Shringaraprakasha 4.p1.9

4.p1.9

yathā ca saṃpanno yavo yaveṣu śukatlasturuṣkeṣu vinaṣṭassurādeṣṭreṣu darśanīyostanendaseneṣu akṣiṇī kaliṅgeṣu paṭurbhavān paṭurāsīt paṭutara eṣa mārge kūpo'bhūt kūpo bhaviṣyati priyo manyuste priyo na vayam, maithilī rāmasya dārāḥ, āḥ pavitraṃ varaṇāṃ nagaraṃ śirūṣāḥ rāmaḥ pāñcalāḥ janapadā ityabhinnasyā'pi jātyāderarthabhedasya bhedato vyapadeśaḥ, tathā kriyāyā api kālayogādayaḥ sādhanabhedādbhaviṣyanti ; anekādhārasamavetāyāśca yugāṛpadekena grahaṇaṃ jātivahupapadyate | 4.7. kṛdabhihitānāṃ tu śuddhabhāvānāṃ ākhyātavadbhiḥ kriyābhiḥ dravyavadvaidhyarmyādayuktastaddharmopanayaḥ | kṛdabhihito hi bhāvo dravyavatprakāśamāno liṅgasaṃkhyākarmādiśaktīnāmāśrayo bhavati ; na tvākhyātavācyāḥ tasyāḥ pariniṣpannatvanenāśrayatvānupapatteḥ | tathāhi, yathā pāko vartate, pacatīti śaktisaṃkhyādiyogaḥ kṛdanteṣu dṛśyate, naiva tiṅnateṣu | nahi bhavati, pacati vartate, pacati paśyatīti ; nanu ca bhavati, paśyati,mṛgo dhāvati, utpaśyāmi karmaṇi dvivacanabahuvacanānyudāhiyanta iti dhāvatīnāṃ dṛśi karmatvaṃ kevalaṃ tvaprātidkatvāt supo'nutpattiḥ | tanna ; yathā kriyāyāḥ kriyāmāṇatvādeva naisargikaṃ ca bhavati pacati pakṣyati bhavatyapākṣīditi ca dṛśyate | pacādīnāṃ bhavateḥ kartṛtvaṃ, dṛśyate ; bhavati paśyati karmatvaṃ dṛśyate ; bhavati paśayati karmatvaṃ kriyāviśeṣaṇānāṃ kramatayā'vagamyate | tadotpadyamānatvādeva gatau kartṛtvamanapi naisargikameva | mṛgo dhāvatītyādau gamyamānetiśabdopasaṃhṛtasya vākyārthasya karmatvaṃ, na kriyāyāḥ |

and just as barley is abundant among barleys, white among Turks, ruined among Saurāṣṭrans, handsome among the Stanendasenas, the two eyes among the Kaliṅgas; 'you are clever, you were clever, he is cleverer'; 'a well was on the road, a well will be'; 'your wrath is dear, we are not dear'; 'Maithilī is Rāma's wife'; 'ah! the pure city of the Varaṇās, the Śirīṣas'; 'Rāma, the Pāñcālas are countries'—thus, even for an undivided distinct meaning such as a universal, there is designation in terms of difference; in the same way, the connection of tense and so on will belong to action through the difference of accomplishing factors. And the simultaneous apprehension of [an action] inhering in multiple substrates by a single [cognition] is coherent, just as with a universal. However, because pure states expressed by primary nominal derivatives have a different character from actions having finite verbs, in that they resemble substances, it is improper to transfer their properties [to finite verbs]. For a state expressed by a primary nominal derivative, appearing like a substance, becomes the locus of capacities such as gender, number, and objecthood; but not that which is expressed by a finite verb, because it cannot be a locus since it is not fully realized. To explain: just as the connection with capacity, number, and so on is seen in primary nominal derivatives—'cooking is occurring' (*pāko vartate*), 'he cooks' (*pacati*)—it is never seen in finite verb-forms. For one never says: 'he cooks occurs' (*pacati vartate*), 'he cooks sees' (*pacati paśyati*). If it is objected: does not one say 'it is, he sees' (*bhavati paśyati*), 'the deer runs' (*mṛgo dhāvati*); 'I see' (*utpaśyāmi*); and duals and plurals are cited for the object, so that actions like 'running' have objecthood with respect to the root *dṛś* ('to see'), and the only thing is that nominal case-endings are not produced because it is not a nominal stem? That is not so; just as, from the very fact that action is being performed, it is intrinsic, and it is seen that: 'it is, he cooks' (*bhavati pacati*), 'he will cook' (*pakṣyati*), 'it was, he cooked' (*bhavaty apākṣīt*). The agency of *pacati*, etc. with respect to *bhavati* is seen; their objecthood with respect to *paśyati* is seen; the objecthood of action-qualifiers is understood sequentially. Then, from the very fact of being produced, agency in motion is likewise intrinsic. In 'the deer runs' and so on, it is the sentence-meaning comprehended by an implicit particle *iti* that has objecthood, not the action.