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 3.8.4:

गुणभूतैरवयवैः समूहः क्रमजन्मनाम् ।
बुद्ध्या प्रकल्पिताभेदः क्रियेति व्यपदिश्यते ॥ ४ ॥

guṇabhūtairavayavaiḥ samūhaḥ kramajanmanām |
buddhyā prakalpitābhedaḥ kriyeti vyapadiśyate || 4 ||

4. What is called action is a collection of parts produced in a sequence and mentally conceived as one and identical with the parts which arc subordinate to it.

Commentary

Thus action is something which is presented by words as a process having parts arranged in a sequence. How the idea of a single action arises from parts or moments which cannot co-exist is now explained.

[Read verse 4 above]

[The moments or parts come into existence to serve one single purpose and they are unified in one unifying act of cognition. And that is called action. The parts exist for the whole and, therefore, they are identified with it. Action is one and is conveyed by the root. On the basis of its parts, one speaks of its inner sequence. Oneness is attributed to it on the basis of the whole which is not real, because the parts, produced in a sequence. cannot co-exist. Therefore, verbs like pacati stand for that collection of parts like adhiśrayaṇa = putting the vessel on the fire and so on, conceived by the mind as a unity. The result comes from the whole and not from any particular part, as, otherwise, the other parts would be useless. The result depends upon all the parts, not merely on the one which immediately precedes it. The result is one and, therefore, the parts lead to the idea of one action. ]

If the whole is called action, a part cannot be so called. How then can one account for the use of the different tenses when some parts are over and others are yet to come?

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: