A Review of the Collection of commented Metarules of Pāṇini's Sanskrit Grammar — "Paribhāṣāvṛtti" by Nīlakaṇṭha Dīkṣita

Ulanskii Evgenii Aleksandrovich ORCID: 0000-0002-9710-8979 PhD in Physics and Mathematics Postgraduate student of the Department of Indian Philology of the Institute of Asian and African Studies of Lomonosov Moscow State University 119991, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Leninskie Gory, 1 ulanskiy@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

In the middle of the first millennium BC, the ancient Indian linguist Panini summarized the information accumulated by South Asian linguists about the grammar of Sanskrit in the work "The Octateuch" (Adhy?y?). This work is composed in the sutra genre, that is, it consists of short and succinct statements, each of which is traditionally also called a sutra. Panini used many artificial technical designations and, using ellipsis and other information compression techniques, achieved maximum brevity of presentation.

These features of the genre and style of Panini's work required the inclusion in it not only the definitions and rules of Sanskrit grammar, but also the meta-principles that were set forth in the paribhashasutras (paribh s?tra), that is, the sutras of an interpretative nature. The meta-guides describe the metalanguage of Panini grammar and teach how to correctly read and interpret the sutras of the "Octateuch" ^[17]. The idea of adding interpretative sutras to his work was presumably spied on by Panini in the Shrauta Sutras ^{[1, 11, 12, 21]}. We have undertaken a translation of the Panini Paribhashasutras, which we have provided with the necessary comments ^[3].

The meta-directions voiced by Panini pointed to the most general properties of his metalanguage, but upon careful study of the "Octateuch", scientists of that time encountered numerous places that allowed for an ambiguous interpretation of the rules of Sanskrit grammar. As a result, commentaries began to appear, in which additional meta-guidelines were formulated that serve for the correct interpretation of the Panini sutras ^[17].

The first of the extant commentaries of the "Octateuch" was compiled by Katyayana (K?ty?yana, ? III century BC) and has been preserved only in the form of brief theses called vartik (v?rttika). Such theses suggest the presence of a more detailed commentary — vritti, which, apparently, has been lost.

Compiled by Patanjali (II century BC), the "Great Commentary" (Mah?bhYa) gives a detailed interpretation of the Panini sutras, as well as the varttik Katyayana.

Each of the eight books of the "Octateuch" consists of four chapters, and when quoting it is customary to indicate the number of the book, chapters and sutras.

The term paribhasha, which commentators call the meta-rule of Panini grammar, was not used in the "Octateuch" itself. It appears in varttika 4 to Sutra 1.1.69, and then repeats in Varttika 3 to Sutra 1.3.11 and is further actively used by Patanjali and later commentators.

The "Great Commentary" contains hundreds of new meta-rules, and several centuries later Sanskrit grammarians began to compile and comment on consolidated lists of meta-rules, representing, in their opinion, the necessary minimum for the interpretation of the "Octateuch". Since then, this process has been going on almost continuously up to the present time. Very quickly, he went beyond the Panini grammatical tradition proper, repeating himself in various grammar schools that arose as a result of the processing of Panini's work and the creation of his own grammatical sutras ^{[6, pp. 6-11]}.

In the Panini tradition, numerous commented vaults of metapravels have been compiled, among which the first known to us belongs to Vyadi (VyI, ? IV century A.D.). In the Middle Ages, the vaults of the metapravels of Purushottamadeva (P uru?ottamadeva, XII century A.D.) and, especially, Siradeva (S?radeva, XII-XIII centuries A.D.) were authoritative. The following notable works in this direction were composed by the grammarians of the XVII-XVIII centuries AD. Nilakanthadikshita (N?lakaHad?k?Ita) and Nagojibhatta (N?goj?bhaA). The latter's work, "The Lunar Diadem of Interpretation" (ParibhEndu?ekhara), remains to this day the most authoritative commented set of Panini grammar meta-rules ^{[6, pp. 11-32]}. There are translations into English of the vaults of metapravil Vyadi ^[22] and Nagojibhatta ^[14].

The purpose of this article is to give an overview of the commented set of metapravels of Nilakanthadikshita "Commentary on paribhasham" (paribh avv?tti). This first notable work in the five centuries since Siradeva immediately preceded and influenced the famous work of Nagojibhatta. Therefore, the study of Nilakanthadikshita's work is relevant for all those interested in the Sanskrit grammatical tradition and the history of its development. A similar review of the metapravels of Siradeva and Nagojibhatta was carried out by Louis Renou ^[19].

Biographical information about Nilakanthadikshit

The text of Nilakanthadikshita's Commentary on the Paribhashas has been published twice. The first edition of 1915, edited by G. Shastri, was published in Trivandrum, the capital of Kerala in southern India, and is based on two manuscripts written on palm leaves in the Malayalam script used in Kerala ^[20]. The second edition was carried out in 1967 in the collection of Abhyankara from seventeen sets of metapravels by different authors. It is based on the first edition and on another manuscript ^[6].

Based on the location of the manuscripts and the publication of Nilakanthadikshita's work, it can be assumed that he was a Kerala brahmin. Indirectly, this is confirmed by the part of his name dikshita, literally meaning "initiated (through ritual)" and often found in the names of the brahmins of South India. The first part of the name Nilakantha (N?lakaHa), literally "blue—throated", is the famous epithet of the god Shiva, referring to the myth of the churning of the milky ocean, during which a deadly poison appeared that threatened to destroy all creation, but drunk by Shiva and caused his throat to turn blue (Ramayana 1.45.19-26, see ^{[2, p. 149-150]}). It can be concluded that Nilakanthadikshita was a Shaivite brahmin from southern India.

From the introductory verse to the Commentary on the Paribhashas, it is clear that Nilakanthadikshita's middle name was Nilakantha Yajvan (n?lakahayajvan), and also that his father's name was Varadesvara Yajvan (varade?varayajvan) or Varadesvara makhin (varade?vara makhi n). The second part of the name Yajwan or Makheen literally means "sender of rituals". In addition, there is another name of Nilakanthadikshita — Nilakantha Vajapeyin (n?lakaha v?japeyi n), referring to the same idea of performing the ritual.

In the Commentary on the Paribhashas, Nilakanthadikshita quotes the titles of four other works of his:

· "Coverage of Panini's Work" (pin?yad?pik?) – commentary on the "Octateuch",

· "Revealing the essence of the Commentary" (bhyatattvaviveka) – commentary on Patanjali's "Great Commentary",

· "The Cache of established grammar provisions" (vaiy?kara?asiddh?ntarahasya) – commentary on the Siddhantakaumudi (siddh?ntakaumud?) Bhattojidikshita,

· "Illumination of hidden Meanings" (gh?rthad?pik?) – commentary on "Tattvabodhini" (tattvabodhin?) by Jnanendra Saraswati.

Arun Bhat researched the chapter of the "Cache of established Grammar provisions" devoted to complex words in his dissertation work ^{[7, pp. 1-2]}. In it, he cites the introductory verses of this work by Nilakanthadikshita, which contain additional information about his relatives. They report that his father studied in Varanasi with the son of Appayadikshita, and his grandfather's name was Ramachandra Mahendra. It is reliably known that Appayadikshita lived from 1520 to 1593 ^{[18, pp. 11-32]}. Therefore, it can be argued that Nilakanthadikshita lived in the XVII century.

Nilakanthadikshita also reports in the Commentary on Paribhasham that he was a disciple of Jnanendra Saraswati, the author of the famous commentary "Tattvabodhini" on the famous work "Siddhantakaumudi" by Bhattojidikshita. There is a legend in Varanasi that Bhattojidikshita personally repeatedly asked Jnanendra Saraswati to compose this commentary ^{[16, p. 411]}. Since Bhattojidikshita himself was a disciple of the already mentioned Appayadikshita and was personally acquainted with the teacher of Nilakanthadikshita, we can confirm our assessment that Nilakanthadikshita lived in the XVII century.

Classification of metapravels from the Nilakanthadikshita arch

In the Commentary on the Paribhashas, Nilakanthadikshita discusses 140 metapravels. Most of them are formulated verbatim or almost verbatim in the "Great Commentary" either by Patanjali himself or in the Katyayana varttikas quoted by him. Metaprogramming formulations 18, 19, 21, 40, 48, 49, 51, 54, 57, 61, 63-65, 76-78, 80, 84, 87, 91-92, 96, 99-101, 108, 110 115, 116, 119, 131, 132 and 134-140 from the Nilakanthadikshita codex are not found in the "Great Comments".

According to the method of substantiating their correctness, meta-guides are divided by commentators into jpakasiddh?, ny?yasiddh? (including lokany?yasiddh?) and v?canik? ^{[19, pp. 136-139]}.

The category of jpakasiddh? "achievable with the help of a sign" includes meta—directions for which a sign (jpaka) can be found in the Panini sutras - an element, rule or procedure that at first glance seems redundant in the "Octateuch", but the inclusion of which in the text of the sutras becomes justified if we assume that Panini took into account this meta-guide ^{[5, 8, 10, 13, 14]}. For an example of a sign and a meta-direction realized with its help, see our previous work ^{[4, pp. 261-266]}. In the Commentary on the Paribhashas of Nilakanthadikshita, meta-directions are assigned to the category of jn?pakasiddh? 6-9, 11, 19, 20, 22-24, 27, 29, 34, 35, 38, 44, 51-55, 57-64, 67-75, 77-80, 83-87, 92, 95, 100, 103, 110, 112, 113, 117, 118, 127, 139.

The category of ny?yasiddh? (or, in other words, yuktisiddh?) "attainable by logical reasoning" is represented in the corpus of Nilakanthadikshita by meta-rules 3, 5, 16, 22, 25, 26, 38, 39-41, 43, 45, 46, 48-51, 76, 84, 91, 93, 96, 97, 99, 102, 114-116, 118-120, 128-130, 139, 140.

In the category of those realized with the help of logical reasoning, the subcategory of metapravels lokany?yasiddh? "explained by the general rule of the world order" is highlighted. To substantiate the validity of such a meta-rule, an example from ordinary life is given, in which one or another action is conditioned by the same logic that helps to understand the laws of grammar described by the meta-rule ^{[19, p. 136]}. As an example, consider the meta-rule 4 from the Nilakanthadikshita yad?gam? s tadgubh?t? s tadgraha?ena g?hyante "The designation of a certain element designates it together with the extensions that have become an integral part of it." As a confirmation of the validity of this statement, an example from ordinary life is given when a person named Devadatta, who has an extra body organ compared to the norm, is designated by his name "Devadatta" as a whole, including an additional body organ. In the Commentary on the Paribhashas of Nilakanthadikshita, meta-directions are assigned to the subcategory of lokany?yasiddh? 4, 89, 90, 104-107, 109, 111.

There is no justification for the meta-rule of the v?canik? category. This is an independent authoritative statement, the validity of which is established by the study of various cases to which it is applicable ^{[19, p. 139]}. In the code of Nilakanthadikshita, the metapravels can be classified as v?canik? 13, 15, 17, 28, 32, 36, 56, 81, 82, 98, 121-126.

The validity of some meta-rules is verified by using the yogavibhaga procedure of "cutting the rule". It consists in cutting off some part of the formulation of a certain Panini sutra or several neighboring sutras and combining these fragments of a statement that would support the statement of the meta-rule in question. Using this procedure, in the "Commentary on the Paribhashas" of Nilakanthadikshita, the meta-directions 30, 31, 42, 126 are justified.

Sometimes such meta-guidelines are included in the codes, which the compiler considers unnecessary. This is done for pedagogical purposes, since their discussion may be useful in understanding the phenomena involved in them. The Nilakanthadikshita codex contains, but discarded after discussion, metagrams 18, 21 and 131-138.

Not all of the meta-rules cited by grammarians are universal. If the use of a meta-rule in some special cases leads to incorrect constructions, then it is declared non-universal (anitya) ^{[6, p. 53]}. In the Commentary on the Paribhashas, Nilakanthadikshita non-universal meta-directions are declared 14, 16, 19, 23, 38, 41, 42, 53, 57, 60, 61, 75, 80, 86, 88, 97, 100, 107, 126.

The contents of the metapravil Nilakanthadikshita

In the Commentary on the Paribhashas of Nilakanthadikshita, there is no strict division into chapters or sections that would unite the meta-directions of a single topic, but the order of presentation of the meta-directions cannot be called chaotic. There are quite long sequences of consecutive meta-directions related to the same topic, but in order to preserve the coherence of the narrative, such sequences are interrupted by individual meta-directions or even groups of meta-directions related to other issues, but affecting the topic under discussion to one degree or another.

It is noteworthy that among the 140 rules cited by Nilakanthadikshita, three do not relate to the metalanguage, but to the language itself.

Complex words like dvandva are divided into itaretara dvandva, between the members of which a compositional connection is implied (cf. "bread and salt"), and sam?h?ra dvandva, whose members must form a single object (cf. "reinforced concrete"). The "Octateuch" lists the cases in which sam?h?ra dvandva is formed. But rule 22 of the Nilakanthadikshita code prescribes that optionally any complex word like dvandva can be interpreted as expressing a single object.

Rule 129 specifies that in case of doubt, how many objects are in question, the plural should be used. For example, the adjective dvitra - "two or three" is always consistent with the nominal or verb form of the plural (and not the dual) number.

Rule 134 states that adverbs are inherent in the role of the object of action, as well as the neuter gender and singular.

With regard to the remaining 137 rules from the Nilakanthadikshita code, which are indeed metapravels, we can single out, albeit with a sufficient degree of conditionality, four large topics: about the general principles of the structure and interpretation of the "Octateuch"; about what exactly the elements mentioned in the Panini sutras are; about the priority of some of the precepts of the "Octateuch" over others; on the interpretation of Sutra 1.1.72. The fifth group consists of meta-guidelines concerning particular issues of interpretation of Panini grammar that do not relate to the above topics. Next, a review of the metapravels of the Nilakanthadikshita corpus is carried out according to the topics we have highlighted.

On the general principles of the structure and interpretation of the "Octateuch"

The most important principle of interpretation of Panini grammar is formulated already in meta-rule 1: even if the ambiguity looks irreversible, interpretation must be carried out. The apparent ambiguity must be eliminated with the help of logical or other argumentation. This meta-guide is given first and in the Nagojibhatta code.

Meta-rule 2 indicates that an element undergoing the action of some grammatical operation cannot simultaneously provoke the execution of another grammatical operation. At the same time, the existence of interdependent operations is allowed (meta-rule 3).

Metapravels 10 and 19 describe the specifics of the anuvartana procedure, which consists in transferring a portion of the formulation of the Panini sutra into the formulations of several subsequent sutras, which allows you to significantly reduce the volume of the work.

Meta-guidelines 11-15 explain in which cases the elements indicated in the sutras should be interpreted taking into account the meaning they carry. This is done contrary to the prescription given by Sutra 1.1.68, about the need to generally interpret the elements, taking into account only their phonemic composition.

Meta-guide 23 explains that in the "Octateuch" an imitation of a grammatical element behaves the same as the original. For example, in the formulation of Sutra 5.2.39, the plural form of the deferred case is given from the base yattadetad-, obtained by adding the bases of the three pronouns yat, tad and etad. And although only the names of pronouns are indicated in the sutra, that is, their imitation is given, and the original pronouns themselves are not used, nevertheless, the mentioned form of the deferred case is formed not according to the rules applicable to the bases ending in the consonant d, but according to the rules for the pronoun etad: yattadetebhya?. Contrary to the statement of meta-guide 23, meta-guide 132 admits that an imitation can refer to the original, even if it has undergone some changes compared to it. However, this meta-guide is rejected by Nilakanthadikshita.

Meta-rule 30 indicates that any rule of Panini grammar is optional for the Vedic language. The "Octateuch" provides the rules of Sanskrit grammar applicable to both Vedic and post-Vedic translations. For some rules, Panini explicitly indicates that they are valid only for the first or only for the second of them. But even if he does not do this for some rule, there may be exceptions to it in Vedic.

Meta-guide 51 reports that the prescriptions or prohibitions formulated in the sutras relate to the nearest rules, and not to those located at a distance.

Sometimes in the "Octateuch" the effect of some prescription already stated in the following sutra is extended to additional cases by using the conjunction "and" (ca). Metapravilo 57 says that in this case, in subsequent sutras according to the anuvartan procedure (see above), the influence of only the sutra that gave the original prescription may remain, but not the sutra in which additional cases are described.

Meta-guide 61 reports that in certain cases it is possible not to perform some grammatical operation, anticipating that the factors provoking its execution will disappear in the near future. Meta-rule 64 formulates in a general way the basis for the application of meta-rule 61: if the causes disappear, the effects caused by them also disappear. Meta-rule 65 adds that this cancels the effect of even grammatical operations that have already been performed.

Meta-rule 75 indicates that as a result of performing a grammatical operation, the combination of two elements should not be destroyed if the implementation of this operation is provoked by this combination. If two elements were jointly prescribed by the Panini Sutras, then the disappearance of one of them automatically entails the disappearance of the second according to metapravil 77.

Meta-rule 78 explains that the rules, which contain a technical term, are not universal. This, of course, does not apply to the rules introducing the definition of a technical term. There are also non—universal rules prescribing a suffix placed at the end of a compound word (metapravilo 74), prescribing an extension (metapravilo 87) or prescribed for representatives of Ghana (metapravilo 92) - one of the auxiliary lists attached to the "Octateuch" and used for references in the sutras. Finally, meta—rule 119 reports on the non-universality not of the rules of Panini grammar, but of the post-Panini meta-rules - those that are achieved using the attribute (see above).

Metapravil 84 describes the functionality of metapravil. They apply directly to the prescriptions of the "Octateuch" themselves, and not in cases where these prescriptions are only referred to in other rules. Also, meta-rules 117-118 solve the question of whether it is necessary to perceive interpretative rules and rules introducing a technical term, where they are formulated, or at the time of an operation that requires the involvement of these rules.

Meta-rule 93 asserts that optional prescriptions in specific examples are either necessarily fulfilled or necessarily not fulfilled. For example, Sutra 6.1.123 optionally prescribes the substitution of ava instead of the vowel o of the go base- "cow" when added with bases starting with a vowel. At the same time, in the compound word gav?k?a - "window" (literally "cow's eye") this substitution is mandatory.

Metapravilo 96 suggests that Panini's instructions should be considered prescriptions in cases where there is doubt whether we are dealing with a new prescription or a restriction imposed on an already existing prescription.

Meta-rule 97 indicates that when the scope of the regulation is expanded to a certain general category, its influence does not extend to the specific features of this category. So, when Sutra 3.3.132 allows the use of the past tense form in a certain context, then we are talking about the general past tense expressed by the forms of the aorist, and not about the special nuances of the past tense expressed by the forms of imperfect and perfect.

Metapravels 111 and 112 formulate very important principles for the fulfillment of Panini's prescriptions. In a specific grammatical situation, the operation prescribed by the Sutras is performed only once, and it is performed even if its execution does not lead to any changes. In this sense, grammarians liken the rules of Panini to rain, which pours over both dry and moist soil.

Grammarians quite often use the rule-cutting procedure, which consists in separating into a separate rule only some part of the formulation of a particular Panini sutra in order to justify the possibility of a certain grammatical construction. Meta-rule 115 prescribes to apply this procedure exclusively for the implementation of correct constructions. Meta-rule 138 claims that Panini preferred not to cut the rule, but to add an extra word to its wording, but Nilakanthadikshita rejects this meta-rule as baseless.

According to meta-rule 116, brevity is not important for Panini when using synonyms. This consists of the use of three different expressions in the sutras, indicating the optionality of the rule: anyatarasyam, vibh? and v?. Note that contrary to the Indian grammatical tradition, which considers them absolutely synonymous, Kiparsky believes that these words introduce equal, less preferred and more preferred variants respectively ^[15].

The final meta-rule 140 in the whole set informs that grammatical operations can be carried out even with the support of the future application of some Panini prescriptions.

About what exactly the elements in the formulations of the sutras are

The element indicated by the sutras can denote not only itself, but also the forms that can be obtained as a result of some changes occurring with this element. For example, the meta-rule 4, as well as 81 and 82, explain that when specifying an element, both he himself and the same element can be implied, equipped with some kind of build-up (say, an infix or a connecting vowel).

At the same time, it is very important to observe the principle communicated by meta-guide 5, which is that the element to be replaced designates only itself without any implied changes.

Meta-rules 6-8 indicate that when adding grammatical litter to an element, neither the quantitative measure nor the appearance of this element changes, including it should not be assumed that the element began to end in something new if the grammatical litter was attached to its end. At the same time, according to metapravils 69-70, an element given in the formulation of a sutra with some grammatical marks or without them at all cannot be considered to have other grammatical marks.

Meta-rule 16 states that a vowel or semivowel prescribed as a substitute element does not imply other variants of this phoneme besides itself, although in general this should be the case according to Sutra 1.1.69.

According to metapravils 38-39, the nominal basis mentioned in the sutras also implies the same basis of another grammatical genus, but not in the context of prescriptions for the addition of certain case endings. Also, according to meta-rule 73, bases formed with the help of suffixes that do not change the meaning may have a different gender and number in relation to the original base.

Meta-guide 40 explains that the gender or number in which the word is given in the text of the sutra does not indicate the gender or number of the form of this word, which will be constructed in accordance with the prescription of this sutra. Similarly, the tone or nasalization of the phoneme variant used in the text of the sutra does not indicate the impossibility of implementing another variant of the same phoneme as a result of fulfilling the prescription of this sutra (meta-rule 107).

According to meta-rule 41, the use of a negative or comparative particle indicates, although an excellent, but at the same time quite similar object, and not any other or only remotely similar object.

The meta-guide 55 retains the status of the element that it previously possessed if the new status acquired by it as a result of some operation is inappropriate at the moment in question. For example, to form a participle, two different suffixes are attached to the verb base, depending on whether it ends in a vowel or a consonant. But before joining any of these two suffixes, the final a is discarded according to Sutra 6.4.48. However, after discarding a, the base does not acquire the status of ending in a consonant, since in this case the choice between the suffixes of the participle loses its meaning.

Meta-rules 67-68 explain that in the context of the prescriptions of tonic stress, only the vowels of the element under discussion should be considered, and consonants at this moment appear non-existent.

In the "Octateuch", elements that, solely for reasons of evidence, do not fall under some definition may be assigned the status of falling under this definition. For example, the pronominal base a- acquires the status of a base ending in a, which is not obvious to it. The meta-rule 72 excludes nominal bases from the set of elements capable of obtaining the status of falling under the designation, if a suffix is prescribed to them.

Meta-rules 76 and 85 indicate that the verb root given in the sutras, in addition to itself, implies the basis of the parasmaypad intensity, as well as the causative basis formed from this root. According to meta-rule 80, if a specific verb root is given in the formulation of the sutra, then the prescribed operation should be performed only to construct personal verb forms from this root. Metapravilo 83 adds that in case of uncertainty, whether the verb root is meant to attach a zero or non-zero suffix to form the basis of the present tense, it must be assumed that the non-zero attaching is indicated.

If the word used in the sutras has both terminological and non—terminological meanings, then first of all it should be interpreted as a term and, only if this is impossible, read in the standard meaning (meta-rule 88). If a word can have two meanings — one that has developed in use, and the second, derived from the meaning of individual parts of the word, then it should be understood in the first of them (meta-rule 91). When an element mentioned in a sutra can be a suffix or something else, it must be assumed that it is a suffix (meta-rule 98). If several words are mentioned in the sutra and one of them may have a meaning both close to the rest and not close, then it should be read in a meaning close to the rest (meta-rule 99). This group should also include the discarded Nilakanthadikshita as a baseless meta-guideline 135, according to which, in case of uncertainty, whether a word originating from the teaching or originating from use is indicated, it should be assumed that only what originates from the teaching is indicated (which means the "Octateuch" with all its applications).

Metapravels 100-101 state that the semantic connection established when reading the sutra should be carried out with the words proclaimed in the text of the sutra itself, and not with those involved in the anuvartan procedure or by means of heading sutras that set a certain context in a given range of sutras of the "Octateuch".

Meta-rule 102 indicates that the rules apply to grammatical units of exactly the kind given in the text of the sutras, and not to units that can acquire such a form as a result of applying other rules. For example, in the text of Sutra 2.4.77, p? is attributed exclusively to the root p? of the verb "to drink", and not to the root pai of the verb "to dry", which acquires the form p? as a result of the application of the prescription of Sutra 6.1.45. However, this does not apply to the grammatical units g?, d? and m? (meta-rule 103).

Metapravels 104-106 discuss the question of whether the injunction of the sutra refers to each of the several objects listed in it or to their totality.

Usually, the "Octateuch" explains the meaning introduced by the suffix, the attachment of which is prescribed by the sutra. If this is not done, then after attaching the suffix, the base retains the meaning it had (meta-rule 114).

According to the Panini Sutra 1.1.56, the substitute retains the status that the substitute possessed. Meta-guide 125 adds that this is also true for an element, only for some part of which a change was prescribed: the resulting element retains the status that the original element had after this change.

Meta-rule 131 states that the phoneme, accompanied in the text of the sutra by the grammatical mark u, conveys in addition to itself all the consonants of the same place of formation. This meta-guide is redundant when correctly interpreting Panini Sutra 1.1.69 and is given by Nilakanthadikshita only to indicate that adherents of this meta-guide interpret Sutra 1.1.69 incorrectly.

Meta-rule 139 likens feminine suffixes, for example -a, to an embryo in the sense that even if they are prescribed for a form equipped with a case ending, they must be placed in the middle between the base and the ending.

On the priority of some prescriptions of the "Octateuch" over others

Quite often, in some grammatical situation, several Panini sutras can be prescribed at once. In cases where the order of their implementation significantly affects the result, meta-guides are required that prioritize the sequence of implementation of the prescriptions of the "Octateuch".

Meta-rule 24 gives preference to the rules for choosing personal verb endings of parasmaypad or atmanepad over the prescriptions for attaching suffixes to the verb roots that form the basis of the present tense.

An important principle of building a chain of Panini rules applied in a certain grammatical situation is formulated by meta-rule 25: when one of two simultaneously applicable and mutually exclusive rules is rejected for one reason or another, it is rejected forever and, even if conditions permitting this subsequently arise, it is not applied except in special cases indicated by meta-rule 26.

Meta-guide 27 states that grammatical operations of the antarang type are more powerful than operations of the bahirang type, and meta-guide 58 reports that during the implementation of the antarang operation, the bahirang operation appears as not yet implemented. Nagojibhatta combined these two metapravels into one and gave a more precise and consistent definition of the concepts of antaranga and bahiranga than his predecessors. For more information about this, perhaps the most famous meta-rule of Panini grammar, see our work ^[4]. Meta-rule 59 clarifies that the relation of bahirang and antarang should not be considered in relation to consecutive vowels. In addition, the bahiranga operation for attaching suffixes "l"ya"p" or lu"k" is even more important than the antaranga operation (meta-rules 62-63; parentheses "" indicate grammatical Panini marks attached to various elements). Also, the operation concerning the main object is performed before the operation relating to the secondary object, even if the latter has the status of an antarang (meta-direction 89).

Meta-rules 28-29 resolve the question of whether the verb root is connected primarily with a suffix or with a preverb.

If the formulation of the sutra simultaneously contains the forms of the deferred and local case, then the advantage is given to the operation indicated by the form of the deferred case (meta-rule 37).

Meta-rule 42 indicates the priority of the rules that serve to form the basis of a compound word, in relation to the rules for attaching feminine suffixes or case endings to the final member of a compound word.

Meta-rules 43-47 describe the relationship between the general rule and the exception rule.

Meta-rule 48 not only defines an exception rule as a prescription that operates within the scope of another, more general prescription, but also informs that the exclusion rule blocks the general rule, that is, rejects it forever (see meta-rule 25 above). Moreover, the exception rule, even if the appearance of reasons for its application is only expected, blocks the general rule, the reasons for the application of which are already present (meta-rule 66). Meta-rule 49 explains that if an exception rule is formulated in the "Octateuch" before several more general rules, then it blocks only the general rule located nearby, and not the following ones. If an exception rule is formulated between general rules that it could block, then it blocks the preceding rule, and not the subsequent one (meta rule 50). At the same time, the rules concerning the modifications of the double syllable do not block each other (meta-rule 52).

The meta-rule 60 indicates that the operation related to the base takes precedence over the operation related to phonemes.

Meta-rule 90 states that the operation of attaching endings dictated by verbal control is more important than the operation of attaching endings dictated by specific control in phrases.

The word form present in the text of some sutra, which does not coincide with the form that would be constructed according to the rules, blocks the application of these rules in relation to this form (meta-rule 109), but not in all cases (meta-rule 110).

Metapravilo 113 reports that the prohibitions introduced in the "Octateuch" take precedence over any other rules.

According to meta-rule 130, the tone prescribed with the grammatical mark "c" is more powerful than the tone prescribed with the grammatical mark "p".

Meta-rule 133 states that the samprasaran type substitution operation (substitution of vowels i, u, ? instead of semivowels y, v, r, respectively) takes precedence over other operations. This meta-guideline is rejected by Nilakanthadikshita as baseless. Meta-rules 136-137, which give the highest priority to the operation of adding a connecting i and the operation of zeroing out any grammatical element, were also discarded.

On the interpretation of the Sutra 1.1.72

Sutra 1.1.72 "The Octateuch" formulates an important principle of the presentation of Panini's treatise. It lies in the fact that every prescription of Panini grammar refers not only to the element directly indicated in the formulation of the sutra, but also to any form ending with this element. Of course, there are certain nuances in the application of this principle, which Panini followed without explicitly stating them. They were expressed explicitly by the followers of Panini, and their presentation in the interpretation of Nilakanthadikshita follows. Some of them are grouped together, for example, metapravels 31-36, the rest arise in places where certain topics are discussed, which are also relevant for the interpretation of Sutra 1.1.72.

Meta-rule 13 indicates that sutra 1.1.72 is applied taking into account the meaning that the element specified in the sutra carries, unless it is a separate phoneme. This happens contrary to the prescription of Sutra 1.1.68 (see the description of metapravels 11-15 above). For example, the han element specified in Sutra 6.4.12 implies only the bases ending with the root of the han verb "to kill", but not the base pl-han- "spleen", which has the same set of phonemes at the end. Meta-guide 15 clarifies that when specifying the suffixes -an, -in, -as or -man in the sutras, Sutra 1.1.72 is used both with and without their meaning.

If the element indicated in the sutra designates one phoneme and is given in the form of the local case, then Sutra 1.1.72 does not apply to it, but the prescription concerning this element is valid for any form starting with this element (meta-rule 17).

Meta-rule 31 states that if Sutra 1.1.72 is applied to a suffix, then it denotes the totality of this suffix itself and the element to which its attachment is prescribed. But when the rule is not a prescription for the addition of a suffix, but only describes the conditions accompanying this addition, and this is done by using the deferred case, then the suffix designates exclusively itself (meta-rule 32). Also, the suffix mentioned in the wording of the sutra, which introduces the technical term, denotes only itself (meta-rule 34). If the base, denoted by Sutra 1.1.72 with its final suffix, also attaches a feminine suffix, then the original suffix can denote not only this entire base, but also a longer base, built up by word composition, unless in the resulting complex word the original base is in a subordinate position (meta-direction 33). Similarly, the suffix of the primary word formation can denote not only the totality of itself and the base to which its attachment is prescribed, but also the totality where this base was built up due to a word composition with a prefixed or case-controlled member (metapravilo 35).

Sutra 1.1.72 applies to the basics mentioned in the formulations of the sutras that fall within the range of the headings a?ga "basis" or pada "word form" (metapravilo 36), as well as uttarapada "the last member of a compound word" (metapravilo 108), but is not applicable to the nominal basics mentioned in the formulations of the sutras prescribing the addition of a suffix (metapravilo 71).

Sutra 1.1.72 does not apply to the rules concerning word composition or the addition of a suffix, except in the cases described above (metapravilo 121), as well as in cases where the element mentioned in the sutra consists of a single phoneme or has a grammatical mark "u", "?" or "?" (metapravilo 122).

Particular issues of interpretation of the "Octateuch"

Sutra 1.1.62 indicates that an operation caused by a certain suffix must be performed, even if it is prescribed to discard this suffix. Meta-rule 9 clarifies that this does not happen if the reason for the operation was the individual phonemes of the suffix, and not the suffix as such.

There is an addition to the "Octateuch" — this is a set of rules for suffix word formation, called the "Unadi Sutras" (udis?tra). Metapravels 20 and 21 explore the question of whether elements formed according to the rules of the "Unadi Sutras" are analyzed within the framework of Panini grammar.

Sutra 3.1.94 indicates that throughout the subsequent part of the third book of the Octateuch, any suffix serves as an equal alternative to another suffix, which would have been blocked according to the rules of Panini grammar if this had happened in other parts of the Octateuch. But this does not apply to feminine suffixes and cases where these two suffixes are the same in form. Metapravels 53-54 clarify that the indication of Sutra 3.1.94 also does not apply to the prescriptions of the suffixes "k"ta (sutra 3.3.114), Lyu? (sutra 3.3.113), yuc (sutra 3.3.128), tum"un" (sutra 3.3.158), as well as suffixes called t?cch?lika, which bring the meaning of possessing a particular nature and prescribed by Sutras 3.2.134-177. Meta-guide 79 additionally informs that the rules applicable to the suffix a"?" (introduced by Sutra 3.2.1) apply to the suffixes of t?cch?lika.

Meta-rule 56 states that prescriptions relating to elements expressed using a compound word such as bahuvr?hi may also affect elements that make up parts of this compound word. Compound words like bahuvr?hi are possessive compound words indicating the owner of an object or property characterized by the components of a compound word. The very Sanskrit name of this type of compound words is an example of it. The adjective bahuvr?hi- characterizes a rich person, literally "having a lot of (bahu-) rice (vr?hi-)". In general, as in this example, the signified of such a complex word has no direct connection with the signified of its components (this is indicated by Sutra 2.2.24). But within the framework of the "Octateuch" this may not be respected. For example, the technical term dh?tu is introduced by the sutra definition 3.1.3 bh?v?daya? dh?tava? "the technical name dh?tu is given to elements whose initial element is bh?-", that is, the technical name dh?tu is assigned to each verbal root from the list attached to the "Octateuch", headed by the verbal root bh?- "to be, to become". If we follow the instructions of Sutra 2.2.24, then the compound word bh?v?daya? "whose beginning (adi-) is bh?-" should mean something different from its signified components, that is, in particular, not to affect the root bh?- itself. With the help of the meta-rule 56, the technical name dh?tu also receives this verb root.

Meta-rule 86 indicates that after following the rule prescribed by one of the sutras that fall within the range of the a?ga "basis" heading, the rules prescribed by other sutras from the same range should not be followed.  

The Panini Sutra 1.1.52 says that if substitution is prescribed for some element, it should be performed by default instead of the final phoneme of that element. Metapravilo 95 clarifies that this applies only to elements that carry meaning, with the exception of the double syllable. If, however, the wording of the sutra indicates that the prescription concerns the non-finite phoneme of an element, then it must be carried out in relation to the phonemes immediately preceding it (meta-rule 94).

Heading Sutra 6.1.84 declares that up to Sutra 6.1.112, a single substitute element will be substituted instead of a combination of the final element of one word or part of a word and the initial element of another when they come into contact in a single stream of speech. Sutra 6.1.85 adds that this single substitute element should be considered both the final element of the first word or part of the word and the initial element of the second. Meta-rules 120 and 123 explain that the prescription of Sutra 6.1.85 is not fulfilled if some grammatical operation depends on both the final and initial element, as well as if it depends on one phoneme — the final in the final element or the initial in the initial.

Sutra 8.2.1 gives the status of an operation that has not yet been performed, prescribed by the Sutra from chapters 2-4 of the final book of the Octateuch, in relation to the operation prescribed by an earlier sutra and applied to the same element. Meta-guide 126 explains that such status is not acquired in relation to doubling operations. The functioning of rule 8.2.1 has been studied in detail by Baseball ^[9].

Sutra 1.1.57 prescribes that the element that replaced this vowel should be considered to have the same status as the vowel phoneme, if the replacement was provoked by the element following this vowel. Moreover, this requirement is fulfilled only with respect to operations performed on elements located to the left of the position where the vowel substitution occurred. Meta-rule 124 clarifies that the prescription applies only to the element located to the left, which was there even before the replacement of the vowel phoneme, and did not arise as a result of the operation provoked by this substitution. Also, this prescription does not apply to the operations described in the sutras from the last three chapters of the final book of the "Octateuch" (metapravilo 128).

Sutra 1.1.59 prescribes that, with regard to the doubling operation, the element that replaced this vowel should be considered to have the same status as the vowel phoneme, if the doubling is provoked by the element following this vowel, which also begins with a vowel. Meta-rule 127 extends the effect of this prescription to the case when following this vowel is not the element provoking doubling, but the suffix of the causative "?"i.