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 2.57-58
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 2.57-58:
啶呧き啷囙う啶啶班啶掂啶� 啶啶︵ぞ啶� 啶曕げ啷嵿お啶苦い啶� 啶掂ぞ啶曕啶さ啶距う啶苦き啶苦 啷�
啶啶︵お啷傕ぐ啷嵿さ啶距え啶啶︵ぞ啶傕じ啷嵿い啷� 啶え啷嵿く啶ㄠ啶む 啶う啶︵ぐ啷嵿ざ啶苦え啶� 啷� 啷キ 啷�
啶う啶啶班啷冟い啶苦き啶距さ啶多啶� 啶掂啶む啶むた啶啶︵啶� 啶掂ぐ啷嵿ぃ啷嵿く啶む 啷�
啶う啶距え啶距 啶膏啶灌た啶むぞ 啶啶ㄠた啶� 啶膏啶灌た啶むぞ 啶掂ぞ 啶う啶距ざ啷嵿ぐ啶ぞ 啷� 啷ギ 啷�abhedap奴rvak膩 bhed膩岣� kalpit膩 v膩kyav膩dibhi岣� |
bhedap奴rv膩nabhed膩峁僺tu manyante padadar艣ina岣� || 57 ||
辫补诲补辫谤补办峁泃颈bh膩va艣ca v峁泃tibhedena var峁噛ate |
pad膩n膩峁� 蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 yoni岣� 蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 v膩 pad膩艣ray膩 || 58 ||57. According to the upholders of the (indivisible) sentence, unity precedes division which is fictitious. The upholders of the individual word, on the other hand, hold that the unities of the sentence are preceded by their divisions.
58. The fact of the 蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 (the connected text) being the source of the individual words is explained by resorting to a different complex formation (痴峁泃迟颈). 辫补诲补辫谤补办峁泃颈h can be explained either thus: 鈥榯he 蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 is the source of the individual words鈥� or thus: the 蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 has the individual words as its source.
Commentary
[Read verse 57 above]
The statement 辫补诲补辫谤补办峁泃颈岣� 蝉补峁僪颈迟腻 (峁歬-辫谤腻迟颈艣腻办丑测补. 2.1) is now considered.
[Read verse 58 above]
[The compound word 辫补诲补辫谤补办峁泃颈岣� [辫补诲补辫谤补办峁泃颈] is taken as a 峁峁ａ弓丑墨-迟补迟辫耻谤耻峁 according to those who follow the 补办丑补峁囜笉补辫补办峁. The others take it as a 产补丑耻惫谤墨丑颈. If the Vedic sentences are indivisible and not composed by humans (补辫补耻谤耻峁测补), then the individual words obtained by analysis are of human origin (辫补耻谤耻峁测补). On the basis of this very statement, the other view, namely, that the individual words are real and that the sentence is a fiction can be justified. It is like this: The individual words are eternal and not formed by men. Their connection is man-made. Each word conveys its own meaning, plus its connection in general with the meanings of the other words. In the presence of the other words, this connection becomes specific and is realised. Thus, the sentence-meaning is conveyed by the words themselves and not by the sentence.
The 痴峁泃迟颈 also refers to the statement of the 峁歬-辫谤腻迟颈艣腻办丑测补 and says that some held the 辫补诲补辫腻峁环补 of the Vedas to be eternal and the connected text (蝉补峁僪颈迟腻p膩峁環a) to be of human origin while others held just the opposite view.]
A statement of Patanjali is now explained.