Shringaraprakasha 3.p1.4

3.p1.4

āhuśca ’karmavat karmaṇā tulyakyiḥy’ (pā.3.1.87), kramavadbhāve yadātmanepadaciṇ bhāvāḥ prayojanaṃ acaḥ karmakartari ciṇvadāhuśca ’narudhaḥ’ (pā.3.1.64), ’naduhasnu nāmāṃ yak ciṇau’ (pā.3.1.89) ’yak ciṇoḥ pratiśedhe hatumaṇṇiśribruñāmupasaṃkhyānam’ (vā.2881) ’bhūṣākarmakirādīti ṇiśranthigranthibruātmanepadākarmakāṇāmupasaṃkhyānam’ (vā.1882)| tattu samyake tathā hi--bhudyate kusūlaḥ svayameva, akāri kaṭaḥ svayamevetyādiṣu karmaṇyeva yak ciṇau svayaṃ śabdāttu karmakartṛkatvapratītiḥ, arodhi gauḥ svayameveti | rūdherapi kramavivakṣāyāṃ ciṇ bhavatyeva, arodhi gaurātmanaiveti bhavati| ya evārtha ātmanaiveti sa eva svayameveti| arodhīti cokte nāśrute kartṛvātini pagadāntare karmakartṛtvaṃ gamyate | tasmādihāpi karmaṇyeva ṇic | bhūṣayate kanyā svayamevetyadiṣu tu ’ṇeraṇau yatkarmaṇau cet sa kartā nādhyane’ (pā.1.3.67) iti phalavati kartaryevātmanepadam| kutastyā tarheteṣu karmakartṛtāprasiddhaḥ| śrūyatāṃ kramapadeṣu tāvat, kriyāmāṇaṃ tu yatkarma svayameva prasidhyati| sukaraṃ svairguṇaiḥ kartuḥ kramakarteti taṃ viduḥ|| 3.4. kartṛpadeṣu bhūtapūrvakatvāt tadvadupacāra iti | tathāhi, kanyādayo lāvaṇyatiśayādibhiḥ ātmabhūṣāyai prasādhanādīn prayuñcate ca | māghādayo mahākavayaḥ "akuñcitapremanirūpitakramaṃ kareṇurārohayate niṣādinam| sasaṃtataṃ darśayate gatasmayaḥ kṛtādhipatyāmiva sādhubandhutām||" iti phalamanayoḥ sukhasikālokarañjanaṃ ca|

And they say: "Like the object is [the agent] whose action is equivalent to that of the object" (Pāṇini 3.1.87); the purpose of treating it like an object is the middle endings and the affix ciṇ; and in the case of vowels in the agent-as-object, it behaves like ciṇ. And they say: "Not in the case of the root rudh" (Pāṇini 3.1.64), "In the case of duh, snu, and nam, yak and ciṇ do not occur" (Pāṇini 3.1.89), "In the prohibition of yak and ciṇ, the addition of the causative (ṇi), śri, and brū must be stated" (Vārttika 2881), "In the case of roots signifying decoration, the kir-group, the causative, śranth, granth, brū, and intransitives taking the middle ending, an addition must be stated" (Vārttika 1882). But that is correct. For: in 'the granary breaks by itself', 'the mat was made by itself', and so forth, yak and ciṇ occur only with reference to the object, whereas the awareness of the agent-as-object arises from the word 'svayam' ('by itself'), as in 'the cow was confined by itself'. Even for the root rudh, when one intends to express the object, ciṇ certainly occurs, as in 'the cow was restrained by itself'. Whatever meaning is expressed by 'by itself' (ātmanaiva) is indeed the meaning expressed by 'spontaneously' (svayameva). And when 'arodhi' ('was restrained') is uttered, even without hearing another word expressing an agent, the state of being an agent-as-object is understood. Therefore, here too ṇic occurs only with reference to the object. But in expressions such as 'the girl adorns herself', the middle ending occurs when the agent is one who obtains the result, according to "The affix ṇi takes the middle ending when its object in the non-causative becomes the agent in the causative, provided it does not refer to reciting" (Pāṇini 1.3.67). From where, then, comes the recognized usage of the agent-as-object in these? Listen, first regarding object-words: "When an object undergoing an action succeeds completely on its own, made easy by its own qualities for the agent—they know that to be the agent-as-object." 3.4. In agent-words, the figurative application is made on account of what was previously the case. To explain: young women and the like employ ornaments and cosmetics for self-adornment because of their supreme charm. Great poets like Māgha say: "With a procedure marked by unreserved affection, the female elephant lets her driver mount; free from pride, she constantly displays a bond of righteous friendship, as if having established his mastery." And the result of these two is comfort and pleasing the world;