अणावकर्मकाच्चित्तवत्कर्तृकात्

The affixes of the परस्मैपद are used after the causal of that verb, which in its non-causal state was intransitive and had a being endowed with reason for its agent, even when the fruit of the action accrues to the agent.
The phrase णेः is understood here also. The Atmanepada was ordained by sutra 1.3.74 when the fruit of the action accrued to the agent. This aphorism is an exception to that, and ordains parasmaipada. As आस्ते देवदत्तः Devadatta sits; आसयते देवदत्तं he makes Devadatta to sit; शेते देवदत्तः Devadatta sleeps ; शाययति देवदत्तं he causes Devadatta to lie down.

Why do we say 'in its non-causal state'? For if the causative root is from another causative root, and not from a simple non-causative root, then the parasmaipada will not be employed. Thus 'if one person such as Devadatta, causes another person Yajnadatta, to cause a third person Ramadatta, to do an act denoted by an intransitive root, as 'mounting' for instance, though Ramadatta mounts for his own benefit, the verb to be used in such a case is आरोहयते, in the Atmanepada, from the root आरुह to mount; and not आरोहयति. (Lengar's Guide to Panini).

Why do we say 'which was intransitive'? This rule will not apply if the verb in its non-causative state was transitive. Thus from कारि the causative from कृ, if the person caused to do the act denoted by the verb does it for his own use, comes only कारयते though the person has a will; for the original root कृ though a non-causative root, is not an intransitive root.' (Ibid).

Why do we say 'having a being endowed with reason for its agent'? For if the agent is a non-sentient object, the verb will be Atmanepadi. Thus from शोषि the causative from शुष 'to dry' if that which dries is a thing not possessed of a will as व्रीहयः 'paddy,' for instance, though the fruit of the action, i.e., the drying, affects only the paddy itself, comes शोषयते in the atmanepadi, though 'to dry' is an intransitive root; e. g., शोषयते व्रीहीनातपः 'the sun-shine causes the paddy to dry.' (Ibid).