Shringaraprakasha 5
English (machine translation) 5
- Language
- English
Contents
5.p1.1
Fifth chapter: Illumination of the Tetrad of Meanings Beginning with the Morphological Base. Among the meanings of morphological bases and meanings of affixes, action is a particular operation of syntactic roles; the verbal roots kṛ ('to make'), bhū ('to become'), and as ('to be') express it unconditioned. Arising from their non-mixture, equality, preponderance, and deficiency in relation to one another, there are twelve distinctions of verbal-root meanings that constitute actions. Namely: intransitive, internally transitive, transitive toward another meaning, unexpressedly transitive, well-known in object, ditransitive, well-known in agent, having an abstract state as agent, reflexive-passive, having action residing in the agent, having action residing in the object, and having action residing in both. And through the distinction between motionless and motion-endowed, each becomes two, producing twenty-four. There, by nature, as ('to be') is motionless because it has an indifferent agent. Kṛ ('to make') is motion-endowed because it has an active agent. Bhū ('to become') is both motion-endowed and motionless because it has a transforming agent: this is established. Hence, verbal roots expressing the meaning of as, those in which bhū is subordinate, and those in which as is subordinate, are intransitive. Among these, the former are motionless, as in: bhidyate ('it splits'), svadate ('it tastes sweet'), vartate ('it exists'), prīyate ('he is pleased'). The latter are motion-endowed, as in: jāyate ('it is born'), vivardhate ('it grows'), sphurati ('it throbs'). Those very ones, with kṛ subordinate, are internally transitive; among these, the former are motionless, as in: jīvati ('he lives'), mriyate ('he dies'), putrīyate ('he desires a son'), prāṇiti ('he breathes'). The latter are motion-endowed, as in: nṛtyati ('he dances'), śvasiti ('he sighs'), vāṣpāyate ('he weeps tears'), roditi ('he cries'). Those having the meanings of as and kṛ, and those having the meanings of kṛ and bhū, are transitive toward another meaning. Among these, the former are motionless, as in: tarati kāṣṭham ('a piece of wood floats'), tarati vipadam ('he crosses over misfortune'), viparyasyati matim ('he changes his mind'), viparyasyati hastam ('he turns his hand'). The latter are motion-endowed, as in: vahati bhāram ('he carries a load'), patati parṇam ('a leaf falls'), patatyadhvānam ('he traverses the road'). For this very reason, those with kṛ not prominent are also intendedly transitive. Among these, the former are motionless, as in: saṃjñā saṃjñinyabhiniviśate ('the designation applies to that which possesses the designation'), buddhistattvamabhiniviśate ('the intellect fastens upon the truth'), tīrthe upavasati ('he fasts at a sacred ford'), trirātramupavasati ('he fasts for three nights').
5.p1.2
The subsequent ones possess motion, as: "Caitra laughs", "Maitra laughs", "the wheel turns", "he wanders from the country." But when [the meaning of] "he makes" (kṛ) is prominent, precisely these have known objects. Among these, the former are without motion, as: when it is said "he sows", "seed" is understood; when it is said "he marries", "maiden" is understood. The subsequent ones possess motion, as: when it is said "he plows", "field" is understood; when it is said "she gives birth", "fetus" is understood. While [the meaning of] "he makes" remains prominent, where [the meaning of] "is" (as) is subordinate and [the meaning of] "becomes" (bhū) is subordinate, precisely these have two objects. Among these, the former are without motion, as: "in a mark, he causes the knower to understand that which possesses the mark", "he wins a hundred horses from Aśvasena." The subsequent ones possess motion, as: "he milks milk from the cow", "he gathers fruits from the tree." Thus, these are six two-factor combinations; furthermore, the three-factor combinations are six. Among these, where [the meaning of] "is" is prominent or [the meaning of] "becomes" is prominent, they have known agents. Among these, the former are without motion, as: when it is said "it burns", "fire" is understood. The subsequent ones possess motion, as: when it is said "it coos", "cuckoo" is understood; when it is said "it neighs", "horse" is understood. Where [the meanings of] "becomes" and "makes" are subordinate, or where [the meanings of] "is" and "makes" are subordinate, they have an abstract state as agent. Among these, the former are without motion, as: "it aches for the thief", "it sickens for the thief", "it makes the thief feverish", "it distresses the thief." The subsequent ones possess motion, as: "it happens that he will cook", "it happened that he cooked", "it might also happen that he might be", "it could also happen that he could be." Where [the meaning of] "is" is prominent and [the meaning of] "makes" is subordinate, or where [the meaning of] "becomes" is prominent and [the meaning of] "makes" is subordinate, they are reflexive agents. Among these, the former are without motion, as: "the cow yields milk by herself", "the cow brings forth [young] by herself", "the girl chooses by herself." The subsequent ones possess motion, as: "the elephant scatters [dust] by itself", "the stick raises itself", "the stick bends itself", "the elephant lets itself be mounted." Where [the meaning of] "is" is prominent with [the meaning of] "makes", or [the meaning of] "becomes" is with [the meaning of] "makes", the actions reside in the agent.
5.p1.3
Among these, the former are without motion, as: "he deserves worship", "he knows the syllable", "he sees a form", "he hears a sound." The subsequent ones possess motion, as: "he goes to the village", "he mounts the horse." Where [the meaning of] "becomes" is subordinate and [the meaning of] "makes" is prominent, or where [the meaning of] "is" is subordinate and [the meaning of] "makes" is prominent, the actions reside in the object. Among these, the former are without motion, as: "he torments the enemy", "he pleases the friend", "he gladdens the companion", "he delights the friend." The subsequent ones possess motion, as: "he cooks porridge", "he breaks the storehouse", "he sharpens or smooths the blade", or "he hews." [Where the meanings are balanced,] the actions reside in both. Among these, the former are without motion, as: "he receives worship", "he attains merit." The subsequent ones possess motion, as: "he eats porridge", "he recites sacred study", "he performs austerity", "he accomplishes heaven." [Objection:] Now, in "it happens that he will cook", "it happened that he cooked", "it might also happen that he might be", and "it could also happen that he could be", these are not meanings of "is" and "becomes", but rather "is" and "becomes" directly. And those two express action unconditioned [by secondary factors]; therefore they cannot be conditions. It is replied: because of the dhātupāṭha entries "as in being" and "bhū in existence", and because of the prescription of bhū in place of as in non-conjugational forms (ārdhadhātuka) excluding the auxiliary use, it is understood that there is indeed an intermixture. Even so, the entry of the meaning of "makes" is difficult to establish. That too is established because the syntactic connection of agency cannot otherwise be explained. [Objection:] Now, in "it happens that he will cook" and "it happened that he cooked", this is merely the employment of the present tense (laṭ). And in "there is: we go", the use of "is" is also seen among verbs with an abstract state as agent. Not so; we do not say that "is" and "becomes" have an abstract state as agent. Rather, "is" and others, and "cooks" and others, are the agents of "is" and "becomes". For, like "aches" and the rest, even though they are conditions, they are agents in relation to "is". But this is the distinction: the agency of "aches" and the rest is expressed only by the verbal suffix that follows them, whereas that of "cooks" and the rest is expressed by the suffix following "becomes" or "is". And just as the meaning of a verbal root is a condition of action, so it is in grammatical tense as well.
5.p1.4
As it has been stated:
“And the limiting condition of action is the states of past, future, and present; / endowed with power, it attains [the division into] posterior and anterior meanings.”
This [grammatical tense] is twelvefold through divisions beginning with the past. Namely: past, past non-current day, future, future non-current day, present, present non-current day, unperceived, lapsed, undifferentiated, intermixed, dispersed, and widely dispersed. The past, which is the domain of the aorist affix and so forth, is past time in general; it is sixfold: past, emphatic past, past non-current day, imputed current day, continuous current day, and proximate current day. Among these, the past with unspecified distinction is, for example: akarṣīt [he dragged], niṣasāda [he sat down], uvāsa [he lived], śuśrāva [he heard], apakta [he cooked], paktavān [he has cooked]. The emphatic past is where affixes such as the non-current day and unperceived are disregarded because of an emphatic degree understood from another word, as: avātsuriha purā cchātrāḥ [students formerly lived here]. The past non-current day is that which has an intended other limit, as: anyāmagāmaghoṣāt [I went to another from the cowherd settlement]. The imputed current day is the remainder of the night when there is continuous waking, as: amutrāvātsam [I dwelt there]; having stayed awake the entire night, one regards time as current day because of the absence of night. The continuous current day is where the cessation of an action is unintended, as: yāvajjīvaṃ bhṛṣamannamadāt [he gave abundant food as long as he lived]. The proximate current day is where the immediate sequence of an action is intended, as: yeyaṃ gatā paurṇamāsī asyāmupādhyāyo'gnīnādadhīta [this full moon day that has passed, on it the teacher should set up the sacred fires]. On this point, it is taught [in the grammar] that in the case of immediate proximity, continuity of action and proximity are optionally treated like the non-current day. Thus, the non-current day past, having no current day [portion], is the cause of the imperfect affix. It is sixfold: general non-current day, particular non-current day, non-current day of recollection, well-known unperceived, interrogative unperceived, and unperceived marked by ha and śaśvat. Among these, the general non-current day has unperceivedness and so forth unintended, as: yāvajjīvaṃ bhṛśamannamadāt [he gave abundant food as long as he lived]. The proximate current day is where the immediate sequence of an action is intended, as: yeyaṃ gatā paurṇamāsī asyāmupādhyāyo'gnīnādadhīta [this full moon day that has passed, on it the teacher should set up the sacred fires].
5.p1.5
On this point, it is taught [in the grammar] that in the case of immediate proximity, continuity of action and proximity are optionally treated like the non-current day. Thus, the non-current day past, having no current day [portion], is the cause of the imperfect affix. It is sixfold: general non-current day, particular non-current day, non-current day of recollection, well-known unperceived, interrogative unperceived, and unperceived marked by ha and śaśvat. Among these, the general non-current day has unperceivedness and so forth unintended, as: akarot [he made], aśṛṇot [he heard], nyaṣīdat [he sat down], amutrāvasam [I dwelt there], āsīdidaṃ tamobhūtam [this was shrouded in darkness], rāmo vanamagacchat [Rāma went to the forest]. The particular non-current day has a specific condition such as unperceivedness understood from another word, as: avasanniha purā chātrāḥ [students formerly lived here]. The non-current day of recollection is an exception to the conditional future denoting recollection introduced by na yat, as: smarasi devadatta kāśmīreṣu yadavasāma [do you remember, Devadatta, that we lived in Kashmir?]. The well-known unperceived has an imputed sense of direct perception due to universal renown, as: ajayajjayanto hūṇān [Jayanta conquered the Hūṇas]. The interrogative unperceived has unperceivedness employed in a question, as: kimagacchaddevadattaḥ [did Devadatta go?]. The unperceived marked by ha and śaśvat occurs when unperceivedness is exhausted in the sense of ha and śaśvat, as: iti hākarot, śaśvadakarot [so indeed he did; he did constantly]. The future, which is mere non-arrival and the domain of the simple future affix and so forth, is continuous current day, proximate current day, and delimited current day. Among these, the general future is that where non-current day and so on are unspecified, as: kariṣyati [he will do], balirindro bhaviṣyati [Bali will become Indra], kadā gamiṣyati [when will he go?], eṣa gamiṣyāmi [here I shall go], pakṣyan vrajati [he goes about to cook], pācako vrajati [the cook goes]. The particular future is where a specific current day is determined, as: adya gamiṣyāmi [I will go today]. The continuous current day is where the cessation of an action is unintended, as: yāvajjīvaṃ bhṛśamannaṃ dāsyati [he will give abundant food as long as he lives]. The proximate current day is where the immediate sequence of an action is intended, as: yeyamāgāminī paurṇamāsī asyāmupādhyāyo'gnīnādhāsyati [this coming full moon day, on it the teacher will set up the sacred fires].
5.p1.6
The delimited non-current day occurs [by the rule that] in the future, when stating a limit and in a subsequent division of time not consisting of day and night, [the non-current day affix is used] optionally in the subsequent division, as: yo'yamadhvā gantavya āpāṭaliputrāttasya yadavaraṃ kauśāmbyāstatraudanaṃ bhokṣyamahe [whichever road is to be traveled up to Pāṭaliputra, on the near side of Kauśāmbī we will eat boiled rice]; yo'yamāgāmī saṃvatsarastasya yadavaramāgrahāyaṇyāstatra yuktā adhyyeṣyāmahe [whatever coming year it is, on the near side of the Āgrahāyaṇī day, intent thereon we will study]. In the same way, one should see that it is optional in the subsequent division. The future non-current day is that which is future without being of the current day, being the cause of the periphrastic future affix; it is sixfold: general non-current day, desirous non-current day, lamenting non-current day, as: kartā kartārau kartāraḥ [he, they two, they will do], kāritā kāritārau kārayitāraḥ [he, they two, they will cause to do]. The particular non-current day has a distinction understood from another word, as: tvaṃ paktā [you will cook]. The desirous non-current day has desire as its limiting condition, as: yo me gantā ya evaṃ pādau nidadhāti [he who places his feet thus will go to me]; ayaṃ nu kadādhyetā ya evamanabhiyuktaḥ [when will this one study, who is so uncommitted?]. The posterior and anterior division falls within the domain of day-and-night by the rule ‘and in the division of time of non-days-and-nights’, as: yo'yamāgāmī saṃvatsarastasya yadavaramāgrahāyaṇyāstatra pāṭaliputraṃ gantāsmaḥ [whichever coming year it is, on the near side of the Āgrahāyaṇī day we will go to Pāṭaliputra]. That very one, falling within the domain of the path option, belongs to the path option: yo'yamadhvā gantavya āpāṭaliputraṃ tasya yatparaṃ kauśāmbyāḥ tatra saktūnpātāsmaḥ [whichever road is to be traveled up to Pāṭaliputra, on the far side of Kauśāmbī we will drink barley groats]. The present, which has as its domain an action commenced and not fallen away, is the cause of the present tense affix and so forth. It is sixfold: general present, particular present, uninterrupted present, ceased after commencement, continuously operative, and eternally occurring. Among these, the general present disregards distinctions such as cessation, as: asti [is], bhavan [being], kurvāṇaḥ [doing], pacyamānaḥ [being cooked], pavamānaḥ [purifying], patradudvahamānaḥ [carrying leaves]. The particular present is the domain of unperceivedness and so forth: atra vaṭe yakṣaḥ prativasati [in this banyan tree a yakṣa resides]. The uninterrupted present is where continuity of action is intended, as: prāsādaṃ karoti [he is building a palace]. Ceased after commencement is where cessation after commencing is intended, as: jīvantaṃ mārayati [he kills a living being].
5.p1.7
That whose cessation of activity is not intended to be spoken of is continuous activity unstopped in progress, as: "here the boys are playing." That whose continuum of activity is uninterrupted is eternally active, as: "the mountain stands." Even in the case of future and past actions, because presentness is brought about by the employment of another word, the non-current non-today, being a cause for the present tense (laṭ), is the current present. It is sixfold: having desire for gain as its domain, having expectation as its domain, connected with purā, connected with sma, connected with both, and connected with neither. Among these, that having desire for gain as its domain is as: "whoever gives me alms goes to heaven", "who gives me alms goes to the [higher] world", likewise "which of the two gives me alms", "which among many gives me alms." That having expectation as its domain is as: "if the god rains, the rice-crops will prosper." That connected with purā is: "formerly students dwell here." That connected with sma is as: "thus the teacher says, indeed." That connected with both is as: "formerly, indeed, study was pursued by Nala." That connected with neither is as: "Rāghava then speaks." The domain of the perfect tense (liṭ) is only the past, beyond the senses, beyond direct perception (parokṣa). It is sixfold: unperceived to oneself, unperceived to another, unperceived to both oneself and another, unperceived to the mind, unperceived to [direct] means of knowledge, and unperceived in determination. Among these, that which is unperceived with respect to oneself is as: "he made, he made", "he shone", "formerly the students dwelt here." That which is unperceived to another with respect to another is as: "who has arrived from Kaliṅga?", "who saw the brahmins?", "I did not go to Kaliṅga." That which is unperceived to both oneself and another with respect to both is as: "Vāsudeva slew Kaṃsa", "Hara burned Tripura", "Mādhava crushed Vṛtra." That which is unperceived to the mind with respect to memory is as: "thus he did", "he continually did", "so indeed he did", "he repeatedly did." Under the rule "in a question when time is near", it is unperceived in determination, as: "did she go to his side?", "did she speak appropriately?", "did he hear her words?", "I ask: did my friend [go]?" That whose domain is the non-occurrence of an action—future, past, or present—is that which has lapsed, being the cause for the conditional tense (lṛṅ).
5.p1.8
It is sixfold—owing to the division of future, past, and present failure of action into pure and mixed. There, having understood a purely future failure of action by means of some indicative sign, one uses [the conditional]. For example: "Would it have fallen even if struck by a thunderbolt? How indeed could your honor have officiated for an outcaste? If he had gone to the south, the cart would not have overturned." And as in: "Had you walked on the path indicated by the virtuous, those glories of yours would not have ceased to walk at your feet." Likewise, even the mixed [type], as in: "Sītā would indeed have been given to Rāma, the moon of the house of Dāśarathi, endowed with holy splendor and worthy [of her], if the noble [Janaka] had not made the non-retractable condition of stringing the bow of Tryambaka." [Another] uses [it] having understood by some sign a purely past failure of action. For example: "I do not believe that your honor could have officiated for an outcaste"; "I cannot imagine that you, sir, would have eaten there." And as in: "Let that reproach not fall upon you, that this deer would have acted against you with its strength, had not the lord of the army swiftly checked it with a sharp feathered arrow." Likewise, even the mixed [type]: "If he had not united this pair possessing beauty envied by one another, the effort of the Lord of Creatures in creating form in this couple would have been in vain." Having understood even a present failure of action purely through some means of knowledge, one uses [it]. For example: "Would he have done [it]? Would he also have done [it]?" And as in: "How could the serpent have supported the earth with hoods soft as lotus-stalks, if you were not upholding it from the base of the netherworld?" Likewise, the mixed [type], as in: "The earth would have sunk into the water, its bonding of the lord of mountains slipped away, if you, resplendent like Nārāyaṇa, were not sustaining it." Thus it is said. The indefinite is that in which the distinctions of past, future, and so forth have disappeared. It is sixfold: the domain of the potential (liṅ), the domain of the imperative (loṭ), the domain of the present (laṭ), the domain of the future (lṛṭ), the domain of [gerundive suffixes such as] tavya, etc., and the domain of [infinitive and absolutive suffixes such as] tumun, etc.
5.p1.9
Among these, the domain of liṅ is, for example: "He should make a mat"; "May he live long"; "How could your honor officiate for an outcaste?"; "Could he split a mountain with his head?"; "I think your honor might eat"; "It is time that your honor should eat." The domain of loṭ is, for example: "If the teacher comes, has arrived, or will come, then study the Veda"; "Make a mat, the time has come for you to make a mat"; "May your honor live long"; "What should your honor do here?"; "'Reap, reap!'—thus he reaps, has reaped, or will reap." The domain of laṭ is, for example: "When does he eat? At what time does he eat?"; "Does your honor indeed officiate for an outcaste?"; "Could your honor ever officiate for an outcaste?"; "Does my mother still live?"; "Or whom do riches not intoxicate?" The domain of lṛṭ is, for example: "Will a blind man really climb a mountain, or will a staff fall?"; "Which indeed is the outcaste for whom your honor will officiate?"; "I cannot bear, I do not believe, I cannot imagine that your honor will officiate for an outcaste"; "Having your mind applied to each [matter], how will you not know, O Lord?" The domain of tavya, etc. is, for example: "One's own sacred text is to be studied"; "A brāhmaṇa is not to be killed"; "Parents are to be revered"; "Teachers are to be honored"; "One should not bring about what should not be done"; "One should not do what ought not to be done." The domain of tumun, etc. is, for example: "He wished, wishes, or will wish to eat"; "Having eaten, he went, goes, or will go"; "Having studied, he sat, sits, or will sit"; "Calling him a thief, he reviled, reviles, or will revile"; "Drinking repeatedly, he wished to sit, sits, or will sit"; "He throve, thrives, or will thrive in increase of wealth." The composite is that which is conjoined with another tense; and because the mixture is of manifold forms, it cannot be defined strictly as this or that; therefore, for the sake of everyday convention, it is exemplified merely in a sixfold manner. It occurs between past and past non-current, as in: "Or we ate before others." Between future and future non-current, as in: "Today or tomorrow he will go."
5.p1.10
Between past and future non-current, as in: "Two sons will be born to the sacrificer of the Agniṣṭoma." Between past non-current and future, as in: "It was an act to be done." Between present and remote past, as in: "While the words of the gods, 'Restrain, O Lord, restrain your wrath,' were still traveling, in that instant the fire born of Śiva's eye reduced Kāma to mere ashes." Of future, present, and remote past, as in: "He beheld the clouds drinking water from a single part of the ocean, by which [waters], rumbling ceaselessly, these [clouds] will flood the earth all around with torrential rain." Thus [it is classified]. 5.6. The dispersed is the entry of the present into the future and the past. There, regarding the entry into the future, in [the sense of] hope, as in: "If the teacher comes, we attentively study grammar." In [the sense of] desire, as in: "As long as he feeds the one who is angry." In conjunction with purā, as in: "While he eats, [before] he goes away." In proximity, as in: "When will you go to the village? Here I go; consider me as already going." Likewise, even upon entry into the past: in proximity to the past, as in: "When did you come from the village? Here I come; consider me as already coming." In question and answer, as in: "Hey, sir, did you make the mat? Devadatta, surely I am making the mat; here I am making it." The widely dispersed is the entry of the future into the past and the entry of the past into the future. There, in the entry of the future into the past, as in: "Do you remember, Devadatta, we shall dwell in Kaśmīr?"; "Do you recollect, we shall dwell in Kaliṅga, there we shall eat rice?"; "Do you remember that we shall dwell in Kaśmīr, that we shall eat rice there?" Or as in: "Does the son of Daśaratha, having become yourself, remember that [demon] who carried off the woman from the forest edge, whom he will slay near Laṅkā having crossed the ocean turbid with surging, roiling waters?" The entry of the past into the future is, for example: "Do not do it!"; "Do not perform it!"; "If the god has rained, the rice crops have turned out well."
5.p1.11
Or as in: “Let there be no fear in your mind, thinking, ‘I am a wrongdoer!’ / May no woman ever bear such a son! / And this moon of your face has again become intimate with a frown, / and the family of Vasudeva has gone to having only its name remaining.” / Now, why is there the usage of the past and future tenses—such as “The mountains stood [and] will stand,” “There was a well on the road, [and] there will be a well”—even when the present is obtained for an eternally persisting [entity]? / It is answered: As for those kings who existed in the kingdoms of the Haihayas and elsewhere, because their actions are past, an affix belonging to the domain of past tense is employed when intending the connection with them, as in: “By this [it is meant that] the mountains stood even during the reign of the Haihayas.” Likewise, as for those kings who will exist in future manvantaras, because their actions are future, an affix belonging to the domain of future tense is employed when intending the connection with them, as in: “When Bali will be Indra, even then the mountains will stand just so.” Thus, for a well too, because of its connection with the past and future actions of seeing, the connection with actions—such as “it was” [and] “it will be”—is not contradicted. / Conjugational disposition too is indeed an adjunct of the base-meaning. What, then, is this? It is a particular distinction in meaning that is the cause of the connection with the middle voice and active voice for [roots] that take the active voice, the middle voice, or both. That has been said: “The difference of meaning that is understood somewhere from the middle voice / or from the active voice, that they consider to be conjugational disposition.” [5.7.] As in: nāthati, nāthate; śapati, śapate; āhvayati, āhvayate; pratijānāti, pratijānīte. Here, [the root] nāth- in wishing, śap- in rebuking, hvā- with ā- in rivalry, and jñā- after sam- and prati- when not remembering take the middle voice; elsewhere they take the active voice—such are the distinctions of meaning. Likewise: a rogue terrifies [miṇḍo bhīṣayate]; he frightens him with an iron rod [kuñcikayainaṃ bhāyayati]; the ascetic amazes [jaṭilo vismapayate]; he causes him to wonder through intellect [matyainaṃ vismāpayati]; a falcon provokes the quail to cry out [śyeno vartikāmullāpayate]; who is causing you to cry out? [kastvāmullāpayati]; the villagers converse together [saṃpravadante grāmyāḥ]; the birds twitter together [saṃpravadanti śakunayaḥ].
5.p1.12
Here, [the roots] bhī- and smi- [take the middle voice] when there is fear [caused by] the instigator, and lī- [takes the middle voice] in the senses of honoring and modesty, and vad- [takes the middle voice] when there is simultaneous utterance by articulate speakers; elsewhere there is the active voice—such are the distinctions of meaning. Other cases are to be inferred in the same way. [5.8.] But surely, in the statement “The difference of meaning that is understood somewhere from the middle voice,” what is the purpose of saying “somewhere”? / It is answered: The employment of the active voice, the middle voice, or both voices for [roots] that take the active, middle, or both voices is of six kinds: caused by the base, caused by the base-meaning, caused by the affix, caused by the affix-meaning, caused by an augment/modifier, and caused by the modifier's meaning. Among these, in those caused by meaning, the status of being a cause for understanding meaning exists appropriately; but in the others it does not exist. This is what he indicates by mentioning “somewhere.” / Among these, the connection with the middle voice caused by the base is as in: “From [roots having] an unaccented grave [vowel] or ṅ [as an indicatory letter], the middle voice [is used]”; “From jñā-, śru-, smṛ-, and dṛś- after the desiderative affix [san]”; [as in] edhate, cyavate, susmūrṣate, didṛkṣate. Caused by the base-meaning is as in: “And in the designations of revealing and an arbitrator”; “From bhuj- when not meaning to protect”; “[From the desiderative of] gṛdh- and vañc- [and from lambh- with pra-]”; “In reciprocity of action”; [as in] tiṣṭhate, bhuṅkte, gandhāyate, vyatilunīte. Caused by the affix is as in: “From ji- after vi- and parā-”; “From sthā- after sam-, ava-, pra-, and vi-”; “From [sthā- preceded by] sam- connected with an instrumental”; “From kṛ- preceded by mithyā in the sense of repetition”; [as in] vijayate, parājayate, saṃtiṣṭhate, avatiṣṭhate, pratiṣṭhate, vitiṣṭhate, aśvena sañcarate, padaṃ mithyākārayati. Caused by the modifier's meaning is as in: “From [kram- preceded by] vi- in pacing of the feet”; “From [kram- preceded by] ā- when light is shining forth”; “From [sthā- preceded by] upa- when making a mantra”; “And from dā- preceded by sam- when in the sense of the dative without actual [gift]”; [as in] vikramate vājī, ākramate jyotiḥ, sāvitryā upatiṣṭhate, dāsyā saṃyacchate. / The connection with the active voice caused by the base is as in: “From the rest, the active voice is used in the sense of the agent”; [as in] bhavati, vyatihasanti, vyatiharanti, parasparasya vyati[haranti]. Caused by the affix-meaning is as in: “According to the Easterners, śyan [is used] after kuṣ- and rañj-, and the active voice [too]”;
5.p1.13
“From the rest, the active voice [is used] in the sense of the agent”; [as in] rajyati vastraṃ svayameva, kuṣyati pādaḥ svayameva, rajyate vastram, kuṣyate pādam. Caused by a modifier is as in: “From kṛ- after anu- and parā-”; “And when preceded by itaretara and anyonya”; [as in] anukaroti, parākaroti, itaretasya vyatilunanti, anyonyasya vyatilunanti. Caused by a modifier's meaning is as in: “From [krīḍ- preceded by] sam- when not meaning creaking”; “From dā- preceded by ā- when not opening the mouth”; “From [sthā- preceded by] ud- when not meaning the action of rising”; “From yuj- preceded by pra- and other [prefixes] beginning with a vowel, when not referring to sacrificial vessels”; [as in] saṃkrīḍanti śakaṭāḥ, vyāghro mukhaṃ vyādadāti, āsanāduttiṣṭhati, yajñapātrāṇi prayunakti. / The connection with both voices caused by the base is as in: “Optionally after [denominatives ending in] yaṅ”; “Or without a prefix”; [as in] lohitāyati, lohitāyate, krāmati, kramate. Caused by the base-meaning is as in: “Optionally from an intransitive [verb]”; “Optionally in prattling”; [as in] uparamati, uparamate, saṃpravadanti mauhūrtāḥ, saṃpravadante mauhūrtāḥ. Caused by the affix-meaning is as in: rajyāti, rajyate, kuṣyati, kuṣyate, according to: “According to the Easterners, śyan [is used] after kuṣ- and rañj-, and the active voice in the reflexive agent.” Caused by a modifier is as in: “Optionally from as- and ūh- after a prefix”; [as in] udasyati, udasyate, samūhati, samūhate. Caused by a modifier's meaning is as in: “Optionally in desiring”; “Optionally when indicated by a co-occurring word”; [as in] the beggar attends upon the brāhmaṇa's family [bhikṣuko brāhmaṇakulamupatiṣṭhati, upatiṣṭhate]; the brāhmaṇa performs his own sacrifice [brāhmaṇaḥ svaṃ yajñaṃ yajati, yajate]. / In this way, other particular adjuncts of the base-meaning are also to be recognized, such as cause, sign, frequent repetition, excessive degree, censure, crookedness, entirety, prior time, serving the purpose of that, and so on. For instance: adhīyāno vasati, pacannāste; he reads again and again [punaḥpunaḥ paṭhati / pāpaṭhyate]; he cooks again and again [punaḥpunaḥ pacati / pāpacyate]; he burns contemptibly [garhitaṃ dahati / dandahyate]; he walks crookedly [kuṭilaṃ krāmati / caṅkramyate]; kanyādarśaṃ varayati; bhuktvā vrajati; bhoktuṃ vrajanti.
5.p1.14
In this way, these are the qualifying conditions on the meaning of a base that is a verbal root; the qualifying conditions on [a base] that is an affix are simply the qualifying conditions on the meaning of its own affix. But for [a base] that is a nominal stem, there are qualifying conditions beyond its own meaning, such as gender, number, measure, syntactic role, relation, address, companion-sense, purpose, reason, and characteristic mark. Since these will be explained immediately below under the meanings of affixes, augment-meanings, and nominal-stem meanings, they are not elaborated here. 5.9. Now, the qualifying condition on affix-meaning. Among these, grammatical persons have been mentioned under the qualifying conditions of syntactic roles; number will be stated ahead. And there are also other qualifying conditions for this [affix], such as injunction, invitation, courteous request, question in deliberation, asking, direction, permission, opportune time, ability, fitness, and censure. For example: 'One should offer the Agnihotra' (injunction); 'Eat here; may you remain here' (invitation); 'Sir, teach the boy' (courteous request); 'Should I indeed study grammar?' (question in deliberation); 'May I obtain food-alms from here?' (asking) — a benediction is also just an asking — 'May you live long!' (benediction); 'Go to the village' (direction); 'Go, you are permitted' (permission); 'Make the mat; your time has come for making the mat' (opportune time); 'Indeed you could slay the enemy, sir; indeed your honor could carry the burden' (ability); 'How indeed could your honor sacrifice for a śūdra?' (censure). Likewise, others are to be understood, such as: nature, duty, doing well, cause, complaisance, capacity, age, speech, distress, absence of effort, artisan, characteristic, and gender. For example: 'one who is in the habit of speaking on account of public censure'; 'the Śrāviṣṭhāyanas are prone to shave [their heads]'; 'one inclined to adorn a maiden married as a bride'; 'knowledge bringing fame'; 'an obedient wife'; 'an elephant-slaying soldier'; 'an armor-stripping young kṣatriya'; 'one capable of holding the Upaniṣad'; 'a son who takes his share'; 'a dancing courtesan'; 'a mole that kills the wife'; 'the speech of Vyāsa'; 'the statement of Pāṇini'; 'the composition of Kālidāsa'. 5.10. The qualifying condition of [the particle] cvi and the like. It too is of manifold variety through distinctions such as name, universal, brilliance, measure, gambling, absence of fault, colloquial language, Vedic meter, Vedic mantra, Brāhmaṇa passage, benediction, and exclamation.
5.p1.15
For example: ṭac and ḍac in a name, as in 'Bhadrabhūti' and 'Devadatta'; 'hastāḥ puroḍāḥ'. The accusative [is used] in a Brāhmaṇa: 'grāsyas tadahaḥ sahāyān dīvyeyuḥ' ('they should play dice with companions on that day for a mouthful of food'); 'he gambles for a first-calf heifer'; the affix vun in a benediction: 'may he live! — a living one'; 'may he rejoice! — a rejoicing one'. The particle māṅ in reviling, and the affix anyan after the negative particle nañ in reviling: 'May he not live, who lives even while scorched by the misery of others' contempt! May there be non-birth for him who causes affliction to his mother!' 5.11. In the same way, others are also to be understood, such as envy, approval, anger, censure, intimidation, distress, type, difficulty, alternation, desert, and emergence. Among these, envy is as in: 'Little boy, little boy, handsome one, handsome one, your handsomeness is empty!' Approval is as in: 'Little boy, little boy, handsome one, handsome one, you are splendid indeed!' Anger is as in: 'Boy, boy, undisciplined one, undisciplined one, now you will understand, wretched fellow!' Censure is as in: 'Little spear, little spear, little staff, little staff, your capacity is empty!' Intimidation is as in: 'Thief, thief, outcaste, outcaste, I will strike you down!' Distress is as in: 'Departed, departed! Lost, lost! Dear one, dear one!' — someone afflicted by departure and the like employs a single word [repeatedly]. Type is as in: 'somewhat clever', 'somewhat frightened' — this occurs when a lesser quality is compared with a fully realized quality. Non-difficulty is as in: 'he gives with ease and difficulty' or 'he gives with pleasure and displeasure' — the meaning is, he gives without being troubled. Alternation and the rest are as in: 'it is your turn to sleep'; 'you deserve the eating of sugarcane'; 'you owe me the eating of sugarcane'; 'the eating of sugarcane arose'. And this entire elaboration of qualifying conditions is described as threefold alone: a qualifying condition residing in a substance, a qualifying condition residing in an attribute, and a miscellaneous qualifying condition. Among these: in the sense of vrīhi ('rice') and vatsa ('calf'), after kṛ, the affix in [occurs] with stamba and śakṛt; with stamba and karṇa, after jap, [the affix ac occurs] in the sense of an elephant and a slanderer, and so forth. A qualifying condition residing in a substance is as in: / 'In the field rice forms clumps, and in the house a calf makes dung; / in a kingdom a person whispers in ears, and in the forest an elephant wanders intoxicated.'
5.p1.16
“[The affix ap occurs] after sar- in the sense of breeding,” “sam- and ud- [followed by aj- take ap] with reference to cattle.” / An attribute conditioning [affixation] is as in: / “A gathering (samaja) of cows with cattle, a driver (udaja) of oxen with oxen; / that indeed is my prized cow (gomatallikā), at whose opportune moment this occurs.” / “[The second case-ending occurs optionally] with the object of manya- in disdain, [optionally] with respect to living beings,” “and the sixth [case-ending occurs] in excessive disregard marking a state.” / A miscellaneous condition is as in: / “Hara does not consider you even worth a blade of grass; / while the guardians of the directions look on, he consumes the oblation in the sacrifice.” / 5.12. The meaning of an affix denoted by tiṅ, kṛt, or taddhit is primary. It is threefold: own-meaning, a relational entity, and a syntactic role. Among these, own-meaning is just the meaning of the morphological base. It is threefold: the meaning of the verbal root, the meaning of the nominal stem, and the rest. There, the meaning of the verbal root is threefold: state, action, and syntactic role. Among these, state is twofold: substantiated and unsubstantiated. Of these two, the substantiated is joined with grammatical gender and number, as in: / “Non-speaking was speech, not looking right nearby was a look itself; / and that covering of the limbs by the cloth's touch was surrender of the body.” / The unsubstantiated is devoid of grammatical gender and number, as in: / “Have you, being properly educated, been permitted to go home by the pleased great sage? / For this is your time to enter the second stage of life, which is capable of conferring all benefits.” / Action is twofold: pure and mixed. Of these two, the pure is unconnected with syntactic roles, as in: / “When her beloved bit her lower lip, which rivaled a fresh sprout, / the maiden's hand, its brilliant bracelet shaking, murmured around as if in pain.” / The mixed has an accomplished-to-be form having attained agency, as in: / “O slender one! When this pair of breasts holds comparison with the frontal globes of a young elephant, whose mind does not hurt among young women? / Or when the pair of thighs, shining like molten gold, draws forth heat, which youth does it not inflame here?” / A syntactic role is twofold: having a restricted verbal root as its domain, and having an unrestricted verbal root as its domain.
5.p1.17
Of these two, having a restricted verbal root as its domain is as in: / “Her tearful eyes resembling lotuses shaken by drops of dew, afraid of ruining the auspicious moment, / though her emotion was not concealed, she could not bear to shut her eyes when looking.” / Having an unrestricted verbal root as its domain is as in: / “When I turned towards her, her glance was withdrawn; her laughter arose on some other pretext; / with her conduct checked by modesty, love was neither displayed by her nor concealed.” / 5.12. The meaning of the nominal stem is threefold: manifest, unmanifest, and ambiguous. Among these, the manifest is identical whether the affix arises or does not arise. It is twofold: having the same gender and having a different gender. Of these two, having the same gender is as in: “the mind itself is mānasam, a relative itself is bāndhavaḥ, barley itself is yāvakaḥ.” Having a different gender is as in: “the means itself is aupāyikam, a god itself is devatāḥ, a deity itself is daivatam.” The unmanifest is twofold: one where the innate nature is discarded, and one where the innate nature is not discarded. There, one where the innate nature is discarded is as in: “[The suffixes] śālac and śaṅkaṭac [occur] after vi-,” “and kaṭac [occurs] after sam, pra, and ud,” “tyakan [occurs] after upa and adhi in the sense of nearby and ascended.” As in, viśālam, viśaṅkaṭam, prakaṭam, vikaṭam, upatyakā, adhityakā. Here, the intrinsic nature of non-number and so on is discarded by the prefixes. One where the innate nature is not discarded is as in: “[The suffix tarap occurs] after vatsa, ukṣan, aśva, and ṛṣabha in the sense of smallness,” “ṣṭarac after kāsu and goṇī,” “āmu after kim, etad, tiṅ-formations, indeclinables, and gha in the excess of non-substance,” “nānāñ after vi and nañ not together.” As in, vatsataraḥ, ukṣataraḥ, nitarām, atīvatarām, vinā, nānā. The ambiguous is that whose occurrence is in a metaphorical meaning. It is twofold: having grammatical number and lacking grammatical number. Of these two, the meaning ending in tiṅ is as in: pacatitarām, pacatakī. The meaning ending in sup is as in: tvayakā, uccakaiḥ. The meaning of an affix is twofold: the meaning of a kṛt-affix and the meaning of a taddhita-affix. Of these two, the meaning of a kṛt-affix is as in: nyāvakrośī, sāṃrāviṇam. The meaning of a taddhita-affix is as in: ābhijityaḥ, kauḍhrajāyanyaḥ. The meaning of a compound is twofold: that which causes the compounded form, and that which has the compound as its cause. There, depending upon which a compound exists for the sake of a taddhita-meaning,
5.p1.18
that which causes the compounded form is as in: dvaimāturaḥ, pañcakapālaḥ. But that for which the compound itself is the cause, as in a compound-final suffix, is that which has the compound as its cause, as in: devarājaḥ, pratyurasam. A relational entity is threefold: action, substance, and quality. Among these, action is threefold: related to action, related to syntactic roles, and related to both. Among these, that related to action is twofold: having a distinct form and having a non-distinct form. Of these two, having a distinct form is as in: “he desires to do” = cikīrṣati; “he desires to despise” = jugupsiṣate. Having a non-distinct form is as in: “he cooks excessively” = pāpacyate; “he recites repeatedly” = pāpaṭhyate. That related to a syntactic role is also twofold: with expectancy and without expectancy. With expectancy is as in: “he treats a blanket like a cloth” = paṭīyati kambalam; “he treats a hut like a mansion” = prāsādīyati kuṭīm. Without expectancy is as in: “he desires a son” = putrīyati; “he raises his tail” = utpucchayate. That related to both is twofold: related to action and syntactic role, and related to syntactic role and action. Of these two, the first is as in: “Devadatta engages the one who cooks” = pācayati Devadattaḥ; “a fire of cow-dung engages the one who studies” = adhyāpayati kārīṣo'gniḥ. The second is as in: “he narrates the slaying of Kaṃsa” = kaṃsaṃ ghātayati; “he narrates staying away all night” = rātriṃ vivāsayati. Substance also is threefold: qualificand, qualifier, and intervenient. Among these, the qualificand is twofold: dependent and independent. Dependent is as in: “this is yours” = yauṣmāko gauḥ; “beneficial to calves” = vatsīyo godhuk. Independent is as in: “offspring of Vasiṣṭha” = vāsiṣṭhaḥ; “lord of the earth” = pārthivaḥ. The qualifier is twofold: abiding in the possessor of the attribute and abiding in the attribute. Abiding in the possessor of the attribute is as in: “cows belong to him” = gomān; “a mansion should be his” = prāsādīyaṃ dāru. Abiding in the attribute is as in: “he who has the view that [the other world] exists” = āstikaḥ; “he who has the view that it does not exist” = nāstikaḥ. The intervenient is twofold: having the form of a qualificand and having the form of a qualifier.
5.p1.19
An adjectival form is as in: 'consisting of two parts of buttermilk to barley, two parts barley and buttermilk'. An adjectival form is as in: 'a boy whose fifth month from birth it is: the fifth'; 'a pupil whose sixth study of the book of forms it is: the sixth'. A quality also is threefold: inherent, an occasion for application, and a qualifying condition. Among these, the inherent is twofold: identical in form and different in form. Of these two, identical in form is as in: 'a collection of alms is bhekṣa'; 'the enmity of crows and owls is kākolūkikā'. Different in form is as in: 'the duty of sacrificial priests is the priestly office'; 'the ripening of pīlu fruit is pīlukaṇa'. An occasion for application is twofold: colouring and non-colouring. There, colouring is a universal and the like, as in: 'the state of a brāhmaṇa is brāhmaṇya'; 'the state of being upright is uprightness'. Non-colouring is a relation and the like, as in: 'the state of having a staff is having-a-staff'; 'the state of a cook is being-a-cook'. A qualifying condition is a modifier of the meaning of the base and the affix. It is twofold: separate and combined. Separate in the meaning of the base is as in: 'Śiva is his deity, hence śaiva'; 'salt is his merchandise, hence sāvaṇika'. In the meaning of an affix it is as in: 'he boasts through the girl of the Garga lineage'; 'he insults through the girl of the Kaṭha lineage'. Here, the deity, merchandise, boasting, and insulting are qualifying conditions. Combined is as in: 'dāṇḍā: a game in which staves are weapons'. Here, the affix is prescribed after the word daṇḍa ('staff') in the locative sense of 'that is in this', conveying that 'being a weapon' resides in the staves, and that 'being the locative locus' is 'being a game'. Likewise: 'fresh butter that is the modification of yesterday's milking is haiyaṅgavīna'. Here, after the word hyogo, the affix is prescribed in the sense of modification, conveying milking as the qualifying condition of the base-meaning and name as the qualifying condition of the affix-meaning. 5.13. A syntactic role is threefold: with action, with divided action, and with undivided action. Among these, that with action is threefold: in the form of an agent, in the form of an object, and interwoven. That in the form of an agent is twofold: residing in a specific action and residing in a specific syntactic role.
5.p1.20
Between the two, that which resides in a modification of an action is as follows: 'he inquires whether one has bathed well' gives *sausnātikaḥ* [one who inquires about bathing]; likewise *saukhaśāyanikaḥ* [one who inquires about pleasant sleep]; 'he speaks much' gives *prābhūtikaḥ*; likewise *māśabdikaḥ* [one who utters the sound 'mā']; 'he acts perversely' gives *prātīpikaḥ*; 'he behaves unfavorably' gives *prātikūlikaḥ*. That which resides in a modification of a syntactic role is as follows: 'he knows or studies grammar' gives *vaiyākaraṇaḥ* [grammarian]; 'she gives birth every year' gives *samāṃsamīnā*; 'he gambles with dice' gives *ākṣikaḥ* [gambler]; 'it causes distress' gives *sāntāpikaḥ*; 'come from the father' gives *pitryam*; 'lying in the same womb' gives *sodaryaḥ* [brother of the whole blood]. That which consists of a direct object is twofold: residing in an object of the same category and residing in an object of a different category. Residing in an object of the same category is as follows: 'a game piece to be moved on a path' gives *āyānayīnaḥ śāraḥ*; 'a servant hired for a month' gives *māsiko bhṛtyaḥ*; 'a teacher engaged for a year' gives *vārṣika upādhyāyaḥ*; 'a text studied for a fortnight' gives *pākṣiko nibandhaḥ*; 'a slave purchased for six months' gives *ṣāṇmāsiko dāsaḥ*; 'a practice performed for a year' gives *saṃvatsariko 'bhyāsaḥ*. Residing in an object of a different category is as follows: 'a chant seen by Vāmadeva' gives *vāmadevyaṃ sāma*; 'cloth dyed with lac' gives *lākṣikaṃ vastram*; 'an oblation to be given to a deity' gives *daivyaṃ haviḥ*; 'cloth freshly removed from the loom' gives *tantrakaḥ paṭaḥ*; 'a man assigned to the door' gives *dauvārikaḥ pumān*; 'a demon seen on the fourteenth day' gives *cāturdaśyaṃ rakṣaḥ*. The continuous connection is the attachment of another meaning. It is twofold: continuously connected with an action, and continuously connected with a syntactic role. Of those two, that continuously connected with an action is as follows: 'a text composed concerning the search for Sītā' gives *sītānveṣaṇīyaḥ*; likewise *kirātārjunīyaḥ*, *vākyapadīyaḥ*; 'the full moon in Pauṣa occurs in this month' gives *pauṣaḥ*; likewise *āgrahāyaṇikaḥ*, *aśvatthikaḥ*. That continuously connected with a syntactic role is as follows: 'students who know or study the Veda declared by Tittiri' gives *taittirīyāḥ*; likewise *vāratantavīyāḥ*, *aingalevinaḥ*, *aitareyinaḥ*; similarly, *pārāśariṇaḥ* mendicants, *śailālinaḥ* actors. 5.14. That whose action is differentiated is threefold: having an implied action, having an expected action, and having an inferred action. Of these, that having an implied action is twofold: residing in an agent and residing in an object.
First 20 of 48 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- Śṛṅgāraprakāśa — Bhoja, Sanskrit