Where the sense is intended although the corresponding speech unit is not employed: the ekasesa case

The starting point of this communication is M I, 240 l. 27 - 241 l. 5 ad vt. 29 ad A 1.2.64, where lopa of the affix KviP, such as in the case of agnicit- and of somasut-, is mentioned as the standard exception to the often asserted need of a phisical input to cause verbal cognition. In fact the principle according to which “there is no understanding of a sense (arthasya gatih) without employing the word-form denoting that (antarena tadvacinah sabdasya prayogaṃ)” is dismissed only in a restricted number of cases. The dual or plural meaning which is realized thanks to the retention of only one form (ekasesa) is one among these exceptions, which is thus emphasized in the quoted passage. On the other hand, in a similar way Patanjali reflects on some bahuvrīhi-compounds, such as candramukhi “moon-faced ” (M I, 328 ll. 4-5 ad A 2.1.55), where currently there is understanding (saṃpratyayah) of a quality even when it has not been specified (anirdisyamanasyapi gunasya). As underlined by Patanjali, a further operation is here compulsorily implied, namely the selection of one out of many (though unmentioned) moon’s qualities which could be involved in the traditional corresponding vigraha. How comes that an effect (the meaning) can be grasped in absence of its cause (the uttered word)? Why the risk of integrating a whatever speech-unit is regularly averted? The concept of prayogavisaya- “the specific usage-domain” of each sabda- seems to be crucial when this kind of meaning-processing has to be accounted for, as suggested e.g. in M I. 158 l. 11 ad vt. 2 ad A I.1.60. Furthermore, with regard to the lopa-cases, the precise pattern of prasanga-procedure is explicitly resorted to by Patanjali commenting on vt. 4 ad A 1.1.60: as a rule a specific sabda actually does exist as an input, although it can be only perceived elsewhere. Focusing especially on the occurrences of the terms prasakta- and prasanga- in the M, this paper aims to tackle the question of the discrimen between zero-replacements and the other cases of denotatio in absentia pointed out by Patanjali.