Shringaraprakasha 6.p1.20

6.p1.20

tatra yā ca yāvatī cārthamātrā aṅgaṃ hi bhāvāgnau niṣṭapya tṛṇakūrcau prakṣālayituṃ na gamyate sa viśeṣaḥ ; yathā tarhi mallikāpuṭaścampakāpuṭa iti | niṣkīrṇāsvapi sumanassu tatsamparkopahitagandhaviśeṣādyanupravṛtteḥ pratīyate vyapadeśāḥ | ayaṃ mallikāpuṭo'yaṃ cambakapuṭa iti | tathehāpyanvayādupasarjanārthaḥ parityakte'pi viśeṣaṇaṃ bhaviṣyati | athavā jahadapyasau svārthe rājaśabdo nātyantāya jahāti | kaścideva bhāgaḥ svārthasyāpi hiyate | kathaṃ virodhādeṣassvārthamavajahāti ? tato yāvatāsya pradhānārthopayogavirodhastāvantamevārthe jahyāt | tadāha--yaḥ parārthavirodhī svārthaḥ taṃ jahāti | nahi pradhānārthopayoginaḥ svārthasya tyāge nidarśanamasti | nahi rājakarmaṇi pravartamānaḥ takṣā rājakarmaiva jahāti ; nahi hītahasitakaṇḍūyitāni | na cāyamarthaḥ parārthavirodhiviśeṣaṇatvaṃ nāma | tasmānna hāsyāti | 6.10. nanu copasarganapadāni pradhānārthāvacchedavyāpārāveśavanti | pradhānepakāriṇaṃ viśeṣaṇabhāvaṃ na jahatītyacyate | ayameva caupasarjanapadārthānāmartho yatphradhānamavāptarūpabedamavagamayanti | tathāhi | rājñaḥ puruṣaḥ iti snāmiviśeṣasambandhopahitabhedaḥ puruṣortho'vagamyate rājapuruṣa iti | na cāpadārtharūpabhedapradhānasyādhātuṃ tadanavahūyamānasvārthamevopasarjanapadamiti | kimucyate jahatsvārthā vṛttiriti ? evaṃ manyate padasya svākiśayapratirapattau svādhīnatvaṃ, tasya tyāgāt svārthāpahānam | yadi copasarjanapadaṃ na svārthena pradhānasyopakuryāt, svarūpamevāsyahīyate | yataḥ paropakāritākāraṇakamvopasarajatvaṃ prayogavaiyarthya copasarjanasya, prasajyate |

In that context, whatever and however much measure of meaning [there is], that particularity is indeed an accessory [that remains]; when baked in the fire of becoming, grass and a brush are not washed away. Just as [one speaks of] 'a jasmine-box' or 'a campaka-box': even when the flowers are removed, designations are understood such as 'this is a jasmine-box' or 'this is a campaka-box', due to the persistence of the particular fragrance imparted by contact with them. So here too, through syntactic connection, the meaning of the subordinate word, even when abandoned, will serve as a qualifier. Or alternatively, even if it abandons its own meaning, this word 'king' does not abandon it completely. Only a certain portion of its own meaning is lost. How does it abandon its own meaning due to conflict? Therefore, it would abandon only so much meaning as conflicts with its utility for the principal meaning. Thus it is said: that own-meaning which conflicts with the other-meaning is what it abandons. For there is no example of the abandonment of an own-meaning that is useful for the principal meaning. A carpenter engaged in royal work does not abandon the royal work itself; nor does he abandon coughing, laughing, or scratching. And this meaning—namely, being a qualifier—does not conflict with the other-meaning. Therefore it will not abandon it. 6.10. Objection: Subordinate words are engaged in the operation of delimiting the principal meaning. It is said that they do not abandon their status as qualifiers which benefit the principal. And precisely this is the meaning of the subordinate word-meanings: that they cause the principal to be understood as having acquired a differentiation of form. For instance, in 'a man of the king' (rājñaḥ puruṣaḥ), the meaning 'man' is understood as having a distinction imparted by the relation to a specific master, in 'king's man' (rājapuruṣa). And the subordinate word cannot impart a differentiation of form to the principal without being a word-meaning; so its own meaning is not disregarded at all. Why then is it said that complex formation is an abandonment of own-meaning? The opinion is this: the independence of a word lies in the comprehension of its own excellence; from the abandonment of that comes the loss of its own meaning. And if the subordinate word does not benefit the principal through its own meaning, its very form would be lost; for being subordinate is caused by benefiting another, and the use of the subordinate word would become pointless.