Verse 3.9.111-114

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.9.111-114:

तस्मादवधिभेदेन सिद्धा मुख्यैव भूतता ।
अनागतत्वमस्तित्वं हेतुधर्मव्यपेक्षणे ॥ १११ ॥
सतामिन्द्रियसंबन्धात् सैव सत्ता विशिष्यते ।
भेदेन व्यवहारो हि वस्त्वन्तरनिबन्धनः ॥ ११२ ॥
अस्तित्वं वस्तुमात्रस्य बुद्ध्या तु परिगृह्यते ।
यः समासादनाद् भेदः स तत्र न विवक्षितः ॥ ११३ ॥
योगाद्वा स्त्रीत्वपुंस्त्वाभ्यां न किंचिदवतिष्ठते ।
स्वस्मिन्नात्मनि तत्रान्यद् भूतं भावि च कथ्यते ॥ ११४ ॥

tasmādavadhibhedena siddhā mukhyaiva bhūtatā |
anāgatatvamastitvaṃ hetudharmavyapekṣaṇe || 111 ||
satāmindriyasaṃbandhāt saiva sattā viśiṣyate |
bhedena vyavahāro hi vastvantaranibandhanaḥ || 112 ||
astitvaṃ vastumātrasya buddhyā tu parigṛhyate |
yaḥ samāsādanād bhedaḥ sa tatra na vivakṣitaḥ || 113 ||
yogādvā strītvapuṃstvābhyāṃ na kiṃcidavatiṣṭhate |
svasminnātmani tatrānyad bhūtaṃ bhāvi ca kathyate || 114 ||

111. As the idea of the cause differs, the past tense is used in its primary meaning. So arc the future and the present tenses, according as this or that aspect of the cause is considered.

112. The Being of things is differentiated according to sense-contact. It is due to other factors that the same thing is spoken of differently.

113. The mere existence of a thing is cognised by the mind. Any difference due to the contact of the senses is not then meant to be conveyed.

114. Or, due to association with masculinity and femininity, nothing remains the same. Past and future arc, therefore, different (from such variations).

Commentary

[Read verse 111 above]

The author now says something about vā.5 on P. 3.3.133.

[Read verse 112-114 above]

[The above three stanzas relate to a point which has been raised in the following vārttika—

astyarthānāṃ bhavanty arthe sarvavibhaktayaḥ kartur vidyamānatvāt. (vā. 5 on P.3.3.133, M.Bhā II. p.160, 1.10)—

“all the tense-suffixes should be taught in the sense of the present alter roots expressive of existence, because the agent is present.”

The indication of the cause in ‘because the agent is present’ is to show that by ‘existence’ what is meant is the existence of the object at the time of the use of the word and as understood from the word and not real existence outside. In the expressions, kūpo'bhūt, abhavat, babhūva, bhaviṣyati, bhavitā, the well which is the agent is present at the time of their use. By “being present” the fact of figuring in the mind now is meant.

This extension by the vārttika of the use of all the tense-affixes has been rejected on the ground that the use of all of them would in any case be possible and so there is no need to teach its extension. Each suffix is, however, used to express its own time and not to express the present. A proof of it is that they have no alternatives. If all of them have been used to express the present, it should be possible to use them as alternatives. But that cannot be done. Nor does one come across any misuse of them. Nobody says kūpo bhaviṣyati instead of kūpo'bhūt.

What is meant here is this: It has already been said that everything enters into usage on the basis of connected attributes. The existence of the well becomes the basis of verbal usage only after it is perceived. Perception depends upon contact between the senses and the object. When contact between the sense of vision and the well is going to take place, then its existence is in the future. When it has already taken place, then it is past. When it is actually taking place, then it is present. In this way, the use of verbal suffixes, expressive of future, past and present are explained. When the contact between the sense and the object is distant, in the past, then special past tenses like laṅ are used. When the contact is distant in the future, then the special future is used.

Objection.—Just as the past and the future suffixes do not express the present, in the same way, the suffix of the present would not express the past and the future.

Answer.—Differences like the past and the future, based on the presence or the absence of sense-contact may not be meant to be expressed and yet one may grasp mentally the existence of the well and one may say kūpo'sti in a general way, by ignoring distinctions.

In any case, why bother about contingent variations of existence? There are the permanent and certain variations of it. Change consisting of increase and decrease are constantly taking place in everything. Increase is masculinity and decrease in femininity. Everything has these two processes always. So everything is always associated with this past, present and future. The past present and future, based on the presence and absence of sense contact, is different from this.]