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 1.7
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 1.7:
स्मृतयो बहुरूपाश्च दृष्टादृष्टप्रयोजनाः ।
तमेवाश्रित्य लिङ्गेभ्यो वेदविद्भिः प्रकल्पिताः ॥ ७ ॥smṛtayo bahurūpāśca dṛṣṭādṛṣṭaprayojanāḥ |
tamevāśritya liṅgebhyo vedavidbhiḥ prakalpitāḥ || 7 ||7. The various Smṛtis, some having visible utility and others invisible utility, have been propounded by the sages, well-versed in the Veda on the basis of this very Veda, with the help of indications.
Commentary
Some traditions have a written basis while others have no written basis, but are known from the conduct of the cultured. Traditions relating to medical treatment etc., have a visible purpose to serve. Traditions relating to what can be eaten and what not, which woman one can marry, or otherwise, what can be said and what not have an invisible purpose. Where two traditions relating to the same subject go against each other, there is option, provided that there is no visible purpose to be served.1 Where two traditions relating to the same subject go against each other and there is a visible purpose and disapproval by the cultured, there, the traditions having visible purpose have no authority.2 Where two traditions relating to the same subject differ from each other and there is visible purpose, but no disapproval by the cultured, there there is option. For example, in the matter of the penance to be observed for killing a frog.3 What is meant by ‘on the basis of this very Veda, with the help of indications,’ is that the indications found in the Scripture make us know that the actions taught in the Scripture and the written Tradition have the same agent. Those persons who are entitled to perform the action taught by Scripture, having a visible or invisible purpose, are made known by the Scripture itself as being entitled to perform the actions taught by the written Tradition. For example, the injunction: ‘the sacrificer should cook for a guest who has arrived a big bull or a big ram.’4 Sometimes (i.e., when no indica-tion is found in the Scripture in a particular case) the indications found elsewhere are enough on the analogy of the rice in the cooking pot,5 to establish the authority of the traditions which do not go against Scripture.
Notes
1. G.Dh.S. 22, 3 and Manu. 11. 73 prescribe two different penances for one who is guilty of having killed a Brāhmana. As the purpose of the penance is invisible and as both texts are authority, there is option. Another example is G.Dh.S. 23, 8-10 where two penances are taught for one who is guilty of having committed sacrilege with the wife of the Guru.
2. Even where a tradition has a visible purpose to fulfil, if it is disapproved by the cultured, it should not be followed. Drinking of liquor as a medicine has a visible purpose, namely, the curing of the disease and it is, therefore, prescribed by Ayurveda. But drinking liquor is prohibited in the Dharmaśāstra i.e., by the cultured. This prohibition has greater authority than the prescription of Ayurveda. That is why one has to do penance after drinking liquor as a medicine.
3. Yā. Sṃṛ. 3.270.
4. Ś. B. 3.4.1.2.
5. See Jacob. A Handful of Popular Maxims, I, p. 52.