The scope and necessity of angādhikāra

Conclusion

Now, we can draw a conclusion on the matter of the necessity of angādhikāra in Pā$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{n}$ini's grammar. We have seen that angādhikāra constitutes a very important section of the grammar where the relation of the suffixes and their bases is crucial. We also have observed that the concept of anga cannot be separated from Pā$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{n}$ini's system due to its being a part of many sūtras as well as many paribhā $\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s}$ ās. We have also seen that at least three exclusive prayojanas exist for the justification of angādhikāra. Another justification can be given in the form of preventing the double samprasāra $\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{n}$ a in forms like vavraś which we discussed while determining the limit of angādhikāra. We saw that three important paribhā $\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s}$ ās, which are accepted by Patañjali, depend on angādhikāra. Finally we saw that an alternative suggested by Patañjali for angādhikāra is in no way better, but actually defective.

Kātyāyana's use of angādhikāra in other sections to counter some objections has been shown too. Patañjali's apparent rejection of angādhikāra on the basis of Kātyāyana's vārtika on ‘angasya’ (6-4-1) is not supported by his own treatment of the subject in other places. So, we conclude that Patañjali did not really intend to refute the angādhikāra and the view which appears in his commentary on 6-4-1 should not be taken as his siddhānta on this matter.¹

Thus the necessity of angādhikāra in Pā$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{n}$ini's A $\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s}$ $\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{t}$ ādhyāyī is established.