Verse 3.8.12

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.8.12:

कालानुपाति यद्रूपं तदस्तीति प्रतीयते ।
परितस्तु परिच्छिन्नं भाव इत्येव कथ्यते ॥ १२ ॥

kālānupāti yadrūpaṃ tadastīti pratīyate |
paritastu paricchinnaṃ bhāva ityeva kathyate || 12 ||

12. Its form, as connected with Time, is expressed by the verb asti. When it has a completely finished form, it is just said to be bhāva Being.

Commentary

There is the root √as. It is supposed to express sattā = ‘being’, ‘existence’. Sattā is conceived of as nityā = eternal akramā = ‘without inner sequence’, asādhyā = not to be brought about. How then can it be the meaning of a verb?

[Read verse 12 above]

[Sattā = ‘Being’ is presented as a process (sādhyā) by the verb. When presented by a verb, sattā has distinctions of time and that is why we say: abhūt, asti, bhaviṣyati etc. A thing, as presented by nouns, has no association with time. When we hear the word ghaṭa, we understand something which is not associated with time. It was objected before that as does not express action because the word asti cannot be an answer to the question: Kiṃ karoti? The truth is that once the existence of something has already been ascertained one might ask that question and then the answer asti is impossible, not because asti does not express action or process. When there is a possibility of Devadatta dying, one can ask the same question and then the answer asli in the sense that he is still alive, still exists, is possible. The roots √kṛ, √bhū and √as denote action in general. Roots like √pac denote particular actions. They can be used in apposition to karoti. Hence we conclude that they denote particular actions. Sometimes, however, in answer to the question kiṃ karoti, one answers: na karoti, āste = ‘he does not do anything, he just exists.’ Here there seems to be a contradiction between the meanings of karoti and āste. How to explain this according to the view that karoli denotes action in general and that other verbs denote particular actions. Between the general and the particular, there cannot be any contradiction. This difficulty can be resolved as follows: The question kiṃ karoti does not refer to action in general. It refers to a particular action. In the world, by action, one means a particular action, and not action in general. Where there is no particular action, there is no action at all. Where the question relates to any action, general or particular, the answer aste or śete is admissible. Action docs not always involve movement (parispanda). It has already been defined as kārakāṇaṃ pravṛttiviśeṣaḥ. This conception of action holds good everywhere. Even in the sentence parvatas tiṣṭhati, we understand a process from tiṣṭhati. Not all agents behave in the same manner. The mountain is understood as behaving in a particular way in the above sentence, namely that of not giving up its location. Therefore, from a verb we do understand sattā as associated with time. This very sattā is understood as a thing from a noun. But it might be objected that both in a noun and in a verb, the root is the same and action as a process is supposed to be the meaning of a root. How is one to explain the difference between a verb and a noun coming from the same root? The difference is this: In a verb, the meaning of the root, namely, the process, is the main thing. But in a noun the meaning of the root is subordinate to that of the suffix. In the sentence odanasya pākaḥ = the cooking of rice, odana is the accessory (sādhana) called karma of the action of cooking. (Sādhana presupposes sādhya. In the word pāka, the root pac must express the sādhya in relation to which odana is the sādhana called karma.)]

If the whole, with inner sequence and superimposed on the part, is action, the latter would become something secondary. This objection is answered as follows: [Read next verse]