स्तौति-ण्योर् एव षण्य् अभ्यासात्

This rule is confined to the Desideratives of स्तु and of स् beginning roots in the Causative, provided that the Desiderative sign स् is changed to ष् ॥ The rule applies to the स् of the substitute, and not to the affix स् as there can be no such स् after a reduplicate syllable. Therefore स् means that स which replaces the ष् of the roots.

Thus from स्तु we have तुष्टूषति ॥ Here the स of सन् is changed to ष by the last sutra, and therefore so also after the reduplicate उ, the स of स्तु is changed to put ष ॥

Of the Causatives of roots beginning with ष् in Dhatupatha, we have सिषेवयिषति, सिषिञ्जयिषति, सुष्वापयिषति ॥ In this last, the व् is changed to उ by 7.4.67.

Though this ष change would have taken place by the previous sutra 8.3.59, yet the separate enunciation of this rule indicates that this is a niyama aphorism - the ष change takes place only in these cases of स्तु and Causatives of Desideratives under the conditions mentioned in this sutra, and no where else. Thus सिसिक्षति from the root षिच क्षरणे (Tudadi 140). This is a root, which is exhibited in the Dhatupatha with a ष, therefore the form ought to have been सिषिक्षति by 8.3.59, but it is not so, because of the niyama of the present sutra. So also सुसूषते from षूङ् प्राणिप्रसवे (Divadi 24): and सुसूषति from षू प्रेरणे (Tudadi 115).

If this is a niyama rule by the very fact of its separate enunciation, what is then the necessity of using the word एव in the aphorism ? Answer:- इष्टतोऽवधारणार्थम्; so that, the sutra may mean \if स्तु and Causatives only, when षण् follows\ ? and not \if स्तु and Causatives when षण् only follows\. In the latter view, we could not get the form तुष्टाव; and the rule would have applied to सिसिक्षति also.

Why do we say \in the Desiderative ष\? So that the niyama may not be any where else. Had षणि not been used in the sutra, the restriction would have been with regard to every affix, and the sutra would have meant \if there is occasion of षत्व change after a reduplicate, it should take place only in the case of स्तु and the Causatives\. Therefore ष change would not have taken place in सिषेव, as it is not a Causative.

Question:- को विनतेऽनुरिधः ? Why have we used the word षण् with ष्, and not the word सन्? That is, what compulsion was there to exhibit the Desiderative affix सन्, in this changed form? The word विनत is the name given in the Pratisakhyas to ष and ण change.

Answer:- So that the restrictive rule may not apply to the अविनत form of सन् ॥ As सुषुप्सति ॥ The सन् is here कित् by 1.2.8, and there is vocalisation by 6.1.15. For had सनि been used in the sutra, then the restriction would have been with regard to all Desideratives in general, whether the सन् was changed to ष or not. Therefore as there is restriction of 8.3.59, in the case of सिसिक्षति where स is not changed to ष; so there would have been restriction in सुषुप्सते, the स् could not have been changed to ष् by 8.3.59. Similarly in तिष्ठासति ॥

Question:- What is the necessity of exhibiting षण् with the anubandha म्? So that the rule should not apply to ष in general, but to the Desiderative affix ष only. As सुषुपिष इन्द्रम् ॥ This सुषुपिषे is the Perfect of स्वप्, the affix थास् is added as Chhandas irregularity instead of थल्; for थास् there is से, the affix is कित् by 1.2.5, and so there is vocalisation by 6.1.15, and reduplication, and the augment इट् is added by 7.2.13, the ए is changed to अय्, as सुषुपिषय् इन्द्रं, the य् is elided by 8.3.19. Here after the reduplicate सु, the स् is changed to ष, in षु by the general rule 8.3.59, as the restriction of this sutra does not apply in this case. But had ष in general been taken, then सुषुपिष has an affix ष, and
therefore sutra 8.3.59, would have been restricted, and there would have been no change of सु to षु after the reduplicate, as it is not a causative. Hence षण् has been employed with an anubandha.

Why do we say 'after a reduplicate'?

Answer:- So that this restriction may apply to that ष which would have been caused by the इ or उ of an abhyasa, and not to that which would have been caused by an upasarga. As अभिषिषिक्षति, though without the Preposition, the form is सिरिक्षति ॥

Question:- No, this cannot be the reason, because the ष caused by the upasarga is considered as asiddha, and hence there would be no restriction.

Answer:- Then we say, the abhyasa is taken to be qualified by सन्, namely that abhyasa which is caused by सन्, would give occasion to this rule and not any other abhyasa. Therefore if a reduplication has been caused by यङ्, and then षण् is added to it, then the restriction of the present sutra will not apply, and षत्व change will take place though the root may not be a Causative &c. Thus the यङ् of स्वप् is सोषुप्य 6.1.19, the Desiderative of this root is सोषुपिषते, with इट् augment, the elision of अ 6.4.48 of य, the elision of य् by 6.4.49.

Question:- No this also cannot be the reason : because the षत्व change is antaranga, while the restriction niyama is Bahiranga. Therefore, the word abhyasa is employed superfluously in the sutra.

Answer:- The word abhyasa is taken in the sutra, so that the restriction may be with regard to that ष which might have been caused by the इ or उ of the abhyasa; and not to that ष which might be occasioned by the इ or उ of a dhatu or verbal root. Thus प्रतिषिषति, अधीषिषति ॥ Here the root इ in the sense of बोधन, is turned to Desiderative with सन्; and by 6.1.2, the स is reduplicated, then by 7.4.79, the अ is changed to इ ॥ Thus इसिस; here by the force of the इ of the abhyasa सि, the स is changed to ष as इसिष; 8.3.59 then as the restriction of this sutra does not apply, the root इ causes the षत्व of the abhyasa, as इषिष ॥ Had the word अभ्यासात् not been used in the sutra, the स of abhyasa could not have been changed to ष, for then the sutra would have meant \ष is substituted for स, only in the case of स्तु and Causatives in the Desiderative षण्\; and as इसिष is not a Causative-Desiderative, the restriction would have applied.,