Verse 3.7.63

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.7.63:

निवृत्तप्रेषणं कर्म स्वस्य कर्तुः प्रयोजकम् ।
प्रेषणान्तरसंबन्धे ण्यन्ते लेनाभिधीयते ॥ ६३ ॥

nivṛttapreṣaṇaṃ karma svasya kartuḥ prayojakam |
preṣaṇāntarasaṃbandhe ṇyante lenābhidhīyate || 63 ||

63. When the organising activity of the agent is not meant to be expressed and is superimposed on its object, the latter, as the prompter of its former agent, is expressed by the verbal suffix when the verb has the causative affix expressive of the superimposed organising activity.

Commentary

[In ‘kārayate kaṭaḥ svayam eva’, the activity of the agent is not mentioned at all, in order to convey the idea that there are special facilities for making the mat, so that the mat is said to prompt itself to be made. This prompting itself of the mat or rather the superimposition of prompting on the mat is different from the maker’s activity and it is conveyed by the causative affix and the ātmanepada. All this happens when what was object before becomes the agent in another context, when prompting is superimposed on the object.]

Remarks. All that is said in this context about “Karmakartā” is based on the two Sūtras: ṇer aṇau yat karma ṇau cet sa kartā anādhyāne (P. 1.3.67) and karmavat karmaṇā tulyakriyaḥ (P. 3.1.87). These two sūtras are connected. Both teach the use of the ātmanepada when, in a sentence, what was at first the object becomes the agent. There are, however, differences in the scope of the two sūtras. The first one teaches the use of the ātmanepada even when the fruit of the action does not accrue to the agent. When it does accrue to the agent, ātmanepada would come according to P. 1.3.74. Seconly, the first sūtra teaches ātmanepada when the causative affix ṇic is used. Thirdly, the root must be kartṛsthabhāvaka as ‘dṛs’ or ‘kartṛsthakriya’ as ‘ruh’. As against this, the second sūtra teaches ‘yak’, ‘ātmanepada’ and ‘ciṇ’ when what was karma becomes ‘kartā’. Here there is no question of the use of the causative affix ‘ṇic’, at all. The root must be karmasthabhāvaka’ like ‘pac’ or ‘karmasthakriya’ like ‘bhid’.

This distinction in roots is set forth in the following stanza:—

karmasthaḥ pacater bhāvaḥ karmasthā ca bhideḥ kriyā /
māsāsibhāvaḥ kartṛsthaḥ kartṛsthā ca gameḥ kriyā // (Kāśikā on P. 3.1.87)

It is to be noted that what is called ‘karmavadbhāva’ does not take place in the case of roots to which ‘ṇic’ is added nor in the case of roots which are ‘kartṛsthabhāvaka’ or ‘kartṛsthakriya’. Though in the case of the two latter kinds of roots, when ṇic is added to them what was ‘karma’ becomes ‘kartā’, still there is no real ‘karmavadbhāva’ because ‘yak’ and ‘cin’ cannot come. Only ‘ātmanepada’ can come. In the example given under P. 1.3.67 in the Kāśikā, namely, ‘ārohanti hastinaṃ hastipakāḥ’ ‘arohayate hastī śvayam eva’, what was an object in the first sentence has become kartā in the next sentence but this is not what is technically called ‘karmavadbhāva’. That is taught in P. 3.1.87. But there is a kind of ‘karmavadbhāva’ here also, but ‘yak’ and ‘ciṇ’ do not result.]