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 3.14.597
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.14.597:
啶啶班啶 啶た啶︵啶ぎ啶距え啷� 啶む 啶膏啶栢啶ぞ 啶啶侧啶粪 啶た啶︵啶い啷� 啷�
啶呧ぐ啷嵿ぅ啶啶︵ 啶侧啶え啷嵿い啷囙し啷� 啶ㄠ啶� 啶曕ざ啷嵿啶� 啶︵啶多啶い啷� 啷� 啷ク啷� 啷�pracaye bhidyam膩ne tu sa峁僰hy膩 p奴le峁 bhidyate |
arthabhedo lubante峁 naiva ka艣cana d峁浥泍ate || 597 ||597. When the collections are many, the total number of bundles is also many. Nor does one see any difference in meaning whether the words ending in lup (involve one 耻辫补尘腻苍补 or more).
Commentary
[This analogy is questioned by some. From the word 辫补帽肠补辫奴濒墨, the meaning of the dvigu compound is understood, namely the idea of collection of five bundles. It is not the same idea which is understood, from the word 辫补帽肠补辫奴濒测补岣�. From this word, the idea of collection of five quintuplets is not understood. From the former word, one understands an object qualified by the number five. From the latter, one understands at least three objects, each consisting of five items. The chief difference is that, from the latter, one does not understand a collection at all, because it is an 别办补艣别峁 and not a dvigu compound. While this can be said about the word 辫补帽肠补辫奴濒测补岣�, brought in for the sake of analogy the same thing cannot be said about the word 碍腻艣测补辫腻岣� which is the subject of discussion. Whether each object of comparison, the image, is compared to a separate standard of comparison and then an 别办补艣别峁 is made of all the words so formed or whether all the objects of comparison are compared to one single standard of comparison, the same meaning is understood in both cases. As there is no difference in meaning, the meaning of lup is present even when an 别办补艣别峁 is made of all the words made at first separately. Therefore P. 1.2.51 would apply and the resulting word would have the singular number of the stem, that is, the yukta. It might be said that there is a difference in meaning as follows鈥擨f each image is compared to a separate standard of comparison and the plural number comes through 别办补艣别峁, then each image is compared to 碍腻艣测补辫补. But if many images are compared to a single standard of comparison then one 碍腻艣测补辫补 would be the standard for all. It is true that there is this much difference. But it is the image which is the meaning of lup that attains plurality and not any other meaning, and so P. 1.2.51 should apply. If it is applied, there would be singular number. Therefore the form 碍腻艣测补辫腻岣� has to be justified in some other way.]