________________
Where the
is super-imposed on the dependant agent?
AN EPITOME OF JAINISM but nominatives to the verbs 'rolls' or
'expands.' Indeed we do so in such and chief agency similar other expressions as, the stone is
falling' or the 'sword cuts well.' And the question is, Why do we do so? What is it that prevails upon to acknowledge the independence of what we really know to be of dependant character ? To all this we have but to submit in reply that such forms of expressions are indeed resorted to when the principal agent stands beyond the range of our vision or where the subordinate agents are required to show as if they were playing the role of the principal agent not. withstanding the actual presence of the latter. When the other agents stand in close proximity with the principal, it is then that the subordinate character of their position and function becomes apparent. But where the principal stands in the background there the one or the other of the subordinate agents stands out as the principal in as much as these have their agencies in their respective functional activities and this explains the ascription of primary agency to the ball, heat, or to the
230
