Shringaraprakasha 5.p1.3

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.