Shringaraprakasha 3.p2.4

3.p2.4

nanu coktaṃ na lakāraḥ siddhavadabhidhānena vinā kartṛbhāvenemāṃ pratipādayitumutsahate, tataśca siddhatvenābhidhāne punarapi virodhaḥ | naivam; yadeva pacatikriyāyāssvabhāvabhūtamātmīyarūpaṃ sādhyatālakṣaṇaṃ tenaivaṃ rūpeṇa sā kartṛtvamupagatā lakāreṇocyate| siddhatvāvabhāsaḥ kuta iti ṭacet, lakārastāṃ karṛbhāvena pa3tipādayutuṃ pravṛttassidadhatvenāvagamayati, na tu rujatīti dhātvartha eva rogalakṣaṇaḥ, kartravantarāśrayaṇāt kartṛbhāvamupayāti ; sādhyānmana eva cāsya kartṛtvam| na ca siddhatāprāptiḥ kartṛtvena pratīyamānā siddhatayā|vabhāsate tathā kriyā'pi na siddhatayā lakāreṇābhidhīyate nānārūpāśśakteyo viruddhaviruddhasvabhāvā lokayātrāṃ kalpayanti| tato'sya sarvaśabdabhāvasya vācakaśabdaḥ kaścit, sidadhātmikāṃ śaktivṛttimavalambate kaścit, tadevaṃsuddhisādhyatāśaktiyuktaṃ vastu śabdābhyāmabhidhīyamānaṃ na virudhyate| anekaśkatiyaktitvāt pacatītiyanena tadeva sādhyatvenāvagataṃ bhavatīti lakārassādhyatvenavābhidhatte ; sarvaśaktivirahitaṃ vā vastu sakalalpollekharahitatvāt| tasya tu śabdā eva svamahimnā nānāvidhabudhyupajananahetavaśśaktiṃ saṃniveśayanti ; śaktyāviṣṭamiva vyavahāragovaratāṃ nayanti | tena śabdābhyameva siddhasādhyatāśaktiyādhānādakhilavikalpīkṛtātmakamapi tadvastu siddhasādhyabhāveno padiśyate | bhavati pacatītyekena śabdena sanniveśitasādhyatāktiyuktamabhihitamitareṇa tu tadeva śaktiyāntarāropeṇa prakāśyata iti nāsti virodhaḥ| 3.60. yadi vā na padasya padarūpādevādhikārthatā kiṃ tarhi vākyarūpāt? tadyathā--puruṣa iti padakāle puruṣo vyatirikta ucyate|

[Objection:] But was it not said that the verbal affix is not capable of expressing this [action] in the status of an agent without denoting it as accomplished, and consequently, if it is denoted as accomplished, there is again a contradiction? [Answer:] It is not so. That which is the inherent, personal form of the action of cooking, characterized by the state of being to be accomplished—in that very form is it spoken of by the verbal affix as having attained agency. If it is asked: whence is the appearance of accomplishedness? [we reply:] the verbal affix, setting out to convey it in the status of an agent, makes it understood as accomplished; but it is not that, as in ‘it pains’, the very meaning of the verbal root characterized by sickness attains the status of an agent due to resting on another agent; rather, its agency is only in its form as something to be accomplished. Nor does the attainment of accomplishedness, being cognized as agency, appear as accomplishedness; likewise, the action also is not denoted as accomplished by the verbal affix. Capacities of diverse forms, having conflicting and non-conflicting natures, make worldly discourse function. Therefore, one expressive word for this nature of all words relies on a functioning of capacity consisting of the accomplished, while another [relies on another]. Thus, an entity endowed with the capacities of being accomplished and being to be accomplished, when denoted by two words, is not contradictory, because it is endowed with multiple capacities. By ‘he cooks’, that very entity is understood as something to be accomplished; the verbal affix in ‘it comes to be’ denotes it solely as something to be accomplished. Or rather, an entity is devoid of all capacities because it is free from all conceptual differentiations. But words themselves, by their own power, being the causes of the generation of manifold cognitions, implant capacity [in it]; they bring it within the range of ordinary usage as if it were possessed of capacity. Therefore, because the capacities of being accomplished and being to be accomplished are bestowed solely by the two words, that entity, even though its nature is completely free of conceptual constructions, is taught in the relation of that which is accomplished and that which is to be accomplished. By one word, ‘he cooks’, it is expressed as endowed with the capacity of being to be accomplished that has been implanted [in it], whereas by the other, that very entity is manifested by superimposing another capacity; thus there is no contradiction. Or else, is there not an additional meaning of a word arising not from its form as a word, but rather from its form as a sentence? Just as, at the time of the word ‘man’, ‘man’ is spoken of as distinct—