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 2.416
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 2.416:
स्वरूपं विद्यते यस्य तस्यात्मा न निरूप्यते ।
नास्ति यस्य स्वरूपं तु तस्यैवात्मा निरूप्यते ॥ ४१६ ॥svarūpaṃ vidyate yasya tasyātmā na nirūpyate |
nāsti yasya svarūpaṃ tu tasyaivātmā nirūpyate || 416 ||416. That which has a form, its essence is indefinable. That which has no form, it is the essence of that which is definable.
Commentary
According to Puṇyarāja, the purpose of the following verse is to state that the meaning of the real word, that is, the sentence, is the real conditioned by the unreal.
[Read verse 416 above]
[Couched in very general terms the meaning of this verse is not too clear. Puṇyarāja understands the first half as relating to the meaning of the individual word and the latter half as relating to the meaning of the sentence. The meaning of the individual word is said to have a form (svarūpaṃ vidyate yasya) because the object meant by it can be perceived. But it does not thereby become fit for verbal usage. That is why it is said to be indefinable (tasyātmā na nirūpyate). The meaning of the individual word, isolated from the meanings of the other words, especially the verb, is unfit for verbal usage. It is at best a means to the understanding of the sentencemeaning, the essence of which is interconnection of the meaning of the individual words and which is, therefore, fit for verbal usage and thus real.
It is a pity that the Vṛtti on this verse is obscure. It has gaps in several places. As usual, Puṇyarāja’s commentary seems to be based on it. Sentences like taccāsāṃ vedyaṃ yavahārātītam in the Vṛtti have obviously influenced the wording of Puṇyarāja’s commentary. But one cannot ignore the strong impression.which one gets while reading the Vṛtti that its analysis is deeper and that it contains some points not found in Puṇyarāja at all. Unfortunately due to the unsatisfactory nature of the text, it is not possible to note down those points.]