Shringaraprakasha 3.p1.8

3.p1.8

kathaṃ punaḥ karturanabhidhāne pratyayasya vacanapuruṣabhedo yujyata? yathaiva nātmanepadeṣu, jātyabhidhānapakṣe jāteraliṅgasaṅkhyāyā api tadādhāravyaktyāśrayāṇi liṅgavacanāni pravartante tathaiva bhāvanāyāḥ abhede'pi tathā kartrāśrayo vacanapuruṣabhedaḥ prapatsyakatīti| 3.7. na ca kartari lakāraḥ smaryate iti vācyam; yataḥ ’kartari kṛt’ (pā.3.4.67) ’laḥ karmami ca bhāve'cākarmakebhyaḥ’ (pā.3.4.69) ’vartamāne laṭ’ (pā.3.1.1.123)| lasya tibādayaḥ| ’tiṅastroṇi trīṇa prathamamadhyamottamāḥ’, ’tānyekavacanadvivacamabahuvacanānyekaśaḥ’, ’yumaṣdi.... ... .... madhyamaḥ’, ’asmadyuttamaḥ’, ’śeṇe prathamaḥ’ (pā.2.4.101.102,106,107,108) ’bhāvarmaṇorātmanepadam’, ’śeṣātkartari parasmaipadam’ (pā.1.3.13.78) ityādivākyānāṃ ’dvyekayordvivacanaikavacane’, ’bahuṣu bahuvacanam’ (pā.1.4.22,21) iti saṃkhyāvidhānena sahaikārthavivakṣayātvekavākyā vyākhyātā | eko hi pacatītyādiśabdastairvyākriyate| tatraiva vākyārtho bhavati| kartaparekavacanatve ekavacanaṃ kkipityādi, kartṛvacanaṃ tibityādi, karturbahuvacanatve bahuvacanaṃ jhītyādi; evaṃ ca bhāvanākṣiptakartṛsaṃkhyāyāmeva lakāraḥ smaryate, na kartari | ucyate; yadi bhāvanākṣiptarkṛsaṃkhyāyāmeva lakāreṇocyate, devadattevanāsyate iti bhāvābhidhāyino'pi kartṛsaṃkhyāmevābhidhānaṃ prāpnoti; ubhayatrāpikartṛsadavāt| yenaiva hi nimittena pacatītyādau karmasaṃkhyāyamevābhidheyamāsādati tainaiva prayogāntare'pyāsādayet| kathaṃ ca kartaryabhidhīyamāne tadviśiṣṭasaṃkhyābhidhānaṃ yuktam| 3.8. atha saṃkhyāmātrabhidhīyate na viśeṣaḥ;

[Opponent continues:] How, then, if the agent is not denoted, is the distinction of grammatical number and person of the affix justified? Just as in the case of ātmanepada affixes—in the view that the universal is denoted, even though the universal is devoid of gender and number, gender and number based on the individual that serves as its substrate apply—in the very same way, even though efficient force [bhāvanā] has no internal difference, the distinction of number and person based on the agent will be obtained. 3.7. Nor should it be said that the l-affix is taught by grammatical rule [smṛti] to denote the agent; for the rules 'A kṛt affix occurs in the sense of an agent' (Pāṇini 3.4.67), 'An l-affix occurs in the sense of an object and action, and after intransitives [in the sense of action and agent]' (Pāṇini 3.4.69), 'laṭ occurs in the present' (Pāṇini 3.2.123)—the substitutions ti-etc. are for l; 'The tiṅ affixes in triads are the third, second, and first persons', 'They, individually, are the singular, dual, and plural', 'When yuṣmad is syntactically connected... the second person', 'When asmad is syntactically connected... the first person', 'In the remainder, the third person' (Pāṇini 1.4.101–102, 105, 107, 108), 'ātmanepada is used in the sense of action and object', 'parasmaipada is used in the sense of an agent from the remainder' (Pāṇini 1.3.13, 78)—these sentences have been explained as forming a single unified rule together with the prescription of number, namely 'The dual and singular are used when two and one are meant' and 'The plural is used when many are meant' (Pāṇini 1.4.22, 21), because of the intention to convey a single meaning. For a single word such as 'cooks' [pacati] is analyzed by them. In that alone lies the sentence-meaning. When the singular belonging to the agent is present, the singular affix tip etc. is used; tip etc. is the expression of the agent; when the plural of the agent is present, the plural affix jhi etc. is used; and thus the l-affix is taught only to express the number of the agent as implied by efficient force, not the agent itself. [Reply:] To this it is said: If by the l-affix only the number of the agent implied by the efficient force were expressed, then even in an expression denoting mere action, such as 'It is sat by Devadatta', denotation of the number of the agent alone would follow, because an agent exists in both cases. For by the very same condition that one arrives at the denotable content as the number of the object in 'cooks' and the like, one would also arrive at it in another usage. And how, when the agent is being denoted, is the denotation of the number qualified by it proper? 3.8. Now, if it is said that mere number is denoted, and not any particular [substratum];