Shringaraprakasha 8.p1.12

8.p1.12

Where the semantic capacity is on one side and the inflectional ending on the other, that too consists of semantic and inflectional capacities, as in: / 'Seeing Rādhā's son [Karṇa], whose courage was destroyed by agitated fury, who had propitiated Paraśurāma, / partiality would arise forcibly even in Death toward fears not previously known.' / Here, if the action of seeing precedes the action of arising, then because the agents are different, the suffix -ktvā is not permissible. / And the denotative operation is obstructed: the agent expressed by the genitive is connected only with the action of partiality, not with the action of seeing; / for the genitive under the rule 'of the agent and the object in the presence of a kṛt affix' is barred by the prohibition 'not with l-substitutes, indeclinables, past participles, or the suffixes in the sense of khal or tṛn'. / And this is made consistent through modification of the case ending, contextual ellipsis, inversion, sentence-division, intervening construction, and metaphorical attribution. / In that regard, 'having seen Rādhā's son, even Death becomes partial regarding fears' is modification of the case ending; / 'having seen Rādhā's son, partiality would arise even in Death who considers his own power' is sentence-division; / 'having seen Rādhā's son he kills: thus even in Death partiality would arise' is an intervening construction, because an intervening action required at the time of understanding is resorted to even at the time of usage; / taking 'nirīkṣya' in the sense of 'as if having seen' is metaphorical attribution, by superimposing the quality of a sentient being onto the non-sentient 'partiality'. / As it is said: when the primary meaning is absent, and there is a purpose and a basis, secondary application operates; / and the secondary attribution of the action of a conscious being onto an unconscious thing like love is seen, as in: / 'Love sees fears even where there is no occasion; / circumstance expands things and contracts them.' / Now, is there syntactic connection of expressed word-meanings, or is there denotation of connected [meanings]? / It is answered: here there is a difference of opinion. Some explain that there is denotation of connected meanings and syntactic connection of expressed meanings.