In the previous chapters, I have shed light on how I think Pāṇini perceives the interactions between simultaneously applicable rules and more specifically, how he resolves cases of SOI and DOI. In this process, I have also discussed my interpretation of 1.4.2 vipratiṣedhe paraṁ kāryam.
In this chapter, I will dwell on three very important rules of the Aṣṭādhyāyī, which deal with the concepts of asiddha and asiddhavat. 6.1.86 ṣatvatukor asiddhaḥ and 8.2.1 pūrvatrāsiddham teach the former and 6.4.22 asiddhavad atrā bhāt the latter. I will discuss both the traditional interpretation of these rules and my own interpretation of them. I will also demonstrate how these rules impact SOI and DOI, if at all they do, and how they interact with (my interpretation of) 1.4.2.
Let me start by presenting the English translation of these three rules as per the traditional interpretations. To highlight the differences of opinion within the tradition, I will make relevant comments on what texts like Mahābhāṣya, Kāśikā, Siddhāntakaumudī and Nyāsa say about these rules.
6.1.86 ṣatvatukor asiddhaḥ
6.1.86 ṣatvatukor asiddhaḥ (ekaḥ pūrvaparayoḥ saṁhitāyām): a single replacement (ekaḥ) in place of the preceding and the following sound segments (pūrvaparayoḥ) in continuous utterance (saṁhitāyām) is suspended1 (asiddhaḥ) with respect to any potential replacement with ṣ or insertion of augment tUK (ṣatva-tuk-or).
Here, should the kārya (i.e., ‘operation’, or more aptly, ‘outcome of application of the rule’) be suspended or the śāstra (i.e., the rule) itself? In traditional literature, if the kārya is suspended, this is called kāryāsiddhi, whereas if the śāstra is suspended, this is called śāstrāsiddhi. According to the Kāśikā, asiddha implies kāryāsiddhi2, but according to the Siddhāntakaumudī, asiddha stands for śāstrāsiddhi3.4
[[170]]
8.2.1 pūrvatrāsiddham
8.2.1 pūrvatrāsiddham: that which is taught from here onwards is suspended (asiddham) with respect to what precedes it (pūrvatra).
As per the tradition’s interpretation, 8.2.1 can be rewritten as follows:
Q is suspended with respect to P if:
(i) Q is taught after P in the serial order of the Aṣṭādhyāyī, and
(ii) Q is taught after 8.2.1 in the serial order of the Aṣṭādhyāyī.
Here, again, the Kāśikā favours the kāryāsiddhi interpretation, whereas the Siddhāntakaumudī prefers the śāstrāsiddhi interpretation. There is some discussion in Nyāsa on 8.2.1 about whether asiddha stands for kāryāsiddhi or for śāstrāsiddhi.
6.4.22 asiddhavad atrā bhāt
6.4.22 asiddhavad atrā bhāt: that which is taught in the section starting here and extending up to bh (ā bhāt)5 is suspended (asiddhavat)[^6], if both rules have a samānāśraya ‘common substratum’ (atra).
According to the Kāśikā on 6.4.22, we must infer samānāśrayatva from the presence of word atra.6 The Nyāsa glosses āśraya as nimitta ‘cause’. If this is the case, samānāśraya would mean ‘common cause’. However, I do not think this is the correct interpretation. I will explain my understanding of the meaning of samānāśraya later in this chapter, when discussing a germane example.
On 6.4.22, Kātyāyana presents two different views on the meaning of the word atra. One view is that it stands for samānāśrayatva7. The other opinion is that atra has been used to indicate
Nāgeśa and Bhaṭṭojī Dīkṣita accept this view. Earlier grammarians, which also includes authors of the Kāśikāvr̥tti, accept the kāryāsiddhatva view.”
[[171]]
that it is with respect to the rules taught atra ‘here’ (in the section headed by 6.4.22) that the rules of this section (i.e., those rules headed by 6.4.22) are asiddhavat.9 In other words, if atra had not been mentioned, the rules taught in this section would have become asiddhavat even with respect to rules lying outside this section, such as 7.2.116 ata upadhāyāḥ10, which is not desirable11, hence the need to state ‘atra’. We can say that atra, according to this view, stands for ‘with respect to the rules taught here (i.e., in the section headed by 6.4.22)’.
Both the Kāśikā and the Siddhāntakaumudī interpret ā bhāt, not as ‘up to 6.4.129 bhasya’, but instead as ‘up to the end of the section headed by 6.4.129 bhasya’. The jurisdiction of 6.4.129 continues up to 6.4.175, which is the end of 6.4. Thus, according to the Kāśikā, ā bhāt implies ‘up to the end of 6.4’.12 On the other hand, Kātyāyana and Patañjali discuss both possibilities13: one, that the jurisdiction of 6.4.22 ends at 6.4.129, and the other, that it continues up to the end of 6.4. We will study this later in this chapter.
From what both the Kāśikā and the Siddhāntakaumudī say about 6.4.22, the traditional interpretation of this rule can be rewritten as follows:
A is suspended with respect to B if:
(i) both A and B are taught in 6.4.22 – 6.4.175, and
(ii) both A and B have a samānāśraya
Note that the tradition does not make any actual distinction between asiddha and asiddhavat, which is why I have translated both terms as ‘suspended’.
172
-
When A is suspended with respect to B, B cannot acknowledge A. ↩︎
-
ṣatve tuki ca kartavye ekādeśo’siddho bhavati, siddhakāryaṁ na karoti ity arthaḥ. ↩︎
-
ṣatve tuki ca kartavye ekādeśaśāstram asiddhaṁ syāt. ↩︎
-
In his commentary on 8.2.1, Rama Nath Sharma (2003, Vol. 6, p. 476) says, “The asiddhatva of 8.2.1 pūrvatrāsiddham is thus accepted as suspension of rules (sāstrāsiddhatva). Neo-grammarians such as ↩︎
-
There is some controversy about the meaning of ā bhāt. We will examine this topic later in this chapter. 6 Kāśikā’s interpretation alludes to the rules which are asiddhavat, but does not mention the rules with respect to which these rules are asiddhavat. We are left to answer the ‘with respect to what?’ question on our own. ↩︎
-
atreti samānāśrayatvapratipattyartham. ↩︎
-
Explaining why asiddhavat is not applicable in a certain context, Kātyāyana says (vt. 12) samānāśrayavacanāt siddham ‘[despite being placed in the section headed by 6.4.22] it (i.e., this rule) is siddha [and not asiddhavat] because [asiddhavat has been taught only in regard with] samānāśrayatva, [and here the samānāśrayatva condition has not been met]’ (Mbh III.190.22). ↩︎