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 2.28-29
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 2.28:
啶う啶距え啶� 啶掂ぞ啶曕啶 啶むぞ啶ㄠ啶啶� 啶掂ぐ啷嵿ぃ啶距じ啷嵿い啷� 啶� 啶う啷� 啶う啶� 啷�
啶掂ぐ啷嵿ぃ啷囙し啷� 啶掂ぐ啷嵿ぃ啶ぞ啶椸ぞ啶ㄠぞ啶� 啶啶︵ 啶膏啶ぞ啶む 啶ぐ啶ぞ啶｀啶掂い啷� 啷� 啷ㄠギ 啷�
啶ぞ啶椸ぞ啶ㄠぞ啶え啷佮お啶多啶侧啶粪ぞ啶ㄠ啶� 啶掂ぐ啷嵿ぃ啷� 啶� 啶う啶� 啶さ啷囙い啷� 啷�
啶む啶粪ぞ啶さ啷嵿く啶う啷囙ざ啷嵿く啶む啶掂ぞ啶む 啶曕た啶え啷嵿く啶︵お啶︵た啶多啶い啶距ぎ啷� 啷� 啷ㄠク 啷�pad膩ni v膩kye t膩nyeva var峁嚹乻te ca pade yadi |
var峁噀峁 var峁嘺bh膩g膩n膩峁� bheda岣� sy膩t param膩峁噓vat || 28 ||
bh膩g膩n膩manupa艣le峁Ｄ乶na var峁嘺u na pada峁� bhavet |
te峁Ｄ乵avyapade艣yatv膩t kimanyadapadi艣yat膩m || 29 ||28-29. If the words in the sentence are those very ones (which are found singly outside the sentence) and if the phonemes in a word are those very ones (which are found singly outside the word) then there would be divisions like atoms in the phonemes also.
Commentary
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.
[Read verse 28-29 above]
As the parts cannot combine (because of their non-existence) there would be neither phoneme nor word. As they cannot be determined what other thing could be determined as the expressive element? The 痴峁泃迟颈 argues as follows鈥�
[If it is held that the words in a sentence are the very ones which are found separately and if the phonemes which are found separately are the very ones found collected in a word and if it is held that there is no essence of the sentence or of the word apart from the phonemes, then there would be atomlike divisions within the phonemes also by going to the extreme limit of division. These divisions would have sequence and would never be simultaneous and would, therefore, never come into mutual contact. Thus there would ensue nothing called phoneme or the word. The final divisions being indefinable.
they would not enter into usage. Therefore what would be the verbal unit which would be clearly defined as 鈥榯his鈥�? There cannot be any usage with a verbal entity the divisions of which are indefinable and which are not collected together in something different from knowledge. The idea is that the sentence is a collection of words and if the word is only a collection of phonemes, one can divide the phonemes also. Ultimately, there would be no unit at all which would be looked upon as the expressive element. Therefore, the sentence is an entity over and above the phonemes and words. This entity is described as something outside the mind. But the 艣腻蝉迟谤补 is of the view that the sentence is 产耻诲诲丑测补苍耻蝉补峁僪峁泃颈岣� [buddhi-补苍耻蝉补峁僪峁泃颈].]
The view that the sentence is 产耻诲诲丑测补苍耻蝉补峁僪峁泃颈岣�, mentioned in the very first verse of this 碍腻峁囜笉补 is now explained.