On the Notion of anabhihite in the Cāndra Grammar

Abstract

Comparing the kāraka theory as presented in Pāṇiniʼs (ca. fifth-fourth century BC) and Candragominʼs (ca. fifth century AD) systems of grammar, Joshi and Roodbergen observed that in the Cāndrasūtra, the heading rule Pāṇ 2.3.1 (anabhihite), which plays an important role for all the kāraka rules, is missing. Deshpande, however, criticized their understanding. According to him, Patañjali (ca. second century BC), in his Mahābhāṣya, already dealt with the question of whether the general principle uktārthānām aprayogaḥ can justify the omission of this heading rule; under the influence of Patañjali, Candragomin took the position that it is not necessary to explicitly provide Pāṇ 2.3.1. The present paper revisits this issue on the basis of some newly edited Cāndra materials, the Cāndrapañjikā and the Śabdārthacintā, which were both written by the eminent Sinhalese grammarian Ratnamati or Ratnaśrījñāna (ca. tenth century AD). Ratna’s detailed explanation not only confirms that Deshpande’s assumption is correct, but it also clarifies that the problem pointed out by Pāṇinians in the case of the omission of Pāṇ 2.3.1 can be solved by resorting to the theory of the fivefold meaning of a nominal stem.

Introduction

The heading rule Pāṇ 2.3.1 (anabhihite) “if not (already) expressed (otherwise)”¹ in Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī (ca. fifth-fourth century BC) plays an important role for all the kāraka rules starting with Pāṇ 2.3.2 (karmaṇi dvitīyā)² and allows for a uniform treatment of active and passive sentences.³ In an active sentence such as ghaṭaṃ karoti “[he] is making a pot,” the verbal affix ti denotes the notion of kartṛ “agent” (cf. Pāṇ 3.4.69, 1.3.78). Since the idea of the pot being the object with respect to the act of making is not expressed otherwise (anabhihita), a second nominal case ending (dvitīyā) is introduced after the word ghaṭa, according to Pāṇ 2.3.2. On the other hand, in a passive sentence such as ghaṭaḥ kriyate “a pot is being made,” the object-ness of the pot is already expressed (abhihita) by the verbal affix te (cf. Pāṇ 3.4.69, 1.3.13). Therefore, the first nominal case ending (prathamā) is introduced after the word ghaṭa by Pāṇ 2.3.46 (prātipadikārthaliṅgaparimāṇavacanamātre prathamā),⁴ while a second nominal case ending is not applicable.⁵

When Joshi and Roodbergen (1975, pp. xvi–xix) compared the kāraka theory as presented in the grammatical systems of Pāṇini and Candragomin (ca. fifth century AD), they observed that the heading rule Pāṇ 2.3.1 is missing in the Cāndrasūtra. According to them, in Candragomin’s grammar the application of the kāraka rules, including the uniform treatment of active and passive sentences, is practically left to vivakṣā “the speaker’s wish or intention,” and they, moreover, said that “part of the grammatical burden has been shifted to vivakṣā.”⁶ Candragomin’s grammatical system seems to be somewhat negatively evaluated compared to that of Pāṇini. However, Deshpande (1979) criticized this understanding by pointing out that “Candragomin’s syntactic rules are actually by no means as loosely defined as they are made out to be by Joshi and Roodbergen.”⁷ According to Deshpande, Patañjali in his Mahābhāṣya (ca. second century BC) has already dealt with the question of whether the general principle uktārthānām aprayogaḥ “(words/ linguistic elements) are not used to express notions that have already been expressed”⁸ can justify the omission of Pāṇ 2.3.1. Under Patañjali’s influence, Candragomin took the position that it is not necessary to explicitly formulate this rule. This, according to Deshpande, can be understood from the fact that although Candragomin does not explicitly state this principle, “there is explicit evidence in his rules and in his commentary [i.e., the Cāndravṛtti, CY]⁹ to show that this principle exists in his system.” He adds that “[t]he maxim uktārthānām aprayogaḥ is included in his Paribhāṣā-sūtras,” and it “has the same regulating function which is accomplished by P.2.3.1 (anabhihite), except that this maxim has a much wider scope than the particular rule in Pāṇini.”¹⁰

The issue concerning Pāṇ 2.3.1 (anabhihite) and the general principle uktārthānām aprayogaḥ are, in fact, more complicated than it may seem. The later Pāṇinian grammarians also accept that the heading rule Pāṇ 2.3.1 is unnecessary from a certain perspective, as will be discussed below. Hence, it should not be simply considered as a dichotomy that Pāṇinian grammarians need this rule, whereas Cāndra grammarians do not. Moreover, since Deshpande had only limited materials concerning the Cāndra grammar, his conclusions about Candragomin’s interpretation were destined to remain more or less inconclusive. The background of this question, in fact, lies in the different views on the meaning of a nominal stem, which have not received much attention in the above studies, and interestingly enough were later discussed in Indian philosophical schools.¹¹ In this paper, I revisit the issue concerning anabhihite discussed by Deshpande on the basis of some newly edited Cāndra materials, namely, the Cāndrapañjikā and the Śabdārthacintā, both of which were composed by the eminent Sinhalese grammarian Ratnamati or Ratnaśrījñāna (tenth century AD).¹² Ratnaʼs grammatical works facilitate a much better understanding of how Candragomin and his followers treated the matter.

Role of Pāṇ 2.3.1 in the Aṣṭādhyāyī

Patañjali presents a complex argument as to whether the heading rule Pāṇ 2.3.1 (anabhihite) can be replaced by the general principle uktārthānām aprayogaḥ. In line with this principle, Abhyankar (1967, p. 37) notes that “an expression should always be as short, sweet, and adequate as possible, and no redundant word should be used.” This understanding is not confined to the limited world of grammar but rather is widely accepted by the community, since it is in accordance with the general norms of society.¹³ If this principle could work without any problems even in a grammatical system, that is, if it could replace the function of Pāṇ 2.3.1, Pāṇini’s rule would be unnecessary. In response to Kātyāyana’s (ca. third century BC) suggestion, Patañjali concludes that Pāṇ 2.3.1 should be specified in terms of the following:¹⁴

anabhihitas tu vibhaktyarthas tasmād anabhihitavacanam.

anabhihitas tu vibhaktyarthaḥ. kaḥ punar vibhaktyarthaḥ? ekatvādayo vibhaktyarthāḥ. teṣv anabhihiteṣu karmādayo ’bhihitā vibhaktīnām utpattau nimittatvāya mā bhūvann iti. tasmād anabhihitavacanam. tasmād anabhihitādhikāraḥ kriyate.

But the meaning of case endings has not been expressed. That is why the statement anabhihite (is made).

But the meaning of case endings has not been expressed. Now what is the meaning of case endings? (We say that) the singular, etc. are the meanings of case endings. When these have not been expressed, (notions like) karman: ‘object,’ etc., (even) when they have (already) been expressed, should not serve as the cause for the addition of case endings. That is why the statement anabhihite (is made). (That is to say,) that is why the section heading anabhihite is put (here).¹⁵

In Pāṇini’s tradition of grammar, there are two major approaches to the meaning of a nominal stem (prātipadikārtha).¹⁶ According to the trikaprātipadikārthapakṣa, a nominal stem conveys three grammatical notions: (1) svārtha “a [word’s] own meaning,”¹⁷ (2) dravya “a substance,” and (3) liṅga “a gender.” According to the pañcakaprātipadikārthapakṣa, a nominal stem conveys five grammatical notions: (1) svārtha, (2) dravya, (3) liṅga, (4) saṃkhyā “a number,” and (5) kāraka, such as karman “an object.” In the first view, the meanings of the number and the kāraka are expressed by a nominal case ending (vibhakti). In the second one, all the five meanings are expressed by the nominal stem (prātipadika), and a nominal case ending merely indicates or co-signifies these meanings (dyotaka).¹⁸ If the first view is adopted, one must assume a primary-subordinate relationship (guṇapradhānabhāva) between the number and the kāraka.¹⁹ In this regard, if, for example, ekatva “singurality” (i.e., the state of having the grammatical number “singular”) is the primary meaning, and karman “an object” (i.e., one of the six kārakas) is subordinate, as accepted by the Pāṇinian grammarian Kaiyaṭa (ca. twelfth century AD), who regards ekatva as viśeṣya “qualified,” and karman as viśeṣaṇa “qualifier,”²⁰ then, according to Patañjali, Pāṇ 2.3.1 should be provided. However, when karman is the primary meaning, and ekatva is the subordinate, or, specifically, when karman is regarded as viśeṣya, and ekatva is viśeṣaṇa, then Pāṇ 2.3.1 is not necessary, since the general principle uktārthānām aprayogaḥ lends the repeated denotation of the notion of the object superfluous (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

Threefold meaning of the nominal stem

In this regard, let us consider the example kṛtaḥ kaṭaḥ “a mat has been made.” Here, the primary derivative affix Kta contained in the word kṛta (<kṛ+Kta) denotes the notion of karman (Pāṇ 3.4.70). Since the object-ness of the mat is already expressed (abhihita) by the affix Kta, the second nominal case ending is not introduced after the word kaṭa “a mat” by means of Pāṇ 2.3.2. This is because Pāṇ 2.3.2 is applicable when the object-ness is not signified otherwise. Thus, the first nominal case ending (prathamā) is introduced after the word kaṭa by Pāṇ 2.3.46. Moreover, since the words kaṭa “a mat” and kṛta “has been made” refer to one and the same item, the first nominal case ending occurs also after the word kṛta. In this way, the correct expression can be basically explained.

Pāṇinians, however, assert that when Pāṇ 2.3.1 is not formulated explicitly, that is, when it is carried out only by means of the general principle uktārthānām aprayogaḥ, an incorrect expression such as *kṛtaṃ kaṭam may arise. The reason for this is that such a general principle can operate only with respect to a primary meaning, as the eminent Pāniṇian grammarian Nāgeśabhaṭṭa (ca. seventeenth–eighteenth century AD) observes: uktārthānām iti nyāyas tu pradhānārthaviṣaya iti bhāvaḥ “With regard to [the expression] uktārthānām, what is implied is that the general principle is, however, [applicable only] in the scope of a primary meaning.”²¹ In the expression quoted above, the general principle takes effect only with respect to the primary meaning, namely, ekatva “singularity” of the word kaṭa but not with respect to the subordinate meaning, namely, karman “an object.” While the idea of the object of kaṭa “a mat” is already expressed by means of the affix Kta of the word kṛta, the primary meaning, namely, ekatva “singularity,” is still not indicated. Thus, some nominal case ending should be introduced to indicate ekatva “singularity.” However, by relying only on the general principle, it would not be possible completely to avoid the possibility to introduce the second nominal case ending according to Pāṇ 2.3.2 (karmaṇi dvitīyā) to indicate the unexpressed number in kaṭa in relation to the notion of karman that has already been expressed once by the affix Kta. In this unusual context, the situation of whether the notion of karman is expressed or not is actually irrelevant to the introducing the second nominal case ending, since the rule Pāṇ 2.3.1 (anabhihite) is not formulated. In this case, the karman would be expressed twice, which is, however, undesirable, since *kṛtaṃ kaṭam is obviously ungrammatical. Therefore, according to the Pāṇinians, Pāṇ 2.3.1 should certainly be specified, so that only this heading rule makes it possible to differentiate between the situations wherein the subordinate meaning of karman has been expressed (abhihita) or unexpressed (anabhihita), and permits us to apply the subsequent rules appropriately (see Fig. 2).²² The interpretation referred to above can be found in the Kāśikāvṛtti (ca. seventh century AD), and this view seems to have been generally known by all the Pāṇinian grammarians.²³

Fig. 2

Abhihita or anabhihita

Notion of anabhihite in the Cāndra Grammar

In his Cāndrasūtra, Candragomin does not provide a rule equivalent to Pāṇ 2.3.1 (anabhihite). However, several decades ago, Deshpande (1979, p. 134) rightly observed that in Candragominʼs grammar, the general principle uktārthānām aprayogaḥ plays a similar role. In this context, it is useful to see how Ratna, Candragominʼs tenth-century follower, has treated this subject. First, several relevant stanzas from his Śabdārthacintā may be quoted here:²⁴

atiṅbhis tiṅbhir aikārthyair aṇādibhiḥ prakāśite /

kartrādau kiṃ vibhaktīnām abhāva iti cen matam // (ŚC 2.52)

uktārthatvena vaiyarthyād iti nyāyo ’nugamyatām /

arthapratītaye śabdaḥ pratītaś cet sa tena kim // (ŚC 2.53)

[The proponent argues further:] If you [as an opponent] would mean asking why the nominal case endings [of the instrumental, etc.] are absent when [the notion of] agent, etc. is manifested by [either] non-tiṅ affixes [i.e., by the primary derivative affixes], by [verbal endings denoted by the siglum] tiṅ, by compounds, [or] by [the secondary derivative affixes] aṇ, etc., then you should bear in mind the principle that [the nominal case endings are absent] because it is futile to use [linguistic elements] the meaning of which has [already] been declared. A linguistic element is used for the purpose of conveying a sense, [and] if this [sense such as “agent”] has [already] been conveyed, then what is the need of [using] that [linguistic element such as the third nominal case, i.e., the instrumental]?

vibhaktayo ’ta evaitā bhavanti viniyogataḥ /

anukta eva kartrādāv iti vyastaṃ paraṃ vacaḥ // (ŚC 2.54)

For this very reason these nominal cases, [namely, the instrumental, etc.] occur according to their function only when [the kārakas] “agent”, etc. are not declared [by means of non-tiṅ affixes, etc.]. Hence, the contrary statement, [namely, Pāṇ 2.3.1 (anabhihite)] is rejected.

Although Candragomin does not explicitly state this view, it can be deduced from the following statement in the Cāndravṛtti:²⁵

odanaḥ pacyata ity odanaśabdād vyāpyatā na gamyate, kiṃtarhi tiṅantāt.

With regard to [the example] odanaḥ pacyate “rice is being cooked,” the idea of an object (lit. “that which is occupied by an action”)²⁶ is not understood from the word odana “rice” but rather from the verbal form.

In connection with this passage, Ratna provides the following detailed explanation in his Cāndrapañjikā:

tatraitat syāt: svārtham abhidhāya śabdo dravyam āha samavetam, samavetasya ca liṅgaṃ saṃkhyāṃ kriyāpyādīṃś ceti pañcako nāmārthaḥ. tatra trike nāmārthe saṃkhyākriyāpyādī vibhaktivācye iti darśane tiṅtavyādyaṇādisamāsair anabhihitakriyāpyādyāśrayeṣv ekatvādiṣu dvitīyādyā vibhaktayo yathā syur ity anabhihite (Pāṇ 2.3.1) iti prakṛtya dvitīyādīnāṃ vidhānam iṣyate. tatheha vidhānaṃ na kṛtam iti tiṅādyabhihitakriyāpyādyāśrayeṣv ekatvādiṣu dvitīyādayaḥ prāpnuvantīty āśaṅkya yadi saṃkhyā vibhaktyarthaḥ, athāpi kriyāpyādiḥ; sarvathā yatra tiṅādibhiḥ kriyāpyādaya ucyante, tatraudanādiśabdaḥ svārthāvyatiriktārthamātra eveti prathamaiva tato yuktā, na dvitīyādayaḥ kriyāpyādau vṛttyabhāvād iti pañcakaṃ nāmārtham āśrityāha: odana ityādi. yady odanaśabdaḥ kriyāpyavṛttiḥ syāt, nārthamātravṛttiḥ, tadā vyāpyatā gamyeta. na ca gamyate. tasmād arthamātravṛttir iti kaḥ prasaṅgo dvitīyāyā ity ākūtam.

In this respect, the following should be [considered]: A word signifies (1) svārtha “a [wordʼs] own meaning,” and then indicates (2) dravya “a substance” that is inherent in [its own meaning], as well as (3) liṅga “a gender,” (4) saṃkhyā “a number,” and (5) kriyāpya “an object,” etc., of that inherent [substance]. This is the fivefold meaning of a nominal stem. In this regard, in line with the view about a threefold meaning of a nominal stem according to which the number and the object, etc., should be denoted by a nominal case ending, [in Pāṇiniʼs grammar] a rule concerning the second [nominal case ending], etc., is desired after formulating the rule anabhihite (Pāṇ 2.3.1), because the second nominal case ending, etc., should occur in the sense of singularity, etc., concerning the object, etc., that are not expressed by [the verbal endings denoted by the siglum] tiṄ, [the primary derivative affixes] tavya, etc., [the secondary derivative affixes] aṆ, etc., or compounds. Here, [i.e., in the Cāndra grammar, however,] such a rule [namely, like Pāṇ 2.3.1] has not been formulated. Therefore, the second [nominal case ending], etc., could be applicable even in the sense of singularity, etc., concerning the object, etc., that have already been expressed by [grammatical elements] such as [the verbal endings denoted by the siglum] tiṄ, etc. [The commentator] anticipates this doubt and—considering [the fact] that, if [one accepts] the number as the meaning of a nominal case ending, then the object, etc., too, [are the meaning of a nominal case ending],²⁷ with regard to all such [positions like the fivefold or threefold meaning of the nominal stem], whenever the object, etc., are expressed by [grammatical elements] such as [the verbal endings denoted by the siglum] tiṄ, etc., only the first [nominal case ending] will be appropriate after a word [such as odana], since a word odana occurs in the mere sense [of a nominal stem] that is not different from its own meaning, whereas the second [nominal case ending], etc., will not occur, since [a word such as odana] does not have the sense of an object, etc.,—by resorting to the fivefold meaning of the nominal stem, [he] says: odanaḥ, and so on. If the word odana “rice” would have the sense of an object and not the sense of the mere meaning [of the nominal stem], then the notion of the object would be understood [from it]. But it is not understood. Therefore, since it has the sense of the mere meaning [of the nominal stem], there is not the least possibility for [the occurrence of] the second [nominal case ending]. This is what [the commentator] implies [in this passage].

After introducing the view of the Pāṇinian grammarians, Ratna explains that the correct usage with regard to the example odanaḥ pacyate “rice is being cooked” presented in the Cāndravṛtti can be achieved on the basis of the general principle uktārthānām aprayogaḥ without formulating the heading rule Pāṇ 2.3.1. Since the verbal affix te of the finite verb pacyate signifies the notion of karman “an object,” there is no need for introducing the second nominal case ending after the word odana in order to signify the same notion one more time. This is definitely always valid, no matter whether one takes the view of a fivefold meaning of a nominal stem or a threefold meaning.

The Pāṇinian grammarians were specifically concerned about the example of kṛtaḥ kaṭaḥ “a mat has been made,” in which the object-ness has already been signified. In their view, it is necessary to differentiate whether the subordinate meaning of karman has already been expressed (abhihite) or it has not been expressed (anabhihite). In this regard, Ratna states the following in the Cāndrapañjikā:

evaṃ kṛtaḥ kaṭaḥ, śatena krītaḥ: śatyaḥ, śatikaḥ paṭaḥ, prāptam udakaṃ yaṃ grāmam: prāptodako grāma ityādau ktādibhyo vyāpyatā gamayte. kaṭādis tv arthamātravṛttir evety arthamātre prathamā bhavati, na dvitīyeti draṣṭavyam. udāharaṇamātropadarśanāya tv ekam udāharaṇaṃ dattavān. tatra pañcake nāmārthe nāmnaiva saṃkhyākriyāpyādīnām abhidhānāt taddyotikā eva kevalaṃ vibhaktayaḥ. na ca yatra tiṅādibhir abhidhānam, tatra kriyāpyādivṛttir odanādiśabda ity anabhihite (Pāṇ 2.3.1) iti vacanaṃ vināpi dvitīyādīnām apravṛttir iti …

Similarly, in [examples] such as kṛtaḥ kaṭaḥ “a mat has been made,” śatyaḥ/śatikaḥ paṭaḥ “a hundred[-coin] cloth” – one bought for one-hundred [coins], [and] prāptodako grāmaḥ “a water-reached village” – a village reached by water, the idea of an object is understood from [the affix] Kta, etc. Moreover, since kaṭa “mat,” etc., only have the sense of the mere meaning [of a nominal stem], the first [nominal case ending] occurs in the sense of the mere meaning [of a nominal stem], whereas the second [nominal case ending] does not. This is how [the matter] should be considered. In order to just exemplify [this], [the commentator] provided a single example.²⁸ Here, in the case of the fivefold meaning of a nominal stem, the number and the object, etc., are denoted exclusively by a nominal stem, and hence the nominal case endings are mere illuminators of them. However, when [these meanings] are not denoted by [grammatical elements] such as [the verbal endings denoted by the siglum] tiṄ, etc., then words such as odana “rice” do have the sense of the object, etc. Consequently, even in the absence of the rule Pāṇ 2.3.1 (anabhihite), the second [nominal case ending], etc., do not occur. Thus, …

The Pāṇinian grammarians hold the view that a nominal stem conveys three grammatical notions (namely, a word’s own meaning, a substance, and a gender), whereas the Cāndra grammarians, at least judging from Ratnaʼs explanation, accept the theory of the fivefold meaning of a nominal stem (adding the number and the object, etc., to the three notions mentioned above). For those who adhere to the latter theory, which can be traced back to Candragomin himself,²⁹ the issue raised by the Pāṇinian grammarians due to the distribution of the two additional meanings (namely, the number and the object, etc.) in a nominal case ending, as well as the primary-subordinate relationship between them is not considered to pose a problem. This is because such an issue simply does not exist on account of the fact that a nominal stem carries all the five meanings, while the nominal case ending, as Ratna states, merely illuminates or co-signifies those meanings. In the example kṛtaḥ kaṭaḥ, the nominal stem kṛta denotes all the five notions, including the notions of the number and of the object. Since the notion of the object in kaṭa has already been expressed (ukta) by the affix Kta in kṛta, there is no need to introduce (aprayoga) the second nominal case ending to signify the same notion again. Accordingly, Cān 2.1.43 (kriyāpye dvitīyā) will not be applied here, and only Cān 2.1.93 (arthamātre prathamā)³⁰ is applicable. In this way, the Cāndra grammarians are able to justify the desired grammatical form in kṛtaḥ kaṭaḥ without resorting to Pāṇiniʼs heading rule anabhihite (Pāṇ 2.3.1).³¹

Ratna tries to avoid the problem discussed by the Pāniṇians on the basis of the fivefold theory. However, if the nominal stem indicates the five grammatical notions, a question may arise as to why a nominal case ending needs to be introduced at all after such a nominal stem. This question is indeed raised in Ratnaʼs Śabdārthacintā 2.55:³²

nanu kartrādir artho ’yam ukto nāmabhir eva hi /

satyam ukto ’pi naitābhir vinā vyaktiṃ sa vindati // (ŚC 2.55)

[The opponent objects:] Is it not the case that the meaning such as “agent” is indeed declared by the nominal stems themselves? [The proponent replies:] True. Even though [this meaning] is declared, it does not become clear without these [nominal cases].

After discussing this interesting topic in some detail, Ratna concludes that “these [nominal case endings denoted by the siglum] sup should be [regarded as] indicators of the kārakas “agent”, etc. in a similar way as [the preverbs] pra, etc. [which are indicators of the meanings of the verbal roots].”³³ This assertion is followed in Śabdārthacintā 2.63–65 by several illustrative analogies, the last one of which reads as follows:³⁴

vidyamāno ’pi nīlādir yathā dīpādisaṃnidhau /

vyaktim āyāti kartrādir arthaḥ supsaṃnidhau tathā // (ŚC 2.65)

Just as a blue [object] or [an object of] any other [colour], even though already present [at a certain place], becomes visible when a lamp, etc. are brought near [it], in the same way a meaning such as “agent” [becomes evident] when [the nominal case endings denoted by the siglum] sup are placed next to [the nominal stem].

Patañjali and the Fivefold Theory

By showing that the underlying understanding of the meaning of a nominal stem in the Cāndra system of grammar lies in the fivefold theory, Ratna avoids the problem discussed by Pāṇinians and rejects the requirement for the heading rule Pāṇ 2.3.1 (anabhihite). Interestingly, the fivefold theory may also be traced back to Patañjali, since Ratna’s statement quoted earlier in this paper, namely, svārtham abhidhāya śabdo … kriyāpyādīṃś ceti pañcako nāmārthaḥ, is also found in similar terms already in the Mahābhāṣya. Patañjali states the following:³⁵

svārtham abhidhāya śabdo

   nirapekṣo dravyam āha samavetam

samavetasya ca vacane

   liṅgaṃ vacanaṃ vibhaktiṃ ca

abhidhāya tān viśeṣān

   apekṣamānaś ca kṛtsnam ātmānam

priyakutsanādiṣu punaḥ

   pravartate ʼsau vibhaktyantaḥ

After a word signifies svārtha “a [word’s] own meaning” without expecting [any other meanings], it indicates dravya “a substance” that is inherent in [its own meaning]. Then, after denoting [dravya] that is inherent in [the wordʼs own meaning], it [indicates] liṅga “a gender,” vacana “a number,” and vibhakti (i.e., kāraka).³⁶

Since after indicating these particular meanings, while regarding all [of them] as oneself, such [a word] with nominal case endings indeed occurs in the sense of “agreeable”, “contempt”, and so on.

When Ratna quotes the first of Patañjaliʼs two stanzas elsewhere in his own work,³⁷ he refers to the fivefold theory. Pāṇinian grammarians basically seem to prefer to take the view that a nominal stem conveys only three grammatical notions,³⁸ and likewise Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa (ca. seventeenth century) also mentions that Patañjali did not regard the fivefold theory as most suitable but rather considered it as an optional view.³⁹ Contrary to such interpretations, Nāgeśabhaṭṭa, as Deshpande (1992, p. 78) notes, insists that the fivefold theory is Patañjali’s finally established view. With regard to Patañjali’s statement quoted above, Nāgeśa explains that this can also be understood as stating the fivefold theory.⁴⁰

priyakutsanādibodhanāya kṛtsnam ātmānaṃ yato ’pekṣaṃāno bhavati, atas tān viśeṣān abhidhāya tadgatakutsanādibodhanāya vibhaktyantas tu pravartate ity anvayaḥ. anena pañcakaṃ prātipadikārtha ity uktam.

Since for the sake of causing to understand [the sense of] “agreeable”, “contempt”, and so on it becomes one regarding all [of them] as oneself, for this reason after indicating these particular [meanings], such [a word] with nominal case endings indeed occurs for the sake of causing to understand [the sense of] “contempt”, and so on that is present in it. This is how [the words in Patañjaliʼs statement] can be rearranged syntactically. By this [statement], it is expressed that the meaning of the nominal stem is fivefold.

Not only the idea of resorting to the general principle uktārthānām aprayogaḥ is explicitly mentioned in the Mahābhāṣya on Pāṇ 2.3.1, but also the idea of the fivefold theory may be thought to be present in the Mahābhāṣya on Pāṇ 5.3.74, although it is difficult to say definitively whether Patañjali himself adopted this theory as his finally established view.

In addition, it may be noteworthy that even though in the Mahābhāṣya these two ideas appear in the discussion of distinct grammatical issues, the Cāndra grammarians brought them in one and the same context.

Conclusion

As Deshpande (1979, p. 134) observed more than 40 years ago, in the Cāndra system of grammar, the general principle uktārthānām aprayogaḥ plays the role of the heading rule Pāṇ 2.3.1 (anabhihite). Ratna’s explanation not only confirms that this assumption is correct, but it also clarifies that the problem observed by the Pāṇinians in the case of the omission of such a heading rule is solved by resorting to the theory of the fivefold meaning of a nominal stem. Since the idea that the general principle uktārthānām aprayogaḥ replaces the function of Pāṇ 2.3.1 was already present in Patañjali’s Mahābhāṣya, and the notion of the fivefold theory may also have been considered to exist in his work, Pāṇinian grammarians may benefit from paying more attention to the grammatical system formulated by Candragomin. This is because Candragomin followed Patañjali, who can be regarded as the most authoritative of the three sages— Pāṇini, Kātyāyana, and Patañjali—according to the well-known maxim yathottaraṃ hi munitrayasya prāmāṇyam “the later the sage, the greater his authority.”⁴¹ It is certainly worth studying Pāṇiniʼs grammar while taking a closer look at the Cāndravyākaraṇa and the later commentaries of Candragominʼs school, for this will help to better understand the developments of grammatical ideas in the Pāṇinian tradition.