Shringaraprakasha 6.p1.6

6.p1.6

prakṛtasya yāgasyaikena paśunā samāpitatvāditaravaiyarthyaṃ mābhūditi yāgāntarāṇi kriyante | guṇena dravyeṇāpradhānaṃ yāgaḥ pruyaktassyāt | na caiṣa nyāyo yadguṇaḥ pradhānaṃ prayuñcate | kiñca paśumālabheta paśunā yajetetyādau kriyāṅgabhāvenāprajñātasya paśossādhanabhāvaprakhyāpanāyedamutpātitavākyam | tatra śabdadarśanāvaseyatvādarthasya yathābhūtaṃ śabda āha tathābhūtassorthonugatatayā samāśrīyate | śabde'nvayavyatirekābhyāṃ prakṛterjātiriva vibhaktessaṃkhyābhidheyatvenāvadhāryate | yadi ca dvitīyasya paśorupādānamantareṇa śabdārtho na samāpyate, kriyā vā na navityeta, tadopādiyetāpi dvitīyam | paratvajāteśca prativyaktyavikalpātmanaḥ samāptātvādekapaśvavadainaiśca yāgākriyābhinirvṛtterdvitīyo nopādīyate | na ca paśunā yajetetyasyāssaṃkhyā virodhīni saṃkhyotpattivākyāgatā kācidvidyate | yadanurodhādiyaṃ tyajyeta, yasmādadimeva paśorutpattivākyaṃ, ataśśabdavāttvāt saṅkhyāntareṇa cāvipodhāt | paśunā yajetetyādau saṅkhyā vivakṣyate | grāhaṃ saṃmārṣṭītyatra tu na vivakṣyate | yasmāt prājāpatyā navagrahā bhavantītyādau grahāṇāmutpattivākye yā anekatvasaṅkhyā sā pradhānaviṣayā, tatra grahāṇāṃ vidhīyamānatvāt | grahaṃ saṃmārṣṭītyatra tu yā ekatvasaṃkhyā sā śeṣaviṣayā, sammārgasya vidhīyamānatvāt, tadidhikaraṇasaṃpādanārthatvāt grahaśabdasya | na ca yuktaṃ yatpradhānasambandhinī saṃkhyā śeṣassaṃkhyāyā bādhyate | nanu cotpattivākyayavaśenāneka eva graho gṛhyate | grahamityetasmāñcaikavacanādekassammṛjyeta | kimatra bādhitaṃ syāt ?

Because the sacrificial rite under discussion is completed by a single animal, other sacrificial rites are performed lest the rest be useless. [Otherwise,] an unprincipled [action like] the sacrifice would be impelled by a subordinate substance. Nor is it the rule that a subordinate factor impels the principal. Moreover, in statements such as “one should immolate an animal” or “one should sacrifice with an animal”, this is an originative statement (utpatti-vākya) meant to make known the instrumental status of the animal, which was not known as a subordinate factor of the action. In that case, because the meaning is to be ascertained from the perception of the linguistic sound, whatever meaning the linguistic sound expresses, precisely that meaning is adopted as conforming to it. In linguistic sound, just as the universal belongs to the morphological base through positive and negative concomitance, so number is determined as expressed by the case-ending. And if the meaning of the linguistic sound were not completed, or the action were not accomplished without taking a second animal, then even a second might be taken. But because the universal of animalness is completed in every individual without distinction, and the action of the sacrifice is accomplished by a single animal-offering, a second is not taken. Nor is there any number found in an originative statement that conflicts with the number in “one should sacrifice with an animal”, in deference to which this [singular number] would be abandoned; for this itself is the originative statement for the animal. Therefore, because it is stated by the linguistic sound and there is no contradiction with any other number, number is intended to be expressed in “one should sacrifice with an animal” and so forth. In “he wipes the cup”, however, it is not intended to be expressed. For in statements such as “nine cups belong to Prajāpati”, the plural number found in the originative statement of the cups concerns the principal, since the cups are being enjoined there. But in “he wipes the cup”, the singular number concerns a subordinate factor, because the wiping is what is being enjoined, and the word “cup” serves to supply its locus. And it is not correct that a number belonging to the principal should be sublated by the number of a subordinate factor. [Objection:] Now, by virtue of the originative statement, many cups are indeed understood; and from this singular number in “the cup”, one cup would be wiped. What would be sublated here?