Shringaraprakasha 3.p2.5

3.p2.5

yadā tu rājñaḥ puruṣaḥ iti viśeṣasannidhau prayujyate tadā viśiṣṭasya puruṣāṃrthasya gatirna puruṣasyeti vākyakāle'dhikasya dharmasya pradurbhāvaḥ tathā pacatīti naikasmādeva padarūpātkartṛtvam| yadā bhavatīti padāntarasannidhistadāparatve sādhanamadṛṣṭavākyakāle puruṣasyaiva vyatireka upajāyata iti| yathā'pi vyapadeśivadbhāvenābhinnasyāpi dhātoravayava prathamaikājvyapadeśa iyāyetyādau pravurtante , tathā buddhibhedakalpanayā ākhyātavācyasyārthasya bhede'pi kriyākārakādivyapadeśaḥ pravartante | tataśca pacatītyatrāpi kadācidaparā tadatirekiṇī bhavanakriyā kaścidaparo vā kartā virodhaheturasti | api tu saiva vyapadeśivadbhāvena bhavanākriyārūpatā putṛtvaṃ ca darśayantī cakāsti | etena paśya mṛgo dhāvatītyādāvapi siddhasādhyatvayorapi caikasyapyarthasya viṣayabhedena dvidharmatvaṃ na virudhyate | yathā rājñaḥ puruṣasya puruṣa iti puruṣaśśeṣī bhavati, śe,śceti rājānaṃ viśeṣo'vacalitāssvārthaśśeśatāmāpadyate | evaṃ ca dhāvatīti mṛge kartari sādhyabhāvaṃ prādhānyenājahat saraṇaṃ dṛśāvaṅgatvaṃ sādhanatvaṃ copaitīti na kaścidvirodhaḥ | athāvā'yamarthaḥ ; sādhanamidamayaṃ sādhya iti rūpaṃ siddamātrametat, yathā pade ayaṃ prakṛtyartho'yaṃ pratyayārtha ityka evāsāvarthaḥ | aviśiṣṭo viśiṣṭo vā vākyaviśeṣayorgṛhītavyaḥ, yathā -- muṇḍayati, kuṭayati, mūtrayati, carcayatīti| tatra muṇḍayati māṇavakaṃ muṇḍiḥ keśacchedanavacanaḥ | tasya tu vyutapattiḥ muṇḍaṃ karotīti sāmānyapravṛttiviśeṣaṃ muṇḍaśabdo'vasthāpayati | karoti viśeṣo yasmin ṇijyutpadyate, na karotimātram |

When, however, [the word "man"] is used in proximity to a qualifier, as in "the king's man", then there is cognition of the qualified entity 'man', not of man [in isolation]; thus an additional property appears at the time of the sentence. In the same way, agency does not arise solely from the single word-form in "he cooks". When there is proximity to another word, "it becomes", then, in relation to the latter, it is the means [to the action]; at the time of the unseen sentence, a differentiation of the person alone arises. And just as, by virtue of treatment as an uncombined unit, designations such as the initial single-vowel constituent of a root apply even to an undivided verbal root in forms such as "he went", so too, by positing a conceptual difference, designations such as action and syntactic role apply even though the meaning expressed by the finite verb is differentiated. Consequently, even in "he cooks", there is at no time another action of becoming different from it, nor is there any other agent that could be a cause for contradiction. Rather, that very [action] shines forth through treatment as an uncombined unit, exhibiting the character of the action of becoming and agency. By this, even in instances such as "look, the deer runs", there is no contradiction in a single meaning having two properties due to a difference of purview, even between being accomplished and to be accomplished. Just as in "the king's man's man", 'man' becomes the principal entity, and the qualifier 'the king's', deviating from its own meaning, lapses into subordination; likewise, in "[the deer] runs", the running, without abandoning its character of being something to be accomplished predominantly in relation to the agent, the deer, enters into subordination and instrumentality with respect to seeing; thus there is no contradiction whatsoever. Or this is the meaning: this form, "this is the means, this is what is to be accomplished", is merely conceptual, just as in a single word, "this is the base-meaning, this is the affix-meaning", that meaning is indeed singular. It must be grasped either as unqualified or qualified in specific sentences, as in: "he shaves", "he heaps", "he urinates", "he rubs". There, in "he shaves the boy", the root *muṇḍi-* expresses the cutting of hair. Its grammatical derivation, however, is "he makes [him] bald"; the word "bald" establishes a specification of general activity. The affix *ṇic* is derived when there is a specification of doing, not for mere doing.