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 2.351
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 2.351:
विशेषविधिनाऽथिंत्वाद् वाक्यशेषोऽनुमीयते ।
विशेषवन्नवर्त्येऽर्थे तस्मात्तुल्यं व्यपेक्षणम् ॥ ३५१ ॥viśeṣavidhinā'thiṃtvād vākyaśeṣo'numīyate |
viśeṣavannavartye'rthe tasmāttulyaṃ vyapekṣaṇam || 351 ||351. (As the original injunction) requires the special injunction, the latter is taken to be supplementary to it. The special injunction also requires the other in the matter of determining what is excluded by it. Therefore, mutual requirement is similar in each case.
Commentary
The upholder of the single sentence argues as follows—
[Read verse 351 above]
[What is pointed out here is that the original and special injunctions (niyama, apavāda or pratiṣedha) require each other in order to determine their own meaning. As their mutual requirement is equal, it is better to look upon them as constituting one sentence. Each requires the other in order to exclude the scope of the other from its own scope.
While explaining this verse the Vṛtti takes a different kind of example altogether. It takes the sūtra P. 3.1.96, that is, tavyat-tavya-anīyaraḥ = ‘After a root occur the suffixes tavyat, tavya and anīyar. It says that according to some, the verb ‘to occur’ is one though it has three different agents. The verb being one, there is only one sentence here:—bhavater ekatvād ekavākyatvam. According to others, the action denoted by the verb becomes different with each different agent. With each agent, the action is self-sufficient and so there are as many actions as there are agents and so as many sentences. Those who uphold the view that there is only one sentence say that each of the three suffixes is separately the agent of the verb bhavati, while mutual requirement does exist. The agent-power (kartṛśakti) is one, but it exists in three different suffixes: ekavākyavādinastu manyante—satyām apekṣāyāṃ tavyadādayaḥ pṛthak pṛthag bhavateḥ kartāro vijñāyante. Bhinnādhārā vā tavyadādīnāmekaiva kartṛśaktir iti.]
The question whether individual words can also be analysed into parts is now discussed:—
[Read next verse]