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 3.3.39
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.3.39:
व्यपदेशे पदार्थानामन्या सत्तौपचारिकी ।
सर्वावस्थासु सर्वेषामात्मरूपस्य दर्शिका ॥ ३९ ॥vyapadeśe padārthānāmanyā sattaupacārikī |
sarvāvasthāsu sarveṣāmātmarūpasya darśikā || 39 ||39. In verbal usage, there is another Being, a secondary one, which presents the real nature of things in all circumstances.
Commentary
The eternality of the relation between word and meaning is now explained in another way.
[Read verse 39 above]
[When words convey objects the things so conveyed have a Being distinct from their external Being. It consists in their figuring in the mind. Such a Being is called ‘aupacārikī’, to distinguish it from Being outside the mind, in the external world. Through this Being, things are presented as past or as yet to come. That is how words like past (atīta) and future (anāgata) also convey a meaning. When words present things as standing in the relation of viśeṣaṇa and viśeṣya, it is this Being in which they participate. Things in the world exist in a mixed-up state, not viśeṣaṇa separately and viśeṣya separately, but words present them separately. This separation participates in this Being. The objects denoted by words are conceived in the mind and the mind can conceive objects which have no external Being and words convey them as they are conceived by the mind. That is why words like alātacakra and śaśaviṣāṇa have a meaning. They convey something conceived by the mind but having no external being. Thus words are never without a relation, with their meanings. Till something figures in the mind, its existence or Being is a matter of faith only. In verbal usage, it is this secondary Being which plays the main part. Things come to be because of this Being. They do not assume their proper form till they are mixed up with words. When all usage can be explained in terms of this Being, if one still wants to think of some other kind of Being, consisting of fulfilling practical purposes (arthakriyākaraṇa), let one do so. But such a Being cannot enter into verbal usage. It is another matter if such a Being is also reflected in this one. That is what is now going to be shown by means of an example.]
Now follows the example.