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 2.67-68
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 2.67-68:
तेन चापि व्यवच्छिन्ने द्रव्यत्वे सहचारिणि ।
असम्भवाद् विशेषाणां तत्रान्येषामदर्शनम् ॥ ६७ ॥
न च सामान्यवत्सर्वे क्रियाशब्देन लक्षितः ।
विशेषा नहि सर्वेषां सतां शब्दोऽभिधायकः ॥ ६८ ॥tena cāpi vyavacchinne dravyatve sahacāriṇi |
asambhavād viśeṣāṇāṃ tatrānyeṣāmadarśanam || 67 ||
na ca sāmānyavatsarve kriyāśabdena lakṣitaḥ |
viśeṣā nahi sarveṣāṃ satāṃ śabdo'bhidhāyakaḥ || 68 ||67. When substance in general (dravyatva) is taken away by it (from other substances) with which it co-exists, other substitutes are not seen there (that is, in the sacrifice) because of impossibility.
68. The verb does not bring to the mind all particular substances as it does substance in general. A word indeed does not express all the meanings which it has.
Commentary
[Here the Vṛtti explains as follows—
If the verb yajeta brings substance in general to the mind and not a particular substance and so the word vrīhibhiḥ is a positive prescription of rice and not an exclusion of other substances, it means that a substance like barley has not been excluded. That being so,why doesit not come optionally? The answer is that prescriptive words are of two kinds: (1) Some have a restrictive effect. They prescribe something and in effect, exclude others (2) Others do not emphasize the restrictive side. Some scholars of Mīmāṃsā say that, in some matters this becomes, a kind of restriction through impossibility (asambhavaniyamaḥ [asambhava-niyama]) when, through the mention of the word rice, the universal of rice (vrīhitva) becomes an extra accessory of sacrifice, it is not possible for other universals like yavatva to become accessories though they have not been openly set aside, because they cannot coexist with Vrīhitva in the same thing. If they could become accessories at all, it would be because they come to the mind due to lack of contradiction. They would then be combined with other things and not adopted optionally. Only, that which is openly stated by the words can become an option. The verb does not convey a particular accessory but only substance in general. A word does not express all that actually exists.)
Now an illustration is given.