Shringaraprakasha 3.p2.20

3.p2.20

na hyavalite valivati rañjatakeśapāśe vā viṣṇumitrādeḥ svarūpānyatvaṃ bhavati| varṇavyatyayaviparyayāpāyopajanavikāreṣu cārthāntaradarṣanānmanyāmahe arthavanto varṇā iti| varṇārthavatve hi varṇavyatyayaviparyayāpāyopajanavikārāḥ kāraṇamarthāntaropalabdherjāyante| 3.80. atrāpi brūmaḥ ya etetvayā varṇānārthavattāyāṃ hetava upanyastā varṇavyatyayādayaḥ teṣu kūkapassūpo yūpa iti saṅghātāntarāṇyevaite arthāntare ca vartante| yadi hi varṇavyatyayādikṛtarthāntaragamanaṃ syāt bhūyiṣṭhaḥ kūparthassūpe syāte kakāramātrasyaiva vyatyayāt| sūpārthaśca kūpa iti samānaṃ pūrveṇa| yatastu na kiṃcit kūpādīnāṃ sūpādiṣvato'nvayāvānmanyāmahe saṅghātāntarāṇyevaitāvanyarthantereṣu vartanate iti , etena varṇaviparyayādayo'pi vyākhyatāḥ| tānyapi hi arthāntaravartīni saṅghātāntarāṇyeveti | idaṃ khalvapi bhavatā varṇānāmarthavattāṃ bruvatā sādhīyo'narthakatvaṃ dyotitam| yo hi manyate yaḥ kūpe kūpārthaḥ sa kakārasyopaśabdastasyānarthakatvaṃ syāt| 3.81. nanu ca samudāyasyārthavatve samudāyasyaikadeśasya vināśe samudāyasya kārayamābhāve kāryābhāvaḥ iti vināśo vā'bhyupeyate ; chinnakarṇapucchaśvanyāyādapi vināśo vā kiñcātaḥ ; vināśapakṣe samudāyābhāvādarthābhānaprasaṅgaḥ| pakṣāntare'pi sa evārtho na tvarthāntaram; tataśca kathaṃ ślokaḥ śokaḥ, lokaḥ, okaḥ, kaḥ, ityarthāntarapratītiḥ uktamatra | samudāyāntaraṇyevaitānyarthāntareṣu vartante | bhavedetat yatrārthāntaraṃ gamyate| yatra tu sa eva so'rthastatra kathaṃ, yathā-- udakaṃ, dakaṃ, kaṃ, iti | imānyapi saṅghātāntarāṇyevaikārthavṛttīni ;

For when the hair has wrinkles or curls, or is dyed, there is no change in the intrinsic nature of Viṣṇumitra or anyone else. And because we see a change of meaning upon the exchange, transposition, elision, addition, or modification of phonemes, we consider that phonemes possess meaning. For only if phonemes possess meaning can their exchange, transposition, elision, addition, and modification be the cause of perceiving another meaning. 3.80. To this as well we say: As for those reasons you advanced to establish that phonemes have meaning—exchange of phonemes and so forth—in cases such as kūpa, sūpa, and yūpa, these are entirely distinct aggregate units that express different meanings. For if the arrival at another meaning were brought about by the exchange of a phoneme and so on, most of the meaning of kūpa would remain in sūpa, since only the single phoneme k has been changed; and the meaning of sūpa would be present in kūpa—the same as before. But because nothing of kūpa and the like is found in sūpa and the like, therefore, owing to the absence of continuity, we maintain that these are entirely distinct aggregates denoting different meanings. By this, transposition of phonemes and the rest are also explained; for they too are merely different aggregates denoting different meanings. Furthermore, by asserting that phonemes have meaning, their total meaninglessness is rather demonstrated by you. For whoever thinks that the meaning of kūpa present in kūpa belongs to the phoneme k, for him the sound ūpa would be meaningless. 3.81. Objection: If the aggregate is meaningful, then upon the destruction of a part of the aggregate, either the destruction of the aggregate is admitted—since in the absence of the cause there is absence of the effect—or, following the maxim of the dog with its ears and tail cut off, it is not destroyed. So what follows? On the view of destruction, since the aggregate is absent, there would result an absence of meaning; and on the other view, it would be the very same meaning, not another meaning. And so how is there perception of another meaning in śloka, śoka, loka, oka, and ka? To this it has been stated: these are entirely different aggregates denoting different meanings. [Objection:] That may be so where a different meaning is understood; but where the meaning remains the very same, how then, as in: udaka, daka, ka? [Reply:] These too are merely different aggregates denoting the same meaning,