Verse 3.13.1-2

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.13.1-2:

स्तनकेशादिसंबन्धो विशिष्टा वा स्तनादयः ।
तदुपव्यञ्जना जातिर्गुणावस्था गुणास्तथा ॥ १ ॥
शब्दोपजनितोऽर्थात्मा शब्दसंस्कार इत्यपि ।
लिङ्गानां लिङ्गतत्त्वज्ञैर्विकल्पाः सप्त दर्शिताः ॥ २ ॥

stanakeśādisaṃbandho viśiṣṭā vā stanādayaḥ |
tadupavyañjanā jātirguṇāvasthā guṇāstathā || 1 ||
śabdopajanito'rthātmā śabdasaṃskāra ityapi |
liṅgānāṃ liṅgatattvajñairvikalpāḥ sapta darśitāḥ || 2 ||

1-2. Those who know the truth concerning gender have set forth seven views concerning it: (1) that it is the relation of a thing with sex signs such as breast and hair, (2) that it is the sex-signs themselves characterised by that relation, (3) that it is the universal manifested by the sex-signs, (4) that it is the three conditions of the three guṇas (sattva, rajas and tamas), (5) that it is the three guṇas themselves in these conditions, (6) that it is an attribute created in objects by words, (7) that it is an attribute of the words themselves.

Commentary

So far the meanings expressed by verbs have been considered. Among them, number and the means are common to nouns. Action, time, person and aspect are expressed by verbs only. Gender is an additional notion expressed by nouns. Its different definitions are now stated.

[Read verse 1-2 above]

[Of the above seven views, the first two identify the sex signs with gender. This view is mentioned in the M. Bhā on P. 4.1.3. These two views cannot explain the gender of words denoting inanimate things like khaṭvā = ‘bed’, as they have no signs of sex. Therefore, the other views are given. The third view says that gender is a universal manifested by the signs of sex. Even inanimate things have some signs which manifest the universal of gender. But if inanimate things have some signs, the first two views would have covered them too. The view that gender is a universal can explain better the fact that the same thing can be referred to by three different words, having three different genders. For example: arthaḥ, vyaktiḥ, vastu. The universals are everywhere and many universals can exist in the same thing. But if gender is nothing more than sex signs, mutually contradictory sex-signs cannot exist in the same thing and the above three words for the same thing cannot be explained. The Bhāṣyakara’s view is the fourth one, namely, that the three conditions, development, decay and neutrality of the three guṇas sattva, rajas and tamas constitute gender. Everything is composed of three guṇas which are always going through these three states. A speech community may choose to express one particular condition of a thing through a word or all the three conditions through separate words for the same thing. For example: taṭaḥ taṭī taṭam. The fifth view that the three guṇas in these conditions constitute gender is only a variation of the above view. Others hold the sixth view that gender is an attribute imposed on things by words because we see the same thing referred to by three different words having three different genders as in arthaḥ, vyaktiḥ, vastu. Finally, there is the seventh view that gender is only a property of words because we see the same thing expressed by the same word in three different genders. It is not a property of words like accent because it is understood as something external whereas accent is understood as something intimately connected with words. It is just a śabdānvākhyānanimittam = ‘a circumstance for the derivation of forms’.]