Shringaraprakasha 3.p2.8

3.p2.8

aparasya bāhyasādhanaṃ vartamānakālasya pratyayo bhavati| tasya bāhyaṃ sādhanaṃ dravyaṃ devadattena itryarthaḥ, devadattasattā tu prakṛtyarthaḥ | kiṃ tarhi pratyayārthaḥ prārthanaiva liṅiti sarvakālatvaṃ kālaviśeṣasyānāṅitatvāt | aparasyā bāhyasādhanaṃ vartamānakālasya pratyayo bhavati| tasya bāhyaṃ sādhanaṃ dravyaṃ devadatta itryathaḥ, devadattasattā tu prakṛtyarthaḥ, vartamānasattātu devadattatacasya prārthyata ityanupāttakālaviśeṣaḥ | śāstre liṅ svarūpādeva vartamānakāle'vatiṣṭhate, tathā tavyādayo bhaviṣyanti, kartavyaḥ kaṭa iti | svabhāvāñcārthānāṃ vyavastheti bhāṣye kālādhikāraḥ pratyakhyātāḥ | evaṃ syādapi syādityatrāpi svābhāvikaṃ nānātvaṃ sādhanakālabhedena pratipadyata iti| 3.63. nanvastyādayo'pi nipātāḥ, te cākhyātasvarūpatvāt kārakāṇi viśiṃṣaṃtaḥ kālaṃ puruṣaṃ saṃkhyāṃ na vyabhicariṣyanti ; bhavatu gacchāmyabamiti puruṣavyabhicāraḥ | bhavatu tayaiva maṇaḍūkāḥ pacyantāmiti saṃkhyāvyabhicāraḥ | bhavatu nāma drakṣyasīti kālapuruṣavyabhicāraḥ | bhavatu bhaviṣyanti jīvato dhānānīti kālasaṃkhyāvyabhicāraḥ | astyagamāma ghoṣāditi kālapuruṣasaṃkhyāvyabhicāraḥ | loke caivaṃbhūtā vācoyuktirasti prayuṅakte hi lokaḥ | asti gacchāmo vayamiti evamādiḥ tatrāstītyekavacanamupalabhyate | tena manyāmahe gamerevaikatvāśrayasya kartṛtvaṃ, na vayamiti bahutvāśrayasya | tadevaṃ sāmānyakriyayā viśeṣakriyāṇāṃ kartṛtvenābhisaṃbandhāt astyanayossādhyasādhanabhāvaḥ | viśeśakriyāyāmapi kkacitkarmatvena saṃvangho dṛśyate ;

For another [view], the affix belonging to the present tense has an external means of realization. Its external means of realization is a substance, as in 'by Devadatta'—this is the meaning—while Devadatta's existence is the meaning of the morphological base. What, then, is the meaning of the affix? It is solicitation itself; because the optative conveys all times, since a specific grammatical tense is not subordinated. For another [view], the affix belonging to the present tense has an external means of realization. Its external means of realization is the substance 'Devadatta'—this is the meaning—while Devadatta's existence is the meaning of the morphological base; but the present existence belonging to Devadatta is solicited, so no specific grammatical tense is designated. In grammatical treatise, the optative resides in the present tense from its very nature; likewise, the affix -tavya and others will denote the future, as in 'the mat is to be made' (kartavyaḥ kaṭaḥ). And because entities are established by their intrinsic nature, the governing rule on grammatical tenses is rejected in the Mahābhāṣya. Thus even in 'syāt' ('it might be'), natural manifoldness is understood through differences in means of realization and grammatical tense. Objection: Are not forms like 'asti' also indeclinables? And since they have the form of finite verbs, qualifying the syntactic roles, will they not fail to deviate from grammatical tense, person, and number? [Answer:] In 'bhavatu gacchāmy aham' ('Be it so, I go'), there is deviation of person. In 'bhavatu tayaiva maṇḍūkāḥ pacyantām' ('Be it so, let the frogs be cooked by her'), there is deviation of number. In 'bhavatu nāma drakṣyasi' ('Be it so indeed, you will see'), there is deviation of grammatical tense and person. In 'bhavatu bhaviṣyanti jīvato dhānāḥ' ('Be it so, the grains will exist for one who lives'), there is deviation of grammatical tense and number. In 'asty agamāma ghoṣāt' ('It is that we came from the settlement'), there is deviation of grammatical tense, person, and number. And such a turn of phrase exists in worldly usage; for people use it, as in 'asti gacchāmo vayam' ('It is that we go'), and so forth. There, the singular 'asti' is observed. Therefore, we consider that agency belongs to the verb 'gami' ('to go') itself resting upon singular unity, not upon the plurality resting on 'vayam' ('we'). Thus, because specific actions are connected through a general action as agent, there is a relation of end and means between the two. Even with a specific action, a connection as object is sometimes observed: