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 2.57-58
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 2.57-58:
अभेदपूर्वका भेदाः कल्पिता वाक्यवादिभिः ।
भेदपूर्वानभेदांस्तु मन्यन्ते पददर्शिनः ॥ ५७ ॥
पदप्रकृतिभावश्च वृत्तिभेदेन वर्ण्यते ।
पदानां संहिता योनिः संहिता वा पदाश्रया ॥ ५८ ॥abhedapūrvakā bhedāḥ kalpitā vākyavādibhiḥ |
bhedapūrvānabhedāṃstu manyante padadarśinaḥ || 57 ||
padaprakṛtibhāvaśca vṛttibhedena varṇyate |
padānāṃ saṃhitā yoniḥ saṃhitā vā padāśrayā || 58 ||57. According to the upholders of the (indivisible) sentence, unity precedes division which is fictitious. The upholders of the individual word, on the other hand, hold that the unities of the sentence are preceded by their divisions.
58. The fact of the saṃhitā (the connected text) being the source of the individual words is explained by resorting to a different complex formation (Vṛtti). padaprakṛtih can be explained either thus: ‘the saṃhitā is the source of the individual words’ or thus: the saṃhitā has the individual words as its source.
Commentary
[Read verse 57 above]
The statement padaprakṛtiḥ saṃhitā (Ṛk-prātiśākhya. 2.1) is now considered.
[Read verse 58 above]
[The compound word padaprakṛtiḥ [padaprakṛti] is taken as a ṣaṣṭhī-tatpuruṣa according to those who follow the akhaṇḍapakṣa. The others take it as a bahuvrīhi. If the Vedic sentences are indivisible and not composed by humans (apauruṣeya), then the individual words obtained by analysis are of human origin (pauruṣeya). On the basis of this very statement, the other view, namely, that the individual words are real and that the sentence is a fiction can be justified. It is like this: The individual words are eternal and not formed by men. Their connection is man-made. Each word conveys its own meaning, plus its connection in general with the meanings of the other words. In the presence of the other words, this connection becomes specific and is realised. Thus, the sentence-meaning is conveyed by the words themselves and not by the sentence.
The Vṛtti also refers to the statement of the Ṛk-prātiśākhya and says that some held the padapāṭha of the Vedas to be eternal and the connected text (saṃhitāpāṭha) to be of human origin while others held just the opposite view.]
A statement of Patanjali is now explained.