Necklace of Sarasvatī 3.126.1

3.126.1

iha pañcaiva lakṣaṇe vibhaktayo vihitāḥ . tadyathā . ‘anurlakṣaṇe 1.4.84’, ‘lakṣaṇetthaṃbhūta 1.4.90’ ityādinā karmasaṃjñāṃ vidhāya ‘karmapravacanīyayukte 2.3.8’ iti dvitīyā . ‘yenāṅgavikāraḥ 2.3.20’, ‘itthaṃbhūtalakṣaṇe 2.3.21’ ityetābhyāṃ tṛtīyā . ‘utpātena jñāpite ca 1.4.44 vā.’ iti caturthī . ‘yasya ca bhāvena bhāvalakṣaṇam 2.3.37’ iti saptamī . ‘ṣaṣṭhī cānādare 2.3.38’ iti ṣaṣṭhī . tadetadāha—dvitīyā ceti . ṣaṣṭhīmagre vakṣyati . ‘ṣaṣṭhī cānādare 2.3.38’ iti sūtre cakārasya samucceyatayā na pradhānā seti nātra tulyakakṣatayā gaṇitā . kriyānāviṣṭaṃ svavyāpāraśūnyaṃ taṭasthameva yavdyāpriyate, tena kārakādbhedaḥ . atra hi kriyānāviṣṭasyaiva indumatyāmitīndumatīmālambanavibhāvīkṛtya (vidhīya)mānāḥ śṛṅgāraceṣṭāstayaivāvacchidyante, tadavasthā eva ca lakṣyante, tato bhavati hetutvaṃ lakṣaṇatvamavadhitvaṃ ceti . nanu kathamatra dvitīyā, yāvatā hetutvāttṛtīyayā bhavitavyamityata āha—dvitīyāmiti . nāprāptāyāṃ tṛtīyāyāmiyaṃ vidhīyamānā balavatī tāṃ bādhata ityarthaḥ ..

In this treatise, only five case-endings are prescribed in the sense of an indicator. Specifically: by enjoining the designation "object" by [the sūtras] "anu in the sense of an indicator" (1.4.84), "in the sense of an indicator or a attained state" (1.4.90), and so on, the second case-ending follows by "when joined with an adpositional word" (2.3.8). The third case-ending follows by these two: "by which a modification of a limb [is denoted]" (2.3.20) and "in the sense of an indicator of an attained state" (2.3.21). The fourth follows by the vārttika "and when made known by a portent" (1.4.44 vā.). The seventh follows by "and when the action of another is indicated by an action" (2.3.37). The sixth follows by "and the sixth in case of disregard" (2.3.38). This is what he states: "The second and...". He will explain the sixth later. Because the word ca in the sūtra "and the sixth in case of disregard" signifies aggregation, it is not primary; hence it is not counted here as having equal status. That which does not enter into the action is devoid of its own operation and remains merely neutral if it functions; thereby it is distinguished from a kāraka. For here, with regard to what does not enter into the action, the erotic movements performed taking Indumatī as the substantial determinant are demarcated by her alone, and are perceived precisely in that condition; hence arise causality, indicativeness, and limit-ness. If it is asked: how can there be a second case-ending here, when by virtue of causality there should be a third? In response he says: "the second case-ending." The meaning is that this rule, being prescribed where the third case-ending would otherwise occur, is stronger and bars it.