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 2.349
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 2.349:
नियमः प्रतिषेधश्च विधिशेषस्तथा सति ।
द्वितीये यो लुगाख्यातस्तच्छेषमलुकं विदुः ॥ ३४९ ॥niyamaḥ pratiṣedhaśca vidhiśeṣastathā sati |
dvitīye yo lugākhyātastaccheṣamalukaṃ viduḥ || 349 ||349. That being so, restrictions and prohibitions are also supplementary to the original injunction. The aluk (which is taught in P. 6.3.1) has been declared to be supplementary to the luk (which is taught in P. 2.4.71).
Commentary
[Exceptions, restrictions and prohibitions are looked upon as making one sentence with the original injunction on the basis of either vākyaikavākyatā or padaikavākyatā. The former is defined thus:—upakāryopakārakabhāvāpannabodhajanakatvam.
Without using these technical expressions, the Vṛtti explains the same ideas in its own words: vidhikāla evotkṛṣṭasya punaḥśruter aprāptir anumīyate = At the time of the original injunction itself, it is inferred that it would not apply to what would not come within its scope. Similarly when P. 2.4.71. teaches the elision of the case endings of words which are to enter into a samāsa, it is understood that this elision does not take place when particular words become the second term in a compound. In other words, the original injunction and the later exception or restriction or prohibition are understood as one sentence and so understood together : yaśca supo dhātuprātipadikayor iti dvitīyena lug anvākhyāyate tasya tasminnevāvadhivākye uttarapada-viśeṣaṃ varjayitveti prathamameva vidhinā prakalpitaḥ śeṣo'numīyate.]
Those who are against looking upon them as one sentence argue that the sentences in question are complete in their meaning and so there is no relation of primary and secondary between them.