________________
Verbal Testimony
33
the person desirous of heaven to cause heaven through the instrumentality of the performance of a sacrifice. All this delibaration of Kumärila's school is at the back of the opponent's mind in the present phase of his argumentation. The following is what he says:
"Even in the theory according which the verb-word on account of its centrality constitutes a sentence and causing' on account of its predominance constitutes the sentential meaning there obtains no objective relationship either between the agents concerned and the chief act, or between the agents concerned, or between the acts concerned (vv. 55-57). Thus in the sentence 'Devadatta cooks cooked-rice in a vessel by means of fuelsticks' the agents concerned are Devadatta, cooked rice, vessel and fuel-sticks but being absolutely independent of each other they stand in no need of each other—they are not even proximate to each other except in the sense that they find expression through words which as accompanied by different case-endings occur in the same sentence (vv. 57-59). Nor do the agents like fuel-sticks etc. as such have any relation with the chief act-viz. cooking; e.g. when fuel-sticks are wet they cause no cooking and even when they cause it they do so not by standing inactive (vv. 59-61). And if it be said that the fuel-sticks etc. cause cooking through their own acts like buroing etc. then one difficulty is that here one act cannot cause another because the two are not related to each other--not even in the sense that they reside in the same locus (vv. 61-62 ). Moreover, if the cooking is done by burning then why should the fuel-sticks be called an agent (v.63) ? Similarly, if what the fuel-sticks do is burning then why should they be called an agent in respect of cooking (v. 63)? And certainly, the things which do no cooking should here find no expression in the same sentence (v.64). Nor can it be said that the fuel-sticks etc. are really an agent in respect of burning etc. and that they are figuratively so called in respect of cooking; for in respect of burning etc. the fuel-sticks etc. are not instrument etc. (as they are in respect of cooking) but chief agent--so that the figurative attribution in question is impossible (vv.64-68). Even granting that the fuel-sticks etc. do cooking through thier own acts like burning etc. the fact remains that these acts are not experessed by the verb 'to cook'--so that in the context of sentential meaning the fuel-sticks etc. should have nothing to do with cooking (vv.68-69). Certainly, if the verb 'to cook' is to be linked with the fuel-sticks etc. it will have to be delinked from Devadattathe chief agent (vv.69-70); and if it be said that it expresses the specific act of each and every agent then each and every agent will have to be treated as chief agent just liko Devadatta (vv.70-71). Certainly, the agent whose specific act is expressed by the verb is nothing but chief agent, as is evident from the usages like 'The fuel-sticks cook cooked-rice (vv.71-73). In one word, if the verb "to cook' expresses the specific acts of the fuel-sticks etc. the question is why then use different case-endings in reference to them, if it does not the question is why the words standing for the fuel-sticks etc.
$$
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
