Shringaraprakasha 3.p2.2

3.p2.2

kiṃ tarhyabimukhībhāvaṃ vidhāya kriyāntare niyuṃkte, api cābhimukho bhavetyadhyāhiyamāṇayā'pi kriyāyā saṃbandhaṃ manyase vrajetyapāttayā'pi na manyasa ityaho mādhyasthyam| kiṃcābhimukho bhavetyāmapi niyogaḥ, tatrānabhinukhysya niyoktumaśakyatvāt | abhimukhīkaraṇāya kriyāntarādhyāhāre'navasthā, tadbhayāñcābhimukhīkāragarbhaniyogoṅgīkartavavyaḥ, sa ca prajetyādāvapi tulya evetyalamatiprasaṅagena | yadi cāmantritasya tiṅantenaikavākyā na syāt, ’āmāntritaṃ pūrvamavidyamānava’ diti (pā.8.1.72.) sūtrakāro na brūyāt| tatredamavidyamānavatve prayojanamā| nighātādayo mābhūvanniti nighatādayaścāsamānavākyātvādeva na bhaviṣyanti, kimavidyamānavadbhāvena | 5.57. na caidadvārtikakāro manyate | so'pi hyavidyamānavadbhāvasya prayojanāti paṭhati avidyamanavatve prayojanamāmāntritayuṣmadasmādādeśatiṅanighātā iti| bhavatu nāma sāmānādhikaraṇyena vaiyadhikaraṇyena vā yathākathaṃcidāśriyamāṇānāmākhyātānāmākhyātaṃ prati viśeṣaṇtavamupalakṣaṇatvaṃ hetumatvamavadhibhāvo vā samuñcayo'pyevamevopapadyatām | sādhyasādhanabhāvastu nopapadyate, virūddharūpayoparthayorekarūpeṇa śabdenābhidhānāt yathā'yaṃ daṇḍo harānena phalānītyātrāyaṃ daṇḍa ityanena rūpeṇa daṇḍārthamantarbhītāstikriyamupādātumīṣṭe | anenetyayaṃ ca śabdaḥ karaṇarūpeṇeva vastusāmānyamabhidadhat pratyakṣeṇopādatte, na rūpāntareṇa prakaraṇāttu daṇḍe pratipattiḥ| tathehāpi pacati dhāvatītyādirākhyātasādhyabhūtāṃ kriyāmabhidhatte, tāmeva ca siddhāṃ sādhantavamāpannāmanenaiva rūpeṇa vakṣyatītyasaṃbhavaḥ|

What, then? Having enjoined an attitude of turning toward [the speaker], does it enjoin [the person] in another action? Furthermore, you admit a relation with an action that is merely supplied mentally—‘Turn toward [me]!’—yet you do not admit one with an action that is actually expressed—‘Go!’; oh, what impartiality! Moreover, there is an injunction even in the [statement] ‘Turn toward [me]!’, because it is impossible to enjoin someone who is not turned toward [one]. If another action is supplied to cause him to turn toward [one], there would be an infinite regress; and out of fear of that, one must accept an injunction inherently containing the act of turning toward [one]. And that is just the same in ‘Go!’ and so on; so enough of excessive discussion. If an addressed [vocative] did not form a single sentence with a verb-form ending in a tiṅ, the author of the sūtras would not have said: ‘A preceding vocative is treated as non-existent’ (Pāṇini 8.1.72). Here, the purpose of its being treated as non-existent is this: lest unaccentedness and the like occur. But unaccentedness and the like would not occur simply because they do not belong to the same sentence; what is the need for the status of being treated as non-existent? And the author of the Vārttika does not think this [either]; for he too recites the purposes of the status of being treated as non-existent: ‘The purpose in treating it as non-existent is for the vocative, the substitutes of yuṣmad and asmad, and the unaccentedness of the tiṅ.’ Granted that, whether through co-referentiality or syntactic difference, verb-forms adopted in any way whatsoever may possess the status of a qualifier, an indicator, an instrumental condition, or a limit with respect to another verb-form, and aggregation too may be justified in the very same way. But the relation of that which is to be accomplished and the means of accomplishment is not tenable, because two entities of contradictory natures cannot be denoted by a word of single form. As in ‘This is a stick; bring the fruits with this’, here, by the form ‘this is a stick’, one is able to adopt the meaning of ‘stick’ which includes the action of existing. And this word ‘with this’, denoting the universal of the thing merely in the form of an instrument, adopts it by perception, not in any other form; but the cognition refers to the stick because of context. So here too, ‘he cooks’, ‘he runs’, and so on denote an action that has become something to be accomplished; and that that very action, having become accomplished and assumed the status of a means of accomplishment, should be expressed in this very same form is impossible.