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.

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.3.18:

अदृष्टवृत्तिलाभेन यथा संयोग आत्मनः ।
क्वचित् स्वस्वामियोगाख्योऽभेदेऽन्यत्रापि स क्रमः ॥ १८ ॥

adṛṣṭavṛttilābhena yathā saṃyoga ātmanaḥ |
kvacit svasvāmiyogākhyo'bhede'nyatrāpi sa kramaḥ || 18 ||

18. Just as the Self, while it is connected (with everything) has the relation of ownership in regard to certain things only through adṛṣṭa, in the same way, elsewhere also the same thing holds good even though the relation is the same.

Commentary

The author now hints at a possible justification of the Vaiśeṣika view on the basis of mere logic (prauḍhivāda).

[Read verse 18 above]

[Just as the all-pervasive Soul which is in contact with everything feels a sense of ownership only in regard to the body, in the same way, even though all words, being words, inhere in ākāśa, each one through adṛṣṭa, means some particular thing only. Thus there is no excessive width. One might argue thus from the Vaiśeṣika point of view, but it is not right. Even though the Self is all-pervasive and, therefore, in contact with everything, yet everything does not belong to the Self nor does the same thing belong to all the selves, because what belongs to which self is regulated by adṛṣṭa. In the same way, all things are not expressed by all words. Which word expresses which thing is regulated by usage and convention. The relation between word and meaning is fitness (yogyatā). There is, therefore, no use of thinking about conjunction and inherence in connection with word and meaning.]

The author really holds that inherence is not the expressed meaning of any word.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: