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 2.27
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 2.27:
भावनासमये त्वेतत् क्रमसामर्थ्यमक्रमम् ।
व्यावृत्तभेदो येनार्थो भेदवानपलभ्यते ॥ २७ ॥bhāvanāsamaye tvetat kramasāmarthyamakramam |
vyāvṛttabhedo yenārtho bhedavānapalabhyate || 27 ||27. This indivisible (Sentence) is understood as having the capacity for sequence (or division) at the time of the artificial separation (bhāvanā-samaye). Hence its meaning, though devoid of all division is perceived as having division.
Commentary
Indivisibility is now set forth in a different manner.
[Read verse 27 above]
[In the Brahmakāṇḍa, the nature of sphoṭa has been determined. It is the sentence as sphoṭa which is expressive. At the time of analysis, the sentence-meaning is understood as having sequence and division, but it really has none.
The Vṛtti gives the analogy of Dik to explain how the One appears as many. Dik (Direction, Space) is one but when we use expressions like ūrddhvam, adhaḥ [adhas], tiryak, we are speaking about it as though it had divisions, knowing that it has none: ūrdhvam adhas tiryag ityekatve'pi diśāṃ yathāyathaṃ viniviṣṭabhāvanāviśeṣāḥ sarvaprāṇinaḥ = All beings have an inner disposition to divide Dik (Direction, Space) which, though one, is regarded by them as being above, below, across and so on.]
The view that the sentence is nothing more than a collection of words and not an entity over and above them and that the word is nothing more than a collection of phonemes and not an entity over and above them is now criticized.