Verse 3.1.50

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.1.50:

लक्षणा शब्दसंस्कारे व्यापारः कार्यसिद्धये ।
सङ्ख्याकर्मादिशक्तीनां श्रुतिसाम्येऽपि दृश्यते ॥ ५० ॥

lakṣaṇā śabdasaṃskāre vyāpāraḥ kāryasiddhaye |
saṅkhyākarmādiśaktīnāṃ śrutisāmye'pi dṛśyate || 50 ||

50. Even when the powers of number, the accusative case and the like have the same verbal element to express them, it is seen that there is secondary usage (lakṣaṇā) when they (are not actually meant but merely exist to) give a certain completeness to the word or that they help in the accomplishment of the action (which is the real meaning of the sentence).

Commentary

The author now points out that, sometimes, the meaning of the suffix is not meant to be coordinated with that of the stem.

[Read verse 50 above]

[Thus, speaking generally, one can say that the word conveys the meaning of the stem as qualified by that of the suffix. That is how the meanings of the two elements of a word, both universals, are co-ordinated. Sometimes, things happen differently. That is, though the suffix is used in order to lend a certain completeness and correctness to the word, its meaning does not play any part. In the sentence graham sammārṣṭi, the second case-affix expresses the singular number, but it is not to be taken seriously, because more than one vessel (graha) is wiped. Similarly, in the sentence saktūn juhoti, the accusative case expressed by the second case-affix in saktūn is not to be taken seriously. All that the sentence means is: the sacrifice is to be performed with ground grain (saktu). The act of performing a sacrifice is meant to serve an invisible purpose and, therefore, that is the important thing. The homa is not performed in order to reduce the flour to ashes. It is performed in order to attain an invisible fruit, with, of course, ground gram as the material. Somebody at this stage might argue as follows. If this is the case, it is wrong to say that the accusative case in ‘saktūn’ is not significant. One can speak of something which actually exists as not seriously meant. For example, in graham sammārṣṭi, the second case-affix does convey the singular number which, therefore, really exists, but is not significant. But nobody says that the accusative case is not significant in Kāṣṭhāni pacanti = the fuel cooks, because it does not exist at all. There, the nominative case is used instead of the usual instrumental case which, therefore, can be said to be not meant. But this line of argument is not right. Because, if, in the sentence saktūn pacati, saktu is not the grammatical object (karma), that is, if it is not what the agent wishes to reach most, the invisible purpose itself cannot be attained. What one means by saying that the accusative case is not significant is that the sacrifice is not performed for the sake of ground grain. It is the latter which is made use of in order to attain some other purpose.

Sometimes number and the accusative case serve the purpose of accomplishing the action which is the meaning of the sentence and that is done by specifying in some way the things which are the accessories of the action. For example, in the sentence, paśimā yajeta = one should perform the sacrifice by means of an animal, the singular number in paśunā is significant, because the sacrifice can be fully accomplished even with one animal. Similarly, in Vrīhīn avahanti = he threshes the paddy grains, the accusative case expressed by the second case-affix is significant, because vrīhi is what the agent wishes most to reach, because if is to be cleaned by means of threshing. Threshing is never for its own sake, but for the sake of the paddy-grains. When threshed, they become fit to make the sacrificial cake (purodāśa). Thus, they become accessories to the sacrifice. The grains are more important than the act of threshing. They, when threshed, are of further use Saktu, on the other hand, after it is thrown into the fire, is not of further use, because it exists no more. When it is said that threshing is less imporant than the grains, it is from the point of view of reality. As far as the language is concerned, it is threshing which is enjoined in the sentence vrīhīn avahanti.]

The author now points out the scope of secondary power (lakṣaṇā) in the formation of words.