Shringaraprakasha 3.p2.18

3.p2.18

uktakrameṇa ca smaraṇadarśanāt sarorasa iti pratīyateraviśeṣaḥ prāpnoti| vaktubhede cārthapratyayaprasaṅgaḥ | ato na varṇāśśabdaḥ, kuntu varṇasamūhābhivyaṅgyasphoṭalakṣaṇoktārthātmā śabda iti | sa eva sphuṭatyasmādartha ityarthāvasāyaprasavanimittamiṣyate| kathaṃ tarhi śabdaṃ kuru, mā śabdaṃ kārṣīḥ, śabdakāryayaṃ māṇavakaṃ iti dhvaniṃ kurvannucyate? abhivyañjakābhivyaṅgyayorabedopacārāt| nanvabhavyiñcakatvāt| kiṃ punarvarṇāssarvathaiva nārthavantaḥ? pṛthaktvena tāvannārthavantaḥ, na hi phrativarṇamarthā upaladyante| 3.77. nanu ca dhātuprātipadikapratyayanipāteṣūpalabhyante--dhātuṣu iṇ - eti, ṛ - iyartīti; prātipadikeṣu a śśārṅī, u brahmeti; pratyayeṣu bhrame dhūḥ bhūḥ, prāgdīvyato'ṇ kāpaṭava iti; nipāteṣu a avehi, u upaskaroti | naite varṇāḥ, apitu śabdābhivyaktiretava ekavarṇā ekadhvanihetavaśśabdavācyāḥ, na tūpacārato'pi varṇasamūhaśśabdaḥ| naivam, arthābhivyāktihetuśśabdaḥ, śabdābhivyāktiheturdhvaniḥ| sa tu kaścidekavarṇaḥ, kaścidanekavarṇaḥ, ekasminneva vā samūhāropaṇaṃ sāmarthyātiḷayāt yathaikāpūpīti | yadi hyekasminnapūpe samūho nāropyatesa samūhābhāvādekāpūpa ityeva syāte, na tvekāpūpīti| kathaṃ punarekasmin samūhāropaṇaṃ ? vyapadeśivadbhāvāt | anyathā anupāya aretyādau prathamatvekāctvayorabhāvāt dvivacanābhāvaḥ | yadyevamanye'pi varṇāssamūhāropaṇenaiva dhvanayo bhavitumarhanti? nārhanti, kutaḥ, śabdaśaktisvābhāvyāt|

—and since recollection is seen to occur according to the order in which they were spoken, there would result no distinction in comprehension between _saraḥ_ and _rasaḥ_. Furthermore, there would be the absurd consequence of comprehending the meaning even when there is a difference of speakers. Therefore, phonemes are not the sound; rather, sound has the nature of the expressed meaning, characterized as the *sphoṭa* to be manifested by the collection of phonemes. That alone is accepted as the cause bringing about the determination of meaning, for from it the meaning bursts forth (*sphuṭati*). How, then, is someone making a noise addressed with "Make a sound," "Do not make a sound," "Have this boy make a sound"? It is by a metaphorical transference based on the non-difference between the manifester and the manifested. But is it not because [phonemes] are manifesters? Are phonemes then entirely devoid of meaning? First of all, they are not meaningful individually, for meanings are not apprehended with each individual phoneme. (3.77)
[Objection:] But surely they are apprehended in verbal roots, nominal stems, affixes, and particles—among verbal roots, *iṇ* means "he goes" (*eti*), *ṛ* means "he goes" (*iyarti*); among nominal stems, *a* means Śārṅgin (Viṣṇu), *u* means Brahmā; among affixes, in *bhram-* [with *kvip*] one has *dhūḥ*, *bhūḥ*, and [the taddhita suffix] *aṇ* before *dīvyat* gives *kāpaṭavaḥ*; among particles, *ā* means "understand!" (*āvehi*), *u* means "he prepares" (*upaskaroti*).
[Reply:] These are not mere phonemes; rather, being causes of the manifestation of sound, having a single phoneme and being the causes of a single noise, they are designatable by the word "sound"; sound, however, is not a collection of phonemes even metaphorically. This is not so: sound is the cause of the manifestation of meaning, and noise is the cause of the manifestation of sound. That [noise], however, is in some cases a single phoneme, and in some cases multiple phonemes; or, there is an imputation of a collection onto a single item owing to an excellence of capacity, as in *ekāpūpī* ("a single mass of cakes"). For if a collection were not imputed to a single cake, then, in the absence of a collection, it would only be *ekāpūpaḥ*, but not *ekāpūpī*. But how is a collection imputed to a single item? Through treating it as if it were distinct (*vyapadeśivadbhāva*). Otherwise, in *anūpāya*, *are*, and the like, owing to the absence of being the first and being a single vowel, there would be an absence of reduplication. If so, should other phonemes also be able to become noises merely by the imputation of a collection? They cannot; why? Because of the intrinsic nature of the power of words.