जाग्रो ऽवि-चिण्-णल्-ङित्सु

As जागरयति, with णिच्, जागरकः (with ण्वुल्) साधुजागरी, जागरं जागरम् (with णमुल्) जागरो वर्तते (with घञ्), जागरितः (with क्त), जागरितवान् (with क्तवतु) ॥ This is an exception to the Vriddhi rule of 7.2.115, and to the prohibition in 1.1.5. When this guna is substituted, there does not take effect that rule, which causes Vriddhi of the penultimate short अ of जागर; (अत उपधायाः 7.2.116). Had that been the case, then the guna substitution would become simply useless, and the prohibition with regard to चिण् and णल् superfluous. Why do we say not before वि, चिण् and णल् and ङित्? Observe जागविः (with the affix विन् Unadi) अजागारि with चिण् which causes Vriddhi, and अजागार with णल्, and जागृतः and जागृथः with a ङित् 1.2.4 affix. Some hold that the इ in वि is for the sake of pronunciation only, and the prohibition applies to all affixes beginning with a व, such as कसु, as जजागृवान्, here there is no guna. In अजागरुः with जुस् the guna takes place by virtue of 7.3.83: for though it is a ङित् affix also, the prohibition ङितसु of this sutra does not affect it. Similarly अहं जजागर with णल् the optional guna 7.1.91 is also not prohibited by the णल् of this sutra. In fact the phrase अविचिण् णल् ङितसु is a Paryudasa prohibition : for had it been a prasayya-pratishedha, then the guna before जुस् and the Ist Person णल् would also have been prohibited. In short this sutra positively ordains guna of जागृ before every affix, other than वि, चिण्, णल् and ङित्, and if by any other rule these latter would cause guna, that guna is not prohibited. That is the result of Paryudasa negation.

But if the sutra be construed as a Prasayyapratishedha, then we shall apply the maxim अनन्तरस्य विधिर्वा भवति प्रतिषेधो वा ॥ The prohibition is therefore stated with regard to जाग्र in connection with the affixes वि, चिण्, णल् and ङित् ॥ But the guna ordained by 7.3.84, 7.3.83 is not prohibited.,