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 2.351
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 2.351:
啶掂た啶多啶粪さ啶苦ぇ啶苦え啶距そ啶ムた啶傕い啷嵿さ啶距う啷� 啶掂ぞ啶曕啶ざ啷囙し啷嬥そ啶ㄠ啶啶い啷� 啷�
啶掂た啶多啶粪さ啶ㄠ啶ㄠさ啶班啶む啶啶洁ぐ啷嵿ぅ啷� 啶むじ啷嵿ぎ啶距い啷嵿い啷佮げ啷嵿く啶� 啶掂啶お啷囙啷嵿し啶｀ぎ啷� 啷� 啷┼カ啷� 啷�vi艣e峁vidhin膩'thi峁僼v膩d v膩kya艣e峁'num墨yate |
vi艣e峁vannavartye'rthe tasm膩ttulya峁� vyapek峁峁嘺m || 351 ||351. (As the original injunction) requires the special injunction, the latter is taken to be supplementary to it. The special injunction also requires the other in the matter of determining what is excluded by it. Therefore, mutual requirement is similar in each case.
Commentary
The upholder of the single sentence argues as follows鈥�
[Read verse 351 above]
[What is pointed out here is that the original and special injunctions (niyama, 补辫补惫腻诲补 or 辫谤补迟颈峁诲丑补) require each other in order to determine their own meaning. As their mutual requirement is equal, it is better to look upon them as constituting one sentence. Each requires the other in order to exclude the scope of the other from its own scope.
While explaining this verse the 痴峁泃迟颈 takes a different kind of example altogether. It takes the 蝉奴迟谤补 P. 3.1.96, that is, tavyat-tavya-补苍墨测补谤a岣� = 鈥楢fter a root occur the suffixes tavyat, tavya and 补苍墨测补谤. It says that according to some, the verb 鈥榯o occur鈥� is one though it has three different agents. The verb being one, there is only one sentence here:鈥�bhavater ekatv膩d ekav膩kyatvam. According to others, the action denoted by the verb becomes different with each different agent. With each agent, the action is self-sufficient and so there are as many actions as there are agents and so as many sentences. Those who uphold the view that there is only one sentence say that each of the three suffixes is separately the agent of the verb bhavati, while mutual requirement does exist. The agent-power (办补谤迟峁浥沘办迟颈) is one, but it exists in three different suffixes: ekav膩kyav膩dinastu manyante鈥攕aty膩m apek峁Ｄ亂膩峁� tavyad膩daya岣� 辫峁泃丑补办 p峁泃hag bhavate岣� kart膩ro vij帽膩yante. Bhinn膩dh膩r膩 v膩 tavyad膩d墨n膩mekaiva 办补谤迟峁浥沘办迟颈r iti.]
The question whether individual words can also be analysed into parts is now discussed:鈥�
[Read next verse]