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 2.392-393
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 2.392-393:
अथ तैरेव जनितः सौऽर्थो भिन्नेषौ वर्तते ।
पूर्वस्यार्थस्य तेन स्याद्विरोधः सह वा स्थितिः ॥ ३९२ ॥
सहस्थतौ विरोधित्वं स्याद् विश्ष्टाविशिष्टयोः ।
व्यभिचारी तु सम्बन्धस्त्यागेऽर्थस्य प्रसज्यते ॥ ३९३ ॥atha taireva janitaḥ sau'rtho bhinneṣau vartate |
pūrvasyārthasya tena syādvirodhaḥ saha vā sthitiḥ || 392 ||
sahasthatau virodhitvaṃ syād viśṣṭāviśiṣṭayoḥ |
vyabhicārī tu sambandhastyāge'rthasya prasajyate || 393 ||392. If the sentence meaning, produced by the meanings of the individual words exists in each one of them, it is either opposed to it or it co-exists with it.
393. If the particularised and the non-particularised co-exist, there would be opposition between the two. If the meaning (of the individual word) is abandoned, then the relation becomes impermanent.
Commentary
The upholder of the indivisible sentence criticizes both the possibilities in the opposite view.
[Read verse 392-393 above]
[What is meant here is this: The individual words ultimately convey the sentence-meaning after having first conveyed their own meaning. If, once the sentence-meaning is understood, they abandon their own meaning, then the relation between the word and the meaning becomes temporary which is against the opponent’s own belief. Therefore, according to this view, there cannot be real individual words and their meanings.
The Vṛtti points out that the meaning of the individual word is of a general nature and it can become particularised only when its general nature ceases to be : Sāmānyarūpanivṛttyaiva hi viśeṣa ātmānaṃ labhate. But if the general meaning which is first conveyed is abandoned, then the relation between the word and the meaning cannot be considered to be eternal and that would go against the accepted view of both sides:—Atha tu pūrvam upāttārthaḥ (am?) parityajati nityatvaṃ sambandhasya hīyate.]
If the sentence attains completion in the collection's the sentence-meaning the meaning of the collection of words or is it the meaning of the individual words also?