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 3.14.464
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of verse 3.14.464:
उपाधेः कस्यचिद् वाक्ये प्रयोग उपलभ्यते ।
प्रतीयमानधर्मान् यो न कदाचित् प्रयुज्यते ॥ ४६४ ॥upādheḥ kasyacid vākye prayoga upalabhyate |
pratīyamānadharmān yo na kadācit prayujyate || 464 ||464. Sometimes the word expressive of the condition (upādhi) is actually used in the (explanatory) sentence. Sometimes, it is not mentioned but left to be understood.
Commentary
It is now shown that the condition for the operation of a grammatical rule is not always indicated in the same way.
[Read verse 464 above]
[In P. 4.2.57, the words tad asyāṃ praharaṇam’ is an imitation, in a general way, of sentences like: daṇḍaḥ praharaṇam asyām krīḍāyām = ‘a game in which a stick is the implement’, muṣṭiḥ praharaṇam asyāṃ kriḍāyām = ‘a game in which the fist is the implement.’ In these sentences the words expressive of the implements are pul in the same case-ending as the word tat in the sūtra and (he word expressive of the game is put in the same case-ending as the word asyām in the sūtra. The implement and the game constitute the condition (upādhi). For the use of the suffix ṇa taught in this sūtra and found in the words daṇḍā and mauṣṭā formed by this sūtra. The upādhi is put in the same case-ending in the sūtra as the one found in the explanatory sentences. The adoption of this parallelism (samānaśabda) is one way of indicating the upādhi. Another way of indicating it is not to mention it at all in the explanatory sentence but to leave it to be understood. Nor to have an imitation of it in the sūtra. That is the case here in P. 5.1.115. In explaining the expression brāhmaṇavad adhīte, formed by this sūtra, one says: brāhmaṇena tulyam adhīte (kṣattriyaḥ) = ‘the kṣattriya studies like a brāhmaṇa’. In this explanatory sentence, the action of studying is not presented as connected with brāhmaṇa. It is left to be understood. This is another legitimate way of indicating an upādhi. One cannot therefore object to the word kriyā, expressive of the upādhi, being put in the first case-affix, because connection can be shown by means of the completing sentence (vākyādhyāhāra).]
An illustration of where the upādhi is left to be understood is now given.