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 3.14.268
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.14.268:
啶う啶距ぐ啷嵿ぅ啶距え啷佮お啶樴ぞ啶む啶� 啶︵啶多啶い啷� 啶� 啶掂た啶多啶粪ぃ啶 啷�
啶呧ぅ 啶溹ぞ啶むた啶い啷嬥そ啶班啶ムじ啷嵿く 啶曕ざ啷嵿啶苦う啷� 啶оぐ啷嵿ぎ啷� 啶ㄠた啶掂ぐ啷嵿い啶苦い啶� 啷� 啷ㄠガ啷� 啷�pad膩rth膩nupagh膩tena d峁浥泍ate ca vi艣e峁峁嘺m |
atha j膩timato'rthasya ka艣cid dharmo nivartita岣� || 268 ||268. It is seen that a qualifier does not set aside the thing qualified. Therefore (in 补产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺) a part of the meaning of the word expressive of the universal is set aside.
Commentary
[It is now clear why the 叠丑腻峁补 points out that, in the 耻迟迟补谤补辫补诲腻谤迟丑补辫谤腻诲丑腻苍测补 view, on hearing 鈥�补产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺m 膩naya鈥� one would bring a 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺. In a compound like 谤腻箩补辫耻谤耻峁, the first constituent qualifies the second one without setting it aside and so it can be a qualifier. Here the negative particle sets aside the meaning of the second constituent and, so, it cannot be a qualifier. It is as good as meaningless and so, on hearing 补产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺m 膩naya, one would bring just a 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺. This, of course, is wrong. So the correct interpretation is that the negative particle negates the existence of a part of the attributes for which the universal-expressing word 产谤腻丑尘补峁嘺 stands. The remaining attributes stand. In this way, the use of the negative particle has a purpose and it becomes a qualifier.]
A difficulty is now pointed out.