Shringaraprakasha 8.p1.9

8.p1.9

etāvāṃstu sandehaḥ kiṃ viśeṣyaṃ ? kiṃ viśeṣaṇamiti | tatra dravyaṃ viśeṣyaṃ guṇo viśeṣaṇaṃ dravyasyānāyanapekṣiṇaḥ sākṣātkriyāsūpayogena prādhānyāt || 8.5. nanu guṇasyāpi sākṣātkriyāsūpayogo dṛśyate yathā ’śvetaṃ chāgamālabhete’ti, nāvam, | iha śvetābhāve kṛṣṇamapi chāgamālabhate na tu śvetāṃ puṣṭapiṇḍīmālabhya kṛtī bhavati | evamupacārapravṛttāvapi puruṣavyāghra ityādau yadyantarbhūtopamānasambandhapratītabhedo vyāghraduśabdairupameyaḥ puruṣādirabhidhīyate tadā sāmānādhikaraṇyopapattau upamitaṃ vyāghradubhiḥ sāmānyāprayoga iti samāso bhavati | evaṃ prapacati sādhu pacatītyādayo draṣṭavyāḥ | kathaṃ punaḥ sāmānādhikaraṇyena kriyāviśeṣaṇatve sādhvādayo'sattvavacanā bhavanti | ucyate, upasargāṇāmiva kriyāviśeṣaṇānāmapyattvabhūtānāmeva kriyāṃ prati guṇabhāvo bhavati, yathā pacyādikaṃ viśeṣe sthāpayan asattvārthaḥ praśabdo viśeṣaṇatvaṃ labhate, evaṃ sādhuśabdo'pi kriyātmakabhūtaṃ dharmamuktarṣādikaṃ kriyāsthamasattvabhūtaṃ kriyānupraviṣṭamabhidadhānaḥ kriyānurodhādevāsattvabhāvamāpannaḥ krayiāviśeṣaṇatvaṃ labhate, kathaṃ punaḥ prapacatītyādau prāderubhaya viśeṣaṇatve, kriyābhāgenaiva sambandho bhavati ? sati vā kathamubhayaviśeṣaṇatvam || 8.6. ucyate |

There is only this doubt: what is the qualified, and what is the qualifier? In that regard, the substance is the qualified and the quality is the qualifier, because the substance, having no need of another, has prominence through its direct utility in actions. / Objection: But the direct utility of a quality in actions is also seen, as in ‘one should sacrifice a white goat’. / [Reply:] Not so. Here, in the absence of a white [goat], one sacrifices even a black goat, but one does not fulfill one's duty by sacrificing a white mass of dough. So too, even when metaphorical transfer operates in such expressions as ‘a man-tiger’ (puruṣavyāghra), if the object of comparison, such as a man, whose difference is understood from the connection to the standard of comparison internal to it, is denoted by the word ‘tiger’ and the like, then, when grammatical apposition is established, the compound takes place according to [the rule] ‘an object of comparison [is compounded] with tiger and the like, when the common property is not expressed’. In the same way, expressions like ‘he cooks well’ (prapacati) and ‘he cooks properly’ (sādhu pacati) are to be regarded. / But how, when functioning as action-qualifiers through apposition, do words like ‘properly’ (sādhu) denote non-substances? / It is replied: Just like prefixes, action-qualifiers too, being indeed non-substantial, enter into subordination to the action. Just as the word pra-, establishing cooking and the like in a specific state and having a non-substantial meaning, attains qualifier status, so too the word sādhu, denoting an excellence or the like situated in the action, which constitutes an action-property, is non-substantial, and has entered into the action, assumes the status of a non-substance precisely in conformity with the action and attains the status of an action-qualifier. / But how, in ‘he cooks well’ (prapacati) and the like, when pra- and the rest qualify both, is there a connection with the action-portion alone? Or, if that is the case, how do they qualify both?