Verse 3.7.59-60

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.7.59-60:

न्यग्भावनान्यग्भवनं रूहौ शुद्धे प्रतीयते ।
न्यग्भावना न्यग्भवनं ण्यन्तेऽपि प्रतिपद्यते ॥ ५९ ॥
अवस्थां पंचमीमाहुर्ण्यन्ते तां कर्मकर्तरि ।
निवृत्तप्रेषणाद्धातोः प्राकृतेऽर्थे णिजुच्यते ॥ ६० ॥

nyagbhāvanānyagbhavanaṃ rūhau śuddhe pratīyate |
nyagbhāvanā nyagbhavanaṃ ṇyante'pi pratipadyate || 59 ||
avasthāṃ paṃcamīmāhurṇyante tāṃ karmakartari |
nivṛttapreṣaṇāddhātoḥ prākṛte'rthe ṇijucyate || 60 ||

59-60. From the pure root ‘ruḥ’, both ‘causing to bend’ and ‘bending’ are understood. From the root with the causative affix ‘ṇic’ also, both ‘causing to bend’ and bending are understood. When the object (karma) becomes agent and the causative affix is also used, there is a fifth condition. When the root does not express the idea of somebody causing an action to be done (preṣaṇa), the causative affix is used to express the original meaning (of the root).

Commentary

Now something further is going to be said about a direct object becoming an agent.

[Read verse 59-60 above]

Remark. In explaining these two stanzas, Helārāja takes the root √ruh as an example. Though this root is ordinarily considered to be kartṛsthakriya, Helārāja treats it as karmasthakriya on the authority of Kātyāyana and brings it within the scope of karmavadbhāva according to P. 3.1.87.

[In the sentence ārohanti hastinaṃ hastipakaḥ = ‘the elephant-keepers mount the elephant’, the meaning involved is that the elephant keepers cause to bend (nyagbhāvana) the elephant which is bending (nyagbhavana). When there is a desire to emphasise the docility of the elephant, the function of the elephant-keepers is not mentioned at all. The sentence would then be: āruhyate hastī svayam eva = ‘the elephant bends of its own accord’. Here the root only stands for bending and not for causing to bend. This is the second stage. So far the root is in its pure condition, that is, the causative affix has not been added to it. In this pure state, it expresses nyagbhāvana (causing to bend) in the first stage and nyagbhavana (bending) in the second stage. Now if the function of the keepers is meant to be conveyed, the causative affix ṇic would be added to the root and we would get the sentence: ārohayanti hastinam hastipakāḥ = ‘the elephant keepers mount the elephant’. This is the third stage and the meaning is the same as in the first stage even though the causative affix has been used here. When there is again a desire to emphasise the docility of the elephant and dispense with the function of the keepers, the root would stand for bending only and we would get ārohayate hastī svayam eva = ‘the elephant bends of its own accord’. This is the fourth stage and the meaning is the same as in the second stage. Thus, in the last two stages also where the ṇic is used we understand both nyaghbhāvanam (causing to bend) and nyagbhavanam (bending). When the function of the keepers, namely, preṣaṇam = prompting is dispensed with nivṛttapreṣaṇād dhātoḥ) what remains is the activity of the elephant only and that becomes the meaning of the root. It is to such a root that the ṇic is added.

In this connection, Helārāja speaks about a fifth stage. There is no separate sentence expressive of this stage. It consists in looking' upon the activity of the elephant itself as the prompter because of its extreme docility and the consequent dispensing with any other prompter. See Nāgeśa’s Udyota on the M.Bhā. on P. 1.3.67.]

An example is now given of roots with and without the suffix ‘ṇic’ conveying the same meaning.