265. MAHIMA BHATȚA'S CRITICISM OF DHVANI 295

MAHIMA BHATȚA'S CRITICISM OF DHVANI 295

And because the nouns are derived from the roots, therefore, the affix 'Ktva' in 'Vipacya ghato bhavati'1. (which indicates that the action, indicated by the root to which 'Ktva' is added precedes another which is subsequent- ly mentioned) indicates the precedence of the action, indi- cated by the root to which 'Ktva is added, in relation to the action, indicated by the root from which the noun 'ghata' is derived and not in relation to the verb 'to be' (bhavati), just as in the case of 'adhiśritya pacako bhavati'. The verb 'to be' is not necessarily always directly mentioned; very often it is undersood, because the objects necessarily have a being. But in neither case the precedence of the action indicated by the root, to which Ktva is affixed, is in relation to it. For, the verb to be is external and, therefore, if the precedence be related to it, the meaning would become absurd. For instance, in the case of 'Srutvapi nama badhirah' if we hold the precedence of the action of hearing to be in relation to the verb 'to be', the meaning would be absurd; because the act of being is not subsequent to that of hearing but simultaneous with it. When, however, there are many actions, indicated by many nouns, the precedence of the action, indicated by the preceding, to that which is indicated by the succeeding has to be admitted; because in all cases the same affix, indicative of an agent, is used, e.g. 'Here there are many actions such as' "Vipacana ghatana and bhavana". In some cases, because the action appears in the guise of a noun inasmuch as the word indicative of it is derived from a root with a Krdanta affix and, therefore, appears as an attribute of an agent, there arises the illusion of its connection with another agent. For instance in 'Sisira-

1. V. V., 25-7.