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 2.245
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 2.245:
啶ㄠた啶ぎ啶︵啶啶むえ啶距ぐ啷嵿ぅ啶� 啶掂ぞ 啶呧え啷佮さ啶距う啷嬥そ啶ムさ啶� 啶さ啷囙い啷� 啷�
啶曕ざ啷嵿啶苦う啷囙さ啶距ぐ啷嵿ぅ啶掂ぞ啶傕じ啷嵿い啶む啶� 啶多が啷嵿う啶� 啶多啶粪ぞ啶膏啶む啶掂え啶班啶ム啶距 啷� 啷ㄠオ啷� 啷�niyamadyotan膩rth膩 v膩 anuv膩do'thav膩 bhavet |
ka艣cidev膩rthav膩峁僺tatra 艣abda岣� 艣e峁Ｄ乻tvanarthak膩岣� || 245 ||245. Or (the particles) would only suggest a restriction or they would restate (meanings expressed by other words). Only one word (in a sentence) would possess a meaning and the rest would be meaningless.
Commentary
[If the view that the particles (苍颈辫腻迟补) are only manifestors (of the meanings of other words) and not expressive of their own meaning is adopted, then in the present case, in v峁沰峁 na the word itself would denote the object and its negation and the negative particle would only manifest that negation. What merely manifests the meaning of another word is useless. It would do no more than restrict the object to be negated to the tree. To interpret a word as merely restrictive is not satisfactory. Nor would it do to say that one of the two words denotes both the object and its negation and the. other word only restates it (补苍耻惫腻诲补), because restatement is a kind of repetition. All this is the result of looking upon the sentence and its meaning as divisible. Therefore, it is better to look upon it as indivisible.]