Shringaraprakasha 6.p1.7

6.p1.7

evaṃ tarhi vidānavākye pūrvameva prajñātāṅgābhāvāḥ sammārgamapūrvaṃ vidhātuṃ kevalaṃ grahamityanena samṛtau saṃniveśyante | grahasmṛtiścānubhavasāmarthyādudbhavantī yathānubhutānevārthāndarśayatīti naiko grahaśrirgrahāṇameva smārayati | na camasādīnāṃ tathaivānekagrahasannidhivekavacanamekasyaiva smārayet | yena hi bahavo'nubhūtāstenaikī'pyanubhūta eva | satyametat | kintu pratīyamāno'pyasau saṃkhyābhedaḥ kriyāṃ pratyavidhīyamānatvādasamarthaḥ kriyāmekasminnavasthāpaparyavasitaṃ vākyam | na cāpasaśśabdo'sti, yenaikasya sa vidhīyeta | na caikaśśabda ubhayaṃ śaknoti vidhātum ; aprajñānaṃ saṃmārgaṃ prajñātsaya caikatvena saṃbandhamiti pravṛttibhedāt | atha grahaikatvābhyāṃ viśiṣṭassaṃmārgo vidhīyate | na bhidyeta pravṛttiḥ ; arthastu naivaṃ, yato grahārthaḥ saṃmārgastasya prayojanattvāt | vibhaktiviśeṣaśca prādhānyaṃ darśayati | ato na vidhīyate saṅkhyā | iha tarhi kathaṃ citragavīṃ badhnātīti citro guṇo vidhīyate, yato'trāpi gorasvatantrīkārastasyāśca citrāyā iti bhidyate pravṛttiḥ ; guṇadravyayogasya śrutyaivābhidhīyamānatvāt tadviṣayatvāñca | kriyāyā nātrāparādha iti cet grahamityati | śrutireva saṅkhyāyāstadadhikaraṇasya ca dravyasya kriyāṅgabhāvamabhidhatte | tathā śoṇaṃ yojayedityekaśabdopādānayorjātiguṇayoraṅgīkaraṇam | evaṃ tarhi svārthāyāṃ pravṛttau saṅkhyābedasya vidhātumaśakyatvādavivakṣitā saṅkhyā | yathā grahaṃ saṃmārṣṭīti | atra grahārthatvātsaṃmārgasya pradhānaṃ grahāḥ, tadaṅgaṃ saṃmārgaḥ |

[Reply:] If so, then in the injunctive statement, those [cups] whose subordinate status was already known are introduced into memory merely by the word “the cup” in order to enjoin an unprecedented wiping. And the recollection of the cup, arising by the power of direct experience, presents precisely those things that were experienced; therefore, it does not remind one of only one cup, but reminds one indeed of the cups [as previously experienced]. Nor would the singular case-ending in the presence of multiple cups remind one of only one, just as in the case of the ladles and the like; for he who has experienced many has surely also experienced one. This is true; nevertheless, that difference in number, even though understood, is incapable of restricting the action to one because it is not enjoined with respect to the action, [and] the sentence concludes [without enjoining it]. Nor is there another word by which it could be enjoined for one [cup alone]. Nor can a single word enjoin both—the unknown wiping and the connection of what is already known with oneness—because of the difference in operation. [Opponent:] Then the wiping is enjoined as qualified by the cup and oneness. [Reply:] The operation would not be split; but the fact is not so, because wiping is for the sake of the cup, since it serves its purpose. And the specific case-ending shows its primacy. Therefore, the number is not enjoined. [Opponent:] If so, how here, in “he ties the brindled cow”, is the quality ‘brindled’ enjoined? For here too the subordination of the cow, and [the subordination] of that brindled [cow], would mean a split in operation. If you say that the connection between quality and substance is expressed directly by the scriptural text and is the object of the action, so there is no fault here, [we reply:] the same applies to “the cup”. The direct statement itself expresses the subordinate role of the number and of the substance that is its locus with respect to the action. Similarly, in “one should yoke the chestnut [horse]”, there is an adoption of both the universal and the quality expressed by a single word. If so, then when operating for its own purpose, because the difference in number cannot be enjoined, the number is not intended to be expressed, as in “he wipes the cup”. Here, because the wiping is for the sake of the cup, the cups are the principal, and the wiping is their subordinate factor.