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 3.3.38
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.3.38:
नित्येऽनित्येऽपि वाच्येऽर्थे पुरुषेण कथंचन ।
संबन्धोऽकृतसंबन्धैः शब्दैः कर्तुं न शक्यते ॥ ३८ ॥nitye'nitye'pi vācye'rthe puruṣeṇa kathaṃcana |
saṃbandho'kṛtasaṃbandhaiḥ śabdaiḥ kartuṃ na śakyate || 38 ||38. Whether the expressed meaning of words is eternal or transitory, no human being can establish a relation (between words and meanings) with the help of words whose relation with their meanings has not yet been established.
Commentary
It is now stated that the relation cannot be mere convention.
[Read verse 38 above]
[According to the view that the meaning of a word like the universal is eternal, nobody can establish a relation between word and meaning for the first time. According to the view that the things denoted by words are impermanent and that words are also impermanent, the position would be the same. The person who would like to establish a relation between particular words and particular meanings cannot, of course, see all things with his own eyes. Even if he sees them through their universals, many universals may exist in the same thing and it would be difficult to choose between them. Nor can inference be of much help because the thing inferred can only be understood as mixed up with words and, therefore, it cannot be of much use in first establishing a relation between the two. By a process of elimination, he has to rely on words to do the job. He would have to determine things through words and then establish the relation. But the words used for determining things also depend upon convention (saṅketa) and, therefore, other such words would have to be brought in and thus there would be regressus ad infinitum. Nor can the nature of things be determined with the help of words the convention of which has not been established. Thus one has ultimately to depend on words which have a natural and eternal capacity to denote their meanings.]
The eternality of the relation between word and meaning is now explained in another way.