, then the (in¬

side) compound ( adhikasa§ti ) would be considered as a bahuvrihu according
to P.2.2.25. The argument is as follows:
A. Adhikasastivarsa as a bahuvnhi with intemal taipurusa:
( 1) The accent wilt fall on the last syllable of the intemal construction by
P.6.1.223 which, according to Vdrttika XXXI, prevails over P.6.2.1. This
latter rule prescribes retainment of the original accent on the first member (see
Bhdsya No. 199).
(2) A (1) is denied. The accent will be on the first syllable, because the
internal taipurusa happens to be a dvigu (see Bhasya No. 200).
(3) Then DaC will apply, because it is prescribed for taipurusa ending in a
numeral {V artlika I on P.5.4.73, see Bhasya No. 202).
(4) A (3) is denied. The suffix DaC is restricted to compounds the first
member of which is an indeclinable (see Bhasya No. 203).
B. Adhikasastivarsa as a bahuvnhi with inside bahuvnhi:
(1) Inside construction can be made as a bahuvrihu if we take the numeral

as ‘object to be counted* (see Bhasya No. 206).
(2) If bahuvnhi , then DaC, which is not desired here.
C. The relation of this argument with the topic under discussion is as follows:
This section is concemed with the number of words to be compounded at a
time, whether two or more. If more, then why not form bahuvrihis of three
words? Patanjali explains that m tlns case the inside construction in the word
adhikasastivarsa will be bahuvnhi by P.2.2.25. Then DaC will necessarily
come in by P.5.4.73 and the resuit is an undesired form.
D. Conclusion: In order not to have DaC which gives the form adhikasasta-
varsa we will opt for the intemal fafpuru$a-construction, i.e. dvigu . See A(2), A (4)
and the following Bhasyas. .
546. P. 349: gffa ipq I arfwWTOTfft snw foifa ffa TTT^r: II
547. Inside bahuvnhi would give the accentuation adhikasatavarsah by P.6.1.163,

whereas the tripadabahuvrxhi without inside construction would have the
accent on the first syllable ( adhikasatavarsah) by P.6.2.1. See Note (169).
200
207 . ( Bhasya : Anstver)
We will not take the numeral to represent (the object) to be counted.

How (can that be done)? Meaning-analysis will be made in the following
way: adhika sastir varsanam asya : ‘who has a threescore of years more’.
Kaiyata 548 :
(On) ‘not ... the numeral’. So as to ha ve only (the form) adhilâsastivarsa
we adopt the avyavika-principle . 549 Therefore, (when we accept) meaning-

analysis as adhika sastir varsdni yasya (we will have to say that) this 550 is
used as an uncompounded expression only.
Note (174):
The objection was that in a tripadabahuvrlhi the inside construction adhikasasti

would be a bahuvrihi by P.2.2.25. The suflix DaC would apply and the re-
sulting form would be adhikasastavarsa. The answer was ( Bhasya No. 206)
that P.2.2.25 will apply if we adopt the analysis adhika sastih varsdni i )asya,
where sasti stands for the object to be counted. Instead of this analysis
Patanjali now adopts adhika sastih varsanam asya. Here P.2.2.25 does
not apply, because the numeral does not stand for the object to be counted, but
for number only, and, consequently, the question of applying the suffix DaC does
not arise. 550a
However, the difficulty concerning the analysis adhika sastih varsdni yasya,
which will resuit in an undesirable compound-form, is not solved. That is
to say, the question why we cannot adopt this analysis is not answered.
It is only said that the alternative analysis will produce the desired form.
Kaiyata tries to put this right by appealing to the avyavika - principle.
This principle says that the word avika is derived by adding the Wd/n/a-suffix
aN to the word avika , in the sence of aver mdmsam: ‘sheep's meat’. That means
the suffix aN is added to the word avika , when the meaning of this latter word
is analysed as aver mdmsam. But the word avi in aver mdmsam cannot
itself serve as a base for the formation of the word avika.
It was argued that the suffix DaC would be applied - which is undesirable - to
the inside construction adhikasasti in adhikasastivarsah , when the meaning of
this latter form is analysed as adhika sastih varsdni yasya. Hence we have
548. P. 349: ^ I Wfe&VW&t fW^TRT
anrsfta# i n
549. Mbh. Vol. II, p. 240, lines 3-4. For the explanation of this principle see
Note (174).
550. I.e. adhika sastih varsdni yasya.
550a. It might be advisable at this point to read first Note (175) where the
whole argument is summarized.
SamarthahmkcL
201
to assume that the uncompounded wordgroup adhika sastih varsani paspa is not
turned into the compound adhikasastivarsah , but it is used as an uncompounded
wordgroup only according to this ovpaviâ-principle. In his comment on the
next Bhaspa Kaiyata will perform the same trick on the alternative analysis
adhika sastih varsarnam aspa (see Kaiyata on Bhasya No. 209). P.2.2.24
will apply and DaC will be there. Thus the form adhikasastivarsa cannot
be derived from either analysis.
208. (Bhasya: Objectiori justified)
Since that rule 551 is discarded, therefore (the designation bahuvnhi)

will apply according to the preceding (rule). 552 But how is that rule
discarded? On account of (the Varttika) asisyah samkhyottarapadah
samkhyeydrthdbhidhayitvdt: £ (the designation bahuvnhi, which is pre-
scribed for a compound) having a numeral as its last member, need not
be taught, because (the compound as a whole conveys the meaning) of
‘object to be counted\ 55S
Kaiyata 554 :
(on) ‘according to the preceding*. Because according to (the analysis)

adhil(d sastir pesam varsandm(asya) : ‘possessed of a number of sixty more
years’ 555 the years are the object to be counted, (the designation) bahuvfihi
would apply 556 according to (the rule) anekam anyapadarihe. 557 And because
the bahuvnhi would convey the sense of ‘object to be counted* we would
have to add (the suffix) DaC also, which is based on that ( bahuvnhi -
designation) and so we would have undesirable resuit. That is to say, to
551. P.2.2.25.
552. P.2.2.24. See fn. 558.
553. Varttika IV on P.2.2.25. A numeral as a constituent of a bahuvnhi-compound

stands for samkhya: ‘number’, whereas the bahuvrthi as a whole signifies
‘object to be counted’. This latter is considered as the anyapaddrtha . There¬
fore P.2.2.24 will cover also the cases which come under P.2.2.25. See Note
(175) sub 3 and 4. The reading of this Varttika as given by Kielhorn
Abhyankar, Vol. I, p. 428, line 5 cannot be correct. The context only allows
samkhyeydrthdbhidhayitvdt , and the text should be emended in this way.
554 . p. 350 : | 3rfwr 'rffejzfar wr 3T#sf^T<reT«r ffir
srjsftf?: ssratfa *>r: i
«r$prtf^: arsftfcr n
555. Ye$am indicates that adhika sastih is to be an intemal bahuvrihi-construction,

whereas ( asya) indicates that the whole is a bahuvnhi also. The awkward
translation given tries to render the genitive constructions. The meaning
is, of course, ‘sixty years older’.
556. Namely to the inside construction adhika§asti. See Note (175) and fn. 558.
557. P.2.2.24.
202
express the meaning of ‘possessing years* bahuvrvhi (compounding) would

take place again (of the whole) having an inside bahuvnhi as its part. 558
209 . ( Bhasya: Objectiori rejecied)
That rule 559 being discarded we will take the numeral to represent
‘(object) to be counted’. In this case meaning-analysis will be made in
the following way: adhika sastir varsany asya: ‘who has sixty years
more 5 .
Kaiyata 560 :
(On) ‘being discarded’. And according to the avyavika- principle the expression
adhika sastir varsdnam asya will occur only as an uncompounded word-group. 561
210 . ( Bhasya: Objectiori reaffirmed )
In any case, we will not get rid of (the undesired form) adhikasasta -
varsah z 562 Why not? Because that rule 563 is discarded and (because) this
(altemative possibility of) meaning-analysis: adhika sastir varsdnam
asya is (very much) there.
Kaiyata 564 :
Not taking into consideration the avyavika- principle (Patanjali) says: ‘in
this case’.
Note (175).
The analysis adhil(d sastih varsani yasya cannot serve as a base for
the inside compounding of adhika and sastih according to P.2.2.24, since
no additional meaning ( anyapaddrtha ) in the form of ‘having, possessing’ can
be found for the inside construction. Here sasti already expresses that idea,
because sasti represents ‘object to be counted, numbered object’ ( samkhyeya ).
558. This inside bahuvnhi is to be distinguished from a n intemal bahuvnhi
(part-) construction which is made after the whole compound has been
formed. The inside bahuvnhi mentioned here is formed before the bahuvnhi
as a whole is formed of three words. See fn. 33 and Note (20), analysis
Ia and Ilb.
559. P.2.2.25.
560. p. 350: sj^n^n<T §frT i apaTfspjrsTm
irRrarfr ii
561. See Note (175) and (174).
562. Here the suffix DaC has been applied which is undesired.
563. P.2.2.25. It means that in the analysis adhika §a§tih varianam asya the rule
P.2.2.24 will apply and as a consequence DaC will come by P.5.4.73.
564. P. 350: I
Samarthahnika
203
Since no anyapadartha can be added to this, we cannot apply P.2.2.24 to form

a compound of adhika and sastih. Since no inside - construction can be made,
we will have tripadabahuvrihi-compoundmg of adhika sasti and varsa . This
will give the correct form adhil?asastivarsah.
In the alternative analysis adhika sastih varsanam asya the word

sasti does not by itself express anyapadartha, because it stands for number
( samkhya ) only, and not for numbered object. Therefore we can form here
an inside bahuvrihi- construction of adhika and sastih. But then the suffix DaC
will apply by P.5.4.73 and the resuit is the undesired form adhikasastavarsa.
Kaiyata, reasoning from his avyavifya- principle, says that the word-group
adhika sastih in adhika sastih varsaridm asya is used as an uncompounded
group only and can never be tumed into a compound. Therefore, no undesired
form will resuit.
Summary:
(1) For the form adhikasastivarsa two possibilities of meanings-analysis

present themselves:
A. adhika sastih varsdni yasya, where sastih and varsdni stand in syntactic
agreement and therefore sasti represents numbered object.
B. adhika sastih varsanam asya, where sastih and varsanam stand in a

genitive relation and therefore sasti represents number only.
(2) Both A and B are meaning-analyses of a bahuvrihi-compound. The

question is whether an inside bahuvnhi-construction of adhika and sastih can
be prevented, so as not to have the undesired form adhikasastavarsa by the
necessary application of P.5.4.73. The rules concerned for bahixvrihi-compound-
ing here are P.2.2.24 which is a general rule and P.2.2.25 which is a special
rule, i.e. a rule which applies to a special case of bahuvrihi- compounding.
(3) According to P.2.2.24 a bahuvrihi expresses anyapadartha: ‘meaning

of another word’ which is not denoted by the constituent members of the
compound taken separately. This additional meaning is usually rendered as
‘having, possessing, connected with* (yukta) etc.
(4) According to P.2.2.25 the word adhika is compounded with a numeral,

when this latter represents samkhyeya: ‘(object) to be counted, (object)
connected with number*. The resulting compound is called bahuvnhi.
(5) The question is now, what does the word sasti in adhikasastivarsa
represent: number ( samkhya ) or object connected with number (samkhyeya) ?
The answer to this question will decide whether we will be able to make an
inside bahuvnhi-construction of adhika and sasti, either by P.2.2.24 or by
P.2.2.25.
204
(6) P.2.2.24 applies only if the possibilily of anyapadarlha is there.

Therefore, P.2.2.24 can apply to form the inside bahuvrihi- construction
only, if we suppose that sasti stands for number. In that case anyapadarlha:
'object to be counted’ would be there to be expressed by the bahuvrihi
compound. P.2.2.25 can apply to form the inside bahuvrihi only, if we
suppose that sasti stands for numbered object. In this case anyapadartha
is so to speak, already represented by the word sasti. It already expresses
the idea of ‘having, possessing’ in the form of ‘object having a particular
number*. So we cannot apply P.2.2.24.
(7) It should be remembered that in both cases, whether we apply P.2.2.24

or P.2.2.25 to form the inside bahuvrihi , the suffix DaC will necessarily come
in by P.5.4.73. If bahuvrihi then DaC. This will produce an undesired form,
adhikasastavarsa. In order not to have the undesired form, we have to find
a means to prevent the application of DaC . In order to prevent the application
of DaC we have to find a means to exclude the formation of an inside bahuvrihi.
(8) At this point a complication is introduced into the argument. It is
stated in the Varttika IV on P.2.2.25 that for the formation of the samkhyeya
bahuvrihiy P.2.2.25 is not necessary at ali. We can manage by P.2.2.24
and we will discard P.2.2.25. When we apply P.2.2.24 the two possibilities
of meaning-analysis as shown under (i) A and B remain as they are.
(9) P.2.2.24, being the only rule to be taken into account, will only apply
to analysis (1) B, where sasti stands for number and where consequently,
anyapadartha can be added. The resuit is an inside bahuvrihi application of
DaC and an undesired form.
(10) P.2.2.24, being the only rule to be taken into account, cannot apply
to analysis (1) A, where sasti stands for numbered object. Consequently,
there will be no inside bahuvrihiy no DaC and we will have a desired form
by applying tripadabahuvnhi according to P.2.2.24.
(11) What happens if we do not discard P.2.2.25 by P.2.2.24. Now

there are two rules to be taken into account. It is already explained what
happens if we apply P.2.2.24 only (see sub 9 and 10). Therefore, we will
restrict our attention to P.2.2.25, the possibilities of analysis remaining as they are.
(12) P.2.2.25, being the rule to be taken into account, will only apply to
analysis (1) A, where sasti stands for object connected with number. The
resuit is an inside bahuvrihi application of DaC and an undesired form.
(13) P.2.2.25, being the rule to be taken into account, cannot apply to
analysis (1) B, where sasti stands for number. Consequently, there will be
no inside bahuvrihi, no DaC , and we will have a desired form by applying

tripadabahuvnhi according to P.2.2.24.
Samarthdhnika
205
(14) Conclusion: We wiil succeed in establishing the required form

adhiJiasastivarsah by means of tripadabahuvrihi in case (a) we discard P.2.2.25
and adopt the analysis (1) A adhilâ sastih varsani aspa, (b) we take into
account P.2.2.25 and adopt analysis (1) B adhikd sastih Varsanam aspa.
(15) Since there is no criterion which would make us necessarily to choose

one of the analyses to prevent one of the rules from applying, Patafijali says
that we cannot get rid of the undesired form. If we are free to choose any
analysis we wiil have the form with inside bahuvrihi-constmction and the
application of the sufhx DaC.
(16) Kaiyata provides that criterion. It is the avpavifca-principle according
to which we are not supposed to choose an analysis which leads to an undesired

formation. Patanjali in Bhasya No. 210 says that the altemative
analysis in each case lead to an undesired resuit and this cannot be
prevented. Therefore Kaiyata comments that Patanjali does not take into
account the avyavfya- principle.
211. (Bhasya: Objcction rejected)
But with regard to what has been said: ‘we cannot form (the com-
pound) adhikasastivarsa 565 (we answer that) we can form it. How?
Because that rule 566 is discarded and (because) we adopt this meaning-
analysis: adhikd sastir varsany asya.
Kaiyata 567 :
Taking into consideration the avyavika- principle (Patanjali) says: ‘But with
regard to what has been said*. That rule 568 is discarded, because (the object)
to be counted (saml(hyeya) becomes anyapadartha , 569 because so far as
compounding ( vrtti ) is concerned, even the numerals" dasa: ‘ten’ etc. express
number (saml^hyd) only, on the authority of the statement dvpeâpoh. 570
565. See Bhasya No. 210: ‘In any case, we wiil not get rid of (the undesired
form) adhikasa§tavarsah',_ . . ...
566. P.2.2.25. .
567. p. 350: i f r Trf?m ^nflvmrPT
frfrT firesTKT H II
568. P.2.2.25.
569. I.e. the different meaning not denoted by the constituent members of the
bahuvrihi compound. See Note (175).
570. P. 1.4.22 States that the dual is used to denote the number ‘fwo J ? and the
singular to denote the number ‘one’,
206
Mahdbhdsya (P.2.1.1)
Note (176)
Up to the number 10 (inclusive) the numerals stand for samlihycya: ‘(object)

connected with, counted by, possessing number’. 571 Consequently, when we
want to make a bahuvrihi~compound with one of these numerals, we cannot
apply P.2.2.24, because w*e cannot add anyapadariha. In order to have a
bahuvrihi-compound formed with any of the numerals 1-10, the rule P.2.2.25
is especially formulated. Once P.2.2.25 is formulated as containing the term
samkhya it will apply to numerals in general and therefore to the present case
adhi1?d sastih , to form a bahuvrihi compound. In the present case: adhilâ
sastih application of P.2.2.25 will lead to the undesired formation
adhiJâsastavarsa.
Since P.2.2.25 is especially formulated for saml(hyd how can Pataiijali

assume that it is discarded? Kaiyata says that even for the numerals 1-10
the rule P.2.2.25 is not necessary. The numerals 1-10 also represent saml(hyd.
This we get on the authority of the use of the words dvi and el(a in P. 1.4.22
which stand for the numbers ‘two’ and ‘one’ respectively, and not for two
objects or one object. So even to these numbers anyapadartha can be added,
that is, P.2.2.24 can be applied and we can comfortably discard P.2.2.25.
We can say now that P.2.2.24, being the only rule to be taken into account,
will not apply to form the inside bahuvrihi : adhifcasasti in adhil?asasti-varsa %
because we adopt the meaning-analysis adhika sastih varsdni asya, where
sasti stands for object connected with number. Since there is no other rule to
be taken into account than P.2.2.24 and since P.2.2.24 does not apply, we will
makc a tripadabahuvnhi and have the desired form adhilâsastivarsa without
intervention by the suffix DaC.
212. ( Bhasya: Objcction)
But we cannot form (the compound) adhikasatavarsah , 572

Kaiyata 573 :
(On) ‘But . . . adhil(asa*avarsah f . When we form a tripadabahuvnhi :

adhiham sa f am varsdny aspa: ‘who has one hundred years more* (and form
571. See Note (175). See Amara’s Namalinganusasanam ed. by H. D. Sharma

and H. G. Sardesai, Poona, 1941, p. 218, Stanza 83: .... samkhytih
samkhyeye hy adasa tri§u : ‘numerals up to 10 stand for ‘(object) to be
counted’ (and) are used in three genders.
572. The argument returns to Bhasya No. 201, which raises an objection that
had not been answered:
573. P. 350: arfsr^T I *rf*W 5RT fit
Samarthahnika
207
internal) tatpurusa according to (the rule) taddhitdrthottarapada(samahdre

ca) 57i (then the internal compound) will have udatta on the last syllable, whereas
udatta on the first syllable is desired.
Note (177)
The argument goes as follows : We cannot apply P.2.2.25 to form the

inside bahuvnhi: adhil?d sastih , because the rule is discarded. We cannot
apply P.2.2.24, because we analyse adhikasastivarsah as adhika sastih
varsani asya. Therefore no inside bahuvnhi can be made nor can the suffix
DaC be applied. But we can form an internal (not ‘inside* 575 ) tatpurusa
(dvigu) construction of adhika and sastih by P.2.1.50. This will give the
desired form. There is no question of DaC now, because this suffix is restricted
to bahuvnhi It will also give the desired accent. P.6.1.223 which prescribes
accentuation of the final member ( adhiâsasti) is ruled out by P.6.2.29., 576
and the form, as is desired, reads adhiâsastrvarsa.
Patanjali now says, that even if internal tatpurusa (dvigu) construction

gives the desired resuit in adhikasastivarsa , it will not do so in adhfyasata-
Varsa. In this form the final syllable of the internal construction will be
accentuated ( adhikasala -) by P.6.1.223. Here P.6.2.29 cannot overrule
P.6.1.223, because the numeral sata does not end in i£. Therefore, to prevent
this undesired accent by P.6.1.223 a special provision is necessary, namely,
to list this word in the pu^/arhm-list. 677
213 . ( Bhasya: Amiver)
In this case some special provision has to be made.
Kaiyata 578 :
(On) ‘In this case some special provision has to be made*. The word
adhikasatavarsa should be listed in the yuktarohin- list 559 , so that it could

have the accent on the first syllable.
574. P.2.1.51.
575. See fn. 558.
576. See fns. 526 and 528.
577. See fn. 491.
573. P. 350: | l|
579. $ee fa. 49J See Bhasya No. 193 and Kaiya^ on that.
208
Nagesa 580 :
The final view is that with regard to dvandva and bahuvrihi no specification
(of the number of constituent words is given). 581
(HERE ENDS THE SECTION ON THE PROPER NUMBER OF CONSTITUENT

WORDS IN A COMPOUND).
(here ends the first Ahnika in the Vydkaranamahdbhasya of the
FIRST SECTION OF THE SECOND CH APTER, COMPOS ED BY THE RE VE RED

MASTER PATAfJjALl).
580. K 350: W f^TT: II
581. See Bhasya No. 182. The outcome of the discussion is that in dvandva and
bahuvifihi-com\)o\in&s no restriction is put on the number of words to be
compounded at a time.
INDEX OF SANSKRIT AND ENGLISH WORDS
INDEX OF SANSKRIT WORDS
The following index contains Sanskrit words that have been defined or
discussed in the Translation, Notes, and Introduction. The words in the foot-notes
which occur in the Devanagarl script in the text, are transliterated here in the Roman
script. The dash before or after or on both the sides of the indexed word respec-
tively shows whether the remaining member of a compound is before or after
or on both the sides of the indexed word. Free numbers refer to the pages; num-
bers preceded by V refer to the foot-note numbers. Roman numbers refer to
the pages of the introduction. Words are listed in the order of the Sanskit syl-
labary.
al?rtakdrya, 81 ni 32.
aksasaunda , 19.
agamaJâ, 48.
agamalâtva , 42, 43, 47, 48.

agaii , 144.
ajahalsvarthd , xi, xvii, 9, 10, 51, 75,

81.
adhdlvabhihila , 1 62n389.
adhikarana , 155, 160, 161.
adhikasalavarsa, 197, 207.
adhikasastavarsa , 202, 203, 204.
adhikasastivarsa , 195, 196, 197,
199* 200/201, 205, 206, 207.
adhikdra , v, xvii, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11,

16, 17, 121, 130, 130n287, 131.
ad/ii/fdra-rule, 5. -
adhikdrasvarita , 8.
anapumsalâ , 44, 49.
anavaâsa, 185.
anavastha , 68n109.
aniyatapaurvdparya, 56n81.
anudatia , 1 1 7n242, 144, 145.
anuvrttu 131.
ane/ea, 169, 171, 172, 174, 177.
anekagrahana , 168n411.
anekartha , 82n1 34.
anaikdntilza , 188n488.
antarbhuta , 84n140, 85.
antarbhudasvartha , 58n85.
antaranga , 100, 186, 187, 188.
antarangatva, 186, 186n473, 187.
antarangacvipratisedha , 187.
antodatta , 180.
anyapadartha , 186n411, 20In553,

202, 203.
anvakhydna, 41n58.
aparasdldpriya , 181.
apavada , 188.
apavadatva , 157n367, 185n469.

apunargeya , 44, 48.
apurvavacana , 193n511.
aprasiddha , 154n355.
apsucara , 61.
abuddhisthatva , 1 74n433.
abhtdheyavdcin , 1 61 n383.
abhihita , 84n140, 85.
abhedavivaksa , 146n326.
211
212
Index of Samljrit Words
abhcdalkatvasamkhyti , 58n85, 59, 60.

artha , 90.
arthabheda , 57n82, 125n272.

arthavisesa , 125n272.
arthabhidhana , 65nl01.
arthantara , 128n278.
arthavadharana , 70nll5.
ardhapasu , 62.
alu^y 61.
avayavadvdrafya , 36n49.
avayavdrthanvita , 51 n72.
avacya, 153n347, 154n352.
avdntarapada , 21n34.
avantarapadatva , 115n232.
avibhaga , 58n85.
avrtti, 73.
avyaktdbhidhana , 61n95.
avpapa, 108.
av\jaW£a-, 200, 201, 203, 205.

avpaviânpdpa, 200n548, 202n560.
asraddhabhojin , 44, 48.
asvahila , 18.
asatyaprakTiyd , 75n 125.
asamartha , 42n62, 45n66, 46, 47,

48, 49, 104, 105, 123, 133n297,
134, 163.
asamarthavat, 123n266.
asamarthasamdsa> 44, 48.
asamarthabhidhdyin , 15n28.
asadhutva, 41n58.
asdmarthyay 129n284, 163.
asuryampasya , 44, 48.
a/iani, 91.
a/eaii/esa-, 54n77, 1 1 ln209.
dlcrtiy 28, 29n42, 148n329, 149,

149n334.
a^sepa, 2n4a, 69nl 1 1.
al?siptatva , 167n408.
dkhydta, 110, 112, 113, 118, 119,

164n399.
dmantritanighdia, 109n197.
itaretarayoga , 68n109, 69.
uttarapada , 24.
uttarapadalopm , xv, 139, 146n326.

utsarga , 1 42.
uddtta , 22, 116, 180, 189, 192.
uddesya , xvi, 1, 1 12n21 6, 136, 142.
udbhutasambandha, 52n75.
upal?dra, 150, 150n342.
upakaraka , 34n47.
upafcdrakatva , 153n347, 154n352.
upaltdrpatva-, 34n47.
upacara, 1 35n301, 147.
upapada , 14, 16.
upapada - relationship, xiii.
upapadavibhal(ti t 12.
upasarga, 1 64n399.
upasarjana, 1 69.
upasarjanapada , 33n45, 58n85.
upasarjanasamjna , 1 68n41 1, 1 78n-
443.
upasarjambhuta , 78n 129.

upasarjambhutasvdrtha , 9, 63n98.
upasthitu 131n290.
upadhi —, 156n365.
ubhayddhisthanatva , 83n138.
Index of Sansfarit Words
2 13
eka , 109, 119.
ekatih , 1£9, 117n24l, 118, 119,

122.
ekaiva , 86.
elwtvavival(sd f 1 13n226.
el(ahasaml(hyd t 31 n43.
eâvacqna, 142.
e/eavafcya, 119n248.
eJâvibhaktu 168n41 1.
ekavibhal?til(a, 1 70n421.
eltavibhaklitva , 73nl20.
ekavisayatva , 115n232.
ckasitu 191.
efasitipad , 190, 191, 192.
eâsesa-, 137, 138, 141, 142, 143,

147, 1 73n430.
eâsesanirdesa , 137, 140, 144.

el(asamjnddhil(dra , 183n456.
e/fdc, 118.
ekdnupurviJ(a t 115n232.
ekdrtha , 82nl34, 86, 108nl96.
eJ^drlhata, 54n77.
eltdrthaiva , 52n74.
ekdrthibhdva> v, vi, vii, viii, xi, xii, xvii,
8nl 7, 9nl 8, 34, 39, 51n72, 54,

86, 91, 95, 100, 101, 102, 125n
273.
aikapadya , 73nl20.
aikasvarya , 73n120.
aik&rihya , 86 .
aupagava, 75, 77.

kapinj alanyay a t 143.
kapinjalddhiltarananydyay 142.
£ar<ma, 136n305.
kartrpradhdna> 110, 113.

karman , 3, 4, 16.
karmadhdrayay 22, 117n247, 118,

157, 179.
karmapradhanciy 108nl96.
karmasaktiy 87nl45.
karmasddhanciy 3n5, 133n297.
kastasritay 17.
karafa 12, 87nl45, 88, 94 95,

108. ’
/fdraâ- relationship, xiii.
kdraltavibhakitiy 12.
kdrakavisesana , 107, 108.
^drya-, 92nl54.
kdryadarsana-y 92nl54.
kdrpapaksay x.
kdryasabday ix, x, xi.
karyasabdapaksay 74nl21.
karydSdbdiltdy 74, 74nl22.
klmoddndy 36, 37.
fyirikdndy 18.
l(umbhdl?drdy 15, 16.
icrty 12, 14.

fyridkdrpdy 81 n 132.
Ifrdvrttiy x.
krdmend anva^/rpana, xi.

J^riydprddhdnd , 110.
Jtriydprddhdndtvd , 107nl92, 113.

^npavisescma, 41n58, 107, 108.
Ilhddiretdrdsdmydy 181, 182, 183.
I?hddiretdrdsamydy 184n460.
khadiritdrdsamyd , 182.
214
Index of SansJ^rit Words
gamaJâ , vii, 42n62, 44, 47, 48, 49.
gamal(atva , vii, 44n63, 48, 30.
gamakatvagamakaiva , 3 On 71.
gtrrifl, 69n111, 136, 148n329, 150,

152.
gunatva, 31n43, 149n329.

gunapadarthika , 15 3n34 7.
gimapradhanabhdva , 83n137.
gunapradhanabhuia , 82n135.
gunavaU 108n 196.
gunin, 69n111.
gosucara , 61.
gohita, 18.
gaurava , 7, 68n109.
grahailtatva -, 1 37.
grahaikalvcmyaya , 1 36.
ghrtaghata , 79.
campakaputa , 80.
cartha , 65, 168n411.
corabhaya , 19.
jahaisvartha , xi, xvii, 9, 10, 51, 75,

75n125, 76, 78, 78n129.
/dii, 114.
/ndpa/ea, 49, 191n501, 192.
tatpurusa , 21, 22, 24, 98, 101, 102,

104,* 184n463, 187, 188, 189.
taddhita, 13, 14, 15, 127.
taddhitavrtii xiii.
tannimitta , 12.
fm, 114.
- tihaniacaya ~, 111 n208.

tihantasamuha , 111 n209.
tulyajdfiyatva, 101 ni 71.

iailaghata , 79.
tripada , 196n527.
tripadabahuvrihi 21n34, 185, 189,

190, 192, 196, 198, 199n547,
200, 203, 204, 206.
traividâvâvahara, 72n11 7.
dasyubhaya , 19.
dravya, 28, 29, 148n329, 152, 161.
dravyapaddrthilta, 151 n339.
dravyamatra , 71 .
dravyavacin, 1 61 n383.
dvandva , xvii, 65, 67, 98, 101,

102, 104, 172, 173, 175.
dvandva-compound, 160n382.
dvihprayoga , 115n232.
dvirvacana, 142.
dvisamasaprasahga , 127, 128.
dhatu , 162.
dhatuvrtti, xiii.
nagarakdra , 15 .
nansamasa , 44n63.
narakasrita , 1 7.
ndndkaraka , 93, 94, 95n160, 96,

97, 106.
ndndJ(drakatva, 95, 96n161.

nighata, xii, xiv, 123.
nltyadarsana 92n154.
nityapaksa , x.
nityasabda , ix, x, xi.
nityasabdapaksa , 74n121.
nityasabdavddipaksa , 75n125.
nityasambandha , 152n344.
nlmlita , 188,
nimiltasvara , 189, 191 n501 .
Index of Sansfyrit Words
215
nimittin , 188.
nimitli~nimitta- (relation) ,192.

nimiitisvara , 189, 190n497.
nimittisvarabaliyastva , 186, 192.
niyalapaurvdparya t 56n81.
niyatavibhal(tika , 1 70n421.
niyama , 4, 45n65, 46, 49.
niyamarthalva , 1 75n434.
nisedha , 120n251.
nispannatva , 1 33n29 7.
naityasabdika , 74, 74n122.
pancakapratipadikdrthapaksa , 1 3n24.
pancagavaprlya , 181, 182.
pancanavapriya , 181.
pada , 3, 144, 145.
padaJârya , 3, 4, 14.
padavidhi, vii, xv, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7,

17, 124, 132, 134, 135, 140,
146, 147.
paratantratva , 149n329.
paratva , 157n367.
paravipratisedha , 187.
parasparasamsrsta> 90.
parasparasamsrstartha -, 90n 152.
parasparapeksd , 25n37.
parangavadbhdva , 4.
pariganana , 133n297.
paribhasdy v, xi, xvii, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7,

10, ‘11, 12, 16, 17, 130, 131.
paribhdsd-rule , 5, 7, 8.
parisamkhya , 46, 49.

parihara , 15 9n378.
- paryanuyoga , 1 7n30.
paryapti -, 112n219.
parydya , 154n355.
parydyatva , 75n125.
paryudasa , 45n65.
pdtaliputraka , 36, 37.
patfca, 135n303.
paratanlrya , 80n132.
pararthya 130n287.
pumvadbhava , 15 7n367, 183n456,

185
punahsrutu 160n380.
purvanipata 194n518.
purvapaf(sm t ii, 3.
purvapaJisyekadesm , im8.
purvapada , 180.
purvapadapralflrtisvara , 1 78n446.
purvapadottarapada , 168n411.
purvasdlapriya , 181, 182. 185n469,

186, 189.
prthagartha , vii, viii, 51n72, 54.
prthagarthatva , viii, 52n74, 53n76,

‘ 54n77.
prthagupasthitiy 90n152.
prthagbhava , 94.
prakarsa , 159n378.
prakarsagati, 160n380.
prakarsapratyaya, 103n 1 74.
prakriydntara y 1 76n438.
pralfrtisvaray 20n31.
prakrtyartha , 69n 111, 69n113.
pratmdhana , 16n29.
pratisedhavacana , 121 n255.
pratyaydrtha , 69nl 13.
pratydyyatva , 83n138.
216
Index of 5ansl(rit fVords
pratyahara , 196n534.
pradhana , 136.
pradhanaiva , 31n43.
pradhanartha , 78n129.
pradhdnarthdbhidhdyin , 33n45.
prapancdriha , 164n399.
prayoganiyama , 57n84.
pravrttmimitta , 149n334, 150, 154n
355, 155.
prasna , 2n4a.
prasajyapratisedha , 45 n65.
prasiddha , 154n355.
pratipadika , 13, 29, 31.
prdtipadikartha , 58n85, 83, 84n140,

85.
pradhanya , 33n45, 34, 129n284.

p/u/a, xiv, 11 7n244.
baUyastva , 191 n501.
bahirahga , 100, 186, 188.
bahulagrahana , 163n391.
Wiala/n, 22, 163, 195, 195n524.
bahuvnhu xvii, 66, 67, 117n247,

118, 169, 170, 172, 179, 180,
184n463, 185, 188, 189, 192,
194.
bahavrihisvara , 185n469.
badhyabddhakabhdva , 73.
badhyabadhakabhdvdbhdva , 187n482.
fca/ipa, 100n169.
bahyasambandhi 10On 169.
buddhistha , 1 72n428.
brdhmanakambala , 19, 61.
bhavasadhana , 3n5.
Bhdsya~Vdrttil(a t 55n78.
bhinnavdfya, 120n251.
bfiinnavisayalva , 115n232, 183n456.
bhinnartha, 156n365.
bhinnopasthiii ~, 90n152.
bhrtyabharaniya , 156, 157.
frfcJa, 52n75, 80n132, 81, 149n

329, 157n367.
bhedal(atva, 152n346.
bhedaltarya, 151, 151 n340.
bhedapaksa , 81 ni 32.
bhedahetu , 15 1 n342.
btiedapoha, 58n85.
bhedabhedavivaksd , 146n326.
mqllikdputa , 80.
mdhakastasrita , 25, 26.
ma/iavd/epa-relationship, xiii.
Mimaihsaka, 49.
Mmamsa , 32, 46, 136n305.
yddrcchilti , 146n326, 147.
124, 203.
ytt](ta))ul?la, 111, 123n266, 124.

pu/f/flpu/â, 89.
yrigapatprayoga, 155n360.
yusmadasmadadesa , xii, 123n266.
yiismadadyadesa, 120n251.
pogavibhaga, 66.
-pogpafa, 54n77, 111n209.

rdjagavdsvapurusa , xiv, 98.
rajagavi, xiv.
ra/agavl^stra, xiv, 125, 126.

rajagavyasvapurusa , xiv.
rdjagoksira , xiv, 126, 128.
.217
Index of Sanskrit Words
vidhl- rule, 7,8.

vidhisabda , 1 33n297.
rdjagosvapurusa , xiv.
rdjadhenultsira, xv.
rajadhenvasvakslra , xv.
fdjapnrnsa , v, vii, 19, 34, 33, 53,

56, 58, 63, 75, 77, 84, 133.
fauravetarasamya , 181.
lalzsanai}(acaltsuska 9 50, 50n71.

laghu- , 68, 68nl09.
laghava , 7, 68, 68n109.
lihga , 7n16.
loJ(avyavahdra , 72n117.
laukika, 113.
/au/fâva/fpa-, 106n180.
vacana, 1 35n301, 140.

vacanapramanya , 164, 166.
varnavidhi , xv, 132.
varsasuja , 61.
va/fpa, vi, xiv, 108n196, 112, 119,

122, 123.
Vatyaparisamaptu 143.
vdtyabhcda, 66 , 68 .
vdfyasamjnd, 112.
vdcakamdira , 111 n209.
vdcanlkcLy 65n101, 144n316,
191 xi501.
vaci;a, 155n356.
vartta, 92n154.
varttika, 199.
viVfoi, v, 3, 7, 45, 46, 147.
vidheya, xv, 1, 112n216, 133, 136,

142.
vidhyartha , 45n65, 46.
viniyoga , 130n287, 131.
vipraiisedha -, 186, 186n473, 187, 195.
vibhaktu 147.
vibhaklividhana , 4.
vibhajya. anval(h))dna , xi.
virodha -, 186n473.
visista , 35n48.
visistartha , 53n76, 54n77.
visesana , 107, 108, 109.
visescmatva , 78n129, 154n355.
visescmavisesyatva , 20n31 .
viscsanavisesyabhdva , 150n336,
154n355.
visesanasambandha , 63n98.
—visesandpeksa, 3 3n45.
visesyatavacchedaka , 35n48.
visesijczZva, 154n355.
visapavive/ea, 184n463.
virapurusa , xvi.
vrJiabhaya , 19.
vr/zi, vi, 9n19, 37n53, 39, 51n72,
73, 74n122, 75n123.
vrttivisaya , 205n267.
vrttisutra -, 166, 167.
vrddhavyavahara , 70n115.
vya^Zz, 114.
vyaktipaksa, 113n226.
vyatireka , 36n50.
218
Index of Samlcrit Words
vyapeksa, v, vi, xi, xvii, 8n17, 37n53,

39, 87n144, 91, 93, 100, 101,
102, 123n273.
vyabhicdra , 62n97, 159n378.

vyartha , 166.
vyavadhana, 56n81.
vyavastha—, 187n482.
vyavahara , 71, 72.
vydkhyana, 133, 139, 140.
s'4*i, 87n143, 88, 88n146.
sahkulakhanda , 18.
sabdaprayoga, 60n93.
sabdarthasambandha -, 70n 1 1 3.
sistaprayoga , 156n362.
sru/i, 159n378.
samsarga , 80n1 32, 81.
samsargibheda , 149n329.
samsargibhedaka , 149n329.
samsrstartha , 89.
samhita , 132.
salfdraka , 108.
saJ?tvadhaka » 36, 37.

saga/r*, 144.
samkhya , 28n40, 201n553, 203, 203.
samkhydna—y 205n567.
samkhyeya , 202, 203, 205, 205n567,
206.
samkhyeya-bahuvrihu 204.
sahgatartha , 89.
samghdta , 87n142.
samjna , 154n355.
satisista , 188n488, 189, 189n490.
satta, 159n378.
samnidhi , 152, 152n345.
samakaksa -, 1 14n228.
samal(aksatva , 83n139.
samaniasilirandhra , 178, 193.
samartha , v, vi, vii, 1, 5, 7, 11, 13,

17, 39, 44, 45, 49, 50, 132,
134, 137, 141, 142, 165.
samarthatara , 104.
samarthataraiva , 103n174, 104.
samartha-paribhdsa , xii, xiv, 124, 145.
samarthavacana , 51.
samarthavidhu 145, 146, 147.
samarlhadhikara , 16.
samarthabhidhdyin , 15n28.
samana , 1 19.
samanatva , 159n378.
samdnavdkya , xii, 106, 117, 119,

120, 121, 122, 124.
samana» akyadhikar a, 122, 123n266.
samanavyapadesa , 159n378.
samanddhil(arana t xvi, 36n50, 123,
148n328, 153n349, 154n350, 155,

157, 157n374, 158, 159, 160.
samanaJ/ii/far^ma-relationship, xiii.
samanadhikaranasamasa , 161 n386.
samasa , 74, 134.
samasa-relationship, xiii.
samdsdnta , 1 76.
samasdnlodaltatva , 196n527, 206n573.

samahara , 68n109, 69.
samudaya , 36n49.
samudayasambandha , 37n53, 103n174.
samudayasamarthya , 102n172,
103n174, 104, 105.
samuddyartha , 51n72.
sampreksitartha , 89.
Index of Sam^rii Words
219
sambaddhartha, 89.
sambandha , 90, 103n174.
sambandhin , 98n164.
sambandhisabda , 37n53.
—sambandhisabdatva-, 37n53, 42n66.
sarvavibhaktyanta , 145n323.
savisesana, 108.
savydpara, 149n329.
sahavivaksa , 173, 1 73n430, 1 74.
sahavivaksita , 171 n423.
sakahksavayaxui, 108n 196.
sadhana f 107n191.
sadhuiva , 41n58, 42n60, 44n63,

45n66.
sadhya, 103n1 76, 107n191, 136n303.
sadhyasddhanabhdva , 106n180.
sadhvasadhusamkara , 72n11 7.
sdpel?sa , 34, 39.
sdpeksata , 1 74n433.
sdpel(satva , 33n48.
samarthya , v, vi, xii, xiv, xvii,
8, 46, 167n408.
sdmarthydvighdta , 78n129.
samarihydhdnu 78n129.
samanyanirdesa , 27n38.
siddhantin , iii, 3n9.
siddhantyekadesin , ii, 3n9.
-suptmantacaya, 111 n208.
subanta , 144.
subantacaya -, 111 n208.
smatdjinavdsas , 178, 193.
susuksmajatakesa , 178, 180, 193.
stnsaunda , 19.
smrri, 152.
svarabheda , 57n52.
svaraj;itavj;a, 7.
svarita , 7.
svaritaguna , 131.
svabhavika , 65ni01.
svartha , 79n130, 8In 132.
svdrlhatydga % 78n129.
hdnu 90n150, 91.
hotdpotdncstodgdtr , 174, 175.
hotrpotrnestodgatr , 174, 175.
INDEX OF ENGLISH WORD3
accent, 56, 57, 58, 62, 73, 74.
accentuation, 21.
adjective, 35.
adverb, 107.
aggregatian, 64.
associative features, 156.
bare-stem notion, 84, 85, 86, 100, 142.
beginning-to-end, x.
bottom-to-top, x, xi.
capacity, 88.
case-inflected, 28, 30, 31, 145.

commission, 130.
communication, 71, 72.
compatibiiity, 54.
compound, 41, 42, 50, 51, 53, 54,
55, 56, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 73,

74, 98.
compounded expressiori, 42.

compound-form, 20, 79.
compound-formation, 15, 23.
compoimding, 4, 10, 23.
compound-whole, 24.
condition, 67.
conditioned, 186, 188, 189, 191.

comditioning, 186, 188, 189.
conjunction, 64, 65, 67.
connection, 55, 56, 58, 64, 90, 120.
constituent, 20 .
context, 70.
correct, 42, 45 , 48, 72.

correlative, 38, 39, 42.
counter example, 18.

daily usage, 72.
denominative, 8, 13.
derivational process, 15.
derived, 74, 92.
descriptive aspect (of grammar),
7 4n 121.
descriptive grammar, x.
designation, 121, 122.
difference, 150, 157.
differentiation, 80, 81.
disappearance, 55.
economy, 68.
emergence of single meaning, vii, 9nl8.
endogenous, 100.
end-to-beginning, xi.
enumeration, 44, 46.
enumerative, 47.
example, 1 8.
existence, 15 7.
exogenous, 100.
expletive, 111.
external correlative, 100.
external indicator, 91.
extradinguistic situation, 71.
finished, 1, Ini.
formulation, 139.
four-word, 180.
gender, 136.
genera] implied meaning, 71.
general meaning, 70.
Index of English Words
221
generality, 59.
generated, 15, 75.
generative aspect of grammar, 74n121
generative grammar, ix, ixn22, x.
generic feature, 29.
generic notion, 29.
generic sense, 30, 32.
genitive relationship, xiii.
genus, 114, 149.
gesture, 72.
grammar, 72
grammatical features (of compound),
vili.
grammatical operation, 1, 3.
group, 30, 32.
immediate sequence, 18.
implication, 36
implied, 168.
incompatible, 77, 78.
incorrect, 44, 48, 72
independent relation, 36.
indirectly connected, 124.
individual, 28, 30, 32, 114.
individual object, 148, 152, 157.
inflectional suffix, 54, 60.

inseparable, 33, 52.
inside, 198n542a.
inside bahuvnhi , 199n547, 202n558,

203, 204, 205.
inside-construction, 199n547, 200,
201n556, 202, 203.
integration, x, xi, 73, 74, 78, 81.
interdependence, 38.
internal, 198n542a.
internal bahuvrihi , 202n558.
internal construction, 21, 23, 180,
183n459, 184n460, 185, 189.
194n513, 195, 199.
interpretative, 5.
interpretative rule, 1 30.
intervention, 55 ,56.
language-communication, 71.
left-side, 23, 24, 179, 180.
left-side analysis, 21.
lexical, 71.
main meaning, 83.
main member, 33, 35, 38, 76, 79.
mark, 6.
marker, 7.
meaning, 52, 53, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65,

68, 69, 71, 72, 76, 77, 82.
meaning-analysis, 16, 200, 203.

meaning-connection, 103.
meaning-interdependence, v, 8, 9, 10.
11, 12, 39. 50, 57, 73, 88,
94, 99, 101, 174.
meaning-relation, 88.
monosyllabic, 118.
natural, 92.
negative, 49.
negative compound, 44, 46.

negative particle, 44.
nominal stem, 83.
nominative, 84.
non-appearance, 52.
non-apprehension, 60,
222
non-committal, 27, 59, 60, 141, 147.
non-differentiation, 45.
non-disappearance, 55, 57, 62, 63.
non-integration, 73.
non-technical, 106, 116.
number, 58, 61, 63, 136.
objection, 2n4a.
one-to-one correspandence, 72.
operation, 1.
operational way, 29.
operator, 87, 88, 94, 106, 108.
outside quaiifier, 36.
outside word, 34, 35, 37, 38.
partide, 65.
particularity, 59.
particular meaning, 70, 71.
partitive-relationship, xiii.
pattem-congruency, 101.
phoeme, 76.
phonological operation, xv.

predicate, 32, 133, 136, 137, 142.
predicate phrase, 31, 112, 113.
predominant, 34, 78, 79.
preverb, 89, 90, 165.
preverb-verb-relationship, xiii.
Principal, 119, 136.

proviso, 7.
qualified, 33, 34, 35, 41, 46, 53, 78.

quaiifier, 33, 34, 52, 54, 58, 63, 79.
qualifier-qualified relation, 54.
qualifying, 33, 35, 40, 41, 63, 64.

quality, 69.
question, 2n4a.
referent, 155n356.
regressus ad infinitum , 68, 69.
relation, 36, 80, 90.
rephrasing, 140, 142, 144.
requirement, 38, 54, 87.
restriction, 4, 45.
restrictive adjective, 35.
restrictive character, 47.
restrictive enumeration, 49.
right-side, 23, 24, 39, 179, 180.
section-heading, 5, 6, 121, 122, 123,
1 32.
segment, 76.
self-contained, 52, 101.
semantically unconnected, 33, 34.
semantic connection, v, 10, 11, 12,
15, 17, 18, 37, 50, 51, 78, 80,

81, 87, 88, 99, 148, 150, 166.
semantic features (of compound), viii.
semantic principle, 39.
sentence, 106, 107nl87, 108, 109,
111, 115, 121, 122.
sentence-definition, 122.
single integrated meaning, v, xi, 8, 9,

10, 1 1, 12, 33, 39, 50, 51. 55,
57, 58, 64, 65, 73, 88, 99, 101.
singular, 30, 32.
singular number, 59, 71.
specific, 147.
speech-community, 66, 67.

speech-sound, 51.
stem, 69, 70.
stem-meaning, 70n114.
stem-suffix-relationship, xiii.
subject, 32, 136, 137, 142.
223
subject-phrase, 31, 112, 113.
subordinate, 34, 38, 59, 63, 119.
subordinate meaning, 83.
subordinate member, 35, 38, 59, 63,

76, 77, 78, 79.
subsidiary, 1 36.
suffix, 69, 70.
synonym, 76, 155.
syntactic agreement, 36n56, 157,

158, 159, 160, 163.
syntactically connected, 160.
syntactic function, 173.
syntactic level, vii.
syntactic operation, vii, xv.
three-or-more-word, 27, 32.
three-word, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26,

39, 184, 192, 194, 195, 196.
transformed, 74.
two-word, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27,

39, 179, 180, 195.
unaccented, 62.
uncompounded expression, 38.
uncompounded word-group, 33, 41,

43, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 61,
62, 63, 64, 65, 74, 78, 82.
underived, 74.
usage, 66.
word-combination, 1 74.
word-composition, 9, 11, 33, 34, 35,
36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 59, 60,

80, 92, 137n308.
word-formation, 8, 9n19.
word-group, 109.
word-integration, 137n308.
word-intervention, viii.
word-meaning, 53, 54, 55.
word-order, viii, 55, 56.

Full Text of - 0b. Patanjali, Mahabhasya, Joshi 1968 - PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Full Text of - 0b. Patanjali, Mahabhasya, Joshi 1968 - PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

3/9/2020 Full text of "0b.

Patanjali, Mahabhasya, Joshi 1968"

This is Google's cache of

Full version Text-only version View source

Full text of "0b. Patanjali, Mahabhasya, Joshi

Publications of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit

Trarislation and Explanatory Notes

First Edition\ May 1968

Printed by J. E. David at Spicer College Press, Ganeshkhind, Poona 7, and published

It is a pleasure to express here the debt of gratitude that I owe to my

resuit of his helpful suggestions, comments, and corrections. Without his

I am deeply indebted to my teacher, Prof. R. N. Dandekar, Direc¬

Translation and Explanatory Notes

1. THE THREE MUNIS OF SANSKRIT GRAMMAR

1.1. In recent years, keen interest has been evinced in Paninian

1.2. In order to understand the Mahabhdsya properly, it might be

relevant to state in brief the purpose of this extensive commentary on

able, (ii) to examine independently the rules and views of Pajnini

1. Vidya Nivas Misra, The Descriptive Technique of Panini , Paris, 1966,

2. L. Bloomfield, Language , p. 11.

3. Betty SHEFTS, Grammatical Method in Panini , American Oriental Society,

4. In stating this, I have made use of the excellent monograph of KlELHORN:

6. Bhdsya No. 20-29.

2. THE CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF PATAftJALPS STYLE

2.1. The language of PatahjalPs Mahdbhdsya is lucid and elegant, but

is not needed even if Katyayana defends it. It is often a difficult task

8. Occasionally we have the purvapaksyel?adesin also whose role is to raise coun-

9. Bhasya No. 190-195.

The Characteristic Features of Patanjali s Style

impenetrable in its depth but appears to be lucid on accoiint of its

2.2. While investigating in a theoretical way the logical correctness

aphorisms and tries to prove the correctness of Paninis formulations

10. Vdkyapadiya , II, 480, ed. by K. V. ABHYANKAR and V. P. LlMAYE,

11. Grammatical Method in Panini , op . cit ., p. 1 7.

12. Bhdsya No. 134-136.

13. Bhdsya No. 116-119, 140-165.

14. The Descriptive Technique of Panini, op, cit„ pp. 25-26.

3. THE SAMARTHAHNIKA: MAHABHASYA ON P.2.1.1.

3.1. The text of the Astadhyayi f which consists of approximately

4. ANALYSIS OF THE TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THE SAMARTHAHNIKA

4.1. According to Patanjali, the word vidhi in P.2.1.1 means

16. S. VaRMA: Scientific and Technical Presentation of Patanjali as Reflected

17. Vakyapadtya , op. cif., II 480: tasminn ahrtabuddhxndm naivavdsihiia

Analysis of the topics discussed in the Samarthahnika

that wherever a grammatical operation concerning finished words is

4.2(i). After discussing the meaning of the word vidhi Patanjali

scope of this rule restricted to a particular section of the Astadhyayi as is

4.2 (ii). ImerHcnendence of meaning exists only in groups of

4.2 (in). The difTerentiation between vyapeksa : ‘meaning-interdepend-

4.2 (iv). Patanjali finally concludes that sdmarthya : ‘semantic

‘semantically connected’ in the rules dealing with the uncompounded word-

4.3(i). Pataniali, therefore, takes up for discussion the topic of the

samartha is that the rules dealing with a compound apply to words

4.3 (ii). The word samartha means ‘having semantic connection as

Anatysis of the lopics discussed in the Samarthahnika

4 3(iii). But for grammar, which is not concemed with word-meaning

compound and the uncompounded word-group (oiit of which the com-

special characteristic features of ekarthibhava, which distinguish it from

4.5. This topic is left unnoticed by Katyayana. But Patanjali takes it ud

This discussion leads us to the basic question: Whether the denotation

20. See 4.2.(ii).

Analysis of the topics discussed in the Samarthahnika

4.7(i). Patahjali’s attitude in regard to this question is neutral. In his

<TF/rNRR 33«|Rr 3W3T [8. ?■ C\1 %frf I T $-