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 2.27
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 2.27:
啶ぞ啶掂え啶距じ啶く啷� 啶む啶掂啶むい啷� 啶曕啶班ぎ啶膏ぞ啶ぐ啷嵿ぅ啷嵿く啶啷嵿ぐ啶ぎ啷� 啷�
啶掂啶ぞ啶掂啶む啶むき啷囙う啷� 啶啶ㄠぞ啶班啶ム 啶啶︵さ啶距え啶げ啶啶い啷� 啷� 啷ㄠキ 啷�bh膩van膩samaye tvetat kramas膩marthyamakramam |
vy膩v峁泃tabhedo yen膩rtho bhedav膩napalabhyate || 27 ||27. This indivisible (Sentence) is understood as having the capacity for sequence (or division) at the time of the artificial separation (产丑腻惫补苍腻-蝉补尘补测别). Hence its meaning, though devoid of all division is perceived as having division.
Commentary
Indivisibility is now set forth in a different manner.
[Read verse 27 above]
[In the 叠谤补丑尘补办腻峁囜笉补, the nature of 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 has been determined. It is the sentence as 蝉辫丑辞峁璦 which is expressive. At the time of analysis, the sentence-meaning is understood as having sequence and division, but it really has none.
The 痴峁泃迟颈 gives the analogy of Dik to explain how the One appears as many. Dik (Direction, Space) is one but when we use expressions like 奴谤诲诲丑惫补尘, 补诲丑补岣� [adhas], tiryak, we are speaking about it as though it had divisions, knowing that it has none: 奴rdhvam adhas tiryag ityekatve'pi 诲颈艣腻峁� yath膩yatha峁� vinivi峁ａ弓abh膩van膩vi艣e峁Ｄ佱弗 sarvapr膩峁噄na岣� = All beings have an inner disposition to divide Dik (Direction, Space) which, though one, is regarded by them as being above, below, across and so on.]
The view that the sentence is nothing more than a collection of words and not an entity over and above them and that the word is nothing more than a collection of phonemes and not an entity over and above them is now criticized.