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 3.14.111
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.14.111:
啶啶班ぞ啶椸啶掂啶む啶む啶班啶啶曕啶むさ啶︵啶ぞ啶掂 啶粪し啷嵿啷� 啶啶︵ぞ啶多啶班く啶� 啶さ啷囙い啷� 啷�
啶掂啶む啶む 啶膏啷嵿啶ぞ啶掂た啶多啶粪ぞ啶｀ぞ啶� 啶む啶ぞ啶椸ぞ啶︵ 啶啶︵ 啶ㄠた啶掂ぐ啷嵿い啶む 啷� 啷оェ啷� 啷�pr膩gv峁泃teryuktavadbh膩ve 峁峁ａ弓h墨 bhed膩艣ray膩 bhavet |
v峁泃tau sa峁卥hay膩vi艣e峁Ｄ佱箛膩峁� ty膩g膩d bhedo nivartate || 111 ||111. If the view is that the gender and number of the word before it enters into the 惫峁泃迟颈 are extended, then the sixth case-ending also would be extended. But as, in a 惫峁泃迟颈, particular numbers are abandoned, anything based on difference (like the sixth caseending) cannot come in.
Commentary
[If it is maintained that it is the gender and number of the word before it entered into the 惫峁泃迟颈 which are extended, then the sixth case-ending also would have to be extended because it also expresses number. But the M. Bh膩. has declared that it is number in general which is extended and not a particular number. Secondly, the sixth case-ending is based on difference and in a 惫峁泃迟颈, the meanings of the constituents become one and so there is no difference. Hence there cannot be any question of the sixth case-ending coming in. Really speaking, it is the gender and number of word after it has entered into the 惫峁泃迟颈 which are extended and not what there was before.]
If that is so, the undifferentiated singular would come in as that is what the secondary constituent has after the word has entered the 惫峁泃迟颈 and the form godau 驳谤腻尘补岣� would not be realised. So the original objection still stands. This is now answered.