Shringaraprakasha 3.p2.9

3.p2.9

paśya dhāvati, paśyāma udāhriyante, manye yāsyasi smarasi vatsyāmaḥ na marṣayāmi yajayiṣyati āśaṃse yukto'dhīyeti| karaṇādibhāvaśca tiṅantānāṃ na vidyate, pacati paṭhatīti ; atra tu vidyata eva saṃbandhaḥ, sarvanāmnā parāmarśāt| na ceha vākyabhedaḥ sarvathaiva tadanupalabdheḥ | tatra hi khalu vākyabheda upeyate ; tatrāsau parāmṛśyamāno'ndhā buddhirullikhati| na cehollekhavān vākyabhedo buddhāvupalabhyate ; tasmādekavākyatvameva | ata evābhijānāsi devadatta yatkāśmīreṣu vatsyāmaḥ, tatraudanaṃ bhokṣyāmahe iti ’vibhāṣāsākāṃkṣe’ (pā.3.2.114) iti sarvanāmnā parāmarśātsākāṃkṣatvopapateḥ | tatretyanenānusaṃdhīyamānatvāllaṭo laṅascha vikalpaḥ pravartate | sa svapityeṣa budhyate, so'stamayate'yamudetītyatra tu parasparaṃ vā ākhyātayorlakṣyalakṣaṇabhāvaḥ | saha vā sarvaireva kālaviśeṣādakiṃ lakṣyata ityekaparatvādekavākyataiva | yathā-- kumudāni prabudhayante śatapatrāṇi śerate| śakaṭaṃ gāhate vyoma mātṛmaṇḍalamujjhati || 3.64. hantīti palāyata ityādau tvavasthita eva hetuhetumadbhāva iti na dyotyate ; nanvapūrvaṃ kriyate pacati paṭhatītyatrāpi prasaṅgāt | ete tāvadavadhyavadhimadbhāvo yāvadādau samuñcādau cādayaśca vyākhyātāḥ | tadevaṃ lūtrakārasya bhāṣyakārasya ca darśane astikriyāyāḥ kriyāntareṇa saṃbandhaḥ | vārtikakāsastu yuṣmadasmādādeśanighātādyarthamākhyātaṃ sāvyayakarakaviśaṣaṇaṃ vākyamekatiṅavākyamiti anyadeva laukikātpāribhāśaṣikaṃvākyalakṣaṇamārabhate | na ca tena laukiko vyavahārassidhyatītyupekṣyate | taduktum--- nighātādivyavasthārthāṃ śāstre yatpāribhāṣikam |

'paśya dhāvati' ('Look, he runs'), 'paśyāma udāhriyante' ('We see they are cited'), 'manye yāsyasi' ('I think you will go'), 'smarasi vatsyāmaḥ' ('You remember we shall live'), 'na marṣayāmi yajayiṣyati' ('I will not tolerate that he will perform sacrifice'), 'āśaṃse yukto'dhīyīya' ('I hope that, diligent, I may study'). And the condition of being an instrument and the like does not belong to finite verbs, as in 'pacati paṭhati' ('he cooks, he reads'); but here a connection indeed exists, because of reference by a pronoun. Nor is there a split of sentence here, because it is not apprehended at all. For sentence-split is accepted there [only where] that, being referred to, is delineated by a blinded intellect. And here no sentence-split possessing such delineation is perceived in the intellect; therefore, there is only single-sentenceness. For this very reason, in 'abhijānāsi devadatta yat kāśmīreṣu vatsyāmaḥ, tatraudanaṃ bhokṣyāmahe' ('Do you remember, Devadatta, that we were going to live in Kashmir, there we would eat boiled rice?'), under Pāṇini 3.2.114 ('vibhāṣā sākāṅkṣe'), mutual expectancy is established because of reference by a pronoun. Because of being connected by 'tatra' ('there'), the option of the present and imperfect proceeds. But in 'sa svapity eṣa budhyate' ('that one sleeps, this one awakes'), 'so'stamayaty ayam udeti' ('that one sets, this one rises'), there is either a relation of indicator and indicated between the two verbs mutually, or by all [verbs] together a certain specific time is indicated; therefore, because of having a single purpose, there is indeed single-sentenceness. As in: 'The night-lotuses bloom, the day-lotuses sleep; / the cart plunges into the sky, the host of mothers departs.' In 'hantīti palāyate' ('He flees because [the other] strikes') and the like, however, the causal relation is already established, so it is not explicitly illuminated; otherwise, it would follow even in 'pacati paṭhati' ('he cooks, he reads'), producing something unprecedented. These, namely the relation of limit and that which possesses the limit in 'yāvat' ('as long as') and the like, and 'ca' ('and') and others in collective grouping and the like, have already been explained. Thus, in the view of the author of the Sūtras and the author of the Bhāṣya, there is a connection of the action 'asti' with another action. But the author of the Vārttikas, for the purpose of the substitute forms of 'yuṣmad' and 'asmad', loss of accent, and the like, defines a sentence differently from worldly usage as a technical definition: 'a sentence is a finite verb along with indeclinables and qualifiers of syntactic roles, having a single finite verb.' And worldly usage is not established by that, so it is disregarded. As it is said: 'What is technical in the grammatical treatise for the sake of the regulation of loss of accent and the like, / that, having parts possessing mutual expectancy, is not all of identical definition.'