Shringaraprakasha 5.p2.14

5.p2.14

tadāha--- teṣāmuñḍāvacārthatvātsarvasaṃbandhadarśanāt | anyatantratayodbhūterasattvārthatvamucyate || 5.31. atha kimimī vācakā uta dyotakā iti | tatraike varṇayanti, ’tatpratyogāvaseytavāddhācyasteṣāṃ, yathānyeṣāṃ gavādikaḥ | ’ anvayavyatirekanibandhanā hi śabdānāmabhidheyavyasthā | tataśca anādiprayogādavasīyamānaḥ samuñcayaviraṇādirarthātmā kathamamīṣāṃ vācyo na bhavet ? pratīyeta ca śabdātsamuñcayaḥ ; abaṃ ca tvaṃ ca vṛtrahanniti | vicāraṇā vā śabdāt, hantāṃha pṛthivīmimāṃ nidadhāni havehaveti | evaminādibhya upamānādayo gamyanta iti tadvācyāste bhavanti | anye tvāhuḥ --- "ṣaṣṭhyabhāvādasa (tvāñca samuñcayavikalpayoḥ)| (akāmacari) taiścaiṣāṃ dyotaktavaṃ suniścitam ||" 5.32. tathāhi | plakṣanyagrodhayoḥ samuñcaya iti vākyaprayoge ṣaṣṭhī nirdiśyate | naivam ; plakṣanyagradhayaściti | yathā ca vrīhiyavayorvikalpaḥ pravartatāmiti vācakaśabdaprayoge sattvabhūto viklapaśabdārthaḥ kriyayā saṃbadhyate, naivaṃ vrīhiyanayorveti | yathā ca vṛkṣa ityekenāpi vācakena śākhādimānarthaḥ pratīyate, naivaṃ samuñcayo vikalpovā | yathā ca bhīkṣāṃ dehi bhikṣāmiti vācakaśabdānāṃ paurvāparyaprayoge kāmacāraḥ, naivaṃ vṛkṣaśca vṛkṣa iti | yathā ca vṛkṣaśśobhana iti vācakasya viśeṣaṇayogo dṛśyeta, naivaṃ ca śobhana iti | tadevaṃ vācakaśabdavaidhamyāt dyotakāścadaya iti niścīyate | smarati ca sūtrakāraścādayo'sattva iti | niraktakāro'pyāha---bhāvapradhānamākhyātaṃ sattvapradhānāni nāmāni copasargā uñcāvaceṣvartheṣu patantīti nipātā iti |

Thus it is said: “Because their meanings are various, because their relation to everything is observed, and because their manifestation is dependent on others, their non-substantiality of meaning is spoken of.” 5.31. Now, are these [particles] directly expressive or indicative? On this, some explain: ‘Their meaning is directly expressible because it is determined from their usage, just as [the meaning] of other words like “cow” and so forth.’ For the determination of the expressible meaning of linguistic sounds is grounded on positive and negative concomitance. And hence, how could the nature of an entity such as conjunction or alternative, which is ascertained from beginningless usage, not be their expressible meaning? And conjunction is cognized from a linguistic sound: ‘both I and you, O slayer of Vṛtra!’ Or deliberation [is cognized] from a linguistic sound: ‘Well, shall I place this earth here or here?’ Thus, comparison and others are understood from words such as ‘iva’; therefore, these are their expressible meanings. Others, however, say: “Because of the absence of the genitive case, because of the insubstantiality of conjunction and alternative, and because of their non-arbitrary placement, their indicative nature is well-ascertained.” 5.32. To explain: In the sentence-usage ‘the conjunction of plakṣa and nyagrodha’, the genitive case is indicated; not so in ‘plakṣa and nyagrodha’. And just as, in the usage of an expressive word like ‘let an alternative between rice and barley proceed’, the meaning of the word ‘alternative’, having become a substantial entity, is connected with the action, not so in ‘rice or barley’. And just as an entity endowed with branches and the like is cognized even from a single expressive word like ‘tree’, not so is conjunction or alternative. And just as there is arbitrary freedom in the sequential usage of expressive words like ‘give alms, alms’, not so in ‘tree and tree’. And just as the connection with a qualifier is seen for an expressive word like ‘beautiful tree’, not so in ‘and beautiful’. Therefore, owing to the dissimilarity from expressive linguistic sounds, it is determined that ‘ca’ and the like are indicative. And the author of the Sūtras records: ‘ca and others are not substances.’ The author of the Nirukta also says: ‘A finite verb has action as its principal sense; nouns have substantial entities as their principal sense; and particles fall into various meanings, hence they are nipātas.’”} ],