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 3.14.80
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.14.80:
अर्थान्तराभिधानाच्च पौर्वापर्यं न भिद्यते ।
राजदन्ताहिताग्न्यादिराजाश्वादिषु सर्वथा ॥ ८० ॥arthāntarābhidhānācca paurvāparyaṃ na bhidyate |
rājadantāhitāgnyādirājāśvādiṣu sarvathā || 80 ||80. As there is the possibility of another meaning being understood, the order of words in rājadanta, āhitāgni etc. and rājāśva etc. is not altered.
Commentary
If śāstra is the eye of those who cannot see the usage of the cultured, why is it sometimes declared unnecessary?
[Read verse 80 above]
[Even though the śāstra is the eye, it is sometimes discarded as unnecessary when, even without it, the right form would be used, as otherwise, some other meaning could be conveyed. For example, if one says dantarāja instead of rājadanta, some other meaning would be conveyed. So one is bound to say rājadanta. Where no wrong use is ever heard, there is no use in having śāstra. Where the same meaning would be understood no matter what the order of the constituents is, there also there is no need to have śāstra, as, for example, in āhitāgni. Agnyāhita would mean the same thing.]
If śāstra is unnecessary where incorrect use of a word does not take place, why is elision of the suffix taught in gargāḥ?