193. kṛte, hetoḥ; artha, nimitta, kāraṇa etc., expressive of cause, motive, aim.

Several periphrasing words may signify for the sake of, because of, for, viz. 1 kṛte used almost as a real preposition, 2. hetoḥ the ablative (*1) of hetu „motive,” 3. artham, arthāya and arthe, the acc., dat. and loc. of artha (matter, sake), 4. the instrum., accus. and abl. of nimitta and kāraṇa „cause, motive.” They are construed with preceding genitive, if they do not make up the latter part of a compound.

Examples: 1. kṛte. — Panc. IV, 29 na svalpasya kṛte bhūri nāśayet (one must not spend much for the sake of little); Mṛcch. IV, p. 131 mayā khalu madanikāyāḥ kṛte sāhasam anuṣṭhitam; Panc. IV, 51 vākakṛte rāsabho hataḥ (the ass was killed for his voice).

2. hetoḥ. — Bhagavadgîtâ 1, 35 etānna hantum icchāmi… api trailophyarājyasya hetoḥ kiṃ nu mahīkṛte (them I would not kill… not even for the sake of the realm of the three worlds, how much less for the possession of land); Çâk. V svasukhanirabhilāṣāḥ khidyase lokahetoḥ (while not caring for your own pleasure, you tire yourself for the sake of your people); Ragh. 2, 47 alpasya hetor bahu hātum icchan vicāramūḍhaḥ pratibhāsi me tvam (you seem to me a thoughtless fool, that you desire to give up much for a trifle); Mâlat. IV, p. 65 jīvitatrāṇahetoḥ = jīvitatrāṇāya. — Note kasya hetoḥ (why?), kasyāpi hetoḥ (for some motive) and the like.

3. a.) artham. — Panc. 169 jalārthaṃ tadeva pulonamavatīrṇaḥ (he is gone to the same bank for water), ibid. 212 ulūkādhipo vāyasavadhārthaṃ pracalitaḥ (— set out in order to kill the crows), Mṛcch. III, p. 116 madanikāyā niṣkrayaṇārthaṃ vasantasenāgṛhaṃ gacchāmi; R. 3, 35, 34 amṛtānayanārthaṃ cakāra matim (he made up his mind to feich the amṛta). It is plain, that artham is in all such phrases the equivalent of a final dative. Cp. 87.

b.) arthāya. — Mhbh. 1, 144, 17 na garhayeyur asmān vai pāṇḍavārthāya karhicit (they will not reprove us for the sake of the Pâṇḍavas); Panc. III, l78 eka eva hitārthāya tejasvī pārthivo (no ruler but a monarch promotes the welfare of his country), here hitārthāya is = hitāya, cp. Nala. 13, 19.

c.) arthe. — Mṛcch. III, p. 116 gaṇikārthe brāhmaṇakulaṃ tam asi pātitam, Panc. 325 āpadarthe dhanamitrasaṃgrahaṃ kriyate (it is for evil days, that wealth and friends are sought after), R. 2, 118, 53 ūrmilā bhāryārthe lakṣmaṇasyāpi dattā (U. has been given to L. to be his wife) [bhāryārthe accordingly = bhāryāyai or bhāryā, cp. ibid. 3, 34, 21; Mhbh. 1, 14, 7].

4. nimittam etc. — Daç. 25 mahīsuranimittaṃ gatajīvito ’bhūt (he has died for a brahman), Panc. 228 ghṛtatailalavaṇataṇḍulādikrayanimittaṃ saparivārā gatā, Mhbh. 12, 342, 23 ahalyādharṣaṇanimittaṃ hi gotamād dhariśmaśrutām indraḥ prāptaḥ (it is because of his adultery with Ahalya, that Indra got a reddish beard from the side of Gautama); — R. 2, 90, 12 niyuktaḥ strīnimittena pitrāsau (he, being enjoined by his father because of a woman —); — Nala. 4, 4 viṣam agniṃ jalaṃ rajjumāsthāsye tava kāraṇāt (for you I will take poison etc.)

(*1)
It is not quite plain, how Pâṇini did account for hetoḥ. Yet, his commentators and followers consider it a genitive, and it is very likely, he has thought so himself. At least, we may draw the inference. After having taught in his sûtra 2, 3, 26 ṣaṣṭhī hetuprayoge, that is the genitive is required [instead of the instrum. of causality] when employing hetu”, he adds this clause (s. 27) sarvanāmnas tṛtīyā ca, but in the case of a pronoun of the class sarva etc., either the gen. or the instrum.” With the said pronouns it is therefore allowed to use two idioms promiscuously — f. i. kasya hetoḥ and kena hetunā, but for the rest the only idiom available is that, which is exemplified by puruṣasya hetoḥ. Now, as kena and hetunā are both instrumentals, it is but consistent that of kasya hetoḥ, the parallel idiom, both elements are meant as genitives. Then, of course puruṣasya hetoḥ must also be considered as genitives both. The very words of Pâṇini do not admit of another interpretation.
But however great the authority of Pâṇini may be, as it is, when he states facts and describes phenomena, there is no plausible reason to follow it, where his explication of them is wrong. To him, who did not know but one language, hetoḥ could appear as a genitive, but for us, who have the opportunity of comparing similar idioms in different languages, f. ex. Latin causâ and gratiâ, English because of, it is impossible not to take hetoḥ for an ablative of causality. By doing so we account for the idiom in question in a quite satisfactory manner. Therefore kasya hetoḥ is to be compared with Latin cujus rei causa, not with qua de causa, the Sanskrit equivalent of which is kasmād dhetoḥ.
kasmād dhetoḥ reminds me of the vârtt. on P. 2, 3, 27 nimittakāraṇahetuṣu sarvāsāṃ prāyadarśanam. This precept is strictly true by itself — the word prāya shows sufficiently that it must not be urged too much — but it cannot be said with some reason, Pâṇini has left out this rule, as he did not want to enjoin it at all.

193. 原因・動機・目的を表すkṛte、hetoḥ；artha、nimitta、kāraṇa etc.

いくつかの迂言の語は、動機の「…のために」（for the sake of）や「…に因って」（because of）、目的の「…のために」（for）を表す。すなわち、1. ほとんど真正の前置詞として用いられるkṛte、2. hetu（動機）のabl.（*1）であるhetoḥ、3. artha（問題、…のための）のacc.であるartham・dat.のarthāya・loc.のarthe、4. nimitta・kāraṇa（原因、動機）のinst.・acc.・abl.がそれである。複合語の後分にならない場合、これらは先行するgen.に係る。

1. kṛte
Panc. IV, 29 na svalpasya kṛte bhūri nāśayet (one must not spend much for the sake of little)
Mṛcch. IV, p. 131 mayā khalu madanikāyāḥ kṛte sāhasam anuṣṭhitam
Panc. IV, 51 vākakṛte rāsabho hataḥ (the ass was killed for his voice)

2. hetoḥ
Bhagavadgîtâ 1, 35 etānna hantum icchāmi… api trailophyarājyasya hetoḥ kiṃ nu mahīkṛte (them I would not kill… not even for the sake of the realm of the three worlds, how much less for the possession of land)
Çâk. V svasukhanirabhilāṣāḥ khidyase lokahetoḥ (while not caring for your own pleasure, you tire yourself for the sake of your people)
Ragh. 2, 47 alpasya hetor bahu hātum icchan vicāramūḍhaḥ pratibhāsi me tvam (you seem to me a thoughtless fool, that you desire to give up much for a trifle)
Mâlat. IV, p. 65 jīvitatrāṇahetoḥ = jīvitatrāṇāya

kasya hetoḥ (why?), kasyāpi hetoḥ (for some motive)などに注意せよ。

3.
a.) artham
Panc. 169 jalārthaṃ tadeva pulonamavatīrṇaḥ (he is gone to the same bank for water)
ibid. 212 ulūkādhipo vāyasavadhārthaṃ pracalitaḥ (— set out in order to kill the crows)
Mṛcch. III, p. 116 madanikāyā niṣkrayaṇārthaṃ vasantasenāgṛhaṃ gacchāmi
R. 3, 35, 34 amṛtānayanārthaṃ cakāra matim (he made up his mind to feich the amṛta)
arthamがあらゆるフレーズにおいて目的を表わすdat.と等しいことは明らかである。87をみよ。

b.) arthāya
Mhbh. 1, 144, 17 na garhayeyur asmān vai pāṇḍavārthāya karhicit (they will not reprove us for the sake of the Pâṇḍavas)
Panc. III, l78 eka eva hitārthāya tejasvī pārthivo (no ruler but a monarch promotes the welfare of his country)

後者では、hitārthāyaはhitāyaと等しい。Nala. 13, 19と比較せよ。

c.) arthe
Mṛcch. III, p. 116 gaṇikārthe brāhmaṇakulaṃ tam asi pātitam
Panc. 325 āpadarthe dhanamitrasaṃgrahaṃ kriyate (it is for evil days, that wealth and friends are sought after)
R. 2, 118, 53 ūrmilā bhāryārthe lakṣmaṇasyāpi dattā (U. has been given to L. to be his wife) [bhāryārtheはbhāryāyaiやbhāryāと等しい。ibid. 3, 34, 21やMhbh. 1, 14, 7と比較せよ]

4. nimitta etc.
Daç. 25 mahīsuranimittaṃ gatajīvito ’bhūt (he has died for a brahman)
Panc. 228 ghṛtatailalavaṇataṇḍulādikrayanimittaṃ saparivārā gatā
Mhbh. 12, 342, 23 ahalyādharṣaṇanimittaṃ hi gotamād dhariśmaśrutām indraḥ prāptaḥ (it is because of his adultery with Ahalya, that Indra got a reddish beard from the side of Gautama)
R. 2, 90, 12 niyuktaḥ strīnimittena pitrāsau (he, being enjoined by his father because of a woman —)
Nala. 4, 4 viṣam agniṃ jalaṃ rajjumāsthāsye tava kāraṇāt (for you I will take poison etc.)

（*1）
Pāṇiniがhetoḥをどう説明したかは明白でない。けれども、その注釈者たちと門人たちはこれをgen.と見なしており、Pāṇini自身がそう考えていたというのもありそうなことである。少なくとも、推論は可能である。P. 2, 3, 26 ṣaṣṭhī hetuprayoge （hetuを用いる場合、〔原因となる作用のinst.の代わりに〕gen.が必要とされる）の後、彼はこの1節（s. 27）を加える：sarvanāmnas tṛtīyā ca （sarva等の種類（sarvanāman）の代名詞の場合にはgen.かinst.のどちらかが起こる）。したがって、前述の代名詞を用いると、2つのイディオムを無差別に使用できる—例えばkasya hetoḥやkena hetunā—が、その他の場合にはpuruṣasya hetoḥに例証されるようなイディオムのみが使用可能である。ところで、kenaとhetunāがどちらもinst.であるのと同様に、相似イディオムのkasya hetoḥで両方の要素がgen.として意味されている、というのは一貫している。するともちろんkasya hetoḥはどちらもgen.として見なされねばならない。Pāṇiniの言それ自体は他の解釈を許さない。
しかしながら、Pāṇiniの権威がどれほど偉大であろうとも、彼が事実を記述し現象を説明するとき、彼の解説が間違っているのなら、それに従うべきもっともらしい理由はない。1つの言語しか知らなかった彼にとってhetoḥはgen.のように見えたかもしれないが、ラテン語のcausāとgratiā、および英語のbecauseなどのような異なる言語で類似イディオムを比較する機会がある私たちにとっては、hetoḥは因果を表すabl.としか見なし得ない。そうすることで、問題のイディオムを非常に満足のいく方法で説明できる。したがってkasya hetoḥは、〔hetoḥをgen.として解釈するとすれば〕kasmād dhetoḥに相当するラテン語の"qua de causa"（quisのf.abl.；前置詞de＋causaのf.nom.＝abl.＋gen.）ではなく、〔abl.と解釈して〕"cujus rei causa"（quisのsg.gen.；reiのsg.gen.；causaのabl.）と対照されるべきである。
kasmād dhetoḥというと私には以下が思い起こされる：
vârtt. on P. 2, 3, 27 nimittakāraṇahetuṣu sarvāsāṃ prāyadarśanam （手段・原因・動機の場合、すべて〔の格語尾〕が一般的な現象として起こる）

この教え自体は厳密に真実である—prāya（ほとんど、ふつう、大体）が、これがあまり強調されていないに違いないことを十分に示している—が、何かの理由があってとは言えないけれども、Pāṇiniがこの規定を省略したのは、これを全面的に禁ずることを望まなかったからである。