Shringaraprakasha 8.p1.17

8.p1.17

na hi daṇḍītyatra daṇḍo nābhidhīyata iti sambhavati paraṃ viśeṣaḥ tatra prakṛtyā viśeṣaṇābhidhānaṃ iha tenaivānyatastadalābhāte | ato'nvitābhidhānāśaktyauvānvayo'pyabhidhīyata iti nāsti śaktidvayakalpanāgauravam | taduktam ---- vyatiṣaktārthabuddhyā hi vyatiṣaṅge [ṅgo] niśamyate | aparaṃ tu na saṃsargapratīterasti kāraṇam|| pratipattyānvayaṃ yasmātpratīyādanvitaḥ pumān | vyaktiṃ jātimivārtho'sāviti saṃparikīrtyate || yo'pi pradhānadvayaśaṅkayā vākyabhedalakṣaṇo doṣaḥ so'pi nopapadyate | yato'nvitaḥ sambandha ucyate tatra kaścitpradhānatayā sambandhaḥ kaścidguṇatayā, yaśca yathā sambandhaḥ sa tathaivocyata iti naikasminvākye pradhānadvayaprasaṅgadvākyabhedalakṣaṇadūṣaṇotpattiḥ | taduktam --- pradhānaguṇabhāvena labdhānyonyasamanvayāt | padārthāveva vākyārthaṃ saṅgirante vipaścitaḥ || pratipattarguṇānāṃ tu pradhānaikaprayojanā | tatpratītyekrakāryatvādvākya ..... karmamucyate || yañja prakṛtipratyayoḥ padasya cābhidhāne dvirabhidhānamuktaṃ tadapi nava samyak prakṛtyānvitasyārtho vidhīyate, pratyayaśca prakṛtyarthānvitaṃ padārthānvitaṃ ca svārthaṃ bravīti, pratyayārthasya prakṛtyarthānvitasya padāpekṣitvāditi kuto dvirabhidhānam | natvevaṃ padasyānvitābhidhīyitvaṃ na syāt , pratyayasyaiva prakṛtisahitasya padatvāt || kiñcāyamabhihitānvayavādino'pi tulyo doṣaḥ | tataśca--- yaścobhayoḥ samo doṣaḥ parihāro'pi vā samaḥ | naikaḥ paryanuyoktavyastādṛśyarthavicāraṇe || prakṛkatipratyayau brūtaḥ pratyayārthaṃ saheti ca | yadāhuḥ sūrayastena pratyayaṃ [tadantaṃ] padamiṣyate ||

For it is not the case that in “possessing a staff” (daṇḍin) the staff is not denoted. The only difference is that there the qualification is denoted by the morphological base, whereas here [it is denoted] by that very [affix], because it cannot be obtained from anywhere else. Therefore, since syntactic connection is also denoted by the very denotative capacity of designating what is connected, there is no unwieldiness of assuming two separate capacities. So it has been said: / “For connection is perceived through the cognition of interconnected meanings; / and there is no other cause for the apprehension of relatedness. // Because a person, upon understanding, would cognise what is connected through syntactic connection, / this meaning is proclaimed just as an individual [is understood through] its universal.” // Even the flaw characterised as a split sentence due to the apprehension of two primaries does not apply here. Because an interconnected relation is spoken of, there a certain relation is by way of being primary, and another by way of being subordinate; and whichever relation is in whatever way, it is stated precisely in that way; thus there is no occurrence of the defect characterised as a split sentence on account of the occasioning of two primaries in a single sentence. So it has been said: / “From the mutual connection obtained through the status of primary and subordinate, / the wise declare that the word-meanings themselves constitute the sentence-meaning. // But for the hearer, the subordinate elements have the sole purpose of the primary; / because they have the single effect of producing cognition of that, the sentence is said to be an act [directed to that end].” // As for what was said about double denotation when both the morphological base and affix and the word denote, that too is not correct. The meaning of what is connected is set forth by the morphological base, and the affix expresses its own meaning as connected with the meaning of the morphological base and connected with the word-meaning; since the meaning of the affix, connected with the meaning of the morphological base, requires the word, whence could there be double denotation? Nor would the word thereby lack the capacity of designating what is connected, since the affix accompanied by the morphological base is precisely the word. Furthermore, this fault is equal even for the proponent of connection of the expressed (abhihitānvayavādin). And hence: / “When a fault is common to both, or the resolution is equally common, / one party should not be interrogated alone in the investigation of such an object. // And since the learned say that the morphological base and the affix together express the meaning of the affix, / that which ends in an affix is accepted as a word.”