Vakyapadiya of Bhartrihari
by K. A. Subramania Iyer | 1965 | 391,768 words
The English translation of the Vakyapadiya by Bhartrihari including commentary extracts and notes. The Vakyapadiya is an ancient Sanskrit text dealing with the philosophy of language. Bhartrhari authored this book in three parts and propounds his theory of Sphotavada (sphota-vada) which understands language as consisting of bursts of sounds conveyi...
This book contains Sanskrit text which you should never take for granted as transcription mistakes are always possible. Always confer with the final source and/or manuscript.
Verse 1.70
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 1.70:
啶曕ぞ啶班啶い啷嵿さ啷� 啶ㄠた啶む啶い啶距く啶距 啶掂ぞ 啶曕啶氞た啶︵啶曕い啷嵿さ啶掂ぞ啶︵た啶ㄠ 啷�
啶曕ぞ啶班啶い啷嵿さ啷� 啶ㄠた啶む啶い啶距く啶距 啶掂ぞ 啶曕啶氞た啶ㄠ啶ㄠぞ啶ㄠぞ啶む啶掂さ啶距う啶苦え啶� 啷� 啷ウ 啷�k膩ryatve nityat膩y膩峁� v膩 kecidekatvav膩dina岣� |
k膩ryatve nityat膩y膩峁� v膩 kecinn膩n膩tvav膩dina岣� || 70 ||70. Some consider the word to be one whether it is accepted as transitory or eternal; others consider it as many, whether it is accepted as transitory or eternal.
Commentary
According to those who believe that the word is one, there cannot be this distinction between the universal and the individuals (because that presupposes difference between the individuals); that is why this new point (the unity or the plurality of the word) has been taken up after expounding the point about the universal. According to the view that the word is eternal, its unity is the main doctrine. According to the view that the word is an effect (and so not eternal), the invariable cognition of sameness which arises when a phoneme or a word, once uttered, is uttered again, leads to the postulation that it is one. It is on the basis of the view that it is one that it has been said in the 痴腻谤迟迟颈办补鈥�
鈥淭hat is already settled, because the phoneme 鈥�a鈥� is one鈥�.1 It is between the cognitions of the same phoneme that there is an interval of time or of other phonemes and not that the phoneme itself is different. That one hears the same word at different places is like the cognition of Being (蝉补迟迟腻) or the universal at different places or the form (of moon etc.) in water etc. Even according to the view that the word is different and that it is an effect, one must necessarily accept a kind of secondary one-ness when a word is uttered again and again. Whether the word be eternal or an effect, those who are for plurality believe that a word having many meanings and phonemes found in different words is not at all the same unit.2
Notes
1. V膩 5 on the 蝉奴迟谤补 鈥�补-颈-耻峁�鈥� (M. Bh膩. I, p. 16).
2. In regard to the word, there are the three following pairs of alternative views held by different thinkers: (1) that it stands for the universal or for the individual, (2) that it remains the same even when it has another meaning or that it is a different word for every new meaning (3) that it is eternal or that it is an effect. These pairs of views are related to one another. The concept of the word as a universal presupposes the existence of individual words in each of which the universal inheres. So, according to the view that the word is one under all circumstances, the concept of universal and particular cannot arise. There is a very close connection between the view that the word is eternal and that it is one. This is the primary concept of unity. But some kind of unity has to be postulated even according to the view that there are as many words as there are circumstances of its use because, in all these circumstances, we do recognise the word to be the same. This is the secondary kind of unity. Grammarians accept eternality, unity and both the concepts of the universal and the individual.