Shringaraprakasha 8.p1.8

8.p1.8

athavā yathā kṛṣṇaḥ śuklaścāyaṃ mṛgaḥ sāraṅgaḥ śābala iti vā, tathā nīlotpala ityubhayarīpa evārthātmā hyubhayaṃ sanniveśyate | nīlaṃ cotpalaṃ caikaṃ nīlotpalamiti tau yasminnibhayaguṇamanuvibhāgamāpyamānau saṃmīrcchitāvivārthau bhavataḥ tattayārekemadhikaraṇaṃ | yadivā nīlaśabdaḥ pravartamāno nīlaguṇamātramupādāya pravartate natvenenotpalādaya upāttā api parityaktāḥ | evamutpalaśabdo vijātiyogamātramupādāya pravartate | na nīlādīṃstyajati | nopādate | tatra yadaiva bhinne'rtharūpa idamiti sarvanāmnā pratyavamṛśyamāne upaśliṣyete nīlamutpalaṃ cedaṃ dravyamiti, tadā śabdabhedādbhinnameva dravyaṃ viśeṣaṇaṃ viśeṣyamadhika.... ktaḥ padadvayasannidhānāyattatvādviśeṣaṇaviśeṣyabhāvasya vākyārthatvaṃ, na padārthatā | tadidamuktaṃyadatrādhikyaṃ vākyārthaḥ sa iti ... nīlamutpalamiti | viśeṣaṇaviśeṣyayorubhayasya ca viśeṣyatvādupasarjanatvāprasiddhiḥ yathā hyutpalaśabdo nīlaśabdenābhisamabandhyamāno viśeṣanacanastathā nīlaśabdo'pyutpalaśabdenābhisambadhyamāno viśeṣavacanaḥ sambadhyate, naivam, | ekasyātra prādhānyaṃ vivakṣitaṃ aparasya utpalasyacātrāprādhānyaṃ vivakṣitaṃ nīlaśabdasyopasarjanatvamiti | yadā tarhi nīlasya prādhānyena vivakṣā utpalasya copasarjanatvena tadākartavyaṃ sāmānādhikaraṇyaṃ, na hyasau dvandva utpalaṃ ca nīlaṃ ceti | nāpi ṣaṣṭhīsamāsa utpalasya nīlamiti, api tu dvāvimau pradhānaśabdavekasminnarthe yugapadurudhyete | na ca dvayoḥ pradhānayorekasminnarthe yugapaduparodhe prayojanamastīti prayogasāmārthyādgamyate | nīnamekamihapradhānaṃ tadviśeṣakaṃ cāparam || 8.4.

Or, just as in the case of ‘this black and white deer is dappled (sāraṅga)’ or ‘variegated (śābala)’, so in ‘blue lotus’ (nīlotpala) the entity itself is indeed dual in form, for both [aspects] are situated in it. ‘The blue and the lotus are one, [namely] a blue lotus’—that single substratum of the two in which the two qualities are experienced distinctively and yet the two entities become as though fused together. Or rather, the word ‘blue’ (nīla), when it operates, operates by taking up the quality of blueness alone; nor are the lotus and the rest, though taken up, abandoned by it. In the same way, the word ‘lotus’ (utpala) operates by taking up only the association with its distinct class; it neither abandons nor takes up blueness and the like. There, just when the two distinct forms of meaning are embraced as they are referred to by the pronoun ‘this’—as ‘this substance is both blue and a lotus’—then, because of the difference between the words, the substance is different as qualifier and qualified […] Because the relationship of qualifier and qualified depends on the juxtaposition of two words, it is the sentence-meaning, not the word-meaning. That is what is stated: ‘Whatever is additional here, that is the sentence-meaning’ in ‘blue lotus’. And because both qualifier and qualified are qualified, their subordination is not established. For just as the word ‘lotus’, connected with the word ‘blue’, expresses a specification, so too the word ‘blue’, connected with the word ‘lotus’, is connected as expressing a specification. Not so: here the prominence of one is intended, and the non-prominence of the other—of the lotus—is intended, [namely] the subordination of the word ‘blue’. When, then, the prominence of the blue and the subordination of the lotus are intended, then grammatical apposition must be formed; for this is not a dvandva compound, ‘a lotus and a blue’, nor is it a genitive compound, ‘the blue of a lotus’; rather, these two principal words are simultaneously applied to a single referent. And there is no purpose in simultaneously applying two principal words to a single referent; therefore, from the capacity of usage, it is understood: one here is principal, and the other qualifies it.