Shringaraprakasha 2.p1.6

2.p1.6

tatra sadhyaikasvabāvatvādaliṅgasaṃkhyāyāḥ kriyāyā viśeṣaṇatve mṛdvādīnāṃ napuṃsakatvameva nyāyyam | uṣṭānākāvārādīnāṃ tu nityamāviṣyaliṅgatvādviśeṣāṃśaparigrahāt kriyāviśeṣaṇatve'pi na napuṃsakaliṅgata | atha pākāya vracati, edhebhyo vrajati, iti kriyā randhanāya sthālītivāt tādarthyacaturthyantaḥ liddha eva kasmānna vijñāyate ? naivam, ’bhāvavacanāśca’ (pā.3.3.11.) iti tāparthya eva pratyayotpatteḥ, ’tumarthāñca bhāvavacanāt’ (pā.2.3.15.) iti svārtha eva catirthāvidhānāt | kimarthe punaridam? bhāve hi ghañādayaḥ siddhā eva, tādarthye catirthī | kriyārthopapadena tumunā'smin viṣaye ghañādayo mā bādhiṣataḥ ; vāsarūpavidhiścātra tumunṇavulāviti ṇvusgrahaṇānnāvarati | atha yathaidānāhartetu vrajati edhebhyo vrajatīti ’kriyārthoppadasya ca karmaṇi sthāninaḥ’ (pā.2.3.14.) iti caturthī, tathā pākaṃ kartuṃ vrajati pākāya vracatīti yadi bhavet, ko doṣaḥ syat ? na kaścit ; kiṃ tvetat pṛcchāmi--sa pākaḥ siddhaḥ sādhyo vā ? yadi saddhaḥ kiṃ kartuṃ vrajati ? atha sādhyaḥ, kriyārthopapadeṣu tumunā ghaḍhādayo bādhyante | atha tumarthatvena sādhyābhinadhāścatirthyantatvena cāsattvabhūtārthāḥ pākayetyādiṣu dhañādayaḥ, kathaṃ yavāgvā ityādeḥ saṃbandhavibhakternimitaṃ bhavati ? śabdāśaktireṣā yat kasyacideva kenacit, kenacideva kasyacitsaṃbandhaḥ ; tadyathā--abhinne'pyarthe prajāgaritā'pararātrāniti tṛnobāhyakarmopasargakarmayodāt jāyate, na jāgarūka ityuktasya ; ūrīkaroti pākādikamityūryādināmekānekānekaviśeṣasthāyā karotikriyayā bhavati saṃbandhaḥ, na tadarthaviṣayaiḥ pacādebhiḥ ;

In that case, since action by its very nature is solely to be accomplished and is devoid of gender and number, when qualifying an action, the neuter gender alone is proper for words like mṛdu. But for words like uṣṭrāsikā and vāra, because they permanently possess inherent gender and embrace a specific aspect, even when they are action-qualifiers, there is no neuter gender. Now, in 'he goes for cooking' (pākāya vrajati), 'he goes for firewood' (edhebhyo vrajati), why is not the action ending in the dative expressing 'for the sake of that' (tādarthya) understood as simply established (siddha), like 'the pot is for cooking' (randhanāya sthālī)? It is not so: for the affix is introduced solely in the sense of 'for the sake of that' by the rule 'and [the affixes are introduced] denoting the verbal action' (Pāṇini 3.3.11), and the dative is prescribed in its own sense by 'and [the dative is prescribed] after an action-denoting word having the sense of the infinitive' (Pāṇini 2.3.15). For what purpose, then, is this said? For ghañ and other suffixes are already established in the sense of verbal action (bhāva), and the dative in the sense of tādarthya. [Reply:] Let not the suffix tumun, occurring with a word denoting an action as a subordinate member (kriyārthopapada), supersede ghañ and others in this domain; and the non-uniform rule regarding similar affixes (vā-asarūpa-vidhi) does not operate here, because of the specific mention of ṇvul in 'tumun and ṇvul' (Pāṇini 3.3.10). Now, just as in 'he goes to fetch firewood' (edhān āhartuṃ vrajati) [we have] 'he goes for firewood' (edhebhyo vrajati) with the dative by the rule 'and [the dative is used] in the sense of the object of a verb whose subordinate action is implied' (Pāṇini 2.3.14), if it were similarly 'he goes to do cooking' (pākaṃ kartuṃ vrajati) -> 'he goes for cooking' (pākāya vrajati), what fault would there be? None at all. But this I ask: is that cooking established (siddha) or to be accomplished (sādhya)? If it is established, why does he go to do it? If it is to be accomplished, then in the presence of words denoting action as a subordinate member, ghañ and other suffixes are superseded by tumun. If, however, by virtue of having the sense of tumun they express what is to be accomplished, and by ending in the dative case they have a meaning that is not a concrete substance (asattvabhūta), how do ghañ and other suffixes in pākāya, etc., become the cause for the genitive case marking relation in 'of barley-gruel' (yavāgvāḥ)? Such is the power of words: only a certain word has a connection with a certain word, and with a certain word alone does a certain word connect. That is to say: even when the meaning is identical, in 'he who stays awake into the later part of the night' (prajāgaritā apararātrān) the suffix tṛn arises from the connection with an external object and a prepositional object, but not for one who is expressed by jāgarūka ('habitually watchful'); in 'he accepts cooking, etc.' (ūrīkaroti pākādikam), the words like ūrī connect with the action of doing (kṛ) which resides in one or multiple particulars, but not with roots like pac (to cook) whose domain is that meaning;