Praudhamanorama 60_370

60_370

If it be argued: let it be simply that the object (karman) is that which possesses the result conveyed by the verbal root; what is the use of mentioning separately that which is desired and that which is not desired? It is not so. In "he turns the boy away from the fire" (agner māṇavakaṃ vārayati), the status of ablative locus (apādāna) would accrue to the boy by the rule "Of [verbs having the sense of] turning away..."; to bar that, [the rule] "what the agent most desires to reach" must definitely be stated. And since "likewise connected..." is also necessary in this manner to include what is hated and what is indifferent. The mention of "undesired" (anīpsita), however, is merely for clarity, not strictly necessary.
This, however, should be noted: the verbal cognition of the desired and the undesired has only a single form, because desires, lack of desire, and so forth, although useful in the application of the technical name like adhi-śīṅ etc., do not enter into the scope of what is denoted by the second case ending, since only that which cannot be obtained from anywhere else is the word-meaning. For in the rule "The second case ending [occurs] in [the sense of] karman", all those to whom the technical name karman has been assigned by their respective rules present themselves under that form; and the second case ending prescribed after them denotes the substratum (ādhāra), for the sake of simplicity—since the action is obtained from the verbal root and the agent from words like Devadatta, whereas being most desired and the like do not appear [in the cognition]. And the relation between the meaning of the base and the meaning of the affix is here one of non-difference. And thus, the sentence-meaning is an activity conducive to pleasure whose substratum is Hari. Although it is the same that the second and other case endings prescribed in the sense of object, agent, and locus denote a substratum, nevertheless, distinction is appropriate in the resulting verbal cognition in that its determiner is the result, the activity, or both through their own substratum. Nor should it be thought that merely 'substratum-ness' (ādhāratā) is the denotation, because the property residing in it would then incur the status of the delimiter of denotation, which entails extreme heaviness, and because it would lead to abandoning the natural sense of rules such as "The second case ending in [the sense of] karman". For this very reason the Bhāṣyakāra said: