25 More on substitution

A few successive sutras further  expand on the substitution effects. We have

1.1.50 sthāne’ntartamah

Sthāne (7/1) antartamah (1/1)

The vŗtti paraphrase is as follows:

Sthāne (7/1, in the place) prāpyamānānām (6/3, ? of the available) antaratama (closest) ādeśa (substitute) bhavati (is) sadŗśatamah (the most alike)

“A substitute (ādeśa) which is to replace a substituendum (Sthānin) must be most similar to the substituendum” (Sharma).

“When a common term is obtained as a substitute, the likest of its significates to that in the place of which it comes, is the actual substitute” (Vasu).

Of the two translations of the vŗtti, it is rather surprising that Vasu’s is the more cryptic (usually it’s the other way round). Let’s first use Sharma’s more concise terms: the thing which is to be replaced ('for X') is termed the substituendum, or Sthānin (in common language, ‘that which is in place’). The thing which replaces, the substitute ('put Y'), is the ādeśa (in common language, the ‘directive’). The explanation suggests that in various sutras, one may be given a list of substituendums  (Sthānin) and a list of substitutes (ādeśa), without any direction how to match the two lists. In such a situation one matches the pairs according to their similarity.  The word antaratama is a bit puzzling, because I thought antara is actuall a ‘gap, difference’, and tamah is a superlative degree; but I guess one should interpret it as the ‘most subtle of differences’ rather than as the ‘largest of differences’. Of course, the previous sutra, 1.1.49 şaşţhī sthāneyogā is to be carried in the mind as it gives the context to sthāne: the genitive case ending denotes the substitution (in place of) relationship, and the substitute (replacement) that is to be put in place (sthāne) from the available items will be that showing the closest similarity (antaratamah).

Thus far thus good. Now 'similarity’ is said to be of the following types: place of articulation (sthāna), signification (artha), sound quality (guņa), or duration or quantity (pramāņa). Usually we use the place of articulation as the guide (note here the dual meaning of sthāne: ‘in place [of the substituendum]’ or ‘in place of articulation’. A question is raised why the word sthāne is not taken over from the previous sutra by anuvŗtti (ellipsis). As per Sharma, the Kāśikā’s explanation is that the author wanted to emphasise that when there is a choice of criteria, “a similarity based on sthāna ‘place of articulation’ should be considered decisive”. This implies that the word sthāna is used in the sense of ‘place of articulation’ in 1.1.50, which is not the sense used in 1.1.49; thus there would be no possibility of letting the word sthāne be taken as understood in 1.1.50 by anuvŗtti from 1.1.49. However, to me this sounds too limiting, and probably not what the author meant: consider that the basis of judging similarity may be any of the four alternatives given above. I would prefer to understand sthāne as ‘in place’, in both the sutras.

Here’s one more development of substitution;

1.1.51 uraņraparah

Taking out the sandhi,

Uh (6/1) aņ (1/1) ra-parah (1/1)

To be understood by anuvŗtti from the previous sutra #49 is   sthāne.

The vŗtti is as follows:

Uh (of ŗ) sthāne (in place) aņ (aŅ, that is the short and long vowels a, i, u) prasajyamāna (?) eva raparo veditavyah.

“If  aŅ (a, i, u) comes as a substitute in place of ŗ, it is automatically followed by r” (Sharma).

“When a letter of aņ pratyāhāra comes as a substitute for ŗ, it is always followed by a r” (Vasu).

Let’s first deal with the mystery of where the ŗ turned up, when the sutra starts with uh. This is one of the problems of the sutras, that they apply the rules of transformation (noun declension, in this instance) even before we’ve introduced the rules. Here the genitive (şaşţhī, sixth) case of ŗ as a letter or sound, is derived as uh obviously on the analogy of other nouns ending in ŗ: we know, for instance, pitŗ ‘father’ is declined pitā, pitarau, pitarah, and so on, to genitive case pituh, pitroh, pitŗ:ņām, etc. (the colon indicates long vowel). On this analogy, ŗ would be declined – ā, arau, arah, etc., genitive uh, roh, ŗ:ņām. This is slightly absurd (if one may dare to use such a word for this hoary vedānga!), and Vasu actually provides a more student-friendly alternative version ŗkārasya, for ‘the genitive of (the sound) ŗ’, in the vŗtti explanation (Vasu, 1891, p.39).   

The next term, aŅ, is the pratyāhāra (see the relevant Page from the TABS on the top) that includes the vowels a, i, u (short and long).  Together, the first two words denote “aŅ (a, i, u) as a substitute in place (sthāne  is understood from 1.1.49) of ŗ” as shown in the  vŗtti paraphrase. We understand that the replacement of ŗ would be occasioned by other rules elsewhere in the grammar, such as 1.1.3 iko guņavŗddhī (see post #03). When such a rule requires replacement of  ŗ by its guņa, say, we choose the “likest” item from the available guņa sounds a, e, o, which according to the “nearness of place” (Vasu, p.40) is a.

The next issue is the term raparah or ra-parah. The first part ra- refers to the r-sound. The second part para means ‘across, beyond’, like pere- or para- in Greek/Latin. Broadly it says that after the substitution of  ŗ (eg. by a in the above citation), there will be added an r sound. Thus the guņa of ŗ will not be just a, but a-r, ar. In some other contexts, the substitute may be i or u, in which cases the actual replacement will be, respectively, ir and ur.

There is an extension of this principle by analogy which implies that replacement of the letter ļ by a, i or u will call for a subsequent l sound to be added, thus giving al, il, ul. Vasu (p.40) puts it thus: “The r in the text has been taken by some to be a pratyāhāra formed by the letter r and a of l^aŅ; and thus it includes the letters r and l. In that case the sūtra would mean  that aŅ substitutes of ŗ and ļ are always followed by r and l respectively. Thus guna of ŗi = ar, of ļi = al.” Personally, this is puzzling, as it appears to me that the boundary-marker of the pratyahara l^aŅ is Ņ and not ^a or a. To include the sounds r and l in one pratyahara, one would have to use the notation r^a Ņ. The first term uh also would have to be changed to include both the letters ŗ and ļ. The normal alternative would be to use the pratyahara ŗK which includes the letters ŗ and ļ followed by the boundary-marker (or iT), K, and its genitive ŗcah. Maybe that is what the sutra is supposed to have meant, but who are we to try and gild the lily!