Introduction
In this thesis, we have focused on vidhi sūtras ‘operational rules’, and to be precise, on how we choose one rule from amongst the two or more operational rules which are simultaneously applicable in a derivation. While operational rules play an important, perhaps central role in Pāṇinian derivations, they cannot be correctly interpreted or applied without the help of two other categories of rules, namely saṁjñā sūtras ‘definition rules’ and paribhāṣā sūtras
‘metarules’.
We have already observed how the more specific rule wins in case of competition between saṁjñā rules, in section 1.6, chapter 1. In appendices A and B, we will look at some cases of competition between paribhāṣā rules which the tradition has failed to solve satisfactorily. Pāṇini has not given any explicit instructions about which of the two competing paribhāṣā
rules must be chosen. In keeping with the general-exception template that pervades the entire Aṣṭādhyāyī, I think that the more specific rule emerges victorious in cases of competition between paribhāṣā rules.
Competition Between Paribhāṣā Rules 1.1.52-1.1.55
In order to examine an example of competition between these paribhāṣā rules, let us derive the imperative third-person singular form of the root likh ‘to write’. I will not discuss DOI and SOI here since our focus is on metarules. Nonetheless, I will perform the derivation bearing in mind my method of solving SOI and DOI: likh + LOṬ (3.3.162 loṭ ca) 🡪 likh + tiP (3.4.77 lasya, 3.4.78 tip-tas-jhi…1) 🡪 likh + tu (3.4.86 er uḥ) 🡪 likh + ŚaP + tu (3.1.68 kartari śap). Since likh + ŚaP cannot undergo any other operations which are not triggered by tu, we can write likh + ŚaP as likha. likha is an aṅga with respect to tu. Thus, we can apply 7.1.35 tuhyostātaṅ
āśiṣy anyatarasyām here. This rule teaches that tu and hi should be replaced with tātAṄ in a benedictive form. If this rule is applied, which part of tu does tātAṄ replace? To get the correct answer, likhatāt, tātAṄ needs to replace tu entirely. But what do the relevant metarules have to say in this regard? Do they help us derive the correct answer, likhatāt? Let us look at them:
219
1.1.52 alo’ntyasya: a substitute replaces the final sound of the item for which it is taught.
1.1.53 ṅic ca (alaḥ antyasya): a Ṅ-marked substitute replaces the final sound of the item for which it is taught.
1.1.54 ādeḥ parasya (alaḥ): a substitute taught for the following item replaces its first sound.
1.1.55 anekālśit sarvasya: a multi-sound substitute or a substitute marked with Ś replaces the entirety of the item for which it is taught.
Before we go further, I should clarify the traditional interpretation of 1.1.54 ādeḥ parasya. According to the tradition, the metarule 1.1.54 governs only those rules which follow the following template: the substitute B1 is taught for B when B is preceded by A (where A is mentioned in the ablative). The Kāśikā says: parasya kāryaṁ śiṣyamāṇam āder alaḥ
pratyetavyam. kva ca parasya kāryaṁ śiṣyate. yatra pañcamīnirdeśaḥ. ‘An operation taught for the following item will apply to the first sound (of the following item). And where (i.e., in which cases) is the operation taught for the following sound? Where [an item has been] mentioned in the ablative.’ It also gives an example: 6.3.97 dvyantarupasargebhyo ’pa īt ‘the substitute īT is taught for [the nominal base] ap ‘water’ when ap is preceded by dvi, antar or an upasarga ‘preverb’. Since dvyantarupasargebhyo is taught in the ablative, 1.1.54 mandates that īT replaces the first sound of ap i.e., a. In sum, the Kāśikā implies that 1.1.54 does not govern rules in which the preceding term is not mentioned in the ablative.
The Siddhāntakaumudī (SK) mentions the following relationships between these metarules: (i) 1.1.54 ādeḥ parasya is an exception of 1.1.52 alo’ntyasya. Thus 1.1.54 wins against 1.1.52.2
(ii) 1.1.55 anekālśit sarvasya is an exception of 1.1.52 alo’ntyasya. Thus 1.1.55 wins against 1.1.52.3
(iii) 1.1.53 ṅic ca is an exception of 1.1.55 anekālśit sarvasya. Thus 1.1.53 wins against 1.1.55.4
(iv) 1.1.55 anekālśit sarvasya comes after 1.1.54 ādeḥ parasya in the serial order of the Aṣṭādhyāyī. Thus, by the traditional interpretation of 1.4.2, 1.1.55 wins against 1.1.54.5
2Alo’ntyasya ity asyāpavādaḥ (SK on 1.1.54).
220Below, I have represented this information in the form of a diagram. The arrows point towards the winning rules.
1.1.52
1.1.54
1.1.55
1.1.53
Let us go back to the rule 7.1.35 tuhyos tātaṅ āśiṣy anyatarasyām. It teaches the substitute tātAṄ for tu. The metarules eligible to govern the application of 7.1.35 are 1.1.52, 1.1.53 and 1.1.55. 1.1.55 is an exception of 1.1.52 and 1.1.53 is an exception of 1.1.55. Thus, 1.1.53 should govern the application of 7.1.35, which leads to tātAṄ replacing only the final sound of tu. However, this gives the incorrect form *likhattāt. In his only vārttika on 1.1.536, Kātyāyana recognizes this problem and says that the operation concerning tātAṄ should not be governed by 1.1.53 ṅic ca because here the only purpose of anubandha Ṅ is to block any potential guṇa
or vr̥ddhi substitution in the preceding base (cf. 1.1.5 kṅiti ca), rather than facilitate the substitution of the last sound (cf. 1.1.53). However, we know that, in Pāṇini’s grammar, if a certain item is marked with Ṅ, then it automatically possesses all the properties associated with Ṅ-marking, unless Pāṇini has said something to the opposite effect. One cannot arbitrarily choose which function of Ṅ is relevant to a particular rule and which function is not. Thus, Kātyāyana’s explanation is not acceptable.
Is there a way to derive the correct form likhatāt without flouting Pāṇini’s metarules? To answer this question, let me discuss this problem from my perspective. To begin with, let me
221
present my interpretation of 1.1.54 ādeḥ parasya, which is different from that of the tradition. I think that there is no evidence in the wording of 1.1.54 or elsewhere to suggest that the presence of an ablative form in an operational rule constitutes a necessary condition for the application of 1.1.54. So, according to me, 1.1.54 governs any para or right-hand side (RHS) operation.
Let us look at the implications of these two interpretations of 1.1.54. According to the traditional interpretation, since an ablative form is not present in 7.1.35 tuhyos tātaṅ āśiṣy anyatarasyām, 1.1.54 would not be able to govern it. However, according to my interpretation, 1.1.54 is eligible to govern 7.1.35 simply because the operand tu is para i.e., placed to the right
hand side of likha.
I also disagree with the tradition with respect to the scope of 1.1.52 alo’ntyasya and 1.1.53 ṅic ca. According to the tradition, 1.1.53 is applicable to any substitute marked with Ṅ. However, I think that, since Pāṇini has specifically taught 1.1.54 for RHS substitutions, he has likely taught both 1.1.52 and 1.1.53 only for LHS substitutions. I agree with the tradition on the scope of 1.1.55: I think that Pāṇini has taught 1.1.55 for both LHS and RHS substitutions. Let us now establish general-exception relationships separately for LHS and RHS substitutions.
First, let us consider LHS substitutions, which can potentially be governed by 1.1.52, 1.1.53 and 1.1.55.
(i) While 1.1.55 anekālśit sarvasya can govern only those substitutes which contain multiple sound segments or are marked with Ś, 1.1.52 alo’ntyasya can govern any substitute. Thus, 1.1.55 is an exception of 1.1.52.
(ii) In case of substitutes which are made up of multiple sounds and marked with Ṅ, there arises competition between 1.1.53 ṅic ca and 1.1.55 anekālśit sarvasya. I think the only reason behind teaching a rule (i.e., 1.1.53) specially dealing with Ṅ-marked substitutes is to suggest that Ṅ marked substitutes, despite containing multiple sounds, replace only the final sound of the operand, and not the entirety of it. Thus, I think 1.1.53 is an exception of 1.1.55.
Now let us consider RHS substitutions, which can potentially be governed by 1.1.54 and 1.1.55. Since 1.1.55 has been specifically taught for substitutes made up of multiple sounds, it is an exception of 1.1.54.
This information can be diagrammatically represented as follows. The arrows point towards the exception / specific rule:
222
LHS substitution
RHS substitution
1.1.52
1.1.55
1.1.53
1.1.54
1.1.55
Thus, we can conclude that 7.1.35, which deals with an RHS substitute, i.e., tātAṄ, cannot be governed by 1.1.52 and 1.1.53, which have been taught only for LHS substitutions. The only rules that can potentially govern 7.1.35 are 1.1.54 and 1.1.55. Since 1.1.55 has been specifically taught for substitutes made up of multiple sounds, it is more specific than 1.1.54. Therefore,
by 1.1.55, tu is entirely replaced with tātAṄ, giving the correct form likhatāt.
223