Shringaraprakasha 6.p1.33

6.p1.33

na hi ḍitthatvasāmānyaṃ dṛśyate gaganatvavat | kalpanāyāśca nābhūmiḥ kācidasti vipaścitām || iti || ākṛtireva padārtha iti vindhvāsimatagandhīyāḥ | tatrākṛtipadeneha saṃsthānamabhidhīyate | loke śāstre ca dṛṣṭatvānna jātirjaimunīyanavat || loke yathā-- yatrākṛtistatra guṇā vasantīti | śāstre yathā-- ākṛtigrahaṇā jātirliṅgānāṃ ca na sarvabhāk || iti || ubhayatrāpi cākṛtiśabdenāvayavasanniviśeṣa ucyate | vṛddhāśca vyavaharanto yatrārthe yatpadaṃ prayuñjate sa tasyārtho bhavati | tatra yadeṣa gośabdaḥ sāsnādimati prayujyate na kesarādimati tadayamāsādharaṇasanniveśaviṣayatāṃ dyotayati| pratyakṣaviṣaye ca gorityādipadaṃ prayujyate | pratyakṣaṃ cākṛtiviṣayam | aśvapiṇḍasanniveśāddhi vilakṣaṇo gopiṇjasanniveśa indriyeṇa pratīyate | tatkṛtameva vastīnāmitaretaravailakṣaṇyāt | ataḥ pratyakṣaviṣaye gaurityādipadaṃ pravartamānamākṛtāveva pravartitumutsahate | api ca śyenacitaṃ cinvīteti na jātiścīyate, na vyaktiḥ ; api tu ākṛtireva | pradīpapravāhadīnāṃ ca śabdānāmākṛtirevārtho'bhyupeyaḥ | na hyoṣāmartheṣu vyavasthitaṃ jātirūpaṃ vyaktirūpaṃ vā samasti | yadi cākṛtiśśabdārtho na bhavet, kathamiva gavādiśabdaiḥ gavādyākārameva jñānaṃ janyate ? api tāneva śāṭakānācchādayāmo ye pāṭaliputre, tāneva śālīnyabhuñjāmahe ye madhurāyāmiti yogyamevaṃprakāro vyavahāraḥ, sa ākṛtāveva padārthe saṅgacchate | yañja vrīhyādermukhyāsyābhāve nīvārādibhiḥ karma samāpyate tadākṛteḥ aśabdārthatve samāparitamapyaṅgahīnatvādaphalameva prāpnoti | nīvārādau vrīhyādijātivyāktyorabhāvāt |

For a universal 'Ḍittahood' is not seen, just like 'spacehood'; / and for the wise, no domain whatsoever lies beyond the reach of imagination. // Thus [the view that the individual alone is the word-meaning]. Those who carry the scent of the view of Vindhyavāsin hold that form alone is the word-meaning. There, by the word 'form', configuration is meant here. Because it is seen both in ordinary usage and in treatise, it is not the universal as in the system of the followers of Jaimini. In ordinary usage, as in: 'Where there is form, there virtues reside.' In treatise, as in: 'A universal is grasped by form, and does not partake of all genders.' In both cases, a particular arrangement of parts is spoken of by the word 'form'. And elders carrying on worldly activity, whichever word they use for whichever meaning, that is its meaning. There, when this word 'cow' is used for that which possesses a dewlap and the like, and not for that which possesses a mane and the like, it indicates that it has as its domain an extraordinary arrangement. And in the domain of perceptual experience, the word 'cow' and the like is used. And perception has form as its object. For an arrangement of a bovine body distinct from the arrangement of an equine body is cognized by the sense organ. The distinctness of things from one another is brought about by that alone. Therefore, the word 'cow' and the like, operating in the domain of perceptual experience, undertakes to operate only upon form. Furthermore, in '[the altar] should be piled like a falcon', neither the universal nor the individual is piled; rather, it is form alone. And of words such as 'flame' and 'stream', form alone must be accepted as the meaning. For in their objects, there is no stable nature of a universal or nature of an individual. And if form were not the word-meaning, how could a cognition having the very shape of a cow and the like be produced by words like 'cow'? Also, that worldly usage of this kind: 'we wear the very same cloaks that were in Pāṭaliputra, we eat the very same rice that was in Mathurā', is fitting; it makes sense only when form is the word-meaning. And the fact that in the absence of the primary item, such as rice grains, a sacrificial act is completed with wild rice and the like, if form were not the word-meaning, that [act], even though completed, would incur being entirely fruitless because of being deficient in limbs; for in wild rice and the like, the universal and individual of rice grains are absent.