Shringaraprakasha 5.p2.17

5.p2.17

Likewise, in 'the branch of the tree' (*vṛkṣasya śākhā*), the relation of dwelling, grounded in container and contained, binds the residual relation characterized as part and whole in a locative syntactic role requiring a specific agent; so that [action] alone is understood. As for having an unfixed action as its scope: for example, in 'the king's man' (*rājñaḥ puruṣaḥ*), numerous unfixed actions such as master-servant coordination, decorating, purchasing, and defeating establish the relation of owner and property designated as residual. And that [relation], being preceded by numerous unfixed actions, is insufficient to infer a specific action, and so it leads only to the generic action that serves as its cause. In such a domain, governing particles are used to manifest a specification of the action. For example: in 'it rained after the recitation of Śākalya' (*śākalyasya saṃhitām anu prāvarṣat*), that the causal relation between recitation and raining is governed and preceded by action is manifested by *anu*. Since it cannot be assumed from the inflectional case-ending of a verbal form, the manifestation of a specification of the action is also dependent on the proximity of a verbal form, and is not fitting in the absence of a verbal form. Nor is the relation the denoted meaning of this [particle], because that depends on the case-ending. And if the governing particle were to denote it, no distinction would arise for the meaning of the nominal stem, as in 'the king's master' (*rājasvāmī*). And in worldly usage, when a governing particle is combined, a specification of the cause of the relation is recognized. Therefore, it is determined to be the motivator of that [usage]. Thus it is said: / This is not an illuminator of the action, / nor is it a denoter of the relation; / nor does it imply a verbal form, / but rather it differentiates the relation. // Objection: Surely, when the action of hearing is not apprehended, a specification of the relation cannot be made by it. Therefore, that *anu* specifies the relation without making the action known is untenable. If its manifestation of the action is not assumed because it is not observed elsewhere, then let the specification of the relation also not be assumed, precisely because it is not observed elsewhere. It is replied: