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 3.14.524
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.14.524:
啶む啶侧啶ぞ啶班啶ム啶班た啶むた 啶ぞ 啶むじ啷嵿く啶距じ啷嵿い啷冟い啷�啶ぞ啶ぞ 啶� 啶た啶︵啶い啷� 啷�
啶呧ぐ啷嵿ぅ啷� 啶啶︵啶洁お啶� 啶膏ぐ啷嵿さ啶距き啶苦ぐ啶苦い啶班ぞ啶た啶班啶掂た啶啷嵿い啶苦き啶苦 啷� 啷エ啷� 啷�tuly膩rthairiti y膩 tasy膩st峁泃墨y膩y膩 na bhidyate |
artho bhede'pi sarv膩bhiritar膩bhirvibhaktibhi岣� || 524 ||524. The meaning of the third case-ending taught by P. 2.3.72. docs not differ from that of all the other case-endings, even though there is difference in the case-ending itself.
Commentary
Something is now going to be said about the suffix vati taught in the sense of iva in P.5.1.116. The previous 蝉奴迟谤补 teaches vati in the sense of tulya. Though iva and tulya have the same meaning, the previous 蝉奴迟谤补 teaches vati after a word ending in the third case-affix and when the resemblance is between two actions and the present 蝉奴迟谤补 teaches it after a word ending in the seventh or sixth case-ending and when the resemblance is between substances or qualities. It would be argued that the previous 蝉奴迟谤补 covers the latter cases also. That argument is now stated.
[Read verse 524 above]
[It is like this. The meaning of the third case-ending taught by P. 2.3.72. does not differ from the meanings of the different case-endings which are used in association with iva, even though the case-endings may not be the same. As in the word formed by either 蝉奴迟谤补, the case-ending is elided, there cannot be any difference in meaning due to the difference in the case-ending. Because of the absence of any essential difference, one might argue that what the later 蝉奴迟谤补 does can be done by the previous 蝉奴迟谤补.]
This idea is now explained by means of an illustration,