Do Counterexamples on the Kāraka Rules A. 1.4.33–36 in the Kāśikāvr̥tti Serve Any Purpose?

Abstract

Ajotikar et al. (2016) claim that most of the counterexamples provided in the Kāśikāvr̥tti conform to the distinctive feature of a counterexample, namely, having all the conditions stated in the rule except one (ekāṅgavikalatā). Ajotikar (2021) discusses how a variant reading for a counterexample helps understand the relation between two operational rules. This article adds one more aspect to the importance of counterexamples. However, there are some cases where the purpose of the counterexample of a complex semantic condition is not clear. In this article, I study counterexamples provided on the sūtras, A. 1.4.33-36, in the kāraka section, on which Patañjali did not comment. These sūtras are chosen for discussion because the counterexamples available on these sūtras are first provided in the Kāśikāvr̥tti. When it comes to the issue of complex semantic conditions (priyamāṇa, jñīpsyamāna, īpsita or uttamarṇa) stated in A. 1.4.33-36, it is difficult to justify the usefulness of the available counterexamples. After carefully examining Bhatr̥hari’s views along with Helārāja’s explanation, it is evident that these counterexamples must have been included in order to fulfil the criteria of a vr̥tti. A vr̥tti typically includes an example, a counterexample and a supplementary word, which are necessary to complete the meaning of the rule. However, these counterexamples fail to justify the significance of the semantic conditions stated in the rule for which they are provided. Hence they do not serve any purpose.