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 3.7.157
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.7.157:
द्विष्ठोऽप्यसौ परार्थत्वाद् गुणेषु व्यतिरिच्यते ।
तत्राभिधीयमानः सन् प्रधानेऽप्युपभुज्यते ॥ १५७ ॥dviṣṭho'pyasau parārthatvād guṇeṣu vyatiricyate |
tatrābhidhīyamānaḥ san pradhāne'pyupabhujyate || 157 ||157. Even though it (the śeṣa relation) rests on both it brings about a distinction in what are secondary because of their being subordinate to something else. Being expressed there (that is, in what are secondary), it touches what is primary also.
Commentary
Why the sixth case-affix is not added to the word ‘puruṣa’ also is now explained.
[Read verse 157 above]
[The relation (of master and servant, in this case) is one though it rests on both and so it is right that the sixth case-affix should be used only on one of the terms. If it were used on both, the relation would be understood twice. If it is to be used only once, it is natural that it should be joined to the word expressive of what is secondary and not to the one expressive of what is primary. What is secondary follows what is primary. The relation brings about a distinction in what is secondary and so it causes a change in the form of the word expressive of it. What is primary retains its original form and comes within the relation. Whatever peculiarity it gets (that is, the fact of belonging to somebody) is due to the sentence and so it cannot affect its form. Hence the sixth case-affix is not added to it.]
From the relation which is the result, one can infer in a general manner that it must have been preceded by the relation of action and accessory. But how to understand which particular action and accessory?