Verse 2.83

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 2.83:

शक्तिव्यापारभेदोऽस्मिन् फलमत्र तु भिद्यते ।
संबन्धाज्जातभेदोऽयं भेदस्तत्राविवक्षितः ॥ ८३ ॥

śaktivyāpārabhedo'smin phalamatra tu bhidyate |
saṃbandhājjātabhedo'yaṃ bhedastatrāvivakṣitaḥ || 83 ||

83. That here there is difference of power as well as of function, while there, there is a difference in the result, that here the distinction has arisen out of the (particular) relation while there the difference is insignificant.

Commentary

[Bheda or difference among actions is dealt with in adhyāya II of the Mī.Sū. As in the other cases, difference can be illustrated also by examples taken from the world and the vyākaraṇa-śāstra. Lightning can be described as follows: valāhakād vidyotate=‘it flashes from the cloud’, valāhake vidyotate=‘there is a flash in the cloud’ valāhako vidyotate=‘the cloud flashes’. In these three sentences, the cloud is described as the starting point (apādāna), the abode (adhikaraṇa) and the agent (kartā) of the act of flashing. There is difference in power and, according to that, grammar prescribes different endings. This is the difference in function. Sometimes, there is only difference in power. For example, in dhanuṣā vidhyati=‘he hits with the bow’. Here there is only one case ending, the third one but there are two powers. The bow is thought of as an instrument of the act of hitting but it cannot be so unless it is the starting-point for the departure of the arrow. The bow is both apādāna and karaṇa, two distinct powers, but the former is not expressed. The making of a gift with a view to attain long life, health and prosperity is an instance of difference in result. When different suffixes expressing different agents are connected with the same root, the action expressed by this root also appears to be different. For example, pacati, pacanti. In the sentence paktvaudanaṃ bhuṅkte=‘he cooks the rice and then eats it’, there really ought to be a difference in the actions performed by the agent and the object, but this difference is not emphasised. Hence, there is only one agent for both actions.]

In addition to the foregoing arguments, the Mīmāṃsaka wants to put forward some others based chiefly on vyākaraṇa, in order to prove the existence of the individual word.