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 3.3.16
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.3.16:
啶膏啶掂ぞ啶多啶班く啷囙ぃ 啶む 啶膏啶啶曕啶む啶� 啶膏啶啶曕啶む 啶掂た啶 啶椸ぎ啷嵿く啶む 啷�
啶膏ぎ啶掂ぞ啶じ啷嵿く 啶膏啶え啷嵿ぇ啷� 啶ㄠぞ啶ぐ啶膏啶むい啷嵿ぐ 啶︵啶多啶い啷� 啷� 啷оガ 啷�sv膩艣raye峁嘺 tu sa峁儁uktai岣� sa峁儁ukta峁� vibhu gamyate |
蝉补尘补惫腻测补sya sa峁僢andho n膩parastatra d峁浥泍ate || 16 ||16. A word conveys an all-pervasive object which is in contact with what is in contact with its substratum. But no other relation is seen for inherence.
Commentary
[Space, Time and Soul are all-pervasive. They cannot, therefore, come into any new and direct contact with 腻办腻艣补 which is also all-pervasive. They are conveyed by their words (Dik, 办腻濒补, 腻迟尘腻) by the relation of 艣惫腻艣谤补测补-蝉补峁儁耻办迟补蝉补峁儁辞驳补 in the following way: Earth etc. are in contact with 腻办腻艣补. Space, Time and Soul are in contact with earth etc. The qualities which inhere in all-pervasive objects are con- veyed by their words by 艣惫腻艣谤补测补-蝉补峁儁耻办迟补蝉补尘补惫腻测补. The universal which inheres in these qualities is conveyed by 蝉惫腻艣谤补测补-蝉补峁儁耻办迟补蝉补尘补惫别迟补蝉补尘补惫腻测补. Thus, how substance, quality, action and universal are conveyed by words has been shown. The word 惫颈艣别峁 conveys the particularity (惫颈艣别峁) inherent in atoms by 蝉补峁儁耻办迟补蝉补尘补惫腻测补. It conveys the particularity inherent in 腻办腻艣补 by inherence in the same thing. It conveys the particularity inherent in Dik, 办腻濒补 and 腻迟尘腻 by 蝉惫腻艣谤补测补-蝉补峁儁耻办迟补蝉补尘补惫腻测补. Thus the way in which words convey five out of the six categories accepted by the 痴补颈艣别峁办补蝉 has been explained. Nothing has been said about inherence, also one of their categories. It is not a substance and so cannot be related to anything by conjunction. Nor can there be another inherence. Nor can one argue as follows:鈥斺�淭he word 蝉补尘补惫腻测补, being a word, inheres in 腻办腻艣补. Jar etc. are in conjunction with 腻办腻艣补 which is all-pervasive. Inherence exists in jar etc. Therefore, the word 蝉补尘补惫腻测补 conveys its meaning by 艣惫腻艣谤补测补-蝉补峁儁耻办迟补蝉补峁僢补苍诲丑补, relation with what is in conjunction with one鈥檚 own substratum鈥�. Inherence can exist in jar etc. only by inherence and there cannot be a second inherence.]