Bhartrhari And Mimamsa

Author(s): Johannes Bronkhorst
Publisher: Johannes Bronkhorst
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269564/1

Page #1

23
BHARTṚHARI AND MIMAMSA*
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
1.1. Both Bhartrhari and Sabara pay a good deal of attention to the subject of üha 'modification, adjustment'. Bharthari discusses it in the first Ahnika of his commentary on the Mahabhäşya (CE 1.5.1-7.15; AL 5.18-8.17; Sw 6.17-9.27; Ms 269-3c1), while parts of Adhyaya 9 of Sabara's Bhasya deal with it. Two cases in particular are treated by both the authors and allow of a detailed comparison.
The first case is most easily introduced with the help of Sabara's Bhasya on Pärva Mimämsä Sätra 9.3.10:
asti pasur agnişomtyah, yo diksito yad agnişomiyam pasum alabhata iti tatra päŝaikatväbhidhäyt mantrah, aditiḥ päšam pramumoktv etam iti | tatha pasabahutväbhidhayt, aditiḥ pāšān pramumoktv etan iti... | asti dvipasur vikrtiḥ | maitram Svetam älabheta, väruṇam krṣṇam apam causadhinam ca samdhävannakäma iti | tatra codakena päśäbhidhäyinau mantrau präptau tayoḥ samsayah kim bahuvacanãnto' vikarena pravartate, ekavacanãntasya nivrttiḥ, uta bahuvacanãnto nivartate, ekavacanänta ühitavyah, utobhayor api pravṛttir abhidhanavipratipattis ca, utaikavacanänta ühitavyo bahuvacanãnto 'pi na nivarteta | kim präptam
"There is the Agniştomiya animal [sacrifice] laid down in the text yo diksito yad agnişomiyam pasum alabhate ('When one, being initiated, sacrifices the animal dedicated to Agni-Soma"). In connection with this there is a mantra, speaking of the
• This article was written with the financial assistance of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (N.W.O.). Reprint from "Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik", vol. 15, pp. 101-117, Reinbek 1989.

Page #2

372 Studies in Mimämsä
singleness of the noose (paša): aditih pašam pramumok v etam ("May Aditi loosen this noose"); also there is another mantra) speaking of the plurality of the noose: aditih påsan pramum. okty etan.... [Then again, there is a modificatory sacrifice (vikrti) (of the Agnisomiya) at which two animals [are killed], laid down in the text maitram Svetam alabheta, vărunam krsnam etc. ("The white (goat] should be sacrificed to Mitra and the black (goat] to Varuna') In accordance with the General Law, both the mantras that mention a noose come to be regarded as to be used at this (sacrifice of two animals]. In regard to the use of these two (mantras at this last sacrifice of two goats, there arise] the following questions: (a) Is (the word) in the plural form to be used in its unmodified form and that in the singular form to be excluded? Or (b) should the plural form be excluded and the singular form be modified [into a dual form]? Or () should both (the plural and the singular forms] be used, there being a diversity of expression (i.e. option) [regarding the one to be actually used in any particular case)? Or (d) should the singular form be modified, the plural form also in its modified form (1) not being excluded?" (tr. Gangånátha Jhi, vol. III p. 1561; modified)
Bharthari and Mimārsd 373 "That which is incompatible (should be used in its unmodified form'; [i.e.) the plural form, which is incompatible (with the primary sacrifice at which there is only one animal), is used (at the sacrifice of two animals) in its unmodified form, and the singular form should be excluded. Why so? (Because] we find no obstacle to its being used in the case of there being [only one animal and) one noose; (so that] just as it is used in the case of one animal and one noose, 60 should it be used also in the case of there being (two animals) and two (nooses; especially as the plural form) is expressive of neither one nor two. In thus (using the plural form in its unmodified form,] the scriptural injunction of the General Law becomes honoured; while in the other case, if(the words) were modified, then the mantra would not be used in the form in which it is used at the primary sacrifice. Nor is there any difference between one noose and two nooses (so far as the applicability of the plural form is concerned). From all this it follows that the plural form is used in its unmodified form and the singular form is excluded." (tr. Gangånátha Jhå, p. 1562; modified)
As said before, Sabara does not accept this position. He comes to the conclusion, under sūtra 9.3.13, that both the plural form and the singular form must be modified into a dual form. But this rejected position is rather close to the one adopted by Bharthari, where he says in his commentary on the Mahâbhâsya (AL 6.8-12; Sw 7.9-13; Ms 2c7-10; CEI 5.14-17):
The problem here raised is subsequently discussed in the Bhásya. Four solutions are proposed, the fourth one of which is finally accepted. For our present purposes it is however interesting to study the first solution, which is not accepted by Sabara. It reads on PMS 9.3.10):
tathaikasminneva prakrtipāśe pädän iti bahuvacanäntar früyate / aditih pasan pramumokty iti tatrapi viktāv üho násti/ vajasaneyinām tv ekavacanäntah pathyate aditih pašam iti / tesām ühah präpnoti/...athava păseșu noha ity anena tu naigamavibhāsa / bahuvacane satt yathestar prayogo bhavati
anyayas ty avikārena/ anyāyanigado bahuvacananto'vikarena pravartate / ekavacanänto nivartitum arhati / kutah/ năsyaikasmin påse pravartamānasya drstah pratighătah / yathaivaikasmin päse pravartate, tathā dvayor api pravartitum arhati/ nāsãy ekasya vācakah, na dvayoh / evam arsas codako'anugr hito bhavisyati/itaratha hi ühyamáne yathaprakrti mantro na krtah syāt na dvayoh pasayoh, ekasmimś ca pāśe kaścid viseso'stil tasmäd avikärena bahuvacanăntah prayujyate, ekavacanantasya nivpttir iti/
The Ms is very corrupt, but this reconstruction seems to be essentially correct. I translate:
".. The plural päsän is heard in aditih påśän pramumoktu even though there is but one single noose (pāša) in the primary sacrifice. Here ... there is no modification in the modifi

Page #3

Bharthari and Mimāṁsā 375 tradition which by itself had no particular predilection for Maitrayaniya texts.
374 Studies in Mimarisa
catory sacrifice. But among the Vajasaneyins [the mantra) is read in the singular, aditih pašam... For them modification applies.... Or the statement that there is no modification in the case of nooses (pl.) expresses a Vedic option: where there is a plural number of paša one uses the word) as one wishes (.e. either in the plural or adjusted to the situation)".
Bharthari here represents the point of view of a particular Vedic school different from the Vajasaneyins. His Vedic school had laid down the rule that no modification takes place in the case of the word para used in the plural, and Bharthari interprets this rule in two ways. Interestingly, the line aditih pafari pramtumokty etam does not occur in the scriptures of the Vajasaneyins, but in TS 3.1.4.4. Bharthari's mistake (what else could it be?) allows us to conclude that he was not a Taittiriya either. The presence of adirib pasan pramumoktv etan in MS 1.2.15, KS 30.8 suggests that Bharthari belonged to one of these two Vedic schools. Other evidence (see Rau, 1980; Bronkhorst, 1981; 1987) supports the view that he was a Maitrāyapiya.
The conclusion must be that Bharthari's description of iha, or rather of the absence of ūha, in aditih påfan pramtumoktu does not represent the position of any group of Mimasakas, but rather the position of the Maitråyaniya branch of the Yajurveda. The Mimasakas on the other hand, or at any rate Sabara, did not confine their attention to one Vedic school. Only thus could they be confronted with the situation in which both the mantras aditih pasan pramumokty etän and aditib pašam pramumokty etam apply. The question that remains is how the similarity between the point of view accepted by Bharthari and the one rejected by Sabara is to be explained.
This question gains interest in view of the fact that Sabara too may have been a Maitriyaniya. It is true that the Taittiriya texts are more often quoted in his Bhåşya, but Garge (1952:191) has shown that Sabara's Bhåşya nonetheless shows a clear preference for Maitrayaniya readings wherever possible. Garge's data are perhaps most easily understood by assuming that Sabara, a Maitråyaniya, continued and codified the Mimasaka
1.2. Both Bharthari (AL 7.10-8.8; Sw 8.16-9.17: Ms 3a2-b6; CEI 6.11-7.7) and Sabara (on Purva Mimämsä Sutra 9.3.22 and 9.3.27-4.27) deal in detail with the adhrigu mantra, a passage that occurs in but slightly differing form in a number of texts. Nothing in Bharthari's discussion shows any influence from Sabara. Indeed it appears that the two authors disagree on how to deal with the part sadvimatir asya vankrayas 'it has twentysix ribs'. Sabara winds up a long discussion on this matter by stating (on sutra 9.4.16) that the total number of ribs must be mentioned where two or more animals are involved, not a repetition of the numeral twenty-six' (iyatta vankrid prakrtau vaktavya / ihapi sa codakena pradifyate / tena nābhyasah / sa hi pafunimittakah/ tasmdt samasya vacana vankrinär kartavyam iti ). Bharthari makes an enigmatic remark after citing the sentence that precedes sadvimbatir. This remark-athavyayam anekasmin pasau dvir abhyas yate-can be interpreted with the help of MSS 5.2.9.5 yany avyayany anekäni täni dvir abhyasyante ... sadvirfatih sadvimfatih. It thus comes to mean: "Then, in case there is more than one animal, the indeclinable (that follows, viz. sadvinfatih) is repeated".
Unlike Sabara, parts of Bharthari's treatment of üha show the influence of the Månava Srauta Sutra. We saw how MSS 5.2.9.5 was needed to understand one of Bharthari's remarks. At two other occasions he makes a direct reference to the section on modification' (thaprakarana) of the Mänava Srauta Sutra. Once (AL 7.5-6; Sw 8.11-12; Ms 2010-11; CEI 6.6-8) he says:
aghasad aghastăm aghasannagrabhtsur aksannity ühaprakarare pathyate "In the section on modification the forms aghasar, aghastam, aghasan, agrabhtsuh and akşan are read"
This must refer to MŚS 5.2.9.6:
havisi praise süktavake ca adat adatām adan, ghasat ghastan

Page #4

376
Studies in Mimāṁsā
ghasan, aghasat aghastam aghasan, karat karatar aghrabhit aghrabhistăm agrabhtsub, aksan/
karan,
Then again (AL 7.20-21; Sw 9.3-4; Ms 3a8-9; CEI 6.21-22):
tatrohaprakarana evaisar mātā pita bhrātā sanābhisarsargiSabda ity evamddiny anähyänity pathyatel "... in the same section on modification it is read that of the [words mentioned earlier) the words indicative of siblings and kin mäta, pita, bhratd and the like should not be modified".
Bhartrhari and Mimāmsa 377 Vedic school, probably the Maiträyaniyas. Bharthari based his discussion of üha not on some preexisting works of Mimasa but on ritual works which had no, or little, connection with Mimämsä.
This situation allows us to understand how Sabara could des. cribe and reject an opinion (on aditih pāśān pramumoktu etc., sec section 1.1 above) which is so close to Bharthari's. The Mimamsakas, who took a broader view of the sacrificial rites than those adhering to the traditions of particular Vedic schools, would nonetheless borrow ideas from individual Vedic schools, either to accept or to reject them. All we have to assume is that Sabara was acquainted with at least some of these ritual books.
It seems that the works which Bharthari used did not survive him for long. The above stanza (angāni...) is quoted by Kumarila in his Tantra-vårttika on Purva Mimäså Sūtra 1.3.24 (p. 197) and ascribed to a fikākära who is also credited (p. 209) with the authorship of the stanza that we know as Väkyapadiya 2.14 (Swaminathan, 1963:69), i.e., apparently to Bharthari. That is to say, Bhartphari is here quoted as an authority on iha in his own right.
This reflects MŚS 5.2.9.7:
mätä pita bhrāta sagarbhyo ("nu) sakha sayüthyo näbhirupam asarisargi sabdas caksuh Srotram vāri manas tvar medo havir barhih fyenar vaksa ity anūhyam " His mother, his father, his brother from the same womb, his friend in the herd'; the form of năbhi joined with the ending) a; the words 'eye, ear, voice, mind, skin, fat, oblation (?), sacrificial grass, eagle-shaped breast', all these are not to be modified." (tr. Van Gelder, p. 174)
Not all of Bharthari's examples regarding üha can be traced to the Månava Srauta Sūtra, nor to any other Srauta Sutra. Of particular interest is the stanza which introduces his discussion of iha in the adhrigu mantra, and which has not been traced in any earlier work (AL 7.10-11; Sw 8.16-17; Ms 3a2-3; CE I 6.11-12):
1.3. Another instance where Bharthari gives evidence of drawing upon a tradition quite independent of the Mimarsakas occurs on P. 1.1.5 and consists of an illustration with the help of the Sunaskarnastama sacrifice (AL 118.3; Sw 137.26-138.1; Ms 39a 7-8; CE IV 6.11-12):
angani jñātināmā (ny upama] cendriyani cal etäni nohamh gacchanti adhrigau visamar hi tat // "Limbs of the body, names of relatives, comparison and organs of sense, these do not undergo modification; for it (?) is irregular in the case of adhrigu".
$unaskarpastomayajñavad etat syat, yatha pradhanasya maranenărthina istim pravartayanti "This is like the Sunaskarnastoma sacrifice: desirous of the main thing by means of death, they cause the sacrifice to
proceed". The Sunaskarna Agnistoma sacrifice is discussed in Sabara's Bhăşya om PMS 10.2.57-61. This sacrifice is enjoined by the injunction "Desiring one's own death one should perform this sacrifice, if he wishes that he should reach the Heavenly Region without any disease" (maranakamo hy etena yajeta, yah kämayetanamayah svargar lokam tyäm iti; tr. Gangånátha Jha, p.
This stanza, which governs Bharthari's ensuing discussion, must be assumed to have belonged to the ritualistic tradition of some

Page #5

Bharthari and Mtmāmså 379 ajyasya vyantv' agner agner "barhir agna ajyasyu vervagner agner itil.
378 Studies in Mimārsā 1721). The question raised under PMS 10.2.57-58 is whether or not the sacrifice should be continued after the sacrificer has taken his life by throwing himself into the fire. The answer is that the sacrifice must be completed. A number of reasons is given for this, none of them even resembling Bhartshari's. This is true to the extent that Párthasarathi Miśra in his Sastradipikä on PMS 10.2.57-58 (adhikarana 23, vol. II, p. 334f.) quotes Bharthari as authority when accepting that point of view (cf. Swaminathan, 1961:315-16):
"When (fire) is to be lit again one should recite the vibhaktis before or after the preliminary and final offerings, as follows: ye yajāmahe etc".
svarga evätra maranenarthinah phalam na maranam maranakāma ity angikatamarana ity arthah/ tena yo hy evan jäärva svargar prapnaväntti kämayate, tasyayarh kratuh / tatha ca haribhir uktar 'pradhanasya marapenarthina lyam pravartayanti'iti/
The first and introductory sentence of this passage is included in Bharthari's remarks on the subject, which however go beyond the Mänava Srauta Sutra in giving some kind of justification for the choice of 'vibhaktis' (i.e. agnir agnib etc.) and even lead to an outcome that is different in one point; he also gives an alternative. Bharthari's Mahâbhâsya Dipika reads (AL 12.25-13.4; Sw 15.21-16.1; Ms 5a2-5; CEI 11.10-14):
"Heaven is here the fruit he wishes [to attain) by means of death, not death [itself). The words 'desiring (one's own) death' (maranakama) mean accepting (one's own] death'. Therefore, this sacrifice is (meant] for him who, knowing this, wishes to attain to heaven. This has been expressed by [Bhartrhari with the words desirous of the main thing (i.c. heaven) by means of death they cause the sacrifice to proceed'."
Parthasarathi's quotation does not only cast light on the form and meaning of Bharthari's remark; it also indicates that Pårthasarathi (10th century C.e. according to Ramaswami Sastri, 1937) had no longer ?) access to the sources from which Bharthari drew his example.
vibhaktinam api sarvāsām prayoge prăpte ya dvyaksarà va salyaś caturak sară vă bhavantti vacanăd agninägnineti na prayujyate / tatha na sabdajāmi kuryat / tabdajāmi hi tad bhavati yat pancamyantam / tasmad agner agner ity anena rūpena sasthyantam prayujyate punaradhyeye prayājānuyājänar purastad voparisfdd và vibhaktih kuryat / narašańso agnim agnim iti vā ubhayatha drspatrāt / "Although it would follow (from what precedes in Bharthari's commentary) that all case-endings be used, the form agninagnina is not used because it has been stated 'which have two syllables or four syllables'. Similarly one should not use fabdajámi. Sabdajami is that which has an ablative ending. Therefore it is the genitive which is used in the form agner agneh, (not the ablative). When [fire) is to be lit again one should recite the vibhaktis before or after the preliminary offerings. Or nardsarso ... agnim agnim [is used instead of tanūnapäd... agnim agnim because it is seen both ways".
1.4. We turn to another passage where Bharthari to all appearances draws upon the tradition of the Maitrayaniyas. It occurs in his comments on the line praydjah savibhaktikah kāryah of the Mahabháşya (1.3.10). Bharthari is here clearly influenced by the Mänava Srauta Sutra (5.1.2.6) which reads:
punar adheye prayājānuyajānāṁ purastad voparistad va vibhakrth kuryāt / ye yajāmahe 'samiuhah samidho'gna ajyasya vyanty' agnir agnis 'tanūnapăd agna ajyasya vetv' agnim agnim Ido'gna
This shows that according to Bharthari the following four "vibhaktis' are to be used: agnir agnih (nom.), agnim ugnim (acc.), agner agneh (gen.), agnāv agnau (loc.).
The essential correctness of the above reading of Bharthari's Mahabhâsya Dipika is confirmed by Sivaramendra Sarasvati's

Page #6

380
Studies in Mimarisa
Ratnaprakása, a subcommentary on the Mahâbhâsya. It says in this connection (p. 56-57): tatrapi sambuddhifāne'ntandris na prayogah, avttyd dvyakşarab santa caturaksard bhavanti' iti vacanåt sambuddhyantasya dvyak saratve'pi dvirvacanottarar pūrvarūpe sati 'agne'gnd iti tryakararvat fane'ntayor adita eva dvyak sararvabhavde cal tathdrasyantam api na prayoktayyam, 'na sabdajāmi kuryat, fabdajami hi tad bhavati ya paficantyantan' iti vacandi ... evarh ca caturşv avasistapraydjamantresu yathakramari prathamddvittyasasthesaptamtyekavacanäntänam agnisabdaprakrtikanärh padanāṁ prayogah kartavyah/.../tatha cayari purastarprayogah: 'ye yajāmahe agnir agnih samidhah samidho'gna ajyasya vyantu vausar' 'ye yajāmahe agnim agnir fananapod agna ajyasya vetu vausar' 'ye yajāmahe agner agner ido'gna ajyasya vyantu vausar' / 'ye yajāmahe agnay agnaw bar hir ag na djyasya vetu vausar iti pascātprayogas tu ye yajd. mahe samidhah samidho'gna djyasya vyantu agnir agnih vdupar
ityadih / It is true that Sivaramendra refers immediately after this to Vispumisra's Ksiroda, a now lost commentary on the Mahabhâsya, for further elucidation. It is also true that he then men tions Bharthari's commentary (hariftka) and quotes from it a passage which clearly belongs to Bharthari's subsequent treatment of 'vibhaktis' in accordance with the Asvalayana Srauta Sätra (see Bronkhorst, 1981:174). Yet there can be no doubt that also the above passage was composed under the direct or in direct influence of Bhartphari's Mahabhäşya Dipika.
We return to Bhartphari's passage. It shows relationship with the Mänava Srauta Sutra, as we have seen. It further quotes a line that has close affinity with MS 1.7.3, KS 9.1, Kaps 8.4" in order to justify that only 'vibhaktis' with two or four syllables are acceptable. Then however it deviates from any known text by quoting a remarkable rule: One should not use fabdajami; Jabdajani is that which has an ablative ending. Subsequently Bharthari observes that tanûnapad is sometimes replaced by nardfarso. Something similar was noted by the commentator Gárgya Narayana on ASVSS 2.8.6 (see Rau, 1980:176) and by Sivarämendra Sarasvati (see Bronkhorst, 1981:174), both in connection with the Asvalayana version of the 'vibhaktis'.
Bhartrhari and Mimāritsa 381 1.5. What is the source from which Bharthari derived his detailed knowledge on ritual matters? The most likely answer is that he used Prayoga manual, belonging to the Maitriyaniyas. Few old Prayogas have survived and their study has hardly begun. Yet the suspicion could be voiced that "some sort of Prayogas must have been in vogue even before the composition of the Srautasutras proper" (Srautakośa Vol. I, English section, Part I, Preface, p. 7; see already Hillebrandt, 1879: XV; 1897: 38). Bhide (1979:1509.) studied two extant Prayogas of the Caturmäsya sacrifices and compared them with the Hiranyakesi Srauta Sutra, under which they resort. Interestingly, the older of these two Prayogas, by Mahadeva Somayajin, deviates a number of times from the Hiranyakesi Srauta Sutra. This shows that Bharthari may indeed have used Prayoga manuals belonging to his Vedic school, and that the few deviations from the Mänava Srauta Sutra which we noticed above do not prove that these manuals belonged to another school than that of the Månavas.
2.1. We conclude from the above that Bharthari was not a Mimärsaka. Yet he was acquainted with Mimamså. He uses the word 'Mimathsaka' several times in his commentary on the Mahâbhâsya. The line siddha dyauh siddha prthivi siddham akašam iti (Mbh 1.6.18-19) is elucidated by Bharthari's remark (AL 22.23; Sw 27. 19; Ms 8a4; CEI 19.11): årharaná mimarisakanårit ca naivasti vinäsah eşām "According to the Jainas and Mimathsakas there is no destruction of these", i.e. of sky, carth and ether. At another place (AL 29.10-11; Sw 35.2; Ms 9d7; CE I 24.15) Bharthari quotes the words darfanasya parartharvat in a discussion concerning the eternality of words. This must be a reflection of PMS 1.1.18 nityas tu sydd darśanasya parartharvat. Note however that Bharthari's quote does not only lack the initial words of the sutra, it also has an additional word at the end, probably viprapravstrarvāt which is absent from the sutra.
The following quotation in the Dipika seems to throw more light on Bharthari's relationship with Mimamsa. In the third Ahnika Bharthari proclaims (AL 96.3-4; Sw 113.14-15; Ms 31b4-5; CE III.3.19-20):
nänantaryam sambandhahetub / evam hy ucyate / arthato hy asamarthănām anantaryam akarapam/

Page #7

382
Studies in Mimarsa
Bharthari and Mimántså
383
"Mere contiguity is no cause of relationship. Thus, verily, it is said: 'contiguity is no cause of relationship between (words] which are not semantically connected'."
tadartharvát). Again we are left with the impression that Bhartrhari was acquainted with a work on Mimams, which contained verse.
The quotation in this passage had to be reconstructed to some extent, and this could be done with the help of PMS 4.3.11 (api vämndnasamarthyac codanarthena gamyetar thánär hy arthavarivena vacanani pratlyante'rthato hy asamarthanam anantarye'py asambandhas tasmacchrutyekadesah sah), as pointed out by Pal sule (Notes p. 66 of his edition; cf. Swaminathan, 1961:314). What is more, the quoted line occurs in precisely that form in a verse cited in Vaidyanatha's Chaya (p. 160, 162) and which reads:
yasya yenābhisambandho/ -arthasambandho dürasthasyapi tena saharthato hy asamarthanam anantaryam akaranam /
This suggests that Bharthari knew a Mimamsa work which contained this verse.
This impression is strengthened by another quotation in the Mahābhäşya Dipika. on P. 1.1.46, in the context of sequential order. Here Bharthari cites the following verse (AL 274.1-2; Ms 95b1-2 CE VII 5.16-17):
2.2. The fact that the work on Mimamsă used by Bharthari appears to have contained verses may help us in identifying its author. Only one author on Mimamsá is thought to have written an early work on this subject which contained verses; this is Bhavadåsa. Sucaritamisra's commentary Käsika on Kumarila's Slokavårttika quotes a half verse from Bhavadása? (Kane, 1929: esp. 153 fn. 3). It seems clear that Bhavadása preceded Sabara (Kane, 1929; Mishra, 1942:16-17; Frauwallner, 1968: 100f., 107, 1121.)*
The assumption that Bharthari used Bhavadasa's work does not conflict with anything in the Mahabhäşyadipika, nor in the Väkyapadiya, as far as I know. It may be noted that on one occasion, where we seem to know the definition used by Bhavadåsa, Bharthari does not quote Bhavadasa but gives a definition of his own. Sabara on PMS 12.1.1 quotes a definition of the word prasanga: prasangasabdártho 'nyair uktah, evam eva prasangah syad vidyamáne svake vidhåv itl. The quoted line is half a śloka, the whole of which is given on PMS 11.1.1; it is plausible that it derives from Bhavadása. Bharthari gives an own definition of this technical Mimamsă term in his commentary (AL 45.4-5; Sw 54.2:3; Ms 1464-5; CEI 37.11-12): yady arthr prayoJako anyadvárenartham pratipadyate sa prasanga ity ucyate. A closer investigation shows however that Bharthari's definition agrees contentwise with Bhavadasa's sloka, whereas Sabara has changed the interpretation of the verse so as to make it suit his own ideas. See Bronkhorst, 1986.
fruter arthac ca pdfhac ca pravsttes ca mantsinah/ sthanan mukhyac ca dharmánām āhuh kramavidah kraman //
"Those sages who know about sequential order say that the sequential order of things (V) is determined) on the basis of scriptural assertion, meaning, [order of text, commencement, place and [order of the principal".
This verse is close to PMS 5.1.1-15, as already observed by Swaminathan (1961:317). All its elements occur there: śruti in PMS 5.1.1 (srutilaksanan anupūrvyan tatpramaşatvat), artha in 5.1.2 (arthdc ca), patha is the subject matter of 5.1.4, even though not called by this name, pravrtti appears in 5.1.8 (pravsttyä tulyakalanän tadupakramát), sthana in 5.1.13 (sthanac cotpartisanyogät), mukhyakrama finally in 5.1.14 (mukhyakramena varganam
2.3. If indeed we can accept that Bharthari uscd a text on Mimämsă different from Sabara's Bhäşya we may be in a position to understand a passage that occupied Yudhisthira Mimamsaka (1973:1:385 fn. 1). It reads (AL 31.2-3; Sw 36.19-21; Ms 1067-8; CEI 25.24-26):
dharmaprayojano veti mimärsakadarsanam/ avasthita eva dharmah / sa tv agnihotrādibhir abhivyajyate / tatpreritas tu phalado bhavati

Page #8

384 Studies in Mimämsä
"[The words in the Mahabhäşya (1.8.5-6)] dharmaprayojano va... bringing about dharma" [express] the view of the Mimamsakas. [According to them] dharma is eternal. It is however manifested by [such sacrifices as] Agnihotra etc. Instigated by these [dharma] produces result".
Mimämsaka contrasts this statement with a passage from Jayanta Bhatta's Nyayamañjari which reads (p. 664):
vrddhamtmämsakaḥ yägädikarmanirvartyam apurvam nama dharmam abhivadanti yägädikarmaiva śäbară bruvate/
"The old Mimamsakas declare dharma, [also] called apurva, to be produced by ritual activities such as sacrifices. The followers of Sabara say that the ritual activities such as sacrifices are themselves [dharma]."'10
The two passages combined seem to indicate that the Mimamsakas known to Bharthari were older than Sabara. Mimāṁsaka goes further and concludes that BhartŢhari himself is much earlier than Sabara. This need not be true. In fact, Bhartṛhari's commentary contains an indication that its author knew a view according to which the constituents of the sacrifice are dharma. This indication consists in the twice quoted phrase dadhimadhvadayo dharmaḥ 'curds, honey, etc. constitute dharma'. The phrase is quoted (twice) in a difficult and corrupt passage, which may however be reconstituted as follows (Ms 11b3-5; AL 34.812; Sw 40.21-25; CE I 28.17-20):
yatha pürvakälam prayuktäni dirghasattränt idänim aprayujyamänäny api dadhimadhvadayo dharma iti karmatädivişayaḥ sidhyata evam anyaiḥ prayuktänäṁ sarvakälam idānim aprayujyamänänām apy anuvidhanam yuktam / ye tu dadhimadhvädayo dharma iti teşäm vyäkarane'yam artho na sambhavati na hi iha sabdoccäranät dharma iti
This may tentatively be translated:
Just as long Soma sacrifices were used formerly, and even
Bhartrhari and Mimämsä
385
though they are not used now, the aim of sacrificial activity is attained since curds, honey etc. constitute dharma; so the laying down of rules for things which have been used by others all the time is proper, even though these things are not used now. But this is not possible in grammar for those who [hold] that curds, honey etc. constitute dharma. For no dharma comes forth from uttering sound.
Much is unclear in this passage. But it shows that we do not have to conclude that Bhartrhari lived much before Sabara. It seems more appropriate to conjecture that BhartŢhari used a text on Mimämsä older than Sabara's Bhasya, most probably Bhavadasa's Vrtti. We are however fully justified in thinking that Bharthari cannot have lived long after Sabara.
3. The above observations, if correct, allow us to draw the following conclusions. Bhartṛhari was acquainted with Mimåmså, but did not use it where we would expect him to use it. In the context of ritual details he rather draws upon another tradition, most probably on the traditional manuals current in his Vedic school, that of the Maitrayaniyas. And where he makes references to Mimamså, it is never to Sabara's Bhaşya, but rather to a Mimämsä work in verse, or containing verse, which has not survived, but may have been Bhavadasa's Vrtti. He may have known the Purva Mimämså Sütra, or a part of it, but this is not certain.
AiB AL
Asv$S CE
KS KapS Mbh
Ms
MS
MSS
ABBREVIATIONS
Aitareya Brähmaṇa
Abhyankar and Limaye's edition of Bhartrhari's Mahabhasya Dipika
Asvalayana Srauta Sutra
'Critical Edition' of Bhartrhari's Mahābhāṣya Dipika Käthaka Samhita
Kapisthala Samhita
Mahabhasya
Manuscript of Bharthari's Mahabhäṣya Dipikā
Maitrayant Samhitä Mänava Srauta Sutra

Page #9

386
Studies in Mimārsa
Bhartshari and Mimartså
387
PMS SŚs
REFERENCES
Sw
Pärva Mimarsd Sutra Sankhāyana Srauta Sūtra Swaminathan's edition of Bahrtshari's Mahābhāsya Dipika Taittiriya Brāhmana Taittirya Samhita
NOTES
1. MS 4.13.4; KS 16.21; AiB 6.6-7 (2.6-7); TB 3.6.6; A$yS 3.3; SSS 5.17.
2. Bharthari's independence from the influence of Mimatså when dealing with ritual details makes this a more likely assumption than that this stanza belonged to the Mimaths work in verse with which he appears to have been acquainted. See section 2, below.
3. Helaraja on Vakyapadiya 3.14.591 (590). p. 413 1. 24-25, quotes the same stanza and calls it tradition of the knowers of dha' (Ghavidam andyah).
4. The Ms reading has been cmended with the help of the quotation by Parthasarathi Miśra; see below.
5. All these texts have yad dvyak sardh salt caturak sardh kriyant [e].
6. Bharthari's example of truti is krdayasyagre'vadyati, atha jihāyās. atha vaksasah. The same example is given by Sabara under PMS 5.1.5.
7. bhavaddsena coktam: athata ity ayan sabda anantarye prayujyate. 8. Frauwallner (1968: 101) places him in the first half of the Sth century.
9. We must assume that Bharthari considers prayojana here synonymous with prayojaka "bringing about for the following reasons: () otherwise tatpreritas makes no sense; (ii) a few lines further down we find the explanation charmarya... prayojaka[k]. Joshi and Roodbergen (1973: 82 fn. 326) explain this meaning as follows: "The word prayojana is formed by adding the suffix Lyut (.e. ana, p. 7.1.1) to the stem prayuj, in the sense of karana: 'instrument' (P. 3.3. 117). Thus the meaning of prayojana can be analyzed as prayujyate anena tal prayojanam: 'that by which something is regulated is (called) prayojana'. Taken in this sense, prayojana comes to mean prayojaka: "regulator'. " It seems however more correct to account for prayojana in this sense by P. 3.3.113 (krtyalyupo bahulam). This is done, e.g., by Bhattoji Diksita in his Sabdakaustubha (vol. I, p. 11): atra prayujyate pravartyare 'meneli karapalyudantah prayojayarltl karirvyutpartyd bahulakat karirlyudanto va ubhayathapi pravartakavidhiparah pumlingah prayojanasabdu ekah / phalaparah klibo parah !.
10. Cr. Sabara's Bhasya on PMS 1.1.2: yo hi yagam anurishati tarh dhar mika itt samicuksale / yas ca yasyu kartása tena vapadilyale yutha pacako lavaka ini.
Bharthari: Mahābhasyadipikā 1. Edited by K.V. Abhyankar and V.P. Limaye. Poona: Bhandarkar
Oriental Research Institute. 1970. (Post-Graduate and Research De
partment Series No. 8). 2. Partly edited by V. Swaminathan under the title Mahabhaya nika.
Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University. 1965. (Hindu Vislvavidyalaya
Nepal Rajya Sanskrit Series Vol. 11). 3. Manuscript reproduced, Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Insti
tute. 1980. 4. 'Critical edition. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
Ahnika 1 by J. Bronkhorst (1987), Ahnika 2 by G.B. Palsule (1988), Ahnika 3 by G.B. Palsule (1983), Ahnika 4 by G.V, Devasthali and G.B. Palsule (1989), Ahnika 5 by V.P. Limaye, G.B. Palsule and V.B, Bhagavat (1984), Ahnika 6 part 1 by V.B. Bhagavat and Saroja Bhate (1986), Ahnika 6 part 2 by V.B. Bhagavat and Saroja Bhate (1990).
Ahnika 7 by G.B. Palsule and V.B. Bhagavat (1991). Bhattoji Dikşita: Sabdakaustubha. Vol. I, Fasc. I to IV. Edited by
Pandit Sri Mukund Sastri Puntamkar. Benares: Chowkhamba Sanskrit
Series Office. 1933. Bhide, V.V. (1979): The Caturmäsya Sacrifices. With special reference to the
Hiranyaketi Srautas@tra. Pune: University of Poona. (Publications of the
Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, Class B, No. 5). Bronkhorst, Johannes (1981): 'On some Vedic quotations in Bharthari's
works.' Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 7, 173-75. Bronkhorst, Johannes (1986): 'Tantra and Prasanga." Aligarh Journal of
Oriental Studies 3, 77–80. Bronkhorst, Johannes (1987): 'Further remarks on Bhartrhari's Vedic affiliation. Studies in Indian culture. S. Ramachandra Rao Felicitation
Volume. Bangalore, pp. 216-23. Frauwallner, Erich (1968): Materialien zur ältesten Erkenntnislehre der Karmamimdusă Wien: Österreichische Akademieder Wissenchalten, (Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte, 259. Band, 2. Abhandlung: Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Sprachen und Kulturen Sud- und
Ostasiens, Heft 6). Garge, Damodar Vishnu (1952): Citations in Sabara-Bhasya. Poona: Deccan
College. (Deccan College Dissertation Series, 8). Helarija: Prakirnaprakáta. In: Vakpapadtya of Bharthari with the comme
entary of Helardja, edited by K.A. Subramania Iyer. 2 parts. Poona:
Deccan College. 1963-73. Hillebrandt, Alfred (1879): Das altindische Neu- und Vollmondsopfer. Jena:
Gustav Fischer. Hillebrandt, Alfred (1897): Ritual-Litteratur. Vedische Opfer wind Zauber.
Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner. (Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologic und Altertumskunde, III. Band, 2. Heft.)

Page #10
388 Studies in Mimamsa Jayanta Bhatta: Nyayamanjari. Vol. I. Edited by K.S. Varadacharya. Mysore: Oriental Research Institute. Jha, Ganganatha (tr.) (1933-36): Sabara-Bhasya, 3 vol. Baroda: Oriental Institute. Jha, Ganganatha (1942): Pirva-Mimamsa in its Sources. Benares: Benares Hindu University. Joshi, S.D., and Roodbergen, J.A.F. (1973): Patanjali's Vyakarana-Maha. bhusya. Tatpurusuhnika (P. 2.2.2-2.2.23). Poona: University of Poona. (Publications of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, Class C, No. 7) Kane, P. V. (1929): 'Bhavadasa and Sabarasvamin.' Annals of the Bhandar. kar Oriental Research Institute 10, 153-54. Kumarila Bhatta: Tantravarttika. See under 'sabara'. Mimamsaka, Yudhisthira (1973): Samskrta Vyakarana-Sastra ka Itihasa. Parts I-III. Sonipat: Rama Lal Kapur Trust. Samvat 2030. Mishra, Umesha (1942): 'Critical bibliography.' Appendix to Jha 1942. Parthasarathi Misra: Sastradipika. Edited by P.N. Pattabhirama Sastri. New Delhi: Sri Lala Bahadura Sastri Kendriya Samskrta Vidyapitham. Part II. 1980-81. (Samskrta Vidyapitha Granthamala 38.) Patanjali: Vyakarana-Mahabhasya. Edited by F, Kielhorn. Third Edition by K.V. Abhyankar. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 1962 72. Ramaswami Sastri, K.S. (1937): 'Date of Parthasarathimisra and sequence of his works.' Indian Historical Quarterly 13, 488-97. Rau, Wilhelm (1980): 'Bharthari und der Veda'. Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 5/6 (Festschrift Paul Thieme), 167-80. Sabara: Mimarsa Bhasya. In: Mimamsadarsana, Edited by Kasinatha Vasudevasastri Abhyamkara and Pt. Ganesasastri Josi, Poona: Anandasrama. 1973-84. (Anandasrama Samskrtagranthavali 97.) Srautakosa. Vol. I, English section, Part I. By R.N. Dandekar; preface by C.G. Kashikar. Poona: Vaidika Samsodhana Mandala. 1958. Sivaramendra Sarasvati: Ratnaprakasa, In: Mahabhasya Pradipa Vyakhya. nani. Adhyaya I Pada 1 Ahnika 1-4. Edited by M.S. Narasimhacharya. Pondichery: Institut Francais d'Indologie. 1973. (Publications de l'Institut Francais d'Indologie No. 51, 1). Swaminathan, V. (1961): 'Bhartrhari and Mimarosa.' Proceedings of the All India Oriental Conference 20 (1959), Vol. II, part 1, pp. 309-17. Swaminathan, V. (1963): 'Bharthari's authorship of the commentary on the Mahabhasya.' Adyar Library Bulletin 27, 59-70. Vaidyanatha: Chaya. In: Patanjali's Vyakarana Mahabhasya, edited by Raghunath Kashinath Shastri and Sivadatta D. Kudala. Bombay: Nirnaya sagar Press, 1932. van Gelder, Jeanette M. (tr.) (1963): The Manava Srautasutra. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture. (Sata-Pitaka Series, Indo-Asian Literatures, Vol. 27.) :