Shringaraprakasha 6.p1.31

6.p1.31

uparate vā kākasaṃbandhe tadvyavacchinnavastuniveśitāṃ jahāti | evaṃ jātyupalakṣaṇadvāreṇa vyaktau pravartamānaśśabdo jātiṃ ca nābhidhīsyati | tadvyavacchinnagovyaktiviniveśaṃ ca na hāsyati | etenākṛtirapi, śabdenānabhidhīyamānaiva vyaktimupalakṣayatīti lakṣyate | tadyāthā----kataratsuvarṇaṃ, ya eṣa rucakaḥ, svastiko vardhamānaka iti | na hyatra rucakādyākāradvāreṇa pravṛttassuvarṇaśabdorucakādyākāramabhidhatte | uparateṣu rucakādyākāreṣu tadvyavacchinnasvarṇārthaparatāṃ parityajati | taduktaṃ --- adhruveṇa nimittena devadattagṛhaṃ yathā | gṛhītaṃ gṛhaśabdena śuddhamevābhidhīyate || suvarṇādi yathā yuktaṃ svairākārairupādhibhiḥ | ruṭakādyabhidhānānāṃ śuddhameveti vācyatām || tathopalakṣaṇe jātāvākṛtau vā samāśrite | vyaktayo yānti śabdānāṃ śuddhā evābhidheyatām || etena yaduktaṃ vyaktyabhaidhānapakṣe srave śabdāḥ sarvārthā bhaveyuriti tadapi nirastaṃ bhavati | tathāhi ; .yathā cakṣirādiśabdānāmaseṣarūpādiprakāśanasāmarthya nalikādisuṣiravartmani yuktaṃ darśanasya tadavakāśāvasthitarūpabhedoparuddhatayā viṣayāntareṣu na viprakriryate tathā jātyākṛtabhyiāmavaruddhaviṣayā gavādiśabdanāmabhidhānaśaktirnāśvādiṣvatiprasajyata iti | uktaṃ ca, ārāraiśca vyacchedātsārvārthyamarudhyate | yathāva cakṣurādīnāṃ sāmarthyaṃ nalikādibhiḥ || yañcoktaṃ---yathāvādibhirādarśairabhiktāścandrādaya eva candrādiśabdairabhidhīyante | yathā cendriyabhedagrahaṇamantareṇāpi rūpākārādiviṣyajñānabhedo bhavati, tathā vyaktibhirupavyāñcitā jātayaeva gavādiśabdairabhidhīyante |

Nor, when the connection with the crow has ceased, does it abandon its reference to the thing delimited by it. In the same way, the word operating upon the individual by way of the universal as an accidental indicator will not denote the universal, nor will it abandon its reference to the individual cow delimited by it. By this, form too, even while not being denoted by the word, is seen to accidentally indicate the individual. For example: "Which is the gold? That which is this necklace, svastika, or vardhamānaka ornament." For here, the word "gold", operating by way of forms such as a necklace, does not denote the form of a necklace and so forth; nor, when the forms such as a necklace have ceased, does it abandon its reference to the gold delimited by them. As it has been said:
"Just as Devadatta's house, grasped by the word 'house' / by means of an impermanent mark, is denoted as purely itself,
just as gold and the like, connected with their own forms as limiting adjuncts, / become the denotata of the names of necklaces and the like as purely themselves,
so, when a universal or form is resorted to as an accidental indicator, / individuals become the denotata of words as purely themselves."
By this, the objection that on the view of denoting the individual, all words would have all meanings, is also refuted. To explain: just as the capacity of the visual sense and so on to illuminate all colours and forms, when directed through the conduit of a tube or the like, is not dispersed onto other objects because it is restricted by the particular colours situated within that aperture, so the denotative power of words such as "cow", having their object restricted by the universal and form, does not overextend to horses and the like. And it has been said:
"And through delimitation by forms, omni-referentiality is obstructed, / just as the capacity of the eyes and the like [is obstructed] by tubes and so forth."
And as to what was said: "Just as it is only the moon and the like, manifested by mirrors and the like, that are denoted by the words 'moon' and so forth, and just as there is differentiation in cognitions regarding objects such as colours and forms even without the apprehension of the differentiation of sense organs, so it is only universals, manifested by individuals, that are denoted by words such as 'cow'"—