CHAPTER!

ISSUES ABOUT SENTENCE-STRUCTURE

The structure of a sentence has been considered from two view points
mainly in Indian intellectual tradition:

1. Concept of the singleness of the sentence (Ekavakyata)

2. Division of the sentence (vakyabheda)

In Indian tradition of poetics, various qualities and demerits of a vakya

has also been mentioned. These may be included in the singleness of a
sentence because the description of merits and demerits of a vakya is
always limited to the single sentence.

1. Concept of the singleness of the sentence

In Mahabhiirata, Sulabhii describes the five constituents of a viikya when

she visits Janaka, the king of Mithila:

Sauk~myarh siinkhyak.ramau cobhau nir1J-aya(l saprayojana~l

1
p aiicai tan yarthajiitiini viikyam i ty ucyat e 11 rpa

According to this definition, a viikya has five constituents:

1. Meticulousness

2. Distinction between merits and demerits in a given matter

3. Sequence of statements

4. Final decision

5. Purpose

1. Meticulousness- Meticulousness means to explore all possible

mentings of an utterance. A certain structure of a vakya can
convey two or more meanings. Kiitasloka-s of Mahiibharata are

I Mahabharata, santiparva, (320.79)

9
 good examples of meticulousness. Patafi.jali quotes some
sentences having dual meanings. He says:

Tatha vakyani dvi~!hiini bhavanti '§veto dhavati' alambusanarh yateti

1

Where a vakya conveys two or more meanings meticulousness of the

intelligence is required. When a speaker wants to convey two meanings he
uses such type of sentences. If the level of· intelligence is equal, the
hearer understands both meanings otherwise it is not possible. This
quality of intelligence is called meticulousness. Though this is the quality
of intelligence, it is called the quality of the sentece (Vakya) because the
sentence is also used after it is structured by intelligence. A vakya
becomes associated with that quality of intelligence which structures a
vakya. That was also called vivak~a (intention of speaker). Due to
similarity of the quality of the intelligence and a vakya structured by it,
both are treated at par and the respective quality of the intelligence is
called that of vakya. It IS to be noticed that all five meanings to be
conveyed by a vakya are actually the qualities of intelligence but due to
association (sahacarya), they are called constituents of a sentence. It is
2
called upacara technically Patafijali describes many reasons of upacara
in his Mahabhasya. Of these, one is sahacarya (association).

2. Distinction

This is the second meaning that is closely associated with the sequence of
statements. Though sequence of statements is the quality that prevails in
the whole sentence structure, distinction has been closely associated with
the sequence. This association is indicated by compound formation
sailkhyakramau' where itaretaradvandva indicates that distinction and
sequence are associated closer than other constitutens. If a speaker
changes the sequence of statements, the distinction intended to be
conveyed will be changed automatically. If one has to make distinction he

1
Mahabha~ya, vol. l,I, p.78
2
Updarthayo~ sadrsyatisayamahimna bheda pratitisthaganamatram-SahityadarpaQa, p, 37

10
has to set the sequence of statements pnor to use of sentence as this
statement should precede this statement. Merits and demerits of a given
matter should be clearly conveyed in a sentence which is not possible
without following a particular sequence.

3. Sequence of statements

Before making an utterance, a speaker sets a sequence of statements to be

expressed in his mind. This is the most important and the least
requirement for an utterance to become a viikya. Without sequence of
statements, one cannot express anything. If anyone uses words without the
sequence in which they are set in the mind before making a statement, that
viikya is not understood by the hearer. It is understood only when hearer
makes rearrangement of words in that very order in which they are set in
speaker's mind before using that viikya. If for any reason, the hearer fails
to rearrange those unrelated words in an order that makes their meaning
related, understanding does not take place. An example will be helpful to
illustrate the point:

I. Udakan1 Devadatta ghafiidahara ifghrarn cedastisftalam

2. Devadatta ghafad Sfghram ahara udaka1h ced Sftalamasti.

In example (1) words are used not in a sequence that was set in mind of
the speaker before uttering the sentence. Example(2) shows the sequence
of words, set in the mind of speaker before uttering the sentence. If after
hearing sentence shown in example (1) hearer sets the words in the
sequence shown in example (2), he will certainly grasp the meaning of the
sentence. If, for any res son, the sentence shown in example (1) in the
sequence of words shown in example (2), he will not be able to conceive
the meaning of the sentence.

In the verse of Mahabharata, 'Krama' seems to have been used in a

different sense or in a rather wider sense. Here, it is not the sequence of

11
words but sequence of statements. It 1s clear from the explanation of
krama given afterwards:

!darn piirvamidarh pasccld vaktavyarh yadvivak~itam kramayoga1h

tamapyiihur vakya1h viikyavido jana~/

It seems that length of a sentence IS decided by desire of speaker

(vivak~a). If a speaker ony intends to inform a fact or to want someone to
execute his order, a sentence can serve the purpose. But if a topic or an
issue with its opposition (piirvapak~a) and final decision (uttarapak~a) is
taken with a purpose, the whole discussion will form a vclkya. That will be
similar to adhikara!Ja discussed in Mimarhsa which also contains five
steps.

If two sides or two persons or more take part in a discussion to know the
reality of something, that is ailed viida in Nyiiyadarfana 2 • When this viida
goes on, two sides have to consider to present their arguments defending
or attacking various positions. For this it is necessary to decide the
sequence of statements to strengthen their position. If one person presents
his arguments in a well thought sequence having a flow and conneclivity
among themselves, his position. in the discussion will be certainly
stronger. Here, krama is indicated In that very context. Commentator of
Mahabharata, Nilakary.!ha says:

krama ~l salikhyc!tiinii1h g U!Jado~ii!Jiilh baliibalav i eli ra7Jmn

It means that one has to present his arguments in a sequence so that force
of his arguments becomes greater and merits of his own position and
demerits of the opposite position are revealed.

4. Final Decision

After considering two sides on an tssue of debate- supporting and

opposing both- when one arrives on a certain conclusion that is called

IMahabharata, vol. VI, santiparva, (320, 83)

2
vada~ khalu nanapravaktrk~ pratyadhikara!)a sadhano' nyataradhikara!)a nifl)ayavasano vakyasamliha~­
NDVBH on (1.1.1) ,P-13

12
final decision (nin;,aya). It is expressed in the concluding part of a
sentence. It indicates that in this reference of Mahabharata, an issue of
debate is involved which is required to be resolved through a set
procedure of arriving on a conclusion otherwise what was the need of
mentioning decision (nin;,aya) in last part of the sentence:

Dharmakamarthamok~qu pratijfiaya vise~ata~ idarh taditi vakyante

procyate sa viniri).aya~
1

It indicates that a vakya begins with pratijfia i.e. statement of one's own
stand on a issue and ends with the conclusion, stating it is that. This is the
indication of five components (paficavayava) mentioned in Nyayadar§ana:

p ratijfiiihe tiidiihara~opanayan igamana n yavayava (z

Of these, pratijfiii is mentioned by name and nigama~a is nir~wya. Hetu

(reason), udiihara~a, (example) and upanaya (proving) are included In

siilikhya (distinction). For making a distinction of merits and demerits of

an issue of debate, reason, example and proving following the example are
helpful.

This reference of Mahabharata is at par with the notion of adhikarai).a m

Mimarhsa and avayava and vada in Nyayadadana.

5. Purpose

This decision should be with a purpose. Without a purpose even a layman

does not undertake any activity. Kumarilabhaqa says:

Prayojanamanuddisya na mando'pi pravartate

Like any other activity 2, a sentence should also be purposeful. The

purpose decides the conclusion. So, if purpose varies, the conclusion
drawn from the same sentence will vary. Both have very intimate relation.

I Mahabharate, santiparva, (320.84)

2
slokavartika, SAP, 55, p.551

13
This relation is indicated with the mention of both 1n a tagged way.
Conclusion is tagged with purpose:

niqwya~z saprayojanab

This element of purpose prevails from the very beginning to the end of a
sentence because a speaker, if he is not abnormal or mad, uses a sentence
with a purpose in his mind and that purpose guides him to arrive on a
certain conclusion.

Mimarp.sadadana defined the vakya on base of purpose. According to it,

the singleness of sentence is controlled by purpose. If the single purpose
is served by a vakya, that sentence is single. Singleness of a sentence is
also judged by the factor of expectancy. If a sentence has expectancy in
case of division, it is a single sentence. So, there are two factors deciding
the singleness of a sentence:

1. To serve a single purpose.

2. To expect other words if it is divided.

J aimini formulated a siltra in this regard:

arthaikatviid e ka~h viikya~h s iikii1i k~a1iz c edv ib hiige s yiit 1

This definition does not refer to competence (yogyatii) and proximity

(as(ltti) - two other factors of a viikya accepted in Nyayadadana. But
sabaraswami, the commentator of mlmii1.nsii siitra -s, has explained these
two factors on the basis of the expectancy. According to him, in the case
of lack of competence or proximity, there will remain a sense of
incompleteness i.e. expectancy 2 . And as an undivided sentence should not
have the expectancy, competence and proximity are bound to be in a
sentence. On the time period which decides the sannidhi, sabaraswami
says that expectancy will be the deciding factor. The time gap between

1
MS, (2.1.46) SDSS, P-8
2
See sabarbhasya on (MS. 2.1.46)

14
two words which does not allow the expectancy to anse IS appropriate for
proximity.

In view of J aimini singleness of the sentence is decided by the singleness

of purpose. This point is very important. Many scholars of various
disciplines established their theories on the basis of it. In poetics,
Visvanatha In his work sahityadarpal}a explained the concepts of
mahavakya and vakya. To explain the vakya, he followed the line of
Nyaya philosophy and accepted that a group of words having competence
expectancy and proximity is a viikya:

viikyariz syiidyogyatiikiink~iisatti yukta~z padoccaya~z 1 •

But, to explain the concept of mahavfikya, he follows the line of

mfmii1J1Sii. He says that a group of vakya-s is a mahavakya:

viikyoccayo mahiiviikyam 2

And, for example of mahavakya, he names Ramayal).a, Mahabharata and

Raghuvarhsa etc. To support his view, he guotes kumarila bhan, without
taking his name:

S viirt h abo d he sam iip t ii n ii riz a 1i g iili g itv a vyap e k ~a y ii

v iik yiin ii me ka v iiky a tv am pun a~~ s a1h h aty a j ii y at e
3

It means that after conveying their own meanings, sentences

combine to form a single sentence with respect to partness and wholeness.
Application of this principle to the given examples of Ramayal).a,
Mahabharata and Raghuvarhsa leads us to the conclusion that all sentences
available in abovementioned works convey a common sense that pervades
the whole text i.e. all sentences of that particular text. With respect to
that particular sense, all sentences become parts of that sentence which
conveys that particular sense. To convey that sense, all sentences combine

I SD, 2.1., p .24

2
ibid, p.25
3
Ibid,

15
to form a single sentence. This single sentence. is called mahavcikya by
Visvanatha. When Visvanatha defines mahlivcikya as a group of sentences,
he only means that a work as a whole conveys a single idea that is
elaborated through all sentences of the text in parts but to convey an idea
as a whole. To call the whell text a mahclvakya, it is necessary that all
sentences are included in the definition of mahlivcikya. In this respect,
Visvanatha is right because the whole text can not convey a single idea
until all sentences combine to form a single sentence. It can be concluded
that in view of Visvanatha, mahavakya is a single sentence which is so
long that it took the form of the whole work and all sentences of the text
are parts of it. Visvanatha indicated also about the single idea which a
work conveys. In first chapter (pariccheda) of sahityadarpa~Ja, he says:

Caturvargaphalapriiptirhi kiivyato riimiidivat pravartitavya1il na

riiva~ziidivadityiidikrtyiikrtya pravrttinivrtt yupadesadviire~za supratftaiva
1

Through this statement, Visvanatha suggests the works of poetry based on

behaviour of Rama and Raval).a and other similar works also which may be
based on the behaviour of a hero (nayaka) and a villain (Pratinayaka).
Ramayal).a is the main source of all works based on life and behaviour of
Rama. So, it appears that Visvanatha, here, indicates the single idea that
Ramayal).a conveys. This idea is that one should behave like Rama and not
like Raval).a. To convey this single idea, all sentences combine to form a
single sentence. All sentences of Ramayal).a when combined in the mind of
a poet (kavi) or audience (sahrdaya) convey this idea and that is why
Visvanatha calls the group of all sentences a mahavakya.

The concept of mahavakya, prevalent in .§ankara school of vedanta is

different from this. In this school, mahavakya means great sentence. The
greatness of the statement lies in the meaning it conveys. The meaning of
other sentences is contradicted but meaning conveyed by mahavakya is

I SD 1.2., p.9,

16
not contradicted ever 1• The implication of all sentences of vedclnta is in
non duality of the individual self and Brahman. This is signified by
mahiiviikya and 2 this great signification makes the sentence great I.e.
mahiivakya. In Pafi.cadasi, a famous work of §ankara school by
Vidyarai).ya, there 1s a whole chepter on mahiiviikya named
mahiivii kya vi v e kap ra karat} am.

The concept of singleness of sentence suggested by J aimini and elaborated

by Kumarila Bhana has been followed by other disciplines also. In
vedanta paribha~a a verse from Tantraviirtika is quoted to support the
elaboration of singleness of sentence. This is the same verse that is qusted
by visvaniitha in his work sahityadarpar:1a to support his statement about
concept of mahiiviikya. Without singleness of the sentence a mahiiviikya is
not possible. So, concept of great sentence or a large sentence is based on
the concept of singleness of the sentence. That is why Visvanatha and
Dharmaraja dhvarindra both quote the same verse to support their
interpretations. When hearer tries to know the sense of a whole text, he
rearranges all sentences in his mind to arrive on a conclusion. In this
mental state an expectancy arises in the mind of hearer to relate all
sentences of that text. This expectancy 1s fulfilled when he relates all the
sentences of the text and arnves on a conclusion. This conclusion is
conveyed by a single sentence and it is called mahavakya. The knowledge
of all other sentences of the text is the source of the knowledge conveyed
by mahiiviikya. Dharmaraja Adhvarindra says:

Kva tarhi viikyaikaviikyatii? Yatra Pratyekani

b hi nn ab hi nn as a 1hs a r gap ra ti piida kayo r vakyayorakiink~iivasena

mahiiviikyii rthabodhakatvam-- ----- -evmh mahiiviikyiirt habodhe'

viintaravakyiirthabodho hetu(l tathaiviinvayiidyava dhiiraf}at 3

Tadvi~ayasya jivaparaikyasya kalatrayaba dhyatvat- ve p. vi~aya., p 150

1

Adhuna tattvampadarthayoraikyam mahavakya pratipadyamabhidh!yate- ve.p, vi~aya, p.l95

2
3
Ve.P., agama, p.l 03 and p. 105

17
It can be concluded that singleness of a sentece is quided by a purpose.
The principle of unitary sentence 1s used by Visvanatha and
Dharmarajadhvarlndra both according to their disciplines they were
following. Visvanatha was faced with a vast literature before him and his
main concern was to explain literateure. As he viewed the literature
(kavya) in the form of a vakya i.e. rasatmaka vakya, he explained his view
about vakya and mahavakya. After the assertion of kavya as a vakya, it
was the demand of the logical mind that relevance of the concept of vakya
is proved. His explaination of the concept of mahavakya in particular is
attempt in this direction. Like vedtinta, in literary compositions there are
not great sentences available to be allconclusive in nature where
knowledge conveyed by all other sentences was included. So, after going
through the entire composition, an analytical mind reflects on the message
of the work. In this connection to find out a gist of the work is the
purpose. This purpose gives rise to the expectancy. Among sentences, the
process of unification is guided by this expectancy.

Any sentence not conveying the complete sense with respect to the
meassage of the whole work, is unified with a sentence that is expected by
it to convey the complete message of the work. In this way all sentences
unify to form single sentence. Till the all sentences of a work do not
unify, this expectancy can not be fulfilled. Any sentence to convey the
message of the whole, work is normally not available in the work itself.
This is the intended meaning of a work that is conveyed by the
mahtivtikya. mahtivtikya-s of vedtinta are of this type. In vediinta,
mahavakyas conveying the message of upani~ad-s are available within
upani~ads itself. On the contrary, such mahiiviikya-s are not available in
literary compositions. Visvanatha was fully aware of this fact. His
explanation of mahiivakya is entirely different with that of vedtinta. He
simply means that the whole literary work is a mahtivtikya i.e. collection
of sentences of the work. But this collection should have a certain order
to become a mahtivtikya. This order is already set by the poet in his work.

18
When a reader receives and retains the whole meamng of the work only
through those very sentences used 10 the work, mahiiviikya 1s
conceptualized 10 the mind of reader. In the context of literary
compositions (kiivya) divisions of the work such as anka, sarga, adhyiiya,
parva, taranga etc. combine to form a single sentence. Divisions of the
work form a single sentence first and then these sentences combine to
form a single sentence. All sentences of a division of the work combine
and become the part of that whole division and than all divisions become
the part of that whole work. This combination is guided by the
expectancy. A division of the work expects all sentences of that division
to convey a completes sense of that division. And the whole work expects
all divisions to combine in order to convey a complete sense of that work.
This is the viewpoint of visvaniitha about mahclviikya in literary context.

View of Vyakaral)a

In vyakararya tradition Patafij ali has discussed about the singleness of

sentence. He says that it is not necessary that a sentence must be read at a
time in a sequence if it is to fulfill the requirements of a single sentence.

To serve a purpose, a composer can split a sentence and read at two

different places in his work. Pataiijali gives example from A~!iidhyiiyf. He
opines that in second chapter of A~tiidhyiiyf luk is prescribed as a general
rule and in fourth and sixth chapters aluk is prescribed as an exception to
luk. In view of Patafijali, though this prescription of luk and aluk IS

uttered at three places i.e. different points of time, is a single sentence.

He says:

Na videsasthamiti kttviito niinaviikya1i1bhavati videsasthamapi sadeka1i1

viikya~ilbhavati tadyathii dvitfye' adhyiiye lugucyatetasya
caturtha~a~thayoralugucyate' paviida!z
1

1
Mbh. On (A 3.4.67), Vol. 3, P 356-57

19
Here question anses about the factor which regulates the singleness of a
sentence Kaiya!a indicates the expectaney as the regulating factor in this
regard:

Na kii labh ediinniiniivii kya tva1i1 bhavati siistre

v ide§as thiiniimapyaviintaraviikyiinii miikiilik.J(lVasiide ka vii kyatvada rianii t
1
des ag rahat:taril ciitra kii lasyopalak.Jat:tam s abdakramasya kii lakrtatvii t

Bhartrhari explains this statement of Patafijali without taking his name.

He concludes that if something is prescribed at a place and the same
prescription is regulated and negated with exception at different places, it
forms a single sentence though it contains anekakhyata (many verb-forms)
and uttered at different points of time.

anekiikhyiitayoge 'pi viikyaril nyiiyiipaviidayo~z

ekameve.Jyate kaiscidbhinnarupamiva sthitam niyama~z prati.Jedhasca

vidhise .Jas tathii sati dvi tiye yo lug akhyii tasta cche .Jamal uka1i1 vid u!z 2

When two or more sentences form a single sentence, there is one mam
sentence and others are subsidiary to it. Subsidiary sentences join the
main sentence and qualify the main sentence. In this position mam
sentence is called viikya and subsidiary sentence is called viikyase.Ja.

In mfmii '!zsii da riana also, J aimini discusses the issue of v aky ase~ a in the
context of determination of meaning of ambiguous prescriptions. He
formulated a sutra in this regard:

Sandigdhe tu viikyase.Jiit 3

It means that where meaning of a prescription is not decided it should be

decided by the viikyase.Ja. viikyase.Ja means a related statement that is
read anywhere else after a gap of many sentences between it and main
statement.

1
Mbh pra on (A 3.4.67) p.356.
2
VP (2.348-9)
3
MS (1.4.20) kutiihalav!tti, p 143

20
View of Rajasekhara

Raj asekhara in his famous work Kavyam1ma111sa discussed about pad a and
vakya in sixth chapter named padavakyaviveka. He defines vakya as
contextual statement containing padas and conveymg the implied
meaning:
1
padanamabhidhitsitarthag ranthana ka ra!t sand arbho vii kyam

Raj asekhara also defined pad a as combined form of word and meamng.
Word is defined by vyakara!Ja and meaning is defined by dictionaries. He
says:
2
Vyaka ra~Jas mrtin ir!Jftaf:t §abdo
niruktanig ha!Jtvadibhirnirdi~!astadabhidheyo 'rthastau pad am.

He divided the vakya in ten types on the basis of verb form (akhyata). In
this context he discussed about the singleness of a sentence that contains
many verbs. He quoted the view of some scholars without taking their
names that a single sentence has a single verb and so, in this case the
number of verbs will decide the number of sentences. But he efutes the
view and argues that a sentence is a single sentence inspite of having
many verbs if words convey a single meaning and karaka-s are uniform.
The whole debate has been presented by Rajasekhara in these words:

akhyataparatantra vakyavrttirato yavadakhyatamiha vakyani ityacarya!t

ekakarataya karakagramasya ekarthataya ca vacovrtterekamevedaJn
vakyam iti yayavarfya~t 3

View of Nyaya

In Nyayadadana Vatsyayana defined the vakya as collection of words

conveying a complete sense:

Padasamuho vakyamarthaparisamaptau 1

1
Kavyamimiirhsii, sixth chapter, p. 56
2
ibid, p. 54
~ ~··"
3
ibid, p 59. .
1/ (
\
-,._'
e· •
"-· ...
I,.

21
It means that a sentence is single if it conveys the complete sense. If it
does not convey the complete sense, it means that it is not a sentence.
This condition of conveying the complete sense is included in the
definition to exclude the collection of unrelated words from the category
of viikya.

The concept of singleness of a sentence 1n Nyayadadana as found rn

vyiikaraJJa and mfmiimsii is to be traced. Nothing can be said clearly ll1

this regard for lack of sufficient proof.

2. Concept of the division of the sentence (Vakya bheda)

J aimini defines that a sentence is single, if a single purpose is served by

it. It means number of sentences will be determined by number of
purposes. If a single sentence is divided, it will have expectancy. In
Indian tradition, viikyabheda has been discussed in the first sense i.e.
serving more than one purpose while commenting on the sources texts by
commentators. In vyiikara~Ja tradition. BhaHoji Diksita says while
commenting on a sutra (A 6.1. 94 ). in his work siddhanta kaumudi:

Iha vii supftyanuvartya viikyabhedena vyakhyeyam 2

The purpose of the· division of the sentence is to explain some words used
in one form and some words used in two forms. Prejate, upo~ati etc, are
the words used in this very form while upedakfyati and proghfyati are the
words used in the form of upaidakfyati and praughfyati also. To serve this
purpose, bhaHoji proposes the explanation based on division of sentence.

Patafijali also shows the division of sentence and unity of sentence to

serve various purposes. While commenting on 'iko guiavrddhi' (A 1.1.3)
he says that if alo 'ntyasya and iko gut:ta vrddhi are unified as a single

1
NDVBH on (2.1.56), p. 209
2
SK, Vol. I, p.64

22
sentence, ikogu~avrddhf will become part of alontyasya and if both are
different sentences, iko gu~avrddhf will become exception to alo 'ntyasya
1

View of Mimarpsa

In Mimarp.sa darsana, eight defects have been described if a sentence is

divided. Mimarpsa darsana is predominantly based on prescription. When
a sentence prescribes two activities, the sentence is divided. If this
division serves the purpose, there is no defect. In this condition, two
sentences prescribe two different and independent activities. But where an
activity is a part of another activity, there is scope of defect if a sentence
is divided in two sentences. In these conditions it is assumed that a
particular sentence conveys the prescription of the activity qualified with
another activity. Laugiik~i Bhaskara put this problem of viikyabheda in the
context of somayaga. The sentence is somena yajeta. It is accepted that
this sentence prescribes yiiga qualified with some. If this is not accepted,
this sentence will convey the meaning of two prescriptions- first that of
yiiga and second of soma. If this is accepted, a sentence will be divided
in two sentences:

Na cobhayavidhiine viikyabhedafi pratyeka mubhayasyiividhiiniit kintu

viS i~ fasya i kasya iva v idhiinii t 2

If a prescription is with an option, there are eight defects. Each option has
four defects. The commentator of Arthasail.graha, Rameshwara shivayogi
described these defects in prescription of yiiga with vrfhi or yava. If yiiga
is performed with vrfhi first, there are two defects:

1. Validity of prescription of yiiga with yava is not accepted.

2. Invalidity of prescription of yiiga with yava is accepted.

If yaga is performed with yava second time there are two defects:

1
See Mbh on (A 1.1.3) Vol., I I, p 192
2
Arthasari.graha, p.50

23
 1. Previously abandoned validity of prescription of yoga with yava
is accepted.

2. Accepted invalidity of prescription of yaga with yava 1s

abandoned.

Similarly if yaga is performed with yava first, there are two

defects:

1. Validity of prescription of yaga with vr!hi is not accepted.

2. Invalidity of prescription of yaga with vr!hi is accepted.

If yaga is performed with vr!hi second time, there are two

defects:

1. Previously abandoned validity of prescription of yaga with vr!hi

is accepted.

2. Accepted Invalidity of prescription of yaga with vr!hi IS

abandoned.

It is clear that when a sentence prescribes an activity with two options,

one of the two options will be applied first. Other option will naturally be
applied second. This order may be changed and previously first applied
option will be applied second and second applied option will be applied
first. In this way four performances will take place. Each performance
will be with two defects and in total eight defects will be there.

Sentence structure in Buddhist thought

Buddhist thought, it is accepted that whole lingual behaviour 1s unreal as

words don't refer to external reality. Words creat mental reality 1.e.
thought and thoughts creat words. As Ratna kirti says in apohasiddhi:

Vik alp ay on a y a~z i ab dii h v ik alp ii ~l i a b day on ay a ?z 1

1
Apohasiddhi, Quoted from apohavado see also, Tattvasail.graha, 1211, Vol-1, P. 313

24
One should not confuse that this is in line with the view of grammarians
that words denote mental reality and not external reality because
grammarians accept that words denote the mental image of that reality
which exists in external world anywhere. But Buddhist view is different.
Buddhist scholars accept 'apoha' as the denotation of words. On the
contrary grammarians hold the view that words denote mental reality that
is perceived by senses previously and this denotation is based on sariketa
i.e. a relationship between word and its meaning. Words have power to
denote realities as senses have power to perceive. This power is called
sakti by grammarians. On the contrary Buddhist scholars do not accept
any relationship between words and meaning. They say that words only
denote the removal of other than the concept created by words i.e. apoha
and by this apoha when all concepts other than the concept created by that
particular word are removed only concept crated by that particular word
remains and hearer knows the meaning of that word. So, primary role of
word in Buddhist thought is not to denote any meaning but to remove
other concepts. Words denote mental images created by mind, devoid of
any reality. santarak~ita says:

Arthasiinyabhijalpottharn viisanamatra ni rmitam p ratibimba1n yada bhati

tacchabdai~z pratipadyate
1

Everyone has its own concept. Words only create concepts according to
the mental state of hearer. Actually both-hearer and speaker perceive the
meaning of words according to their own conceptions but both receive the
same meaning of the words denoting external realities because cause of
confusion is the same. santarak~ita gives the example of a person with
eye-defect who perceives two moons and express his own perception to
the person with same defect. As both are having same eye defects, both
perceive the same thing i.e. two moons and there is no difference of

1
Tattvasailgraha, 1203, vol.l. P 311

25
 1
optmon between them • Buddhist scholars differ on the point of
testimonies and signification of word. They don't accept verbal testimony
and includeds it in inference.

In their view signification of word is apoha.

As the whole lingual behaviour is based on ideas, so the sentence is also

based on ideas. One idea is the source of another idea. Ideas of the
sentence are in mind of speaker and heaver. This flow of ideas
(vijfianasantati) about sentence is the cause of use of sentences. And idea

about the sentence is cause of verbal cognition. It can be concluded that a

particular form of idea created by words is a sentence. It is structured in
mind and received by mind. The words are used in an order in a sentence
according to normal view but in Buddhist though order is also an unreal
perception and actually words have no order but perceived as having an
order. So, in Buddhist thought there are four features of a sentence:

1. The sentence is internal.

2. It is subject to one idea

3. It is a particular form of idea

4. Categories of sentence structure are also unreal and there is no

order of words in a sentence actually but order is perceived by
persons according to their mental ideas.

It can be assumed that Buddhist view about categories of sentence-

structure and universal category of sentence structure is not very specific

because whole lingual behaviour is held unreal and only medium of

communication.

I Timiropahatakso hi yatha praha sasidvayam svasamaya tatha sarva sabdi vyavahrtir mala- ibid, 1210, p
313.

26
3. Issues taken into account by Bhartrhari

Issues regarding structure of viikya

Bhartrhari discussed mainly two issues regarding structure of vakya :

1- Vakya is divisible unit oflanguage 1

2- Vakya is indivisible. 2

Bhartrhari discussed eight views regarding sentence. Of these, three views are related to
those who think Vakya as an indivisible unit and five views are related to those who think
Vakya as a divisible unit. The whole Vakya kanda deals with the debate on these eight
views regarding Vakya. A brief account of eight definitions of vakya presented by
Bhartrhari is as follows-
1. Verb

Bhartrhari says that some scholars view the vakya as the verb (akhyata sabda). Later
Bhartrhari clarified that the intention of the scholars viewing the vakya as verb is not the
only verb. Where other tools to accomplish an action are understood by only utterance of
the verb only there the verb can convey the sense of whole vakya 3 • In this particular
condition only the verb may be a vakya because it is able to convey the meaning of whole
sentence. In this view vakya is a divisible unit of speech.

2. Group of words (smighiita)

In view of some scholars a group of words (saii.ghata) related to each other is vakya.
These scholars think that the vakya is divisible in words because words related through a
particular relationship form a sentence4 . In this view vakya is a divisible unit of speech.

3. Universal residing in Group (smiglziita vartinljiiti)

1
Yatha pade vibhajyante (VP 2.10)
2
(a) Tathaivaikasya Vakyasya (VP 2.9)
(b) Sabdasya na vibhago'sti (VP 2.13)
3
akhyata sabde niyatam ........ V.P. (2.326)
4
gurya bhavena ..... VP (2.48)

27
Some scholars opine that the universal residing in the group of related words forming a
sentence is a vakya. They intended to say that when a speaker makes an utterance in the
form of a sentence and a hearer hears it both conceive the same notion of sentence due to
commonness in the forms of different sentences. This universal is the cause of the
conception of the sentence despite the use of different words in different sentences if this
universal is not in sentences one cannot recognise the group of related words as a vakya
because in one time he can learn only about a sentence and afterwards he will need again
the instruction of a learned person to recognise a different sentence. But in common
practice it is being observed that after the learning some sentences one becomes able to
recognise the sentences he has not exactly learned. This proves that there is a universal
pervading in the group of words which makes one able to recognise any utterance as a
vakya 1• In this view vakya is an indivisible unit of speech.

4. Single speech without parts (eka anavaya sabda)

Some scholars hold the view that the speech without division and sequence of utterances
is a viikya 2 . Later it becomes clear that Bhartrhari stands in favour of this view. In this
view vakya has no words and subsequently words also do not have syllables. There is not
any sequence of uttered words permissible in this view. The sequence that is perceived by
a hearer is actually the quality of time and it is due to sounds which reveal the speech in
an utterance. Though there is a sequence of uttered words in common lingual behaviour,
it is the incapability of hearer that he cannot grasp the speech as a whole. Bhartrhari made
it clear in the first chapter that speech residing in mind is the cause of hearing and
understanding of different words. If it is not there, any understanding of utterances is
quite impossible. Bhartrhari illustrate the point by an example he says that if there is no
fire in the wood it is not possible the production of fire by rubbing two pieces of woods.
In this view vakya is an indivisible unit of speech.

5. Sequence (krama)

yathiik~epavise~e'pi ....... VP (2.20)

1
2
yathiiikaeva ........ VP (2.7)

28
 1
Some scholars view the vakya as a sequence of words . They opine that the words can be
called a sentence only if they are uttered in a sequence. This is the fact that is easily
acceptable to all because it is in accordance of the common observation about the lingual
behaviour. In this view vakya is a divisible unit of speech.

6. Abstraction in mind (buddhyanusatizhrti)

Some scholars view the vakya as an abstraction in the mind 2 . Pm;yaraj clarifies that this
view is near to Buddhist thought of the sentence but not exactly the same. In this view
there are no words in a sentence and sentence is without any part. When one hears a
sentence he thinks that he is hearing the words but this is not the reality. Actually
sentence is concluded in mind and the conception of words is also in mind. This is the
similarity between this view and the Buddhist view of the sentence. But there is
dissimilarity too. In this view the words and their meanings are based on the objects
existed in external world but in Buddhist view the words and their meanings are in mind
and they are falsely imposed on the objects of external world. In this view vakya is an
indivisible unit of speech.

7. First word (iidyapada)

In this view first word is vakya when it is related with other words uttered later3 . The
scholars supporting this view imply that in a sentence first word determines the sentence
and it has power to convey the sense of whole sentence. It should not be thought that only
first word without relation with other words can serve the purpose of whole sentence
because the first is a relative term and implies that there are other words also in the
sentence necessarily. The predominance of the first word in a sentence is implied to be
indicated here. In this view vakya is divisible unit of speech.

1
Santaeva ....... VP (2.49)
2
yadanta!) sabdatattvam tu ............ VP(2.30)
3
vise~a sabdai) ........ VP(2.17)

29
8. All words but with expectancy if divided

In this view all words used in a sentence form a sentence if they have expectancy in case
of separation 1• This view follows the definition of the vakya provided by J aimini. J aimini
says that a sentence is single if it serves the single purpose and has the expectancy if
divided. Bhartrhari puts this view here at the last as one of the eight definitions of vakya.
In this view vakya is a divisible unit of speech.

Issues regarding structural components of viikya

After establishing indivisibility of Vakya as real and division of Vakya as a tool designed
to educate the common people who are unable to conceive language without analysis
(Apoddhara), Bhartrhari discusses components of sentence structure in Padakal).9a, In
view of Bhartrhari analysis of structure of Vakya is unreal and aimed at learning
language correctly. 2 Pada is not capable to convey the meaning on its own and twofold,
fourfold or fivefold division of Pada depends on analysis of Vakya. 3 In padakanda
Bhartrhari dealt with fourteen topics under fourteen heads called Samuddesa. They are as
follows-

1- Jati Samuddesa
2- Dravyasamuddesa
3- Sambandhasamuddesa
4- Bhu yodravyasamuddesa
5- Gunasamuddesa
6- Diksamuddesa
7- Sadhanasamuddesa
8- Purusasamuddesa
9- Samkhyasamuddesa
10- Upagrahasamuddesa
11- Lingasamuddesa

1
sakank~avayavam bhede ...... VP (2.4)
2
(a) Vyaptimansca laghuscaiva Vyavaharah Padasrayah
(b) Tasmadalaukiko Vakyadanyah Kascinna Vidyate (VP 2.343, 344)
(c) Upayah siksamananam (VP 2.238)
3
Dvidha Kaiscit Padam Bhinnam caturdha Pancadhapi va.
Apoddhrtyaiva vakyebhyah prakrtipratyayadi Vat (VP 3. I)

30
 12- Vrttisamuddesa

Under all these above mentioned heads Bhrutrhari mainly had a discourse on aspect of
meaning and meaning is unavoidable part of structure because without consideration of
meaning, any structure of Vakya cannot be decided grammatically correct or incorrect.
The entire lingual behaviour is to communicate the meaning. This is the principle none
can disagree with. It is stated by Patafijali in his Mahabhasya. 1 Any discourse on Vakya is
not possible without meaning. So the meaning decides the structure on the part of speaker
and the structure decides the meaning on the part of hearer. Meaning is also a mental
structure. When Vakya is structured in mind of speaker before its articulation, it is in
form of meaning. In the some way after hearing, structure of Vakya results as a particular
meaning related to that Vakya in the mind of hearer. These are three stages of the same
Vakya. 2 Bhartrhari illustrated these three stages by example of an artist. First of all an
artist views a person with his limbs outside, then perceives his shape with all limbs as one
object in mind and then again creates it on a canvas. Here the person is same but there
are three stages of his form. His one form is outside, second is in mind of artist and third
is again painted at Canvas. In the same way at first stage Vakya is heard, then conceived
in mind and then again articulated to communicate the meaning to others. Here, heard
Vakya is with sequence, conceived Vakya is without sequence and articulated Vakya is
with sequence. With this elaboration, it is clear that structure of Vakya is transformed as
meaning in mind after hearing and the meaning again is transformed into Vakya when
. articulated to convey the meaning. Meaning is without sequence and words in a sentence
are heard in a particular order because articulation is an action and action is measured in
time. Sequence is the quality of time and any action including uttering a sentence,
measured in time is bound to have sequence. It can be concluded that meaning of Vakya
is related to mind and structure of Vakya is related to senses of articulation 3 and hearing.
Bhartrhari calles this meaning in mind as "Buddhistha Sabda" 4 and it is entered in mind

1
Arthagatyarthah Sabdaprayogah- Mahabhasya (3.1.7)
2
Yathaikabuddhivisaya mO.rtirakriyate pate
mO.rtyantarasya tritayamevam sabde'pi drsyate (VP 1.52)
3
(a) Kriyabhedaya Ka1astu (VP 3.9.2)
(b) Kramohi dharmah Ka1asya (VP 2.50)
4
Aranistham yatha jyotih prakasantarakaranam
Tadvacchabdo'pi buddhisthah srutinam karanam prthak

31
before articulation. This entered speech is expressed by sound that IS produced by
articulatory organ.

In first Kfuika of Jatisamuddesa, Bhartrhap informs us that some scholars classified pada
in two types, some in four types and some in five types. Bhartrhari does not indicate his
stand in favour of anyone of them but says that this classification is based on analysis of
sentence through separation from Vakya.
1
This analysis of sentence is similar to the analysis of Pada in root and suffixes etc.
Bhartrhari indicates that both analysis of Vakya and Pada are not real but needed for
practical purposes. He indicates this by using term "Apoddhrtyaiva" here because
previously he stated it clearly. 2 Further he discusses the two types of meaning of Pada-
Universal (Jati) and particular (vyakti). At first sight it may appear that this is related to
meaning and has nothing to do with the structure of Vakya but the case is not so. When
universal is the meaning, singularity and plurality are not implied, but when patticular is
the meaning the singularity, duality and plurality - all are implied. Bhartrhari puts it as
the opinion of some scholars? We know that this is the opinion of Panini 4 but Bhartrhap
does not take the name of anyone. Two possibilities may be there. Some scholars other
then Panini may be known to Bhartrhari, holding the above mentioned view or disciples
of Panini (Pal).in1yas) are being indicated by Bhartrhari by using the term 'Kesancit'.
When particular is the meaning of Pada, only single form conveys the meaning of the
group consisting of other similar forms through 'EkaSe$a'. Bhartrhari 5 is putting the view
of Panini and probably other like minded scholars here without taking the name. Pal).ini
formulates a sutra in this connection. 6

Vitarkitah pura buddhya K vacidarthe nivesitah

Kamebhyo virrttena dhvanina so' nugrhyate (VP 1.46, 47)
I VP (3.1.1)
2
Vyaptiman5ca laghuscaiva vyavaharah padasryah
loke sastre ca Karyartham vibhagenaiva kalpitah (VP 2.343)
3
Ekatvam va bahutvam va kesafichidavivakshitam
taddhi jatyabhidhanaya dvitvam tu syadvivaksitam (VP 3.1.52)
4
Jatyakhyayamekasmin bahuvacanamanyatarasyam (P 1.2.58)
5
Sarupasamudayattu vibhaktirya vidhiyate
Ekastatrarthavan siddhah samudayasya vacakah (VP 3.1.90)
6
Sarupanamekasesa ekavibhaktau (P 1.2.64)

32
In Dravyasamuddesa, Bhartrhari elaborates reality of speech. All speeches express the
eternal reality which stands after disappearance of all forms. This is the reality of speech
(Sabdatattva) and does not vary. 1 He gives the example of gold and golden ornaments.
The gold is one and invariable while ornaments made of it vary in shape, size and
number. In the same way, all Variables (Vikara-s) are unreal and their source is only real.
2
This real is expressed by all speeches.

In Sambandhasamuddesa, Bhartrhari discusses about relationship between speech and

meaning expressed by it. This relationship is not set by anyone but came down to us
naturally and its starting point can not be indicated. He gives the example of senses here.
As senses are able to perceive their objects without assistance of anyone and this ability
is without beginning, so speech can express meaning. 3 Another issue that has something
to do with the structure of Vakya is mental reality expressed by Speech. Bhartrhari calls it
"upacarasatta". If this mental reality is not accepted, several usages in speech can not be
justified. If this mental reality is accepted, past tense and future tense can be used
otherwise there is not existence of the object in past as well as in future and in this case,
use of past and future tense can not be justified. The usages like Ankuro Jayate (Sprout
grows) can be justified only when mental reality is accepted because if external reality is
accepted as base for lingual behaviour, sprout does not exist at the time of growing.
When it emerges out of the seed, it is called sprout but before emerging out of the seed, it
cannot be called sprout. In this case the sentence 'sprout grows' can not be used because
that which grows is not sprout and that which is sprout, does not grow. 4

All meaning including unreal things never stand without this mental existence.
Conception of meaning depends upon spoken word and this spoken word is produced out

1
Satyamakrtisamhare yadnaie vyavatisthate
tannityam sabdavacyam tacchabdatattvam na bhidyate (VP 3.2.11)
2
Vikarapagame satyam suvarnam kundale yatha
Vikarapagame satyam tathahuh prakrtim param
Vacya sa sarvasabdanam sabdasca na prthak tatah
aprthaktve ca sambandhastayornanatmanoriva (VP 3.2.15-16)
3
Indriyanam svavisayesvanadiryogyata yatha
Anadirarthaih sabdanam sambandho yogyata tatha (VP 3.3.29)
4
(a) Athopacarasattaiva vidheyastatra 1adayah
janmana to virodhitvanmukhya satta na vidyate (VP 3.3.46)
(b) Vyapadese padarthanamanya sattaupacariki
sarvavasthasu sarvesamatmarupasya darsika (VP 3.3.39)

33
of mental reality. 1 If meaning of a word is not situated in mind previously, hearer cannot
conceive the meaning of speech. At a unknown point of time, mind first bears the spoken
word in a certain meaning, only after that it is expressed by sound passing through
.
vanous speec h-organs. 2

Bhartrhari explains many conditions with appropriate reasons that why mental reality is
the base of entire linguistic behaviour. We can enlist them in following manner-

(a) When we use the sentence like 'one takes his lunch', it cannot be said that hear
meaning was previously in the mind because action is taking place just now in
external world before speaker and hearer both. But Bhartrhari says that even in
this case when speaker looks one taking his lunch, he has a similar meaning in his
mind by virtue of having viewed anyone else taking his lunch previously. That
previous meaning produces the meaning of one's taking lunch in his mind?

(b) Mental reality cannot serve the practical purposes. As only water found m
external world can quench our thurst and the water imagined in mind cannot serve
the purpose. But Bhartrhari says that only mental reality reflected in actual reality
can relate itself with opposite properties. It is not possible with actual realty of an
object that it can bear both opposite properties at any given point of time. He
gives the example of crystal here that reflects the colour and forn1 of the nearby
object. In the same way spoken word also situated in conceptual reality gets
related with opposite and non-opposite properties at the stage of Vakya. 4

1
Sabdah karanamarthasya sa hi tenopajanyate
Tatha ca buddhivisayadarthacchabdah pratiyate (VP 3.3.32)
2
Vitarkitah pura buddhya kvacidarthe nivesitah
kamebhyo vivrttena dhavanina so'nugrhyate (VP 1.47)
3
Bhojanadyapi manyante buddhyarthe yadasambhavi
buddhyarthlideva buddhyarthe jate tadapi drsyate (VP 3.3.33)
4
Sphatikadi yatha dravyam bhinnan1pairupasrayaih
Svasaktiyogat sambandham tadn1pyenopagacchati
tadvacchabdo'pi sattayamasyam pt1rvam vyavasthitah
dharmairupaiti sambandhamavirodhivirodhibhih (VP 3.3.40-41)

34
(c) Whenever we use negative usages like 'abrahmarya' to convey the meamng of
1
negation, this usage can only be justified if mental reality as the meaning is accepted

because 'abrahmarya' means 'Brahmarya not existing' and this meaning is self-

contradictory as existence and its negation cannot stand together. If 'abrahmarya'

means the non-existence of 'brahmarya', yet the negation is not justified because only

existing should be negated. If anything does not exist at all, there is neither need nor

any justification to negate it. But if we accept mental reality as the meaning of all

words there is not inadequacy in the case of negation also. In the case of acceptance

of mental reality as the meaning of words, in this particular usage of 'abdihmarya'

meaning of Brahmary is imposed on Ksatriya etc. and that mental meaning is subject

of negation.

(d) 'Devadatta is born' like sentences can not be used if external reality is accepted as a

base for linguistic behaviour because 'to be born' means "to obtain himself' 2 and

here in this example Karta (Devadatta) and Karma (Devadatta) are same which is not

possible as "Devadatta goes to village" is like the example "Devadatta obtains

himself'. In the example "Devadatta goes to village", Devadatta is subject of the

sentence and village is the object and both are different from each other. In the same

way in the example "Devadatta obtains himself' Devadatta should be different from

himself but that is not possible. Another problem is that Devadatta is existing before

going takes place but likewise Devadatta is not existing before birth of Devadatta

takes place. 3 Also village, the destination, is existing before Devadatta starts to go to

village but this is not the case with the usage like "Devadatta obtains himself (his

form)" because Devadatta cannot exist before Devadatta starts to obtain his own

form. So, if the external reality is accepted as the meaning of words, Sentences like

"Devadutta is born" cannot be justified but if mental reality is accepted as the

I Evam ca pratisedhye~u pratisedhapralqptaye asritqiipacarel)a prati~edha!) pravartate (VP 3.3.42)

2
Atmalabhasya janmakhya (VP 3.3.43)
3
Sato hi ganturgamanam sati gamye pravartate
Gantrvaccennajanmartho na cet tadvannajayate (VP 3.3.44)

35
 meaning of words, there is justification as in this view even Devadatta is absent in

external world, he may exist in mind. Now mental Devadatta obtains his form in

external world and in this way, the explanation of birth as to obtain his own form,

also gets confirmed. Otherwise if Devedutta is present in external world, it cannot be

said that Devadatta is taking birth because Devadatta obtained his form in external

world already and if Devadatta is not existing, how can he obtain his form? So, there

are many problems if we accept that words refer external objects and all these

problems get resolved if we accept that words refer mental realities.

1
(e) Bhartrhari also presents the examples of existence. Existence means "to hold itself'.

This is the view of Niruktakara Yaska. Bhartrhari is translating this view here. When

we say that "something exists", it means that some thing is holding itself by itself.

Though here according to meaning 'As' dhatu should be sakarmaka but as meaning

of 'As dhatu' has included the object, that is itself, it is akarmaka. 2 Usages like 'Pot

exists' can also be justified only when mental reality as the meaning of all words is

accepted because use of present tense denotes that action has not been completed and

is to be accomplished. In this case when pot has not completed the act of existing the

word pot cannot be used as pot is not at al1. 3 But this is the problem when we accept

that meaning of the word is external reality. All problems get resolved when we

accept that use of sentence is based on mental reality.

At last Bhartrhari indicates that Mahabhasya has also the same vtew m this
4
regard. Patafijali while commenting on matupsutra (P 5.2.94) pointed out the purpose of

using the term 'asti' in sutra that matup suffix should be applied only when existence

1
Atmanamatmana bibhradastiti vyapadisyate
Antarbhavacca tenasau karmaJ).a na sakarmaka~ (VP 3.3.47)
2
(a) Tatha ca niruktabar~ astityutpannasyatmadharaJ).amucyate- helaraja on (VP 3.3.47)
(b) Astityutpannasya sattvasyatmadharal)am- Nirukta ( 1.2)
3
Prak ca sattabhisambandhanmukhya satta katharh bhavet
Asarisca naste~ karta syadupacarastu piirvavat (VP 3.3.48)
4
Pravrttihetum sarve~am sabdanamaupa carikim
Etam sattarh padartho hi na ka5cidati vartate
sa ca sampratisattaya~ pfthagbha~ye nidar5ita (VP 3.3.50 1/2 -51)

36
 1
should be related to present, not to future or to past. It means that in view of Patafijali

also words are used to denote mental reality because only mental reality can be in

present, future and past. External reality can be only in present, neither in past nor in

future.

Lingual behaviour is not perfect

In sambandhasamuddda, Bhartrhari says that words do not refer to complete reality?

Either words denote incomplete reality or false concept of reality. Either non-existence is

denoted or indirect indication is made3 . When the word cow is used, it does not refer all

properties of cow. When universal inherited in any object, action or property of any

object is described, it is not direct description of the object because jati, Gul).a and Kriya

are different from the object and any description based on jati, Gul).a and Kriya is the

description of the object through all these inherited properties and not a direct one. In

view of vijfianavadin all reality is internal and appears external. So whole lingual

behaviour is description of contrary (viparyaya). In vie of Brahmavadin also Brahman is

one without the other but appears many due to upadhi and words denote the manifested

forms of Brahman. So the denotion of words is again the contrary in view of nature of

meaning. Sunyavactin (Nihilist) opines that everything emerges from Sunya that cannot

be expressed (nirupakhya). So in their view, words denote Sunya and thus denote non-

existence for practical purposes.

In Bhuyodravyasamuddesa, Bhartrhari defined Dravya4 and separation of Dravya as

meaning of word from sentential meaning. When pronoun is used to denote an object that

1
Idam tarhi prayojanam sampratisattayam
yatha syadbhiitabhavi~yatsattayaril
rna bhiit gavo'syasan gavo'sya
bhavitaraJ:!- Mahabhasya (P 5.2.94)
2
Pradesasyaikaddam va parato vii niriipal)affi
viparyayamabhavam va vyavahiiro'nuvartate (VP 3.3.52)
3
Alqtsnavi~ayabhasam sabdaJ:! pratyayamasiltah
Arthamahanyariipel)a svariipel)aniriipitam (VP 3.3.54)
Vastiipalak~al)aril yatra sarvanama prayujyate
4

Dravyamityucyate so'rtho bhedyatvena vivak~ita~ (VP 3.4.3)

37
meaning is called 'dravya'. This is the first definition of Dravya. Pronouns are of two

types. Some pronouns denote all objects generally as sarva, viswa etc. and some

pronouns denotes specified objects as anyatara, anyatama etc. This definition is related to

first category of pronouns who denote all objects generally. Second definition of dravya

is purely linguistic. According to this, the meaning which is intended to be expressed as

qualified (vise~ya), is called dravya. This second definition has something to do with

structure of vakya because qualifier and qualified should have same number, gender and

case. Not only this PaQ.ini also formulates the rule that vise~aQ.a shold come first and

vise~ya thereafter in a compound. 1 It affects the structure of vakya indirectly. PaQ.ini also

formulates the rule that number and gender of vise~aQ.a should be in agreement of vise~ya

whose suffix denoting some meaning is deleted. 2 It affects the structure of vakay directly.

In GuQ.asamuddesa, Bhartrhari has defined qualitl VyakaraQ.asastra also accepts the

practical perception of quality. What is that perception? Quality is always dependant

upon substance (dravya). Quality delimits the particular substance from its fellow

substance. Objects belonging to the same class are differentiated by the quality. This is

the function of quality that it distinguishes a particular substance from other substances.

When we describe superiority of anything, we apply some suffixes to the base. Tarap,

tamap, i~~han' Iyasun are suffixes, prescribed by PaQ.ini to denote superiority of quality,

dependant on the object. Here, superiority is a relative term used also in bad sense

because as we use "Prakf~~atara" so we use "nikf~~atara" also. 4 In other words when a

object is described inferior or superior, the base for this linguistic behaviour is quality.

In Diksamuddesa Bhartrhari defined direction. Concept of partial division of solid objects

is firstly based on direction. Direction has the first power to decide many parts of an

vise~aiJ.arh vise~yei:ta bahulam (P 2.1.57)

1
2
vise~ai:tanarh cajateJ:I (P 1.2.52)
3
Sarhsargi bheda..'<arh yadyat savyapiirarh pratiyate
gul).atvarh paratantratvattasya sastra udahrtam (VP 3.5.1)
4
Sarvarh ca sarvato' vasyarh niyamena pralq~yate
sarhsargii:ta nimittena nikmenadhikena va (VP 3.5.6)

38
object. Parami'ii)U, the minutest particle of the object, has no partition further. Though its
1
part is imagined in mind on the basis of direction. When we have to express the limit of

anyone in relation to other, Paficami vibhakti is used. But the same word is used with

~a~!hi vibhakti when it expresses the meaning of part. Bhartrhari explains it in a Karika?

Pi'il)ini formulates rules in this connection? The word expressing part of anything should

be used with ~a~!hi vibhakti. This is not stated clearly but suggested through two sutras

by Pal)ini. 4 In vyakaral).asastra, some rules related to words expressing direction

determine the structure of vakya. Words used to express direction become antodatta in

compound when villages, janapada (district in loose sense) akhyana (narrative) and the

word canarata are articulated after these words (diksabda). 5 The words used to express

the sense of direction also express space and time. When these are used with saptami,

paficami and prathama vibhakti, a suffix called astati is applied to them. 6 This suffix does

does not change the meaning but adds to the structure of word. When words expressing

direction are compounded, they become pronouns optionally. This makes a slight

difference to their structure in some cases. 7 Pal).ini formulated other rules also related to

direction but they have to do with Pada only and structure of vakya is not affected

directly in those cases.

In sadhanasamuddesa, Bhartrhari discussed about tools to accomplish any action.

According to Bhartrhari capacity inherited in its own locus (svasraya) or in different loci

(asrayantara) to accomplish an action is called sadhana. Mental reality is the base of

linguistic behaviour. This is the principle of vyakaral)asastra. Bhartrhari applies it to

1
Paramiil)orabhagasya disa bhiigo vidhiyate
bhiigaprakalpanasaktim prathamiirh tam pracak~ate (VP 3.6.13)
2
Avadhitvena ciipeksayoge diglak~al)o vidhil)
Piirvamasyeti ~a~!hyeva dr~ta dharmantariisraye (VP 3.6.21)
3
Anyaraditarartediksabdiiiiciittarapadajiihiyukte (P 2.3.29)
4
(a) Tasya paramiimreditam (P 8.1.2)
(b) Piirviiparadharottaramekadesinaikiidhikaral)e (P 2.2.1)
5
Diksabda gramajanapadiikhyanacanaratesu (P 6.2.1 03)
6
Diksabdebhyal) saptamipaiicamiprathamabhyo digdesakale~vastatil) (P 5.3.27)
7
Vibhii~ii diksamiise bahuvrlhau (P 1.1.28)

39
explain partition (Apaya). 1 When speaker divides two or more meanings, it implies that

previously those meanings were one in his mind otherwise division cannot take place.

When unified meaning is divided then departure is meant. Both functions of unification

and division take place in mind. So apadana is mental and paficami vibhakti is used to

express the meaning of apadana. 2 when a narrative is narrated or a drama is played, the

form of various characters of remote past is produced by speech in the mind and hearer or

viewer perceives those characters as sadhana (karm, karai).a etc.)? This process of

perception is the same in case of painting or a statue. So, this is the mental reality which

is imposed on objects and their capacities are assumed as sadhana. 4 Bhartrhari explains

all this on the basis of Mahabha~ya. 5 Entire vakyapadiya is based on Mahabha~ya.

Bhartrhari himself admits the fact at the end of vakyakan<;la that his guru composed this

collection of agama after practicing vyakarai_la darsana and other philosophies. 6

This sadhana has been named as karaka in vyakarai_lasastra. Karaka means Kartr (doer).

As every sadhana accomplishes some action, so every karaka has doership (kartrtva). 7

Only function of every karaka differs that is why karman, Karai_la, Sampradana, Apadana,

and Adhikarai_la are also called karaka not only Kartr. Karta is technical term which can

not be replaced by Karaka though semantically both express same meaning. Karta is

independent 8 and other Karaka-s are dependent on Karta. When Karta appoints other

Karaka-s in their respective functions, other Karka-s are independent to accomplish their

1
Buddhya samahitaikatvan paiicalan kurubhiryada
punarvibhajate vakta tada'payah pratiyate (VP 3.7.4)
2
Apadane paiicami (P 2.3.28)
3
Sabdopahitariipansca buddhervi~ayatam gatan
pratyak~amiva karilsadin sadhanatvena manyate (VP 3.7.5)
4
Buddhipravrttiriipam ca samaropyabhidhatrbhil)
arthe~u saktibhedanam kriyate parikalpana (VP 3.7.6)
5
See Mahabha~ya on (P 2.3.42 and 3.1.26)
6
Parvatadagamam labdhva bha~yabijanusaribhil)
Sa nito bahusakhatvaril candracaryadibhil) puna!)
Nyayaprasthanamarganstanabhyasya svaril ca darsanam
pra~Ito guru~asmakamayamagamasamgrahal) (VP 2.481-482)
Ni~pattimatre kartrtvarilsarvatraivasti karake
7

Vyaparabhedapek~ayam kar~aditvasarilbhaval) (VP 3.7.18)

8
Svatantral) Karta (P 1.4.54)

40
function but dependent to accomplish main function that is to be accomplished by all

functions together. So, dependence of Karka-s is relative to Karta otherwise they are

independent to accomplish their functions. Bhartrhari explains it with an example.' As in

a war, king appoints soldiers to fight from his side. Soldiers are independent in fighting

but the main function is to get victory. So, in this example, soldiers fight but at the end,

this is the king who wins or loses the war, not soldiers. Defeat or victory goes to the king,

not to soldiers. Soldiers are independent to fight but they are fighting to win victory for

their King, so they are dependent on king for starting or stopping to fight as king appoints

them to fight. Soldiers do not fight on their own wish. This is their dependence. Same is

the case with Karta and other Karaka-s. when Karta appoints other Karka-s in their

respective functions, they are dependent on Karta to accomplish the main task by

performing their respective actions without help of any other. In this condition, other

Karaka-s also become Karta. This can be easily understood by some examples-

(i) Bali Hanyate (Karman is Karta here)

(ii) ka~!hani pacanti (Kara[.la is Karta here)

(iii) Balahako vidyotate (clouds and lightning are intended one by speaker.

Apadana is Karta here)

(iv) Sthali pacati (Adhikaf[.la is Karta here)

Patafijali endorses all this interpretation in Mahabha~ya (P 1.4.23) 2 Sampradana and

Apadana have not that type of independence which karma, kara[.la and adhikaraf.la enjoy

in linguistic behaviour. Yet Sampradana also has own specific independence in his own

function. That is to inspire some one to give and to permit someone (any dependent son,

1
Yatha rajna niyukte~u yoddhrtvam yoddhr~u sthitam
Te~u vrttau tu Jab hate raja jayaparajayau
Tatha kartra niyukte~u sarve~vekarthakari~u
Kartrtvarh karru:J,aditvairuttararh na virudhyate (VP 3.7 .22-23)
2
Siddharh tu pratikarakarh kriyabhedat pacadinari1 karru:J,adhikarru:J,ayo~ kartrbhava~- Mahabha~ya (P.
I .4.23)

41
wife, servant etc.) to give and finally to accept the alms. Not to reject to take something is

the function where sampradana enjoys freedom. But as sampradana requires giver and

apadana requires departer, they can not enjoy independence like other Karaka-s. That is

why patafi.jali shows the example of Apadana as karta by intended unification of clouds

and lightning otherwise apadana cannot act as karta because it demands someone else as

departer.

1
Every Karaka has its own well defined action. Different vibhakti-s are used to express

the meaning intended by speaker. Bhartrhari gives an example to show the use of

different vibhakti-s according to intention of speaker. Father and mother both are subject

(Karta) in giving birth to a progeny but the word expressing the meaning of mother is

used with saptami vibhakti and word expressing the meaning of father is used with

Pafi.cami vibhakti because mother is the locus of the womb, thus adikaral)a Karaka here

and father makes the mother conceived by the act of fertilization, thus apadana Karaka
2
here. This difference is solely based on implication of speaker.

When a doer requires another doer to accomplish an act, he is called hetu. 3 Instrument is

to accomplish the act. So act is principal and instrument is subordinate. In various usages,

for this reason, instrument is represented by anyone as in the example "Bal)ena hata~",

there is no representation of act of killing but representation of arrow is seen as bullet,

mine, knife, javelin or spear. In the same way when act is for hutu (technical term for

appointer of a doer), hetu is primary and act is secondary. In this case hetu is not

represented. Example is "adhyayanena vasati", one resides for study. Here, Trtiya

vibhakti is used not to denote instrument, but to denote a cause. Here study is primary

and cannot be represented and if another cause is taken, that will be primary and then that

cause cannot be represented. When the same act is performed representation is possible

1
Karakarh niyatakriyam (VP 3.7.25)
2
Putrasya janmani yatha pitro!) kart~tvamucyate.
Ayamasyamiyarh tvasmaditi bhedo vivak~aya (VP 3.7.19)
3
(a) Karta kartrantarape~al) kriyayarh heturi~yate (VP 3.7.25)
(b) Tatprayojako hetusca (P 1.4.55)

42
but when act changes with the change of representative, representation is neither required

nor justified because representation is needed to accomplish the same act in absence of
1
prescribed object, person etc. When study is hetu l)ic suffix is added to the verb root. In

given example "adhyayanarh. vasayati" will be sentence.

There are seven types of Karaka-s where six are specified with most desired object,

instrument, object of donation, departure and locus and seventh is general Karaka, that is

non-implication (avivak~a) of other Karaka-s, called se~a in vyakaral)asastra.

2

Karma and Apadana karaka are described in many ways in vyakaral)a Sastra 3 but that
4
elaboration is for them who are not so wise. Panini defines karma karaka as most desired·
6
by karta. 5 Patafijali rejects the superlative degree of desire and accepts only desire. So,

whatever is desired by doer is karma. This is the definition of karma. Only this single

definition is sufficient to include all varities of karma, elaborated by other sutra-s by

Panini. Keeping this in mind Bhartrhari said that only one karma and one apadana karaka

has been described in Sastra. Desire is not always after due consideration but also due to

fickleness of mind or fear etc. That is why a grieved person takes poison etc. When a

person thinks that life is more sorrow.

1
Hetumati ca (P 3.1.26)
2
Samanyam karakaril tasya saptadya bhedayonayah
~a! karmakhyadibhedenaSe~abhedastu saptami (vp 3.7.44)
3
Yathaivaikamapadanaril Sastre bhedena darsitam
Tathaikameva karmapi bhedena pratipaditam (VP 3.7.78)
4
NirdhiiraQe'vibhakte yo bhitrarthanam ca yo vidhi~
Upattapek~itapayal) so'budhapratipattaye (VP 3.7.147)
5
Karturipsitatamaril karma (P 1.4.49)
6
See mahabha~ya on (P 1.4.49)

43
ful than death and only death can give him salvation from miseries of this world, he
wishes to take poison because in that mental condition poison also becomes desired to be
achieved (lpsita). Patafijali puts this simple fact of everyday life while commenting on a
sutra (P 1.4.50). 1 Bhartrhari adds a bit to it. He says that one engages himself in unwanted
harmful activities due to ignorance. Fickleness of mind is direct cause of having a desire
of harmful things. This inconsistency, impatience or hopelessness of mind is caused by
imagination of fear etc. 2

Akarmaka dhatu-s become Sakarmaka and Sakarmaka dhatu-s become Akarmaka in

certain conditions. Bhartrhari says that when action, time, distance to be travelled and
places relate with akarmaka dhatu, they become Sakarmaka. In this case akarrnaka dhatu
includes another action that is part of main action. 3 Examples are as follows-

1- Masamaste ( .... lives a month)

2- Godohamaste (.... Sits till cow is milked)

3- Krosarh Svapiti ( ... Sleeps upto a mile)]

4- Kurun svapiti ( ... sleeps in Kuru)

Here kuru is a famous place and used in plural number to denote the people who live
there. 4

In the same way Sakarrnaka Dhatu-s become Akarmaka in certain conditions. There are
certain conditions where karma remains but due to some factors, sakarmaka dhatu is also
said Akarmaka. Generally these are four but may vary more also due to variation of
factors. Bhartrhari says-

Dhatorarthantare Vrtterdhatvarthenopasarhgrahat

Prasiddheravivak~atal:t karmal).o' karmika Kriya

Vi~abhak~aifamapi kasyacidipsitaril bhavati kathari1 iha ya e~a manu~yo du~kharto bhavati so'nyani
1

dul)khanyanunisamya vi~abhak~aifameva jyayo manyate. - Mahabha~ya (P 1.4.50)

2
Ahite~u yathalaulyat karturicchopajayate
vi~adi~u bhayadibhyastathaiviisau pravartate (VP 3.7.80)
3
Kalabhavadhvadesanamantarbhutakriyantarail)
Sarvairakarmakairyoge karmatvamupajayate (VP 3.7.67)
4
Lupi yuktavadvyaktivacane (P 1.2.51)

44
Bheda ya ete catvaral) Samanyena pradarsital)
1
Te nimittadibhedena bhidyante bahudha puna!)

These four conditions may be elaborated in following ways-

1- First is change of meaning of dhatu. When dhatu deviates from its commonly
used meaning to another meaning, dhatu becomes Akarmaka. Example is 'Bhararil
vahati' (one carries the weight). Here weight is the object of verb carrying. When
va~ dhatu deviates from this meaning and express the meaning of flowing, it turns
Akarmaka. Example is 'Nadi vahati'. In this condition, object is not different from
the subject because when question arises as what river flows, answer is nothing
other than river itself. Flowing is itself in the form of the river. So in this usage,
va~ dhatu becomes Akarmaka.

2- Second is inclusion of object by verb in its meaning. When dhatu expresses the
meaning of Karma also, it becomes Akarmaka because of inclusion of Karma,
there is not any different karm left which can be related to the dhatu and this
relationship is virtually compulsory for a dhatu to be Akarmaka. Example is
'Jivati' (.... survives). Survival means to hold breath. As breath (Pral).a) is object of
verb hold and that is here included by survive or any other verb having similar
meaning, verb has turned Akarmaka.

3- Third is understanding of Karma without any fail. When Karma is so well-known

and its relationship with action is so certain that mere use of dhatu makes karma
known, dhatu becomes Akarmaka otherwise it is Sakarmaka. Example is 'var~ati'

(... rains). Here, use of rain makes the object water known without any fail
because relationship of verb rain is so certain with water that mere use of verb
rain suggests the object water. The object which is not famous, the verb becomes
transitive with that object. Example is 'saran var~ati' (... throws arrows). Here
arrow is not so well related object with var~a dhatu that mere use of var~a dhatu
can suggest the object.

I VP (3.7.88-89)

45
 4- Fourth is non-implication of karma. When object is not implied by speaker,
though it has a relation with verb, the verb becomes Akarmaka. Examples are 'na
dadati, na pacati, no juhoti, na karoti, na pa!hati' etc. Here what does he give,
cook, offers, do or read is not implied by speaker. Speaker has not intention to
elaborate the detail. He simply intends to convey the meaning of negation.

These four factors have been generally described but variations of these are many.
Bhartrhari not elaborated these variations but left them on wit of reader. Commentators
indicated some of them and at last they also left the elaboration saying that other usages
1
should be sought likewise. Actually this is not easy to collect all usages showing
variation of all these above mentioned four conditions of being intransitive. Helaraja
indicated some of them. They are being enlisted here as follows-

1. Use of upasarga (Prefix) changes the meaning of dhatu and dhatu becomes
Akarmaka. Example is va~pa uccarati, dhuma uccarati etc. Here cara dhatu is
Sakarmaka but due to use of upasarga ut, it expresses the meaning of moving
upward and becomes Akarmaka otherwise it was Sakarmaka, meaning to go from
a place to another place and thus having place as its object.

2. Use of atmanepada, several times, expresses Akarmakatva (intransitiveness).

Pai).ini formulated rules in this regard. 2 As use of atmanepada and parasmaipada is
only confined to Sarhskfta, these rules are not so valuable for other languages.
According to Pai).ini also, in these cases use of atmanepada is not making dhiHu
akarmaka but the case is reverse. Akarmaka dhatu is expressed by the use of
atmanepada. So, here atmanepada is marker of Akarmaka dhatu. Examples are
uttapate, Vitapate, utti~!hate etc.

1
Iti yathayogamanusarai)Iyarh prayogajatami~!am- Helaraja (VP 3.7.89)
2
a. Akarmakacca (P 1.3.26)
b. Udvibhyam tapa~ (P 1.3.27)
c. Ailo yamahana~ (P 1.3.28)
d. Sarno gamyrcchipracchisvaratyartisruvidibhy~ (P 1.3.29)
e. Akarmakacca (P 1.3.35)
f. Akarmakacca (P 1.3.45)
g. Anorakarmakat (P 1.3.49)

46
3. Sometimes meaning of sentence expresses in transitiveness. Examples are nadi
vahati, Vayurvahati etc. Previously this example (nadi vahati) has been given to
show deviation of meaning but here repeated to show that the said deviation of
meaning sometimes takes place due to understanding of vakya. These
abovementioned three sub-factors are related with deviation of meaning of dhatu.

4. Inclusion of object by meaning of verb also varies for many reasons. In some
cases this is the capability of verb itself that it includes the object. Examples are
jivati ( ... holds breath), mriyate ( ... relinquishes breath), asti ( ... holds itself) jayate
( ... obtains himself) etc.

5. In some cases, object is included in verb meaning purely by grammatical analysis.

Example is putriyati ( ... behaves someone like son). Here son is object but only
Kyac suffix has been added to putra and 'putriya' verb included the object son in
its meaning. Actually son is not here but a particular wish to behave without
following the meaning of son is reflected. Bhartrhari explained it. 1 'Putriyati
chatrarh guru!)" is the example. Here verb is transitive though it should be
intrasitive as it included the object son by its structural meaning. Helaraja replies
that here verb has included the object 'putra' and should be Akarmaka but remains
Sakarmaka because of the object 'Chatra' which stands excluded. He says-

Acarakyaci tvatropamanakarmantarbhiitam upameyakarmal).a tu

Sakarmakatvam. 2

Similar is the case of examples like 'mury<;Iayati maryavakam' 'misrayati tilan etc. In usages
like va~payate, O~mayate, Romanthayate etc. verbs become Akarmaka because objects
have been included by verb. Inclusion of object has also certain limits. Where object of
certain verb is well-known as separate from the verb it is not included by verb. Usage in
currancy indicates where object is separate and where it is included. For example the verb
cook and the verb penetrate have their separate objects as usages of these verbs indicate
like one cooks rice and one penetrates airport security. Where the object is commonly
used as separate from verb, the inclusion is possible. But where it is not used as separate

1
Putriyatau na putro'sti vise~eccha tu tadrsi vinaiva putranugamadya putre vyavati~!hate (VP 3.14.69)
2
Helaraja on VP 3.7.89

47
from verb, inclusion of the object IS not possible as shown above with cook and
penetrate.

In usages like jalam var~ati' (water falls) object is used separately but where it is included
in the verb, it cannot be used separately. So there are not sentences in use like one
survives breath Uivati praQ.an) because the verb survive Uiv) includes the object breath by
virtue of its meaning and in this case separate use of the object is not required.

These two (serial no. 4 & 5) sub factors are related with inclusion of object by verb. Of
these, fators of grammatical analysis is language specific. It is possible in one language if
it has this type of grammatical ruling based on the usages in that particular language.

6. Where object is so well known that mere use of verb denotes the object, hence
separate use of object is not required, verb becomes Akarmaka. This fact of being
well-known also varies for some reasons. Place and time are also the reasons for
variation. In place where non-vegetarians are in majority, cooking means cooking
of meat etc. In Dak~iQ.apatha fore noon indicates that cooking will be of Odana. 1

7. In some cases by virtue of the verb itself the object is ascertained due to very
much currency of that type of usage as dhatu vr~ makes the object water known.

8. Sometimes doer (kartr) denotes the object by virtue of its own features. For
example 'a gentleman does' denotes the beneficial action and "a wicked person
does" denotes the harmful action.

9. Sometimes a particular society decides the object by merely using the verb. For
example in society of grammarians 'discuss' denotes the object as language, in
society of Naiyayika-s, it denotes sixteen ontological categories ($odasa Padarha),
in society of Samkhya-s, it denotes twenty five elements.

These four above mentioned sub factors (Serial No.6, 7, 8 and 9) are related with
the well known ness of the obejct.

10. When a Vakya conveys similarity only, Karma is not implied and the verb
becomes Akarmaka. For example, 'Rama speaks as Syama conveys similarity of

1
Tadyatha Dai~iQiipathe piirviihQe pacyatam ityukte yavagiikarmaka~ pako'vagamyate apariihQe
punarodanasad~1ana~ marhsabhiiyi~!he tu de5e marhsasadhan~ paka~ prasiddhah- Helaraja on (VP 3.7.89)

48
 Rama and Syama with respect of speaking. Here word, tone or style as the object
of speaking is not implied.

11. When a sentence conveys only a particular action, relation of object with verb is
not implied there. For example, one asks about the action of someone as what
does he do, and the answer is 'he reads'. In this case only to convey the action of
reading is implied, not the object of reading such as books newspaper or magazine
etc.

12. When a sentence conveys the continuation of an action than also object is not
implied. For example he only reads, he only gives, he cooks only. In these
sentences the continuation of the action is conveyed hence object is not implied.

These three above mentioned sub-factors (Serial no. 10, 11 and 12) are related
with non-implication of object.

Karman becomes Kartr

Bhartrhari explained previously in Sadhanasamuddda (VP 3. 7.20-21) that sadhana-s

(Karaka-s) are independent to accomplish their own actions but in the presence of doer,
they become dependent on doer in respect of accomplishment of main task which
consists of many activities performed by other Sadhana-s (Karma, karal).a, Samprdana
etc.) Now he explains that not only Karta becomes karma but in some cases, Karma also
becomes Karta (Karmakartrbhava). When karta does not appoint other karaka-s in their
own actions, they become free to perform their respective actions. Karma also, in this
condition, becomes free to perform its respective action and in absence of appointment
made by karta, achieves its freedom to perform its action. This is its own kartrtva of
karman which it retains in absence of karta. Bhartrhari says all this in these words-

Nivrttapre~aQaril karma Svakriyavayave sthitam

Nivartamane karmatve sve kartrtve'vati~thate. 1

As karma becomes karta (in absence of karta) Pal).ini formulates a rule in this regard to
apply some prescriptions applicable to karma on karta. This also shows that karma

I VP 3.7.56

49
 l
becomes karta and to explain the usages current in contemporary language in this regard,
1
Pal_1ini treats this karta as karma by formulating a rule in this regard otherwise there was
no need for the rule. Bhartrhari also points out this position of vyakaral_1a Sastra in this
karika-

Tadvyaparaviveke'pi svavyapare vyavasthitam

karmapadi~tan labhate kvacichastrasrayan vidhin

2

Bhartrhari briefly puts the view about karmakartrbhava assuming that reader is aware of
the elaboration made in this regard through examples in Mahabhti~ya. 3

Dhiitus are called Sakarmaka and Akarmaka due to pradhana arma.

Karma which is dravya (sulstance) is main and time, distance, action and
place are not pradhiinakarma because kriyii, at first, relates with
dravyakarma and then with time etc- 4 , so, where dravyakarma is not
present, lakiiras etc. express time etc. For example four sentences may be
seen here as follows-

1. Asyate miisa~l

2. Asitavyo masa~l

3. Asito masa/:1-

4. Svaso mfisab

In all these four sentences karma 'masa' (month) is expressed by lakiira,

krtya, kta and khalartha suffixes respectively.

As dhatu is called Akarmaka because it has no dravyakarma, even time

etc. are available as karma as they are available every where. So bhiiva
(meaning of verb) is also expressed by lakiiras etc. Example is

I P. 3.1.87
2
VP 3.7.55
3
See Mahabha~ya on (P 3.1.87)
4
Actharatvamivapraptaste punardravyakarmasu kaladayo bhinnakak~yam yanti karmatvamuttaram- (VP
3.7.68)

50
"Miisamiisyate bhavatii'. In this example kta suffix expresses karta
(Devatta) because kta cannot express karma as iis dhiitu is Akarmaka. In
the example 'masa miisitam devadattena' Kta suffix expresses bhiiva
(action) that is here sitting.

Paryini has also attributed the name karma to other karaka-s when they are
1
not implied as themselves In this regard Bhartrhari explained that
pradhiinakarma is called which is desired to be gained through action and
akathita karma is called which is used as a medium to gain that pradhiina
2
karma and connected to action. Hence, this akathitakarma also expressed
by dvitfya vibhakti. When a sentece is used to explain anything, a
difference occurs between the two- explanatory sentence and explained
thing. Though the meaning is the same, structure of vabya is different.
Bhartrhari indicates it in this karika-

Bhedavakyath tu yat ryyante niduhiprak[tau ca yat

Sabdantaratvannaivasti sarhspadasta~ya dhatuna 3

for example "gamayati" is explained by the sentence 'gacchantali1

prayUJikte' Though the meaning is same but structure of vakya is
different. Hence system of arrangement of karaka-s also differs. Karta
becomes karma when some dhatu-s are used with ~lc suffix. Paryini
formulates a rule in this regard 4

When a karma is related with two actions, one being main and other being
subordinate, suffix expresses the karma related with main action and in
that case, karma linked with subordinate action, though unexpressed,

1
akathita) ca (p 1.4.51)
2
Pradhanakarma kathitaril yat kriyayat prayojakam Tatsiddhaye kriyayuktamanyattvakathitarh smrtam-
(VP 3.7.71)
3
Pradhanakarma kathitarh yat kriyayat prayojakam Tatsiddhaye kriyayuktamanyattvakathitaril smrtam-
(VP 3.7.71)
4
Gatibuddhipratyavasanarthasabdakarmakarmakat:liima!} karta sa !}au (p 1.4.52)

51
stands as expressed following the karma related with mam action.
1
"Paktvaudano bhujyate" is the example suggested by Bhartrhari

In Sadhanasamuddesa Bhartrhari while defining kara1Ja says that nothing

can be decided as karat). a without fail because only implication of speaker
decides it. Bhartrhari chooses the example 'Sthalya pacyate' to show the
sthali' simply used as Adhikara7Ja kiiraka as often, to be used here as
kara7Ja kiiraka, This is due to implication of speaker.

Pal)..ini defined that karal)..a is the most efficient 2 and Bhatrhari defined that
karaiJ.a is that immediately after whose function, action is implied to be
accomplished. 3 There is not any difference between two definition
Bhartrhari only explains pal)..ini that this is the efficiency of karai).a that its
function is required immediately before the completion of activity. This
superlative degree of efficiency is related with other kiiraka-s and should
not be applied to the own category of karaiJ.a-s when many instrument are
implied for completion of a action, all are equally efficient and no
superiority or inferiority is sought there. This superiority is sought with
respect of other kiiraka-s Bhartrhari put it in a karika-

Svakakt;yiisu prakar~asca kara~ziiniilh na vidyate

AsritiitiSayatvam tu paratastatra lak~anam 4

Example may be 'As vena patha dipikaya yati'. Here horse, path and lamp
all are instrument equally helping in completion of action of going there
is no superiority or inferiority among them.

When instruments used in cutting like sword, knife etc. are used as karta
in a vakya, sharpness, heaviness, hardness shape etc. become instrument
(karaiJa). For example, sword cuts by virtue of sharpness' (Asil:l

I Pacavanuktarh yat karma ktvante bhava bhidhayini, Bhujau saktyantare' pyukte tadvaddharma~

prakasate- (VP 3.7.83)

2
Sadhakatamam karaQ.am (p 1.4.42)
3
Kriyaya~ parini~patleryadvyaparadanantaram vivak~yate yada tatra karaQ.atvarh tada smrte- (VP (3.7.90)
4
VP (3.7.93)

52
taik~l).yena chinatti) is the sentence where sword is subject and sharpness
becomes instrument. Sharpness also may be implied as karta and karat~a

both. Examples are as follows-

1. Asil~ taik~Qyena chinatti

(Sharpness is instrument to cut here)

2. Taik~Qyarit svasamarthyena Chinatti (Sharpness is subject

here) This is the dualness of sharpness that it turns karta and
1
karal).a loth as per implication of speaker

It is not necessary for instrument to be present at the time and place of

the action in progress.

It may be absent and yet may be karal).a if it accomplishes the action

implied by the speaker. Examples are following:-

1. Datraih Iunati (karal).a is present and accomplishing the task of

harvesting)

2. Ekena na vilhsatil). (One IS absent and karal).a here and

accomplishing the negation of twenty)

Pal).ini also supports this view. It is shown by a rule formulated by him in

this regard. He says that trtfya and paficamf vibhakti should be used to
express the meaning of karal).a when stoka Alpa, krcchra and katipaya
express the meaning other than substance. It means that stoka (small
amount) etc. are not present at the time of action yet they may be implied
as karal).a. Examples may be following:-

1. Stokena muktah

2. Stokanmuktal).

3. Alpanmuktal).

4. Alpena muktal).

1
Datrai~ Iunati (karana is present and ) accomplishing the task of harvesting.

53
 5. KrcchreQ.a muktal)

6. Krcchranmuktal)

7. Katipayena muktal)

8. Katipayanmuktal)

All abovementioned examples are related with recovery of borrowed

money or money of penalty etc. when borrower or offender gets off with a
small amount of borrowed money or fine. But here small money is not
implied because if it is implied, again it will express a substance that is
money, which should not be expressed according to rule. Here only small
amount is implied nothing else because if small is used as an adjective, it
expresses the substance.

PaQ.ini defines karUi as independent Bhartrhari explains it by supply of

reasons 1• These six reasons are as follows-

1. Kartti has power to accomplish the act even before the function
of other ktiraka-s

2. Kartti makes other ktiraka-s subordinate to himself and

dependent on himself.

3. The function of other ktiraka-s is controlled by kartti.

4. Kartti stops other karaka-s from functioning when action IS

completed while itself stps on its own.

5. Kart a is never replaced by anyone while other ktiraka-s are

replaced by other objects having alike power. So, kartti is not
represented while other ktiraka-s are represented in absence of
prescribed object.

6. Kartti is seen in absence of all other ktiraka-s while other

ktiraka-s can not be seen in absence of karW

I UP, 3.7.101-102

54
 On account of abovementioned SIX reasons, kartii is controlled by
himself and thus called independent. But there is a problem when
unconscious object is subject because it has not mind to act on its own
and also to appoint other kiiraka-s to perform. Bhatrhari resolves the
problem by applying the principal of implication of speaker.

Examples may be following-

1. Atma atmanam atmana hanti (one kills himself by himself)

2. Atmanarh srjamyaham I (I manifest myself)

3. Saihstabhyatmanamatmana jahi 2 (Kill after stabilizing' himself by

himself)

In first and third example, subject, object and instrument are the same
but treated as different kiiraka-s by virtue of implication of speaker. In
second example, instrument is not indicated but subject and object are
same and treated differently according to implication of speaker
Bhartrhari put it in the following karika-

Ekasya buddhyavasthabhirbhede ca parikalpite.

Karmatvaril karal}atvaril ca kartrtvaril copajayate

When a vakya is used to indicate the change of form, the problem of karta
arises. The origin and its changed form both have qualification to be
karta. Bhartr, hari, on the basis of usage in language decides that both
may be kartii as both type of uses are available- Bhartrhari indicated some
of them. Keeping a vartika in this regard in his mind, he indicates that
caturthf vibhakti expresses changed form (vikara) with the dhatu k!p used
in sense of becoming.

Example is yavagiinhiitraya kalpate

I BG,(4.7) 2. ibid, (3.43) 3. VP, (3.7.104)

2
Klpi sampadyamane caturthi vaktavya- vartika on (p 2.3.13)

55
In this example miHra (Urine) is karta and yavagii is indirectly karta
because it is related with action through 1hiitra. When a difference
between origin and its change is implied, paiicamf vibhakti is used but
kartti is again mutra. Example is Bzjadmikuro jayate. In mahabha~ya also,
dual number is used to indicate the kartrtva of vikara. patafijali says-

Punariivrtta~z suvaqzapi{z{ia~z bunaraparayii krtyii yuktab

khadirii1igiirasavar{ze krquJale bhavata~z 1

In the abovequoted statement of patafijali, dual number is used according

to the number of ku!Jflala-tas suffix expresses karta here. So kundala is
2
kartii here not origin, suvan;api!Jda (The lump of gold)

These abovementioned two indicators denote the changed from as karta.

But there are also' uses denoting both as karta and denoting the origin as
karta. Examples are mentioned below-

1. Asangho briihma{za~z sa1igho bhavati

2. Sa1ighfbhavanti briihnza1Jii~z 3

In these two above mentioned examples sifigha IS changed form and

Brahmal).a is the origin of safigha. Example is the explanation of second
example and the meaning of both examples is same. But in first example
safigha is kartii which denotes that vikara (changed form) is karta and in
second example briihmm;a is karta which denotes prakrti (origin) is karta.
Now again Bhartrhan quotes from mahabhasya in favour of origin as karla
patafijali says:

Atva~il tvam sampadyate tvadbhavati 4

In this example tvam (you) is vikara (changed form) but madhyama

puru~a is not used to denote yu~mad. Prak~ti (origin) is here different

1
Pasasa' mahabha~ya
2
VP, 3.7.116
3
VP, 3.7.116
4
Mahabha~ya on (p 1.4.1 08)

56
from yu~mad (Atvam) and pratham puru~a is used to denote .sesa that IS
Atvam here. So that usage indicates that origin is karta 1

If both prakrti and vikara become karta in different usages, what is

the justification? Bhartrhari says that when some thing arises from its
origin, it does not quit its previous state (original form) and touches the
later state (changed form). So, the one substance delimited by two states
(previous and later) is mentioned as jayate. So, kartrtva and
samanadhikaraQya (location in same base) of prakrti and vikara is
logically justified. Examples may be following.

1. Bijamailkuro jayate

2. K~Irarh dadhi sampadyate

3. Vrk~al:I pafi.ca nauka bhavati

Above mentioned three examples can be used In many ways. The first
example may peresented in two more ways-

1. Bijadailkuro jayate?

2. BijamailkurarupeQa jayate?

In first example Bija (ssed) is expressed by pafi.cami vibhakti, denoting

Apadana karaka and karta somewhere and somewhere it is Apadana.
Though powers of karta and apadana are different but they associate
somewhere as in the example Bfjamal}kuro jayate. When origin is implied
to be born, it is main subject and changed borm (Vikara) is karta only
through the origin. And when vikara is implied to be forn, it is main
subject and origin is subject through vikara only. So, Directly related to
verb is the main subject and indirectly related to verb is subordinate
subject Bhartrhari put it in following karika-

Savyaparatarah kascit kvaciddhannab pratfyate

Salizsrjyante ca bhavana1iz bhedavatyo 'piSaktayafz 1

I VP, 3.7.117

57
 Sampradana kiiraka has also participation In completion of action
by not denying the giver, inspiring the giver to give and to accept the
object to be given. This threefold function of sampradana karaka is part of
giving. 2 Sampradana means to give in an appropriate manner. When
ownership of self is removed and ownership of anyone else is established,
sampradana is said to be accomplished. Examples may be following-

1. Upadhyayaya garb dadati.

2. He donates maney to the school.

3. He gave a cloth to a beggar.

4. Kanyarh dadati

5. Gurustasmai capetarh dadati

In above mentioned five examples four examples show the transfer of

owner ship but in fifth example giving (Dana) is not meant because
ownership of slap is not meant here yet it will help the student to study
with more concentration in future. Aim of giving is to help some one.
That is present here. So, intension of ownership is here through help.

Rajakasya vastrarh dadati and ghnata(l PN!hmh dadati are not

example of sampradana karaka because ownership is not transferred here.
Suryaya arghyani dadati is example of sampradana because though
ownership is not transferred here nor it is possible in this case,
determination is to make the sundeity owner of that water. Piil).ini defines
Apadana as the point of departure in case of separation 3 Bhartrhari
explains that Pal).ini does not intend the stability of a substance but
4
stability related to separation is intended. Bhartrhari gives the example
of devadatta falling from the running horse. When Devadatta falls from

I VP (3.7.119)
2
Aniriikaral)iitkartustyiigarigarh karmal)epsitam preral)iinumatibhyiirh vii Jabhate sampradiinatiim- VP
(3.7.129)
3
Dhruvamapaye' padiinam (p 1.4.24)
4
VP, 4. 7 .138, dravyasvabhavo na dhrauvyam----------

58
the running horse horse is dhruva because action of falling is not linked
with horse but with Devadatta. When both are moving from each other,
then one is dhruva with respect of other because one's departure is not
related with other. Apasarato me~anme~o' pasarati is the example when
one is implied to be stable with respect of other.

Parasparasmiinme~iivapasarata~z is the example when both are implied as

1
a point of departure ( dhruva) with respect of each other • Both may be
karla of action of separation if other is a point of departure as Bhartrhari
says-

M e~iivapiiye kartiirau yadyanyo vidyate' vadhi~z 2

Vrk~asya pan;ani patati is the example when point of departure is not

implied. Here relationship of the leaf with tree is implied, so there is no
scope for Apiidiina kiiraka. 3

All properties are not implied in cloud at a time by speaker. So, according
to implication of speaker, usages vary. Patafijali showed these examples in
mahabha~ya Examples are as follows:-
4

1. Balahakad vidyotate

2. Balahake vidyotate

3. Balahako vidyotate

When clouds and lightning are implied as separate, first example is used.
When cloud and lightning are implied as one second example is used.
Third example is also used when both are implied as one. Difference
between second and third example is that of adhikarana and karta kclraka.
When lightning situated in clouds shines, second example is used. When

I Ibid, 3.7.140-141
2
ibid, 3.7.142
3
VP, 3.7.143
4
sec mahabha~ya on (p 1.4.23)

59
 1
cloud shines with the power of lightning third example is used Bhartrhari
defines Adhikaral}a kiiraka as helping in completion of action by holding
the action indirectly, mediated by kartii and karma. Bhartrhari says-

Kartrkarmavyavahitiimasiik~iiddharayat kriyiim

Upakurvat kriyiisiddhau Siistre' dhikara~za1h snzrtam

2

Kate iiste is the example of holding karta and thereby action situated m
kartii. In this example, kafa (Mat) is adhikarana because it is helping In

completion of action by holding kartii, it is impossible for kartii to

complete the action of sitting. Sthiilyiirh pacati is the example where sthiili
is AdhikaratJa because it holds karma (rice etc. which is cooked) and by
holding karma, indirectly helps to complete the action of cooking.

Adhikar~a is base. pa~ini defines it in that way. 3Bhartrhari also explains

Pal)ini. When he says- sastre'dhikara~a1h smrtam, It means that he is
referring to vyakara~asastra and pa~ini is the first known acarya whose
complete work is available today. In addition to this, Bhartrhari quotes
dhruva, Apiiya NirdhiiratJa, vibhakta etc. several terms used in his siitra-s
by piitJini. So, there is no doubt about it.

Container (Adhara) and contained (Adheya) have a relationship. That

relationship is called upslqa. This relationship is the same in three types
of AdhikartJa-s Abhivyiipaka, vai~ayika, and Aupasle~ika. Examples of
three types of AdhikaratJa-s are following-

1. Tile~u tailam (Abhivyapaka Adhikara~a)

2. Khe sakunaya~ (vai~ayika Adhikara~a)

3. Kate Aste (Aupasle~ika Adhikara~a)

1
Bhedabhedau prthagbhav~ sthitisceti virodhina~ I yugapanna vivak~ante sarve dharma Balahake- VP
(3.7.144)
2
VP, 3.7.148
3
Actharo'dhikaral).am -(p 1.4.45)

60
Though relationship is the same, manner of help varies to complete the
action. These helps are of mainly three types, enlisted by Bhartrhari 1 as
follows-

1. Protection from destruction

2. Independence to hold heavy objects

3. Determination of a particular direction.

Example of first help is tile~u tailam. Tila helps taila in protection from
destruction. Example of second help is ka!e aste. Mat is independent to
hold the sitter and helps him to sit other wise he will fall. Exapmple of
third help is khe sakanayab. Sky helps birds to remove the relationship
with downward direction otherwise it is not possible for birds to go up in
the sky. This is the help of sky to the birds. There are also some examples
where adhikarana karaka helps to convey a relationship with a particular
direction. They are following.

1. Priicyamiiditya udeti

2. Praticyiimastameti

3. Dak~i~zasyiimagastya~l

4. Uttarasyii1il dhruvafr

In all these above mentioned examples, relationship with a particular

direction is conveyed and it is the only help of adhikararya here.

grame vasarhstriratramupavasati is a typical example which is explained

by Bhartrhari while considering Adhikaraf}a karaka in sadhanasamudde§a.
The meaning of the example is that one stays in village without taking
food for three nights. The action of staying is not possible without a
location that is village here. So, the person who stays wants the village
most because he cannot stay without village. In this case village should be
karma biraka and hence there should be used dvitfya vibhakti with the

1
Particyamastameti

61
village. Bhartrhari says that vasdhatu with prefix upa expresses the
meaning of not taking food. So, not taking food is principal action here
and staying is subordinate to it. Staying is done to accomplish the taks of
fasting. Fast naturally associates with time because fast prevails during a
specific perid. So, action of fasting relates first with duration of a period
(Here three nights) and then associates with the village through the action
of staying. Action of staying is part of action of fast. So, here village can
not be karma karaka. When tfrthe upavasati is used and no vas dhatu IS

used separately as in previous example, yet place as adhikaral}a karaka IS

used with saptaml vibhakti because place can not associate with upavas
but with vas dhatu. In the same way, without use of time period as
trirdtriidi, vas dhatu with upa prefix projects eligible karma that is time
because time is associated first with act of fast, being internal and village,
being external, associates after indirectly through subordinate action of
staying. Bhartrhari put all this in two ktirika-s:

Y adyapyupa vas irdesavise§aman urudhyate sabdapravrttidharmiittu

kiilameviivalambate

Vasatiivaprayukte' pi de so' dhikara~za1h tatab aprayuktam tririitriidi

. 1
karma copavasau smrtam

Relationship

While dealing with the structure of vakya, Bhartrhari explains

relationship also. According to him relationship is different from karaka-s
and expressed through action and tools of action irrespective of use of
verb in a sentence 2

1. Verb may be used or not used in a sentence but relationship is

expressed by kriya and karaka-s. Relationship is between two and
expressed by ~a~thi vibhakti. Now there is a problem.Between two, with

IVP, 3.7.154-155
2
Sambandha}:l karakebhyo'nyai) kriyakarakapurvakal) srutayamasrutayarh va kriyayarh so' bhidhiyate (VP
3.7.156)

62
which ~a~~hi vibhakti should be used to express the relationship because
relationship is situated in both? Bhartrhari says that relationship though
situated in both is indicated separately in subordinates because they are
for others. When a relationship is expressed in subordinates, it is also
1
expressed in the principal because subordinates depend on principal.

As relationship is indicated by .Ja.Jthfvibhakt/ Bhartrhari is suggesting the

use of ~a~!hi vibhakti with subordrinate to indicate relationship.

Bhatrhari needs some elaboration here. When he says that relationships 1s

through kriya and karaka, he means that both related items were
previously karaka-s and related with kriya as always there is a natural
association between action and its tools. Some examples, may be shown in
this regard-

a) Raja puru.Jaya vetanmh dadati

b) Vrk.JO 'vayavf sakhayamavayavabhutayam ti.J!hati

c) Pita putrmh janayati.

In example (a) king is employer of a person and g1ves him the salary. So,
employer is here sampradana karaka and the action of giving 1s
establishing a relationship between the king and his employee. Now, the
relationship of employer and employee is established through action of
giving and sampradana karaka that is employee.

In example (b) tree prevails in its branch. So, branch is Adhikaraf!a

karaka and the action of prevailing is establishing a relationship between
tree and its branch. Now, the relationship of part and whole is established
through action of prevailing and Adhikarana karaka that is branch in this
example.

1
Dvi~ho'pyasau pararthatvad gm~esu vyatiricyate Tatrabhidhiyamane~ san pradhane' pyupabhujayate (VP
3.7.157)
Dvi~ho'pyasau pararthatvad gut:~esu vyatiricyate Tatrabhidhiyamane~ san pradhane' pyupabhujayate (VP
2

3.7.157)

63
In example (c) father produces the son. So, son is karma kiiraka here and
action of producing is establishing a relationship between father and son,
now. The ralationship of product and producer between father and son is
established through action of producing and karma kiiraka that is son
here.

These are the examples when verb IS used. The same examples can be
used without verb also-

a) Rajiia}_l puru~a}_l

b) Vrk~asya sakhii

c) Pitu}_l putra?z

Above examples show relationship without the use of verb. Relationship

is the same but verb is not used here but supposed. Without supposing the
respective actions, relationship cannot be expressed. To understand
relationship, we have to understand action and the tool of accomplishing
the action first as shown in abovementioned examples.

Second issue is related with the decision of subordinate and principal

between two things mutually related. This will decide the use of ~a~!hf

vibhakti to indicate the reltionship. And ~anhr vibhakti will be used with
subordinate and not with the principal. So, to indicate a relationship
above mentioned examples will be used as shown and not otherwise. The
example 'Vrk~asya sakha' will not be used as sakhaya?1 vrksa?l. And
likewise pitub putra?z will not be used as putrasya pita.

But if speaker wishes to convey the reverse meaning and used puru~asya

riijii, it means the king qualified by the person is expressed here and in
this example person is subordinate and the king is principal. In this case
also, ~a~!hi vibhakti is used with subordinate to indicate relationship and
thus the definition of relationship presented by Bhartrhari is not violated
HeHiraja puts the view in these words:

64
Yadfi tu vise~al}avise~yabhtive kfimficiirfit puru~asya rfijetyucyate tadti
gu~u1t puru~c1deva ~a~fhlti na vybhicarati lak~a~zam
1

In the same way if speaker wishes to convey the meaning that branch is
subordinate and tree is principal, the example 'Siikhiiyiib V!k~a{z' IS

possible. The same case will be with the example 'putrasya pita'.

Now, it should be considered that relationship is common between two

and ~anhz vibhakti indicates it when used with subordinate but the
principal should also express it. What is the way principal expresses it?
Bhartrhari says that though relationship is situated in principal also,
~a~thi is not used with the principal to indicate it. Principal receives the
relationship expressed by the subordinate with the indicative ~\·a~~!hf

vibhakti and thus relationship situated in the principal is expressed. Here,

subordinate denotes the own meaning qualified by relationship and the
principal denotes only pure own meaning without any qualification. This
is the principalness of principal that it does not change itself according to
the subordinate and experiences the relationship without any deviation
from its own form. Prathamii vibhakti used with the principal shows only
the meanings of term without any qualification 2 HeHidija puts this view in
these words:

Tathii hi gul}e~u vyatirekamiidhikymil dar§ayati sambandhal:z pradhtinmil tu

svaruptidapracyavamtinameva sambandhamanubhavati evmil hi tasya
prtidhtinymil bhavati yadi gul}anurodhena rupaparivartana1il niistidayati 3

In some examples expressing relationship factors deciding a particular

relationship are determined but in some cases it is not possible. In those
cases karma pravacanfya plays a decisive role. It determines the
particular action as a deciding factor of a relatinship, Bhartrhari says-
1
Nimittaniyama?z sabdiit sambandhasya na grhyate

1
HeHiraja on vp, 3.7.157
2
Pratipadikartha liil.gaparimal)a vacanamatre prathama (p 2.3.46)
3
Helaraja on (vp, 3.7.157)

65
Karmapravacanfyaistu sa vi.Se~e 'varudhyate

Some examples are as follows-

1. Slikalyasya sarhhillimanu pravar~at

2. Adhi Brahmadatte pancala!z

3. Abhimanyurarjunata{l prati

Where action is not known, karmapravacanfya determines the particular

action as a causing factor of a particular relationship and where action is
known as verb is used, verb is sufficient to determine the factor causing
relationship. No need of karma pravacanfya is there.

In first example sa1hhitii and pravar~mya have a cause effect relationship

where sarhhitii is cause and raining is the effect. The action in particular
deciding cause- effect relationship is indicated by karmapravacanfya anu
here because previously anu has been used with the action- anunisamya.
Karmapravacanfya cannot express the action taking place at present but
always expresses the action taken place in past. By derivation karma
pravacnfya means one that expressed the action. 2 As anu has been found
used to express the action of hearing (niSam), it will also express the
action of hearing as cause of the relationship between samhitii and
raining.

In second example, karmapravacanfya adhi expresses the action of

preserving etc. as a cause of owner- owned relationship.

In third example. Karmapravacanfya prati expresses the action of

representation as a factor of imitator-imitated relationship between
Abhimanyu and Arjuna. Bhartrhari explained it in vakyakCil'}da that
kannapravacanfya decides the particular of a relationship 3 .

I VP, 3.7.158
2
karma proktavanta~ karmapravacaniya~ iti- mahabha~ya (P 1.4.83)
3
Kriyaya dyotake nayaril. na sambandhasya vacak~ napi kriyapadak~epi sampandhasyatu bhedakal)- vp
(2.204)

66
One that is principal in a particular relationship becomes subordinate with
respect of another relationship but even then it remains principal with
respect to that subordinate in that particular relationship. Some examples
may be presented in this connection:

a) Rajiia?z puru.Jasya kambala(z

b) Rajiia?z puru.Jasya dhanam

c) svaputref!a sahagato devadattaf:z

The examples (a) and (b) are of same category. The example (c) is also of
the same category but needs some explanation. When king qualifies the
person, king is subordinate and the person is principal. That is why .Ja.Jfhi
vibhakti is used with the king and not with the person. But the person who
is principal with the respect of king becomes subordinate in relation with
blanket or money. It should not be considered contrary that how the same
item can be principal and subordinate. It is possible because matter and
time differs matter becomes different because relationship changes and
time also changes. In the example (a) and (b) the king qualifies the person
and after that person qualifies the blanket or money and becomes
subordinate to the blanket or money. So, the change of time is also quite
evident.

In example (c) son being principal with respect of Devadatta, becomes

subordinate to Devadatta when meaning of togetherness is associated with
the son. So, the usage 'son of Devadatta', shows that Devadatta qualifies
the son and becomes subordinate to principal son but Devadatta came with
son shows that son is subodinate to Devadatta because it qualifies
Devadatta with coming together. That is why PaQini prescribes trtfyii in
the association of saha 1

1
sahayukte' pradhane (p,2.3.19)

67
Always qualifier (viSe!fa~w) is subordinate and qualified (viseHa) is
principal because qualifier is used for qualified and one that is used for
anyoneelse is subordinate to that 1

Bhartrhari says that it is accepted m tradition that addressing sonie one is

not meaning of vakya-

Sambodhanam na viikyiirtha iti vrddhebhyaiigama~z 2

The fact that Bhartrhari is quoting the tradition to show that addressing or
calling someone to make him attentive towards the caller is not meaning
of vakya, deserves proper attention. 3 It means that all kiiraka-s and a kriyli
may be vakyartha but sambodhane is not traditionally accepted as
vakyartha. Bhartrhari said in second half of the karika that where ever
meanings of vibhakti-s are meantioned by taking names, they are
separated from meaning of viikya udde.Sena vibhaktyarthii viikyiirthiit
4
samupoddhrta?z

To exclude sambodhana from the category of viikyiirtha, Bhartrhari quoted

the tradition before saying that meanings of vibhaktis are separated from
viikyiirtha. There should be some similarity responsible for the possible
confusion between other meanings of vibhakti-s and sambodhana and
Bhartrhari has tried to avoid that confusion by quoting the tradition.
Certainly there is a similarity. Other meanings of vibhakti and
sambodhana-both expect action. There is a dissimilarity too.

Sambodhana is understood without association of other words and so it

does not require other words in order to be understood while other
meanings of vibhakti-s like karma kara~J-a and adhikara~J-a etc expect
association of other words to be understood.

1
DviHho'payasau prarthatvad- (vp 3.7.157)
2
VP, 3.7.164,
3
VP, 3.7.163
4
VP, 3.7.164

68
Bhartrhari has previously explained that powers of substances are called
sadhana or karaka 1 and meaning of vibhakti is different from meaning of
the word. 2 Vibhakti-s and other suffixes indicate siidhana or power of the
substance to accomplish an action. Whatever helps to accomplish an
action, is called sadhana in that case 3 . As pwer cannot reside without the
substance, substances are called sadhana or karaka but even in candition
of being karaka, the original nature of the substance remains intact 4 .

These are the principles of vyiikarm:za, denoted by linguistic behaviour.

Bhartrhari says that capacity of the substance is separate from its locus in
vyakaral)asastra because it follows the people and people hold language as
an evidence. In linguistic behaviour, power of substance is separate
because it is expressed separately by vibhakti-s indicating karaka-s
Bhartrhari puts it in this karika:

Tattve vavyatireke vavyatiriktaril taducyate

sabdapramaryako lokal) sa sastrel)anugamyate 5

In Kriyasamuddesa, Bhartrhari defines action. According to him kriya

must have two features:

1. Anything, complete or incomplete, must be expressed as to be

completed.

2. It must have a sequence.

An action has many steps from starting to completion. All these steps are
assumed as one group 6 and this one group is expressed by Akhyata 1 When

1
Svasraye samavetanam tadvadevasrayantare kriyal).iimabhinispattau samarthyam sadhanari1 vidu- vp
(3.7.1)
2
·--------vibhaktyartho'nya i~yate- vp (3.7.43)
3
.------- Yadyada yadanugrahi tattada tatra sadhanam svasabdairabhidhane tu sa dharmonabhidhiyate
vi bhaktyadibhirevasavupakara~ pratiyate vp (3. 7.12-13)
4
Dravyaril tu yad yathabhiitam tadatyantam tathabhavet kriyabhedpi tasyasau dravyatma navahiyate- vp
(3.7.166)
5
VP, 3.7.38
6
a) yavatsiddhamasiddharil vii- vp (3.8.1)
b) Gul).abhiitairavayavai~- Vp (3.8.4.)

69
When anything is completed, there is no need of tools. Hence, expectation
2
of sadhana ends in that case and terms denoting actions are not used.

Akhyiita-s express the meaning with sequence and niimasabda-s denote the
meaning as concluding the sequence. This is th-e main difference between
two. Bhartrhari puts it very clearly in this karika-

Siivevambhiito' Bhidhfyate

Niima sabdiib pravartante sarhharanta eva kramam 3 .

Akhyata-share many meanings but mainly they express activities because

4
they are to be completed by readymade tools

Kriya is invisible and not a substance. In this case numbers can not be
used with AkhylHa but we have use of them as pacati, pacataQ. pacanti etc.
paiicakrtvab pacati and Dvi!1 pacati are other examples where numbers are
used with kriyti. Bhartrhari replies that though action is one because
speaker wishes to express it as one, yet when same action is repeated, it
becomes countable and thus numbers are used with action otherwise
action can not have numbers be cause it is not countable as a substance. 5

Krdantapada conveys the meaning as completed and tiilantapada conveys

the meaning as to be completed. Bhartrhari says that if krdantapada as
paka conveys the meaning of completed, sadhana (Karaka-kartr, karma
etc.) cannot be used with krdantapada and if krdantapada conveys the
meaning of to be completed then nothing is the difference between
krdanta and tiilanta. Bhartrhari says this with some examples of a certain
category in his mind- some examples may be presented in this regard-

a) odanasya pakal). - (Odana is karma)

1
Purvottaraistada bhagail:l - vp (3.8.11)
2
Siddhe tu sadhanakailk~a- (VP (3.8.17)
3
VP (3.8.29)
4
sadhyatvatatra cakhyatairvyaparal:l siddhasadhanal:l priidhanyeniibhidhiyante phallnapi pravartital:l - vp
(3.8.40)
5
Ekatvavrttibhedabhyam- vp (3.8.41)

70
b) apiiln sra~!ii - (Ap is karma)

c) ascaryo gavarh doho' gopena (go is karma)

d) bhavata modako bhoktavyal~ (modaka is karma)

e) Ramena
. bali hatah. (Bali is karma)

f) Sukaralf patho bhavata (patha is karma)

In abovementioned examples krdantapada is associated with karma- karma

1s a sadhana (tool) and krdantapada conveys the meaning of siddha
(completed). It is not justified that krdantapada associates with sadhana-
karma etc. Bhartrhari presents the problem thus-

Siddhasyarthasya piikiide!z kathani siidhanayogitii siidhyatve vii tifzantena

krtiiln bhedo na kascana 1

Though in a pad a, division of sadhana and sadhya is accepted m sastra, it

does not really exist in vakya. Bhartrhari says-

Etiivatsiidhana1n siidhyametiivaditi kalpaniisiistra eva na viikye 'sti

2
vibhiigaf:l pramiirthata?z As division of sadhya and sadhana in sastra, the
same division in krdanta is also accepted 3

In the same way, verb-root expresses the action as to be completed and krt
suffix used after verb-root expresses the portion of substance 4 Substance
is used with gender and number. That is why krdanta is used with gender
and number while tifzanta is used with number only and that number is
also of siidhana-kartii and karma.

The same verb expresses siidhyiivasthii m tifzanta and siddhiivasthii in

krdanta. How is it possible? Bhartrhari gives an example to show that two
opposite features can be together. Example is Bandhutii. Bandhutii means
the groups of kins. Now Bhartrhari shows that kins are many but the

I VP, 3.8.42
2
VP, 3.8.45
3
VP, 3.8.46
4
VP 3.8.47

71
group is one. Here, group is really nothing other than Bandhu. So, group
is a state of Bandhu and that is expressed by tal suffix. In this example,
nominal base Bandhu is bearing the property called bandhutti in different
from and suffix tal is expressing the group i.e a particular state of
Bandhu, in a single form 1• In the same way in krdanta pad a also, verb-root
expresses state of to be completed and suffix expresses the completed
state. So, the problem can be resolved in examples like odanasya ptika{z
etc. by accepting that verb-root pac in ptika is associated with stidhana,
adana in stidhyiivasth iipac is siddha with respect of krt suffix ghafi but
siidhya with respect of stidhana- karma etc.

In bilasamuddda, Bhartrhari says that the meaning expressed by Akhyata

1s principal because it is to be completed and other terms qualifying
akhyata follow the time of Akhyata-

Akhyiitapadaviicye 'rthe nirvartyatvat pradhanata vise~al).arh tadak~epat

tatkiile vyavati~!hate
2

Bhartrhari is justifying the use of sentences like Bhtivikrtyamtisft" and

also the formulation of rule by pal).ini in this regard 3 . He is himself
presenting the example and indicating the rule (p 3.4.1) by using the term
sutra in the following karika-

Vyabhiciire nimittasya siidhutva1h na prakalpatebhiivyiisiditi siitre~za tat

kale 'nyatra si!jyate 4

In this example 'Bhiivi' IS denoting the future as l).ini suffix is applied

after verb root 'Bhu' in sense of future 5 A sit is denoting past. When both
terms are related in a vakya the past time will be principal because it is
the meaning expressed by Akhyiita iisit and the meaning of future will be
subordinate and follow the meaning of past. This is the explanation of

I VP 3.8.48
2
VP, 3.9.99
3
Dhaatusambandhe pratyaya~ (p 3.4.1)
4
VP, 3.9.93 '
5
p. 3.3.3.

72
Pal).ini by Bhartrhari. The sentences expressmg mixtimes will be
1
explained grammatically if the rule explained here (p 3 .4.1) prevails • In
the same way in everyday life people use present tense to express the past
or future action nearer to the present. Pa1,1ini formulated the rule in this
regard 2 . Bharqhari explains that what is completed but remains in mind
as an impression of that completed action and what is not undertaken but
started in mind as a mental determination-both are shown as nearer to the
present in vyiikan;asiistra.

When we express probability or wish, we expect something and

expectation is always related with future. This expection to obtain
something is Asarhsii. The expected thing is present in our mind 111 the
form of knowledge but the thing we are expecting is not present but the
subject of future.

That is why Patafijali says in mahabha~ya 3 .

Asarhsa nama bhavi~yatkala 4 - The use of present tense and past tense is
prescribed by Pal).ini and use of futuretense is not prescribed because it is
natural. The use of past, present and future tense is done in language
when we wish to gain something. To explain the linguistic behaviour in
this regard, pal).ini prescribed the use of past and present tense to express
the wish. But this is not the direct prescription. Pal).ini prescribes through
similarity. He says that to express the wish suffixes must be added to
verb-root as they are added to denote past and present tense. This suggests
that Pal).ini is well-aware of the fact that wish is related to future. That is
why he prescribes the application based on similarity. When similarity of
past and present tense suffixes is applied to express the wish, it is proved
that wish is entirely related to future, otherwise there is no need to
application of past and present tense suffixes because only different thing

I VP, 3.9.98
2
vartamanasiimfpyevartamanavadva (P 3.3.131)
3
Adhvano vartamanasya ya~ se~o ya upakrama~ Tadvartamanasamipyarh sastre bhedena darsitam (vp
3.9.102)
4
Mbh on (P 3.3.132)

73
IS needed to be applied similarly. It is proved also because there is only
three stages of time- present, past and future and once it is prescribed that
it is like past and present, only future is left to be connected with. So,
Patafijali is only putting the fact in clear terms which was only indicated
by Pal)ini.

74