Verse 3.14.254

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.14.254:

क्त्वान्ते च तुमुनन्ते च नञ्समासे न दृश्यते ।
विशेषणविशेष्यत्वं नञा (नञः) सत्ताभिधायिनां ॥ २५४ ॥

ktvānte ca tumunante ca nañsamāse na dṛśyate |
viśeṣaṇaviśeṣyatvaṃ nañā (nañaḥ) sattābhidhāyināṃ || 254 ||

254. In the negative compound ending in ktvā or tumun, no relation of qualifier and qualified with the negative particle expressive of non-existence is seen.

Commentary

Remarks: Though the text of this kārikā in my edition, as in other editions has nañā sattābhidhāyinā, Helārāja had nañāsattābhidhāyinā. The translation is based on Helārāja’s text.

[In the expressions akṛtvā, akartum the meaning which is conveyed as the main one is similar to that conveyed by a verb in the sense that it is a process and, therefore, susceptible of being connected with the suffix kṛtvasuc, expressive of repetition of action (P. 5.4.17.). There cannot be the relation of qualifier and qualified between such a meaning of the root √kṛ and the negative particle expressive of non-existence (asattābhidhāyinā). Between the negative particle which denies existence and the meaning of the root √kṛ, there cannot be any relation because negation can be connected only with what is to be negated. The meaning of the root √kṛ is not in the nature of existence, being in the nature of a process. So it is not something to be negated. So how can it be connected with the negative particle? Therefore, if the negative particle is taken to mean non-existence, both these expressions would be inexplicable. The fact is that here, the negative particle expresses mere negation. Thus, in asan, it negates existence which is the meaning of san and so there is no question of postulating another existence to be connected with it. In akṛtvā, it negates the action denoted by kṛ and so the two can be connected. But in abrāhmaṇa, the connection between the negative particle and brāhmaṇa is inexplicable because existence is part of the meaning of brāhmaṇa and what exists cannot be negated. Objection. In asan and akṛtvā also, the meanings of san and kṛtvā are of a positive nature (bhāvātmakaḥ). How can they be negated? If that is so, one would have to assume that the negative particle, even in a compound, is only indicative (dyotaka) of what has disappeared by its own nature, as it is in a sentence. Here also, there are two possibilities: (i) either the negative particle should be understood as revealing an object which is the substratum of a particular action and which has disappeared by its own nature or (2) as revealing an object which is the substratum of action in general. In the first alternative, there cannot be a compound at all because of the absence of semantic connection. Even if there is connection the three views cannot arise. In the second alternative, as the negative particle indica- tive of existence in general is connected only with action in general conveyed by the second term, there would be regresses ad infinitum (anavasthā). As there is no connection with a particular action in this view, the negative particle is not indicative (dyotaka) at all. Therefore, it should be looked upon as expressive (vācaka). In that way, the negative particle has an independent meaning which can be the primary or the secondary one according to circumstances and so the three views can arise and their consideration would naturally result.]

How, according to the view that the negative particle denotes non-existence in general, there is no need to postulate another existence and it can be connected with kṛtvā etc., is now going to be explained.