Vākyapadīya 「〈能成者〉詳解」(Sādhanasamuddeśa)の研究 : VP3.7.81-86

In VP 3.7.81–86 Bhartṛhari deals with the following sentences:
[1] paktvaudano bhujyate devadattena
‘After cooking, Devadatta eats rice gruel’ (lit. ‘After being cooked, rice gruel is eaten by Devadatta’).
[2] iṣyate grāmo gantuṃ devadattena
‘The village is wished to be reached by Devadatta’.
[3] bhuktvā nagaro ’bhiniviśyate devadattena
‘After eating, Devadatta enters the city’ (lit. ‘After eating, the city is entered by Devadatta’).

In [1] and [3] the absolutives paktvā ‘having cooked’ and bhuktvā ‘having eaten’, which end in the kṛt affix ktvā (A 3.4.21 samānakartṛkayoḥ pūrvakāle), are respectively used; in [2] the infinitive gantum ‘to reach’, which ends in the kṛt affix tumun (A 3.3.158 samānakartṛkeṣ tumun), is used. The finite verbs (ākhyāta) bhujyate ([1] bhuj ‘to eat’), iṣyate ([2] iṣ ‘to wish’), and abhiniviśyate ([3] abhi-ni-viś ‘to enter’) are passive.

In the given sentences the act denoted by the verb to which the kṛt affix is added and the act denoted by the verb which is followed by the verb ending have the same agent Devadatta (samānakartṛka). In [1] the rice gruel denoted by the nominal odana- serves as object (karman) with respect to the act denoted by the verb pac ‘to cook’ as well as that by the verb bhuj and in [2] the village denoted by the nominal grāma- serves as object with respect to the act denoted by the verb gam ‘to reach’ as well as that by the verb iṣ. In [3] the city denoted by the nominal nagara- serves as locus (ādhāra) with respect to the act of entering and is assigned the class name karman on condition that this act is denoted by the verb viś preceded by the complex of preverbs abhi-ni (A 1.4.47 abhiniviśaś ca). This city have the status of being a locus (adhikaraṇa) with respect to the act denoted by the verb bhuj.

A question arises: How can one avoid the occurrence of the second triplet ending am after odana- in [1] and grāma- in [2] and that of the seventh triplet ending ṅi after nagara- in [3]? A 2.3.2 karmaṇi dvitīyā and A 2.3.36 saptamy adhikaraṇe ca occur in the section headed by A 2.3.1 anabhihite. The second and　seventh triplets of nominal endings are respectively introduced on condition that an object or locus is to be denoted if the object or locus is not otherwise denoted (anabhihite). If the object or locus is otherwise denoted, the first triplet ending su occurs after a nominal to express a base meaning (prātipadikārtha) by A 2.3.46 prātipadikārthaliṅgaparimāṇavacanamātre prathamā. In Pāṇini’s derivational system, the denotation of a kāraka by a nominal ending is subordinated to its expression by a verbal ending and a kṛt affix. It is to be noted in this connection that, according to Patañjali, affixes like the kṛt affixes in question, called avyayakṛt (A 1.1.39 kṛn mejantaḥ and A 1.1.40 ktvātosunkasunaḥ), denote an act denoted by a verb (bhāva), and not a kāraka.

In VP 3.7.81–86 Bhartṛhari bases himself on the arguments Patañjali brings forward in MBh on A 3.4.26. According to Bhartṛhari, the principal (pradhāna) meaning of a sentence is an act (kriyā) denoted by a finite verb and an act denoted by a verb to which an avyayakṛt is introduced is a subsidiary (guṇa) to the former. In [1]–[3], principal acts are respectively the acts of eating, of wishing, and of entering and subsidiary acts are respectively the acts of cooking, of going, and of eating. In his view, in addition, a kāraka is a power (śakti) of functioning as what brings an act to accomplishment and also the locus of such a power (dravya). In [1] the rice gruel has two different powers: the power of functioning as object with respect to the act of eating and that of functioning as object with respect to the act of cooking; in the same vein, in [2] the village has the power of functioning as object with respect to the act of wishing and that of functioning as object with respect to the act of reaching; in [3] the city has the power of functioning as object with respect to the act of entering and that of functioning as locus with respect to the act of eating.

Bhartṛhari argues that when the power of functioning as object with respect to the principal act, denoted by the finite verb, has been denoted by the verbal ending, the power of functioning as object with respect to the subsidiary act, denoted by the verb after which the avyayakṛt occurs, appears as if denoted (abhihitavat) and that the power of functioning as locus with respect to the subsidiary act does not cause a grammatical operation to introduce the seventh triplet ending, which contradicts a grammatical operation to introduce the first triplet ending caused by the power of functioning as object with respect to the principal act. It is to be noted that in [3], where there is no item capable of denoting a locus other than the seventh triplet ending, the undesired consequence would result that the seventh triplet ending occurs after the nominal nagara- to express the city as locus with respect to the subsidiary act.

Thus we see that Bhartṛhari accounts for the derivation of the sentences in question, on the theory that in a sentence meaning, which is a qualifier-qualificand relation (viśeṣaṇaviśeṣyabhāva), an act denoted by a finite verb forms a chief qualificand; that a single substance has different kāraka powers; and that a subsidiary power, which is related to a subsidiary act, is subordinated to a principal power, which is related to a principal act. Clearly, this concept of subordination introduced by Bhartṛhari presupposes his theory of a sentence meaning that holds within the framework of Pāṇini’s derivational system.