Shringaraprakasha 3.p2.21

3.p2.21

yathā--kunduḥ,koṣṭhaḥ, kusūlaḥ, iti kramāttasya cārthavattāṃ bruvatā tvayaiva dakārokārāṇyerānarthakyamuktaṃ bhavati| kaścaivamāha--varṇavyatyayaviparyayāpāyopajanavikāreṣvarthāntararśanameva ; yataḥ śyāmā, rāmā, vāmā, iti varṇavyatyayo nārthavyatyayaḥ| tarkaḥ, sikatā, siṃha iti varṇaviparyayo nārthaviparyayayaḥ| santi, syanti, ghnantīti varṇāpāyo nārthāpāyaḥ| āsthāt, avocat, sañcaskāreti varṇopajano nārthopajanaḥ| ghātāyati, kṣaṇoti, ropayatīti varṇavikāro nārthavikāraḥ| tena manyāmahe varṇavyatyayādiṣvaṣyanarthāntaragamānādanarthakā eva varṇā iti| itastarhyarthavanto varṇāḥ ; yadeṣāṃ saṅghatā arthavantaḥ| yoṣāṃ hyavayavā arthavantasta eva samudāyādarthavantaḥ, tadyathā-- ekaścakṣiṣamān paśyati, tatsamudāyaśśatamapi paśyati| ekatilastailaṃ prasūte, ttasamudāyaḥ khārīśatamapi prasūte| yeṣāṃ punaravayavāḥ nārthavantastatsamudāyā api nārthavantaḥ | tadyathā--eko'ndho na paśyati, śatamapyandhānāṃ na paśyati | ekā sikatā tailaṃ na prasūte, tatsamudāyaḥ khāriśatamapi na prasūta iti| naivam, atadarthenāpyavayavenāvayavino'rthasadbhāvo dṛśyate| yathā-- ekastaṇḍulaḥ kṣatpratighāte'samarthaḥ, tatsamudāyaśca vardhitakaṃ samarthamiti | naivaṃ bhavati| tatra pratyokamapi kiyateyapyarthamātrā ime punarvarṇā atyantāyaivānarthakāḥ yathā-- tarhi yarathāṅgāni vihitāni tāni pratyekaṃ vrajikriyā'samarthāni, tatsamudāyasca rathassamartha iti| 3.82. evameṣāṃ varṇānāṃ samudāyāśśabdābhivyaktihetavo'rthavantaḥ avayavāstvanarthakā iti|

just as: kundu, koṣṭha, kusūla. In that sequence, by asserting the meaningfulness of that [entire base], you yourself have stated that the phonemes d and u are meaningless. And who said this: that there is only perception of another meaning upon the exchange, transposition, elision, addition, or modification of phonemes? For in śyāmā, rāmā, and vāmā, there is an exchange of phonemes, but not an exchange of meaning. In tarka, sikatā, and siṃha, there is a transposition of phonemes, but not a transposition of meaning. In santi, syanti, and ghnanti, there is elision of phonemes, but not elision of meaning. In āsthāt, avocat, and sañcaskāra, there is addition of phonemes, but not addition of meaning. In ghātāyati, kṣaṇoti, and ropayati, there is modification of phonemes, but not modification of meaning. Therefore, because no different meaning is conveyed even when phonemes are exchanged and so forth, we maintain that phonemes are completely devoid of meaning. [Opponent:] From this, then, phonemes have meaning: because their aggregates have meaning. For only things whose parts have purpose are purposeful as a collective. For instance: one person with eyes sees, and a collection of them sees even a hundred [objects]; a single sesamum seed produces oil, and a collection of them produces even a hundred khārīs. Conversely, those whose parts lack purpose also lack purpose as an aggregate; for instance: one blind man does not see, nor do a hundred blind men see; a single grain of sand produces no oil, nor does a collection of a hundred khārīs of them produce it. [Reply:] This is not so; the existence of purpose in the whole is observed even from parts that lack that purpose. For instance: a single grain of rice is incapable of dispelling hunger, but an accumulated collection of them is capable. [Opponent:] It is not so: there, even in each individual grain, some small measure of that purpose exists; these phonemes, however, are utterly devoid of meaning. [Reply:] Even as the parts of a chariot, when dismantled, are each incapable of the action of locomotion, but their aggregate, the chariot, is capable; 3.82. in the same way, aggregates of these phonemes, being the causes of the manifestation of linguistic sound, are meaningful, whereas the individual parts are devoid of meaning.