Shringaraprakasha 6.p1.5

6.p1.5

ato nāntarīyakamupādānaṃ saṃkhyāyā iti sattvanirdeśe saṃkhyā na vivakṣyate | yathā brāhmaṇo na hantavya iti | evaṃ ca jātyāpi vinā vastamātras yasaṃpramugdhatvādvivekenābhidhānamaśakyam | ato nāntarīyakaṃ jātyupādānamiti jāterapyavivakṣā prāpnoti | apara āha, yatra saṃkhyāpadairekādibhissaṃkhyā abhidhīyate. tatra niyogataḥ karmāṅgabhāvena vivakṣyate | yathā--ekāṃ gāṃ dadāti, dvābhyāṃ khanati, trīnpaśūnālabhata iti | ekādiśabdarūpāddhi sā pratīyamānā na śakyamavivakṣatum | anyatra tu śabdasaṃskāramātraparatvādekavacanaideravivakṣā yathā--gauḥ padā na spraṣṭavyā | etadapi nāsti yasyobhayaṃ havirārtimārcchedityevamādāvabhayādiśabdopādānādapyavivatrādarśanāt | anye manyantejātyakhyāyāmekasminnanyatara- sthāmiti jñāpakādekabahuvacanaṃ ca na vivakṣyate| dvivacanaṃ tu vivakṣyate | yathā---sārasvatau bhavataḥ iti | tadapyayuktaṃ, dvivacanasyāpi avivakṣādarśanāt |yathā--- yadyetau vyadhitau syātāṃ deyaṃ syādidamauṣadham | yatastadauṣadhamekasyāpi dīyamānaṃ vātādivikāraṃ śamayituṃ śaknoti ; evaṃ tarhi yatra parāṅgatayā jātirvidhīyate, tatra saṃkhyā vivakṣyate | yatra tu svasaṃskārapratipattaye'nūdyate tatra na vivakṣyate | yathā---paśunā yajeta, grahaṃ saṃmārṣṭīti | tadetadubhamayapi udāharamamātreṇāśakyaṃ pratipattumiti yuktirabhidhātavyā | seyamucyate | paśunā yajeteti yāgasya phalavattayā prādhānyaṃ tadaṅgaṃ paśuḥ, aṅgaṃ ca yatpradhānasyopakaroti | ekenaiva paśunā kṛtaḥ pradhānasyopakāra iti dvitīyo nopādīyate | yadi hi yasya yāvantaḥ paśavassanti tāvata upādatta ityāśrīyate |

Therefore, since the mentioning of number is an invariable concomitant, number is not intended to be expressed in the mention of an entity, as in: “a Brahmin should not be killed” (brāhmaṇo na hantavyaḥ). And likewise, without the universal too, since a mere thing is indistinct, its denotation with distinction is impossible. Therefore, the mentioning of the universal being an invariable concomitant, the non-intention to express the universal as well would follow. Another says: where number is denoted by number-words such as “one” and so forth, there it is necessarily intended to be expressed as an auxiliary part of the ritual act, as in: “he gives one cow” (ekāṃ gāṃ dadāti), “he digs with two” (dvābhyāṃ khanati), “he immolates three animals” (trīn paśūn ālabhate); for being understood from the form of words such as “one”, it cannot be unintended to be expressed. But elsewhere, being aimed solely at the grammatical correctness of the word, it is not intended to be expressed by singulars and the like, as in: “a cow is not to be touched with the foot” (gauḥ padā na spraṣṭavyā). This too is not so, because even when a word such as “both” is used, non-intention is observed, as in: “he whose both oblations suffer injury…” (yasya ubhayaṃ havir ārtim ārcchat) and so on. Others hold: based on the implicit indicator “in expressing a universal optionally in the singular…” [Pāṇini 1.2.58], both the singular and the plural are not intended to be expressed, but the dual is intended to be expressed, as in: “there are two Sārasvatas” (sārasvatau bhavataḥ). That too is incorrect, because non-intention is observed even for the dual, as in: “if these two should be sick, this medicine should be given”; because that medicine, even when given to one, is capable of pacifying disorders of wind and so forth. If so, then where a universal is enjoined as subordinate to another, there number is intended to be expressed; but where it is restated for the sake of receiving its own consecration, there it is not intended to be expressed, as in: “he should sacrifice with an animal” (paśunā yajeta), “he cleanses the cup” (grahaṃ sammārṣṭi). Both of these cannot be understood merely by examples, so the reasoning must be stated. That is stated as follows: in “he should sacrifice with an animal”, the sacrifice has predominance because of having a fruit; the animal is its auxiliary part; and an auxiliary part is that which serves the principal. The service to the principal is accomplished by just one animal, so a second is not taken. For if one were to assume that as many animals as one has, that many he takes…