365bet娱乐

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.8.1:

啶�啶距さ啶む�� 啶膏た啶︵�嵿ぇ啶�啶膏た啶︵�嵿ぇ啶� 啶掂ぞ 啶膏ぞ啶о�嵿く啶む�嵿さ啷囙え啶距き啶苦ぇ啷�啶�啶む�� 啷�
啶嗋ざ啷嵿ぐ啶苦い啶曕�嵿ぐ啶�啶班�傕お啶む�嵿さ啶距い啷� 啶むい啷� 啶曕�嵿ぐ啶苦く啷囙い啷嵿く啶�啶苦ぇ啷�啶�啶む�� 啷� 啷� 啷�

y膩vat siddhamasiddha峁� v膩 蝉腻诲丑测补tven膩bhidh墨yate |
膩艣ritakramar奴patv膩t tat kriyetyabhidh墨yate || 1 ||

1. Whenever something, finished or unfinished, is presented as something to be accomplished, it is called 鈥榓ction鈥�, because of its having assumed the form of sequence.

Commentary

The means or accessory (蝉腻诲丑补苍补) has been explained. As it depends upon the end or what is to be accomplished (蝉腻诲丑测补), the definition of action accepted in the 艣腻蝉迟谤补, is now being given.

[Read verse 1 above]

[In connection with the ancient鈥檚 definition of a root as that which denotes action, the objection is raised that in that case 鈥樷垰as鈥�, 鈭�产丑奴 and 鈭�vid should be especially declared to be roots because they do not denote action (M. Bh膩, I. p. 255, 1.1). We know that 鈭�pac denotes action because in reply to the question: 鈥榳hat is he doing?鈥� we can say 鈥榟e is cooking鈥� (pacati). We cannot give bhavati as an answer to the same question. Thus as, 产丑奴 and vid would not be expressive of action and they would not be called roots. Moreover all action is known to consist of movements but the meanings of as, 产丑奴, and vid do not consist of movements. Therefore such a definition of action has to be found as will fit in with the meaning of all roots. That is just what the 叠丑腻峁�y补办腻谤补 has done in his statement : 办腻谤补办腻峁嚹佱箖 辫谤补惫峁泃迟颈惫颈艣别峁�a岣� 办谤颈测腻 (M. Bh膩, I.p. 258, L. 11) = 鈥楢ction is the special mode of behaviour of the accessories.鈥� This has been interpreted differently by different scholars. Either all the accessories have the same activity or each has its own. Even if all the accessories have the same activity, it may be identical with the fruit or it may be different from it. All the accessories cannot have the same activity. That of the instrument (办补谤补峁嘺), for instance, cannot be identical with that of the agent (办补谤迟腻), nor that of the abode (adhi办补谤补峁嘺) with that of the recipient (蝉补尘辫谤补诲腻苍补). There is no action resting upon many things. Therefore, action is an activity differing with each accessory. To say that the root is what denotes action is to say that the root expresses the activity of every accessory.

Objection:鈥� The result would be that the verbal suffix (濒补办腻谤补) would express each and every accessory. It is only natural that the suffix which is added to the root should denote the accessory of the activity for which the root stands and it has been stated that the root stands for the activity of all the accessories.

Answer:鈥擳his is not really the case. 笔腻峁噄苍颈 teaches that the verbal suffixes arc added in the sense of the agent and the object only. (P. 3.4.69) Therefore a word ending in a verbal suffix should denote only the activities of these two accessories. Secondly, as a matter of fact, we understand only the activities of the agent and the object from the verbal suffixes and it is only natural that 笔腻峁噄苍颈鈥檚 teaching should follow facts. It is true that according to this, a root would not stand for the activities of any accessory. Agreement (anvaya) and difference (vyatireka) are the only two methods which we have for determining what the meaning of the base and what the meaning of the suffix is and these two methods lead us to think that the root does not stand for the activities of all the accessories. Though in a sentence like: Devadatta岣� k膩峁ａ弓hai岣� sth膩ly膩m odanam pacati, the root docs seem to stand for the activities of all the accessories, primarily it stands for those of the agent and the object. Hence they are understood from the verbal suffixes (la) at the end of a verb.

Others believe that the statement 办腻谤补办腻峁嚹佱箖 辫谤补惫峁泃迟颈惫颈艣别峁�a岣� 办谤颈测腻 is meant to explain the nature of action and not to explain the meaning of a root. They argue as follows鈥擳he root cannot express the activity of the recipient etc. but it does express that of the instrument etc. That is why an instrument can be presented as independent (svatantra), as the agent, as in the sentence : asi艣 chinatti but not the recipient (蝉补尘辫谤补诲腻苍补) or the starting point (补辫腻诲腻苍补). The activities of all the accessories are action but of these only some are expressed by the root and the verbal suffixes are added to the root in order to denote those accessories the activities of which are expressed by the root.

Others, while explaining this definition of action, put all the emphasis on the word 惫颈艣别峁�a. They say that 辫谤补惫峁泃迟颈惫颈艣别峁�a岣� means 辫谤补惫峁泃迟墨苍腻峁� 惫颈艣别峁�a岣�. They mean that action is a 惫颈艣别峁�a, a peculiarity or rather a distinct result of the activities of the accessories. The softness of the rice, after cooking, is the result achieved by the activities of all the accessories. Thus, to them action is the result.

For others still, by 办腻谤补办腻峁嚹佱箖 only the 办补谤迟腻 is meant. The plural number is used keeping in mind the different agents of the different possible actions. There is a M. Bh膩. sentence which may be taken as a proof that only the 办补谤迟腻 is meant. It is this: 础苍测补迟丑腻 艣u峁�kaudane 办腻谤补办腻峁噄 pravartante anyath膩 m膩峁僺audane (M. Bh膩. I. p. 258, 1.11) = 鈥淎gents act in one way when there is only plain rice before them and act quite differently towards rice with meat鈥�. Here there is talk of the agents acting with excitement in the presence of rice with meat and with indifference towards plain rice. Only a sentient being like the agent is capable of excitement or indifference. So 办腻谤补办腻峁噄 here means the agents. The karma, object may also be meant. In one passage, the M. Bh膩 says that viklitti = 鈥榖ecoming soft鈥�, is the chief meaning of the root 鈭�pac. This cannot be the activity of the agent. His activity is vikledanam = 鈥榤aking something soft鈥� and not becoming soft. The conclusion seems to be that in this passage it is not the meaning of words which is explained but what is called action. Considered apart from words, viklitti = 鈥榖ecoming soft鈥� may be the real nature of the action called cooking but the root 鈭�pac denotes primarily the activity of the agent, that is, vikledana = making something soft. The activity of the object can be expressed by the root when the suffix is added to it in the sense of the object.

Others still explain the whole thing differently. For them, 办谤颈测腻 is just activity in general and not any particular activity. Thus it would be found in every accessory. The bringing about of the ultimate result is the common thing found in the activity of every accessory. It is this common thing which is called 辫谤补惫峁泃迟颈惫颈艣别峁�a岣�. The 惫颈艣别峁�a consists in bringing about the ultimate result. This is their common feature. Each does it in its own way and hence gets a special name. If action had been defined as just 辫谤补惫峁泃迟颈, it would have meant mpvement because that is the accepted meaning of the word in the world. By adding the word 惫颈艣别峁�a, it now stands for something other than just movement. All 辫谤补惫峁泃迟颈 differs from other 辫谤补惫峁泃迟颈s and that constitutes its distinctiveness (惫颈艣别峁�a). Thus, in the behaviour of every 办腻谤补办补. there can be a distinctiveness. This can be from things of the same kind or from totally different things. When the M. Bh膩. speaks about difference in the reaction to plain rice and to rice with meat, it has distinction from things of the same class in mind. The action of eating differs from person to person. Agents act indifferently towards plain rice but enthusiastically towards rice with meat. If acting enthusiastically alone makes something fit to be called action, then eating plain rice could not be called action at all. The lack of enthusiasm in eating plain rice is also a peculiar behaviour and so that is also 办谤颈测腻. Distinction from things belonging to another class is quite clear in such examples as pacati, pa峁環ati and so on.

It is clear from all this that 办谤颈测腻 is different from dravya. All the accessories which are dravyas may be present and yet there may be no action. Sometimes, however, the idea of action arises in our mind when the accessories are present. The fact that the idea of action sometimes arises and sometimes not shows that action is something different from the accessories. Somebody might object that even when it does arise, it might be an error. Therefore, some other proof must be given to show that action is different from the accessories. We find that Devadatta is now here and later in 笔腻峁璦濒颈辫耻迟谤补. Something is responsible for it. That is action. Reaching 笔腻峁璦濒颈辫耻迟谤补 is the result and it can鈥檛 come from substance only. It leads us to postulate the existence of some activity which produces this result. 1 hat is action and that is inferable only. It cannot be directly perceived. Some people object to this view that action is something to be inferred. We get the notion that somebody is cooking. From this can we infer the action called cooking? This notion itself may be an error and we can infernothing from an error. If it is not an error then we are perceiving action directly. It is not a case of inference. One might infer action from its effect, but how can the word express it? The answer to this objection is that in Grammar, we are not dealing with things as they are but as presented by words. The thing which is fixed as the meaning of the root by the method of agreement and difference cannot be directly perceived. That notion having sequence within it and which is understood from a verb is called action. That which is presented by the word as a process is called action and that which is a finished thing is a substance. Even things that are in the process of formation can be presented by words as finished things. In the sentence 驳丑补峁璦岣� kriyate, the jar is presented as a thing in the process of formation. The jar. before it is produced, goes through many stages, but this process is not understood from the word 驳丑补峁璦. It is understood from the verb kriyate. The meaning of a word is that which is understood from it without the help of another word. From the word 驳丑补峁璦 alone, we understand the meaning of being (蝉补迟迟腻). That is why that meaning has been declared to be the meaning of a stem (辫谤腻迟颈辫补诲颈办补). When a verb is used, sequence is understood and that is why things in a process of formation are said to be the meaning of verbs. From the sentence 驳丑补峁璦岣� kriyate, what we understand is this: The jar which is mentally conceived is being brought about. Thus action is something which is inferred from things.

But some say that even this conception of action does not cover the meaning of roots like 鈭�as. One of the characteristics of action mentioned above was that when all the accessories are present, sometimes the notion of action arises and sometimes it does not. But the idea denoted by the root as always arises when the accessories are present. Therefore the meaning of the root 鈭�as is not action. Secondly, the meaning of this root does not admit of degree as the meanings of other roots do. We cannot say 补蝉迟颈迟补谤腻尘 as we can say 辫补肠补迟颈迟补谤腻尘. Nor can we give asti as an answer to the question: what is he doing? But we can give pacati as an answer. 鈥楤eing鈥� is the ultimate meaning of a verb also and it does not admit of degree. This objection is answered as follows: Action was defined as k膩rak膩峁嚹乵 辫谤补惫峁泃迟颈惫颈艣别峁�a岣� = a distinctive mode of behaviour of the accessories. The behaviour ol the accessories in the case of asti is not the same as in the case of mriyate. In asti, they act with a view to the preservation of the body and in mriyate, they act for its destruction. Thus there is distinctiveness in the mode of behaviour (Prav峁泃ti惫颈艣别峁�a岣�).

There is also a reason why the notion denoted by the root 鈭�as always arises when the accessories are present and not only sometimes. Being (厂补迟迟腻), brought about by unexcited (补蝉补峁价补产诲丑补) accessories, always persists. That is why the notion expressed by as always arises when the accessories are present. There can also be degree in the meaning of 鈭�as or 鈭�vid. We do say: 惫颈诲测补迟别迟补谤腻尘补测补尘颈丑补 when somebody is always present. The suffix tarap expresses degree. Asti can sometimes become the answer to the question: what is he doing? For instance, in regard to someone who is about to die. As other actions, the action in as also produces its result, that of 鈥榥ot giving up oneself鈥�. From 驰腻蝉办补鈥檚 treatment of the six 产丑腻惫补惫颈办腻谤补蝉, 产丑腻惫补 or 蝉补迟迟腻 is the basis of all action. One cannot therefore question whether the meaning of as is action or not. Staying (迟颈峁ａ弓丑补迟颈) is not mentioned as one of the six, but it has all the characteristics of action. For example, one action cancels others. When one hears 迟颈峁ａ弓丑补迟颈, it cancels such actions as growth and decay. Therefore, it is also a distinctive mode of the accessories (办腻谤补办腻峁嚹佱箖 辫谤补惫峁泃迟颈惫颈艣别峁�a岣�). Secondly, it can be connected with different accessories, another proof that it is action. We can say: 产丑奴mau 迟颈峁ａ弓丑补迟颈 balena 迟颈峁ａ弓丑补迟颈 and so on. Similarly, in upa vasati, vina艣yati, apak峁Ｄ珁ate etc., the meanings would come under the definition of action, because they represent a special activity of the accessories having sequence. They arc different from the accessories themselves and they arc the meanings of roots. Something which is a finished thing cannot be the meaning of a root. Nor is 产丑腻惫补n膩 the meaning of a root, because there is no such thing apart from 办谤颈测腻. The meaning of the root 鈭�办峁� is common to the meanings of all the roots That is why it can be in apposition to all roots. The idea of cooking is understood from both pacati and 辫腻办补, but in one case, it is understood as a thing while, in the other, it is understood as a process. Pacati and 辫腻办补峁� karoti mean this: he causes to soften the rice which softens by itself. Vikledana = 鈥榤aking soft鈥� is the activity of the agent and viklitti = 鈥榖ecoming soft鈥� is that of the object and both are included in the meaning of the root 鈭�pac. Therefore there is no such thing as 产丑腻惫补n膩, apart from 办谤颈测腻. Yajeta does not mean : 驰腻驳别苍补 蝉惫补谤驳补峁� 产丑腻惫补yet = 鈥極ne should bring about heaven through sacrifice.鈥� It means a process by accomplishing which the result comes spontaneously].

The definition of action, given above, is made clear by means of an illustration.