Shringaraprakasha 3.p2.3

3.p2.3

nāsaṃbhavassādyatvenaiva sādhanatvāt, yadevaṃ hi kriyāyāssādhyamānātvamanidantānirdeśyaṃ pariniśṭhitaṃ rūpaṃ tenaiva sādhanabhāvaṃ pratipadyate ; na rūpāntareṇa tasyābhāvāllakāro'pi caitāṃ sādhyatayā bhavanti kartṛbhāvenābhidhatte pacati, bhavatīti| 3.58. nanu kimanyadbhavanaṃ pacatikriyāyāssādhyatāvyatireki, kiṃvā tadatiriktaṃ kartṛtvaṃ, yena sādhyasādhanabhāvo'vakalpeta| ucyate; yo'yamasyāḥ kārakasaṃbandhaḥ, kārakavyāpāraviṣayatā na kārakāṇi śaśaviṣāṇavatparākaroti| śakyate saṃpādayituṃ tebhyassaṃpattimanubhavati; tadasyāḥkārakasaṃbandhalakṣaṇaṃ sādhyamānatvameva rūpaṃ bhavanamabhidhīyate| pacati kriyābhavanaṃ nirvartayati kārakebhyo nivṛttiṃ pratipadyate | kārakāṇi vyāpāravanti karotītyarthaḥ| yatpunarasyāviśeṣaṇarūpaṃ yāgādidharmakaṃ paktirūpaṃ pacatyekaśabdavācyamananyasādhāraṇaṃ, tainaiṣā kartrī saṃpadyate, tadevamananyasādhāraṇena kartrī saṃpadya sādhyatmanā bhavati, kriyārūpatvena bhavati pacati, bhavati, sādhyatvaṃ labhata ityarthaḥ ; athavā prayogātmako yo'dhīśrayaṇādivyāpārāstaireṣā bhavanākriyārūpatāmupayāti| phalabhutena vikalityātamanā bhavitṛrūpaṃ kartṛtvaṃ , tena bhavati pacati ityayamarthaḥ paraktirādhiśrayaṇaṇaṇaṇaṇādyātmanā bhavati, adhiśrayaṇādayo'syāḥ pravṛtata iti yāvat adhiśrayaṇādirūpeṇa vā bhavitṛtvaṃ paktirūpeṇa bhavanakriyātvaṃ tenā'yamarthaḥ adiśrayaṇādayaḥ paktirūpatayā bhavanti viklitissañjāteti yāvattt | athavā budhdyātmanā bhavanarūpatvamiti ; yadi vā sāmānyātmanā kartṛtvaṃ viśeṣātmanā bhavanarūpetyupapadyate kriyāyāṃ kārakatvam| 3.59.

It is not impossible, because its being a means of accomplishment is precisely by its being something to be accomplished. For in whatever way the state of being accomplished is an action's established form not to be designated as ‘this’, precisely through that does it attain the status of a means of accomplishment, not through another form, because of the absence of [any such other form]; and the verbal affix, when [an action] exists as something to be accomplished, denotes it in the status of an agent: ‘he cooks’, ‘it comes to be’. [Objection:] Now, what existence is there other than, and distinct from, the state of being to be accomplished of the action ‘he cooks’, or what agency is there over and above it, by which the relation of what is to be accomplished and the means of accomplishment could be conceivable? [Answer:] It is replied: this relation to syntactic roles that belongs to it, its being the object of the operation of syntactic roles, does not repudiate the syntactic roles like a hare’s horn. It is capable of being accomplished, and experiences fulfillment from them; that form of it which is its very state of being accomplished, characterized by its relation to syntactic roles, is called ‘existence’. Cooking brings about the existence of the action; it attains completion from the syntactic roles; the meaning is that it makes the syntactic roles active. As for that qualifying form of it which has the character of sacrifice and so forth, namely the form of cooking denoted by the single word ‘he cooks’ and not common to anything else, through that it becomes an agent. Thus, having become an agent through what is not common to anything else, it comes to be in the form of what is to be accomplished; it exists in the form of action: ‘he cooks’, ‘it comes to be’—the meaning is that it attains the state of being accomplished. Or rather, by means of those operations such as placing [the pot] on the fire and the like, which consist of actual application, it arrives at the form of the action of becoming. Its agency, in the form of the one that becomes, is in the form of softening which is the result; through that, ‘he cooks, it comes to be’ has this meaning: cooking comes to be in the form of placing [the pot] on the fire and so on; that is to say, placing [the pot] on the fire and the like have begun for it. Or, the status of the one that becomes is in the form of placing [the pot] on the fire and so on, while the status of the action of becoming is in the form of cooking; through that, the meaning is: placing [the pot] on the fire and the like come to be in the form of cooking; that is to say, softening has arisen. Or, its having the form of becoming is through the intellect. Or else, agency is through its universal form, and having the form of becoming is through its particular form; thus the status of a syntactic role in an action is tenable.