Bhartrharis Familiarity With Jainism

Author(s): Jan E M Houben
Publisher: Jan E M Houben
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269489/1

Page #1

BHARTRHARI'S FAMILIARITY WITH JAINISM* Jan E.M. Houben, International Institute for Asian Leiden.
Studies,
In memory of my teacher
Dr. L. van Daalen
0.0 In comparison with many authors of Indian philosophical texts, Bhartphari is remarkably non-polemic. His attitude, both in the MahābhāşyaDipikā and in the Vākyapadiya, may be described not only as 'encyclopedic', in the sense that he seems to be eager to discuss all important views on a certain subject, but also as 'perspectivistic', in the sense that he seems to acknowledge that each view represents a possible and in its own theoretical context valid perspective. Different views are enumerated and contrasted, and sometimes positively or negatively reassessed, but hardly ever fully rejected.2
• Bhartphari refers to the different views in a very concise way, and for modern students of his works the precise identity of those who held the views remains often unclear. Of those (apart from grammarians, and authors of
An earlier and on some points less elaborate version of this paper was presented at the 9th World Sanskrit Conference, 9-15 January 1994, Melbourne, Australia. When working on this article, I profited a lot from my discussions with Pt. V.B. Bhagavat Shastri, Poona. I thank Prof. Dr. J. Bronkhorst, Prof. Dr. S.D. Laddu, and Mr. H. Isaacson for comments on earlier versions of the paper. I am grateful to Prof. Dr. A. Aklujkar, who kindly provided me with detailed information about some important mss. of the Väkyapadiya and the Vrtti. Thanks are also due to the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) for financial support to participate in a few seminars and conferences, which gave the author much appreciated opportunities to exchange ideas with scholars working in relevant fields. Finally, I am grateful to the International Institute for Asian Studies (Leiden, Netherlands) and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), for enabling me to write this article. For this, the scholars and staff-members of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (Pune) and the University of Poona (Department of Sanskrit and Prakrit Languages, and Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit) have provided a stimulating environment.
See my article "Bharthari's Perspectivism (1): The Vịtti and Bharthari's Perspectivism in the first kända of the Vākyapadiya" (forthcoming, b) for a provisionary discussion of Bhartphari's perspectivism. I hope to discuss it in a philosophically more comprehensive way in a future article. 2 Cf. Houben, 1992: 23-24. K.A.S. Iyer speaks of Bharthari's "spirit of accommodation" (K.A.S. Iyer, Bharthari, a Study of the Vākyapadiya in the light of the ancient commentaries, Poona, 1969:75-82).
Jan E.M. Houben, Pune, March 1994 (pre-final version)
Page 1

Page #2

Sikṣā and Nirukta) whose views Bhartshari frequently takes up for discussion, K.A. Subramania Iyer has mentioned Vaiseșikas, Mimāṁsakas, Sāṁkhyas and Buddhists (Iyer, 1969:72). Iyer has not mentioned the Jainas, and one may wonder whether they remained outside the scope of BhartŢhari's encyclopedic approach. This, however, is not the case. Bharthari is aware of Jaina philosophers and refers to them explicitly in at least one place in the Mahābhāșya-Dipikā. Other passages in the Mahābhāșya-Dipikā and Vākyapadiya are remarkably well compatible with Jaina ideas. They may have been intended as references to their views, although their name is not explicitly mentioned.
As is well known, the early Jainas wrote their scriptures in Ardhamāgadhi, and they attributed to this language a high status. Still, at a certain point in their tradition they started to write also in Sanskrit. One of the earliest Jaina works in Sanskrit is the Tattvārthasūtra or Tattvārthādhigamasūtra (TS), which may have been written not long before Bhartphari.3 In the Jaina tradition the TS was to acquire an important position as a basic text accepted and commented upon by both the Svetāmbaras and the Digambaras. We may assume that Bhartshari, as a Sanskrit grammarian, was more familiar with this Jaina work in Sanskrit than with the earlier works in Ardhamāgadhi. 0.1 In this paper, without aiming completeness, I will discuss a few indications and possible indications of Bharthari's familiarity with Jainism in the Mahābhāsya-Dipikā (MBD) and Vākyapadiya (VP), including two places in VP Kānda 2 which seem to refer to a technicality in Jainendravyākarana. This would show that Bhartshari was not only familiar with the Jaina doctrines, but also with their literature in the field of grammar. Finally, in the concluding section I will mention some possible implications of
3
Neither in the case of the author of the TS nor in the case of Bharthari is it possible to give a definite date. According to Zydenbos Umäsvāti's commentary on the TS was probably written in the fifth century, while the Sūtra-text must have originated still earlier (Zydenbos, 1983:12). See also Bronkhorst. 1985. As for Bhartrhari, "If reliable information about Bharthari's life is not available, his date is not definitely known either" (Iyer, 1969:2). Still, Bharthari must have preceded Dinnāga (cf. Iyengar (1951) and Jambuvijaya (1954:230)). Frauwallner has proposed as the date of Bharthari 450-510 A.D. and of Dinnāga 480-540 A.D (Frauwallner, 1959:83ff, 1961:125); cf. also Sadhu Ram (1952), and Scharfe (1977:170).
Jan E.M. Houben, Pune, March 1994 (pre-final version)
Page 2

Page #3

Bhartphari's familiarity with Jainism for our understanding of Bhartphari's perspectivism and his philosophy of language. 1.1.1 The Mahābhāsya-Dipikā refers to the Jainas by the name of 'followers of the Arhat' in MBHD 1:19.11. Bhartçhari starts to discuss the following phrase in the Mahābhāsya: siddhā dyauḥ siddhā prthivi siddham ākāśam. His first remark on this phrase is: ārhatānāṁ mimāṁsakānāṁ ca naivāsti vināšat eşām. "For the followers of the Arhat and the Mimāṁsakas there is no destruction of these (namely heaven, earth and the intermediate space)." 1.1.2 The TS chapters 3 and 4 discuss the Jaina views on the three lokaregions, lower, middle and heavenly. The different living beings and their lifetimes in these regions are described in detail, but nothing is said about a complete destruction of the loka itself. Chapter 5 discusses the substances recognized by the Jainas, namely dharma, adharma, akāśa and pudgala, (together constituting ajiva) and as the fifth jiva, the soul. These substances are considered to be permanent (TS 5.1-3). The specific Jaina view on what is real and their view on permanence is discussed in TS 5.29-30.5 From the different statements referred to above it can be inferred that the author of the TS, although he did not do so explicitly and did not use the terms used in the MBA, rejected a complete destruction of heaven, earth, and intermediate space. In this respect he did not deviate from the earlier, canonical texts.6 1.2.1 Here, we should also mention MBHD 1:16.28-29, which forms part of an enumeration of different views on what a permanent śabda would mean: kecid evaṁ manyante / ya evaite prākstāḥ śabdāḥ ta evaite nityāḥ prakȚtau bhavāḥ prākṣtāḥ. Joshi and Roodbergen translate this as follows: "Some think like this: Those words only, which are prākṣta 'original' are eternal. (The word) prākȚtāḥ is derived in the sense of) prakstau bhavāḥ arising from the origin' (pl. nom. masc.)” (Joshi-Roodbergen, 1986:86-87). In a note they add:
4 Delete the visarga of vināšah in the MBHD (cf. MS, reproduced in Mahābhāşya-Dipika, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1980: p. 8, section a, line 4). 5 TS 5. 29: utpăda-vyaya-dhrauvya-yuktar sat; 5.30: tadbhāvāvyayaṁ nityam: "That which is associated with the three features) origination, destruction and permanence is sat 'real'. That which does not deviate from its essence is permanent." 6 Cf. Dixit, 1971, p. 33 (in a section devoted to the Bhagavati-sūtra): "In the field of cosmography some of the most basic Jaina positions are that loka (world) has got a particular shape, that loka is surrounded by aloka (non-world), that loka and aloka are two beginningless and endless entities."
Jan E.M. Houben, Pune, March 1994 (pre-final version)
Page 3

Page #4

"The opinion referred to may be that of Jaina grammarians who wanted to upgrade the status of Ardhamagadhi, their canonical language, as against Sanskrit" (Joshi-Roodbergen, 1986:86-87, note 315). Unfortunately, the reference in the MBHD is too short for a precise understanding of the view. It is nowhere said what the prākştāḥ sabdāḥ are, nor what the prakrti is from or in which they arise.7 1.2.2 Later Sanskrit and Prakrit grammarians used to derive the word prāksta as a designation of the Prakrit-languages mostly in the following way. The prākrta sabdāh or Prakrit words would derive from their basis, prakşti, which are the Sanskrit words. Sanskrit would thus be the eternal basis of all the Prakrit-languages, which developed from Sanskrit.8 This derivation would provide an answer to the question what the prākịtāḥ śabdāḥ are, and what the prakệti is, but not very satisfying ones. For, this way the view would be identical with the view which the MBhD mentions next, the view that there was an original, pure language (daivi vāk), which became spoiled by incompetent speakers in the course of time. A more important drawback of this interpretation is that the prakrti, namely the Sanskrit words are considered to be permanent (nitya), but not the prāksta-śabdāḥ derived from this basis, whereas it was said in the MBhD that the prāksta-sabdāḥ are permanent' (nitya). 1.2.3 From the 11th-century Jaina-scholar and commentator Namisādhu we know of quite a different explication of the word prākṣta as a designation of
7 VP 1.77-79 discuss the difference between prākrta dhvani "fundamental sound and vaiksta dhvani 'derivative sound'. In the Vrtti and in Vrsabha's Paddhati it becomes clear that both are 'sound' as opposed to the meaningful sabda or sphoța. Vrşabha explains the idea of prākȚta dhvani as follows: dhvanisphotayoḥ prthaktvenānupalambhāt tam sphoța tasya dhvaneh prakstim iva manyante I tatra bhavaḥ prākştaḥ, "Because dhvani and sphoța are not perceived separately, people think the sphota to be the basis of that (prāksta) dhvani. Prākta (should be derived as) tatra bhavah 'arising in that' (namely in the prakti, 'basis')." (Iyer, 1966:142, line 16-17). In this view, the prākrta dhvani (which one may also call prākta sabda, sabda in the sense of 'sound' or 'phoneme') is not permanent (although its temporal distinctions are superimposed on the permanent sabda or sphota). The reference in the MBhD to permanent prākstāḥ sabdāḥ, therefore, cannot be a reference to this view of prākta dhvani. 8 E.g. Hemacandra (12th century A.D.), 1.1: Prakrtih sanskrtam; tatra bhavam tata āgatam vā prakstam. For more quotations see Acharya, 1968:39; Pischel, 1981:1.
Jan E.M. Houben, Pune, March 1994 (pre-final version)
1
Page 4

Page #5

languages. According to his explanation, "prakệti is the natural use of speech made by all beings of the world which is not refined by grammar etc.; that which is derived from this (prakȚti), or this (prakȚti] itself, is prāksta." After giving a different possible etymology for prākta, according to which it would be that which is created first (prāk kệta), Namisādhu goes on to explain how Prakrit and Sanskrit are in his view related: prāksta is the speech easily intelligible to children, women etc., and the source of all other speeches. It is of a homogeneous character like rain falling from the clouds. That same speech, being differentiated according to differences in place and on account of refinement, obtains the subsequent divisions into saṁskýta and other speeches. For this reason, the author [Rudrata) first mentions (in sloka 2.12 of the Kāvyālamkāra) Prāksta and then Saṁskṛta and other speeches. It is called Saṁskệta on account of being refined by Pāṇini and others, in the rules of their grammar."10 1.2.4 With this interpretation we would get a sensible alternative view on the permanence of sabda, suitable to the context of Bhartshari's enumeration. The prākstāḥ śabdāḥ are what we would call Prakrit words; the praksti from or in which they arise is the natural speech of the common people. The prākstāḥ sabdāḥ are in this view not derived but original, and may be considered permanent, not in an absolute, metaphysical sense, but in the sense that they are naturally spoken by common people. Finally, the non-eternal counterparts of these prākītāḥ sabdāḥ are the refined, sanskrta words regulated by grammatical rules, and other derived speech varieties. The view which thus comes to the fore is sufficiently distinct from the next view about the daivi vāk to deserve separate mentioning. 11
9 Namisādhu on Rudrata's Kävyālaṁkāra 2.12: prākṣteti sakalajagajjantūnāṁ vyākaranādibhir anāhitasamskårah sahajo vacanavyāpărah praktih, tatra bhavam saiva vā prakstam. (ed. R.D. Sukla, 1966:31; Cf. Acharya, 1968:40). 10 Namisādhu on Rudrata's Kávyālamkāra 2.12: prākstar bālamahilādisubodham sakalabhāsănibandhanabhūtar vacanam ucyate meghanirmuktajalam ivaikarūpam tad eva ca desaviseșāt saskārakaranāc ca samāsāditavišeșar sat saṁskytādyuttaravibhedân āpnoti / ata eva Šāstrakstā prākstam ādau nirdiştam tad anu saṁskstādini pāņinyādivyäkaranoditaśabdalakṣaṇena saṁskaranāt sarskstam ucyate (ed. R.D. Sukla, 1966:31-32; Cf. Acharya, 1968:40). Kavyālamkāra 2.12 enumerates different 'speeches' as follows: prāksta-samskȚta-māgadha-pisācabhāṣās ca sūraseni ca / sastho 'tra bhūribhedo deśaviseşād apabhraṁsah II 11 Neither the view that Prakrit derives from Sanskrit, nor the opposite view can do full justice to the linguistic situation in ancient India (cf. Pischel, 1981, 891-9, 16). By the time Namisädhu wrote
Jan E.M. Houben, Pune, March 1994 (pre-final version)
Page 5

Page #6

1.2.5 That we are probably on the right track in our attempt to reconstruct a more complete view on the basis of the few hints given in the MBhD becomes clear from another text which must have been later but still fairly close in time to the MBhD, namely the ancient Vṛtti on the VP. The Vṛtti on VP 1.182 (Iyer, 1966:234), explaining a view which according to the kärikä should be opposite to the 'daivi vāk'-view, says the following: 12
But those who propound the impermanent, who do not accept that correct words lead to dharma 'merit', (and who) consider the established fixity of correct forms to be similar to the conventions among wrestlers, say that the collection of correct [namely, Prakrit] words is prākṛta in the sense of arising from the prakṛti'. But later on a changed form [namely, Sanskrit] has been established, which was arrived at through accentuation and
phonological and morphological modification 13 by persons with impaired
understanding.
The view as explained here in the Vṛtti squares nicely both with the view explained by Namisādhu and the concise reference in the MBD. The interpretation of präkṛta as that which is derived from sarhskṛta would make little sense in either the view explained in the Vṛtti, or in the reference in the MBhD.
1.2.6 Neither in the MBhD nor in the VP-Vṛtti, is it clearly stated who the adherents to this view were. In the case of Namisādhu we know that he was a Jaina. In the MBhD, where the präkṛtāḥ sabdaḥ are said to be permanent, the reference may also be to the Jainas. The Vṛtti on VP 1.182, however, professes to explain the view of the anityadarsin-s mentioned in the verse. The word. anityadarsin-s would rather suggest a reference to the Buddhists who propound the impermanence of everything, than to the Jainas, who accept
his commentary, the Prakrits were purely literary languages. Pischel wanted to reserve the term Prakrit for the standardized, literary language, and the term Apabhramsa for the old spoken varieties (Pischel, 1981, §5). For the ancient Sanskrit grammarians, however, anything non-Sanskrit would be Apabhramsa (cf. Deshpande, 1993:3-4).
12 anityavādinas tu ye sädhūnām dharmahetutvam na pratipadyante, mallasamayādisadṛsim sādhuvyavsthāṁ manyante, te prakṛtau bhavam präkṛtam sadhūnām Sabdānāṁ samūham ācakṣate | vikāras tu pascad vyavasthāpitaḥ, yaḥ sambhinnabhuddhibhiḥ purusaiḥ svarasaṁskārādibhir nirniyate iti.
13
For the expression svara-saṁskārau cf. Suklayajuḥprātiśākhyam 1.1 (Kāsi Skt. Granthamālā 179, ed. and tr. Shrimati Indu Rastogi 1967); Yaska's Nirukta, 1.12, 14, 15; 2.1; and Cardona, 1988:654: "Yāska uses svarasaṁskārau with reference to accents (svara) and the derivational formation of words from bases and so on."
Jan E.M. Houben, Pune, March 1994 (pre-final version)
Page
6

Page #7

permanent entities. The Buddhists would in general agree with the Jainas in rejecting Sanskrit as the prakti or 'basis': they attributed the role of basic language' (mūlabhāsā) to Māgadhi, the language in which the Buddha would have preached. 14 I am not aware that the Buddhists ever used the name prākta for this basic language' Māgadhi. This makes it unlikely that the passage in the Vrtti (“the collection of correct (namely, Prakrit] words is prāksta in the sense of arising from the prakti") directly refers to the Buddhists. Therefore, we may assume that anityadarsin refers specifically to the view on language, and therefore to all those who do not accept sabda as nitya. The anityadarsin-s could then include both the Buddhists and the Jainas, 15 and the reference to the Jaina view on Prakrit by the author of the Vịtti would be fully justified. Otherwise, if anityadarśin was intended as a reference to the Buddhists by the kārikā author, we have to assume that the reference in the Vrtti to the anti-Sanskritic, Jaina view in which the prāksta collection of 'correct words’ is opposed to the changed form (vikāra) which is regulated *by persons with impaired understarting', is a bit out of place in the explanation of kārikā 1.82. 2.0 Another possible indication of BhartȚhari's familiarity with Jainism is found in the first Kānda of the Vākyapadiya. Kārikā 110 of this Kānda reads as follows:
vāyor anūnärh jhānasya sabdatvāpattir isyate
kais cid darsanabhedo hi pravādeşv anavasthitaḥ Il This may be translated as:
It has been accepted by different (thinkers) that (respectively) wind, atoms, cognition, become language; indeed, the difference in viewpoints among the
doctrines remains unsettled. Of the different views referred to here, the view that atoms become language has been taken by different scholars as a reference to the traditional Jaina view on speech and language.16
14 Cf. J. Muir, 1874:53.
The Brahmanical Naiyāyikas and Vaišeşikas also reject a permanent sabda, but they would not consider the Prakrit words correct and the Sanskrit words derived from them. Cf. Joshi, 1967:70
15
72.
16 Pt. Süryanārāyaṇa Sukla, 1937, avataranikā to 110 (VP 1.113); Gaurinath Sāstri, 1959: 52: Santi Bhikṣu Sastri, 1963, notes on 110 (VP 1.113).
Jan E.M. Houben, Pune, March 1994 (pre-final version)
Page 7

Page #8

2.1 In the Vștti on this kārikā, the first two of the three views are further explained in two verses (sloka-s).17 The two sloka-s explaining the view that atoms become language are as follows.
anavah sarvasaktitvād bhedasarhsargavrttayah chāyātapatamansabdabhävena pariņāminah II svasaktau vyajyamānāyāṁ prayatnena samiritāḥ /
abhrāņiva praciyante sabdākhyāḥ paramānavaḥ II The first of these two verses may be translated without many problems as:
Atoms, because they have all capacities, are transformed when they
separate and combine into shadow, heat, darkness, and sound. This is very much reminiscent of TS 5.23-25, which explain the Jaina view on matter or pudgala. According to these sūtras, 18
The pudgala-s are characterized by touch, taste, smell and colour. They are also characterized by sound, binding, subtleness, grossness, configuration, splitting, darkness, shadow, hot radiation and non-hot radiation.
Pudgala is of the form of an atom and of the form of an aggregate. 2.2 Unlike the Vaiseșikas, the Jainas do not accept different sorts of atoms for earth, water, fire and air. Instead, the atoms are uniform and are at the basis of all different material things on account of different configurations between them. Here, the second verse in the VȚtti explaining the atom-view seems to present a problem. In this verse it is said that Sabdākhyāḥ paramāṇavaḥ are accumulated like clouds when their own capacity manifests itself, and when they are stirred by an (articulatory) effort. That the verse seems to speak of atoms which are specifically sabdākhyāḥ, was for Virendra Sharma (Sharma,
17 These verses (VP1.111-116) belong to the Vņtti and not to the kārikā-text according to the criterion that a verse genuinely belonging to the kārikās should have been recognized as such in the Vrtti. Verses 1.111-116 explaining the three views, are not separately commented upon in the Vrtti, from which one may infer that they formed part of the Vrtti itself (Iyer, 1966:x; Aklujkar, 1971). This criterion can be strictly adhered to only if we assume that the Vrtti-author was identical with the author of the kärikās (most recently: Aklujkar, 1993). If the Vịtti is not by the same author (cf. Bronkhorst, 1988; Houben, forthcoming a and b), it is possible that the Vrtti-author assigned the status of 'illustrative statement' to kārikās which he did find in the kärikā-text he was commenting on. 18 TS 5.23: sparsa-rasa-gandha-varna-vantah pudgalāh; 5.24: sabda-bandha-saukṣmya-sthaulyasasthāna-bheda-tamas-chāyā-tapo-dyota-vantas ca; 5.25: anavaḥ skandhās ca.
Jan E.M. Houben, Pune, March 1994 (pre-final version)
Page 8

Page #9

1977:13, 17) the main reason to consider the attribution of the atom-view to the Jainas as impossible.19 2.3 However, if we understand the verse this way, it would no longer be an illustration of one of the three views according to which "something becomes sabda" (1.110). If something becomes sabda, this something can obviously not already be sabda. Kārikā 1.110 mentioned three things' which become sabda according to different views. If we read the second verse in a slightly different way, there is no conflict with this statement in 1.110. The first verse speaks clearly of atoms which transform into several things, among them sabda. If this is true for the second verse also sabdākhyāḥ is not an epithet of the atoms before they are accumulated on account of their capacity and on account of a specific effort, but it tells us something about the product which arises from this accumulation. The word śabdākhyāḥ would express the vikārya karma, one of the three types of karma accepted by the Sanskrit grammarians (cf. VP 3.7.45-50). Accordingly, the verse may be translated as follows:
The ultimate atoms, when their own capacity manifests itself, instigated by
effort, accumulate like (atoms into] clouds and appear as sounds.
It is therefore very well possible that not only the first but also the second verse explaining the atom-view of 1.110 referred to the Jaina-view on sound and speech. 2.4 The Jainas, as correctly pointed out by Sharma (1977:13-17), seem not to have been the only ones to think of sound and speech as configurations of subtle matter. The Vịtti explaining 1.110, after having illustrated the three views referred to in the kārikā with several verses, remarks that all this is just an example (nidarśanamātrar cedam, VP I:175.5). Next, it is said that the views of Sikṣā-s, and of authors of Sūtras and Bhāşyas is manyfold (bahudhā śikṣāsūtrakārabhāsyakāramatāni drśyante, VP I:175.5-6). Several (mostly untraced) quotations from Siksā-authors follow, and in one it is said that breath puts subtle parts together which become a compact mass of sound (prāņo... sūkņmāṁsaṁ . . . saṁhanti / sa... sabdaghanaḥ...). Instead of the word anu the word sūksmāṁsaṁ is used here, but this might refer to the same concept. It is likely that the Jainas had not only their own Sanskrit
19 Biardeau (1964:146 note 1) understood the second verse as a reference to a different view among the atom-views.
Jan E.M. Houben, Pune, March 1994 (pre-final version)
Page 9

Page #10

grammarians, but also their own phoneticians; and it is therefore not impossible that the Siksa-author referred to here in the Vṛtti was a Jaina phonetician. Yet, from a remark at the end of the Vṛtti on 1.110 one would infer that the Vṛtti was only referring to Sikṣā-s belonging to different Vedic schools (VP I:177:5, ityevamādi pratisākham...), at least in the passage from bahudhā sikṣāsūtrakārabhāṣyakāramatani dṛśsyante (VP I:175.5-6) onward. (The two verses VP 1.113-114 need not be included in the reference ityevamādi pratiśākham...) Moreover, different kārikās speak of sound as something that can be accumulated and diffused (VP 1.106, 108; 3.9.63-64), even though this is only seemingly so from the point of view of the permanent Sabda or sphota, nothing indicates that Bhartṛhari would here refer to a view of the Jainas. The Vṛtti on 1.48 speaks suddenly (i.e. without specific indication in the kärikä) of a 'subtle pervading sound' (sükṣme vyāpini dhvanau) which is accumulated like a cloud-mass.
2.5 It may therefore be that also among the Brahmanical authors, for instance authors of Sikṣā-s, there were some who worked with a theory of subtle, material sound and speech. Among the important philosophical systems, it was Särhkhya which considered audible sound a derivative of Sabdatanmatra, the subtle element of sound.20 In Samkhya, however, the atoms are specific, unlike the atoms in at least the first of the two verses in the Vṛtti on kärikā 1.110; this verse is, as we have seen, remarkably close to the TS. Whatever we have to think of other places where Bhartṛhari refers to a view according to which sound is made of atoms, the emphatic denial that these verses refer to Jaina ideas (Sharma, 1977:13, 17) is without any reasonable basis.21 If the atom-view in kärikä 1.110 is correctly illustrated by the two
20
Nāgesa explained the anu-s which transform into sabda as Sabdatanmātrādi, thus suggesting that they referred to a Samkhya-view (Nageśa's Uddyota on Kaiyata's Pradipa on the MBh on P. 1.4.29).
21
(a)
According to Sharma's confused argumentation on pp. 11-12, the two verses do not refer to the Samkhya view because the atoms are of a single general nature (have the same jāti, universal) and transform into different specific entities (including sabda) according to the first verse, and they cannot refer to the Jaina-view because they are specifically called Sabda according to the second verse. However, atoms that are accepted to be of a single general nature, and transform into shadow, etc., are indeed very much in accordance with the Jaina view. The verse in which they are called sabda could refer to a different view (note 19), or rather, as explained in section 2.3, it should be interpreted both in accordance with the first verse according to which one type of atom has all
Jan E.M. Houben, Pune, March 1994 (pre-final version)
Page 10

Page #11

verses in the Vṛtti (1.113-114), then we have to accept that Bhartṛhari referred at least at this place to the view of the Jainas.
3.0
Two kärikäs in Väkyapadiya book 2 are possibly indicative of Bhartṛhari's familiarity with quite a different Jaina text. Both seem to refer to a technicality in the Jainendra-vyākaraṇa, a Jaina Sanskrit grammar adapted from Panini by replacing, for instance, long technical terms by shorter ones (cf. Tripathi, 1956; Scharfe, 1977:168-169).
The two kärikäs are 2.40 and 444:
so 'yam ity abhisambandho buddhyā prakramyate yadā I väkyärthasya tadaiko 'pi varṇaḥ pratyāyakaḥ kva cit || 2.40 ||
anekaśakter ekasya pravibhāgo 'nugamyate I
ekārthatvaṁ hi vākyasya mätrayāpi pratiyate 112.444 ||
The translation of these kārikās does not present many problems:
If the relation of identification is adopted by the mind, then, in some cases a single phoneme can be expressive of the meaning of a sentence.
Of one [entity] with many capacities, a division is understood; for it is understood in just (one) unit (mātrā) that the sentence has a single meaning. The interpretation of these kärikās in the larger context of the discussion in the VP does not present many problems either. The subject in the second Kända of the VP is the nature of the sentence and the sentence meaning and of words and their meanings. The problem is discussed from different angles.
capacities, and in accordance with 1.110 according to which something (which is not yet sabda) is transformed into sabda.
(b) Sharma argues, further, that the view with atoms should be in accordance with the sphota theory (Sharma, 1977:16-17). It is, however, very clear that Bhartṛhari intended to discuss or at least refer to many different views, and was not simply explaining a single theory to the exclusion of others (cf. darsanabheda in 1.110, bhinnam darsanam in 1.75 and vādās trayo 'bhivyaktivādinām in 1.80).
(၁)
A final point is that Sharma apparently includes VP 1.113-114 in the reference in VP I:177:5, ityevamādi pratiśākham... by reading nidarsanamatram cedam, bahudhã etc. (VP I:175.5-6) as a continuous statement (Sharma, 1977:13, n. 4). While the verses VP 1.113-114 are not necessarily included in the reference to the authors belonging to each branch (of the Veda)', it is on the other hand to be admitted that any explicit reference to the Jainas, in spite of the remarkable similarity of VP 1.113-114 with their views, is rigourously avoided. The same is true in other situations where Bharthari seems to refer without much doubt to Buddhists and/or Jainas, and the Vṛtti, most probably making use of material derived from Jaina sources, avoids an explicit reference to them (see above, section 1.2.5, and below, section 3.5-9). Sharma's conviction that VP 1.113-114 have nothing to do with Jaina doctrine is therefore closely related to his acceptance of the Vṛtti as a work of Bhartṛhari, the author of the kārikās (cf. Sharma, 1977:12, 13). The justifiability of this acceptance is, however, disputable (cf. Bronkhorst, 1988, and Houben, forthcoming, a and b).
Jan E.M. Houben, Pune, March 1994 (pre-final version)
Page 11

Page #12

Kārikās 2.40 and 444 occur both in the context of passages in support of the view that the sentence meaning, and by implication also the sentence, is one and indivisible, although secondarily a division in words and word meanings may be adopted. The unity and indivisibility of the sentence is demonstrated by the fact that, theoretically, a whole sentence meaning could be expressed by a single phoneme. The unity of meaning of a sentence becomes this way clear in one small (prosodial) unit (mātrā). 3.1 Because kārikā 40 speaks of the adoption of the relation of identification, it seems that the author asks us to imagine a situation in which the meaning of a whole sentence is by convention equated with a single phoneme. Even if we are favourably disposed towards the view that the sentence is one and indivisible, this argument given in support of it seems a bit vague and far-fetched. Punyarāja's commentary and the later interpreters are not of much help, because they only explain the general implication of the kārikās in the wider context. It is only the Vștti, the most ancient commentary available, which seems to make the example used in the kärikäs more concrete. 3.2 The Vrtti refers to a problem in the technical understanding of Pāņini's grammar which received some attention in the Vārttika's and in Patañjali's Mahābhāsya, and which was also important in Bhartshari's Mahābhāşyadipikā. The problem is connected with sūtra P 1.1.45, which defines the technical term samprasārana as follows: ig yanaḥ samprasāranam. This means:
When i, u, and in all possible prosodic varieties) replace y, r, I, v, this is
called samprasarana or vocalization'. In the Mahābhāsya (MBh) the question is asked, whether saprasāraṇa should be considered the technical term for the phonemes ik (i, u, , ! and their prosodic variants22) when they replace yan (y, r, 1, v); or whether it is rather the technical term for the sentence: ig yanah ‘i, u, ?, !. replace y, r, 1, V'. In the discussion in the MBh it is pointed out that in some technical contexts the term is required as denotative of the phonemes which replace the other phonemes, in others as denotative of the sentence that some phonemes replace others. The sūtra that is mentioned as specifically requiring the sentence interpretation of
22 The phrase "and their prosodic variants' is to be understood wherever I refer to the phonemes indicated by ik.
parade by the
Jan E.M. Houben, Pune, March 1994 (pre-final version)
Page 12

Page #13

sariprasarana is P. 6.1.13 (SyaÑaḥ sarhprasaraṇarh putrapatyos tatpuruse). The last Varttika on sūtra 1.1.45 accepts that the term samprasāraṇa is, according to the technical context, both a term for the phonemes and a term for the sentence. (Patanjali continues to consider other possibilities to solve the technical problems. Whatever Patanjali's ultimate position may be (something which is not always unequivocally clear), the idea that a word. refers to a whole sentence presents no problem to him.)
3.3 The Vitti refers to sarhprasarana both in the Vṛtti on 40 and in the Vṛtti on 444 (Iyer, 1983:209-210; 314). The idea expressed in the kärikäs could accordingly be that because the single word sarhprasarana expresses the meaning of the sentence ig yaṇaḥ, the sentence meaning must be accepted as one. This is the interpretation of the later commentator Punyarāja when he explains 2.444. But then it remains a bit strange that the long term sarhprasarana is called a mäträ in the kärikā. For mäträ is not only the general word for 'measure' or 'small element', but it is also the term for a single prosodial unit equivalent to the time needed to pronounce a short vowel.23 According to Punyarāja, the term samhprasarana is called a mäträ in the kärikä because it is just a single, small element. The reference to samprasarana would in this way be of no use in kärikä 40, which speaks of a single phoneme which is expressive of the sentence meaning. Punyaraja has therefore to remain very abstract in his explanation of this kārikā.
The Vrtti on 40, however, does refer to the term samprasaraṇa. In addition; it seems to give two times an example of the single phoneme mentioned in the kärikā. Unfortunately, it is not very clear to which phonemes he refers. Iyer's edition has sarhprasaranam iti vādīti vä, and in the next sentence bhami ityekavarṇaya. In a footnote to the first passage he remarks that the manuscript he used for the passage is illegible, and that Charudeva Shastri read quite something else, namely bha bhi iti vä. Iyer does not note that
23 The grammarians considered the time needed to pronounce a consonant equal to half a mātrā. But in prosody, especially of metres regulated by the number of syllabic instants, a syllable measures either one or two matra-s or prosodial units. Thus, syllables such as bha, bhi, ghu, ji, etc., if not followed by certain sounds or combinations of sounds, would count as one mäträ and not as one-anda-half. Cf. Weber's edition, translation, and study of Pingala's Chandas (Weber, 1863: esp. 290-326); Appendix A of Apte's Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary, p. 1. For the date of Pingala's Chandaḥśāstra, "the earliest comprehensive treatment on Vedic and Sanskrit metres," cf. Van Nooten, 1993:31-33.
Jan E.M. Houben, Pune, March 1994 (pre-final version)
Page 13

Page #14

at the second place Charudeva Šāstri reads bhabhi (as a single word). It may be that Iyer's bhami at the second place is just a printing error for bhabhi, for this is what Charudeva Šāstri has and lyer does not note the difference. Charudeva Sāstri, on his part, does not indicate that his source was doubtful or problematic, as he does at several other places. Because it is not clear on what Iyer's vāditi (at the first place) is based, nor what it should mean, it seems best to stick to Charudeva's reading until better evidence becomes available 24
The relevant passage in Charudeva's text of the Vịtti on 2.40 is as follows:
nāvasyam vicchinnapadarūpavigraha eva sabdaḥ paurvāparyayuktam anugatavibhāgam evärthaí pratyāyayati 1 yadā hi vākyärthas yaivegyanah sthāne bhavatity evamăder buddhivisayaḥ samprasāranam iti vā, bha bhi iti vā so'yam ityabhisambandhah kriyate, atho (JH: atha?) yathaivegyana ityanena paurvāparyānupātini pratipattir bhavatievam apaurvāparyayā bhabhi ityekavarnayā tasyārthasya saṁjsayā pratyastamitapaurvāparyah sa evārthātmā pratiyate
It is not necessarily only a linguistic unit which may be analysed in the form of separate words that expresses the meaning endowed with sequence, and with division understood. For if, for a sentence meaning, such as "ik comes in the place of yan," the relation of identity is created as an object of the mind: "[the meaning of the sentence "ik comes in the place of yan" is) samprasarana," or "[the meaning of the sentence "ik comes in the place of yan" is) bha (or) bhi," then, just as there is an understanding which follows a sequence with this sentence): "ik (comes) in the place of yan" , similarly the same unit of meaning is understood with suppressed sequence through the
technical term for that meaning consisting of a single phoneme "bha, bhi." 3.4 At this point the available philological evidence cannot help us much further in the interpretation of the passage with bhabhi or bha bhi. We may therefore try to approach the problem from a different angle. The term samprasārana, according to the discussion of the relevant sūtra P. 1.1.45 in the Vārttikas and in the Mahābhāsya, may stand for the sentence ig yanah. The
24 In his foreword to Iyer's edition of the second Kānda of the VP (Iyer, 1983:xvii), Aklujkar, explaining the features of his own forthcoming edition, claimed to have rediscovered, in 1977, the original MS of the photocopy and transcript used by Iyer for the Vrtti on the second Kānda (for 2.40 this is the only source; for 2.444 another fragmentary MS is available, called P in Iyer's cdition). Cf. also Aklujkar's article on the number of kārikās in the second Kända (Aklujkar, 1978). It seems that both Iyer and Charudeva Shastri based themselves on the same transcript in Devanāgari) of the Malayalam original rediscovered by Aklujkar (cf. Aklujkar, in Iyer, 1983:xvii, and Charudeva Shastri, introduction to vol. 1, (his MS ta)). Moreover, lyer did not use the transcript directly, but had to make do with an imperfect photocopy and partly transcript of it (Aklujkar, in Iyer, 1983:xvii).*

Page #15

author of the Vștti apparently equates this technical term samprasārana with a technical term consisting of a single phoneme.25 This single phoneme would express the meaning of the sentence. This would suit the statement in the kārikās. But is it just a purely hypothetical example, or was there any concrete basis for Bhartshari's statement? In order to find an answer, we have to widen our horizon a bit and try to imagine the grammatical activities with which Bhartshari may have been familiar. In the concluding passage of the second Kānda mention is made of a grammarian Candra. This may be a reference to the Buddhist grammarian Candragomin. But in Candragomin's grammar nothing is found about a single phoneme which would denote ig yana). In fact, Candragomin tried to avoid as much as possible the use of technical terms, 26 apparently trying to make the grammar this way more easily accessible.27 3.5 The Jainas, when they had started to use Sanskrit, wrote not only doctrinal works in this language, but also works on technical subjects, including Sanskrit. The oldest Jaina grammar we know of is the JainendraVyākarana (JV), attributed to Pūjyapāda Devanandin. The date is not certain, but the work may very well have originated around the fifth century, i.e. around the time when Bhartphari was living and working.28 While
27
25 For the grammarians' understanding of varna, 'phoneme' (a, i, k, v, etc.), cf. the discussion in the MBh about the meaningfulness or meaninglessness of phonemes (MBh 1:30). In the work of later grammarians (after Bharthari), varnasphota, as the smallest meaningful unit, "stands virtually for the notion of morpheme" (Joshi, 1967:74). 26 Cf. Scharfe, 1977:165, and the expression Candropajram asamjfakarh vyäkaranam.
This would be in accordance with the need of Buddhist communities which adopted Sanskrit as a language for their sacred books. Buddhist monks with a non-brahmanical or non-sanskritic background had to become acquainted with this language. Cf. Scharfe, 1977:162-165. 28 In the section devoted to Jaina grammarians in Scharfe's Grammatical Literature, the author observes that some scholars place Devanandin even before Candragomin (whom he attributes to the 5th century: VP 2.486 probably refers to this Buddhist grammarian), whereas others put him later than the authors of the Käsikā (carly 7th century) (Scharfe, 1977:168). Later on, however, Scharfe gives some reasons why an early date of Devanandin would be more probable, without, however, drawing any explicit conclusion (Scharfe, 1977:168-169). According to Abhyankar and Shukla (1977:162). Devanandin wrote his grammar in the fifth century A.D, according to Pt. Nathuramji Premi in the sixth century of the Vikrama Era (in an introductory essay on Devanandi and his Jainendravyākarana, in Tripathi, 1956:17-37). Yudhisthira Mimāmsaka places Devanandin *before 500 Vikrama Era' (sam. 500 vi. se pūrva, Yudhisthira 1984:489, 657), or, more precisely,
between the latter half of the fifth century Vikrama Era and the firt quarter of the sixth' (vikrama ki pāmcvim sati ke uttarārdha se sasthi satí ke prathama caraṇa ke madhye' Yudhisthira, 1984:494).
Jan E.M. Houben, Pune, March 1994 (pre-final version)
Page 15

Page #16

Candragomin improved upon Panini's grammar by reducing the number of technical terms, the JV tried to outdo Panini in something for which he is most famous, namely brevity,29 One of the devices used in the JV to reach maximum brevity is the replacement of long technical terms by shorter ones. Otherwise, the JV follows the rules of Panini very closely, and maintains also their original order to a great extent. The JV became this way more compact than Panini's grammar, but also much more technical, with a great number of new one-syllabic terms denoting a host of technical notions. The five-syllable term saṁprasāraṇa is of course a good candidate for replacement by a shorter term. The JV replaced it by ji. The sütra where it is defined is otherwise identical to Panini's rule, and it has moreover the same number, namely 1.1.45. P 1.1.45 thus becomes JV 1.1.45 ig yano jih. The sūtra which was mentioned in the MBh discussion as a sūtra where the sentence interpretation of samprasaraṇam is definitely needed, namely P. 6.1.13 (syañaḥ samprasāraṇaṁ sariprasaranamh putrapatyos tatpuruşe), is also present in the JV. (There it becomes sütra JV 4.3.9 (se syasya putrapatyor jiḥ).)
3.6 By now it must be clear that the technical term jiḥ of JV 1.1.45 perfectly fits into the slot of the two evidently corrupt places with bha bhi iti /bhabhi iti/ diti / bhami iti in the Vṛtti on 2.40. In the light of the wider context of the Paninian and non-Paninian grammatical literature discussed above, it seems more than likely that the Vṛtti is referring to this sūtra ig yano jih, the JV's recast of P. 1.1.45. This was no more recognized by the later grammarians from Punyarāja onwards, who were very familiar with the Päṇinian tradition but apparently not with the JV. Instead of the syllables bha, bhi, or di which the Vṛtti would mention according the available printed sources, the original Vṛtti must have had ji, a technical term consisting of a single phoneme, j, and an i added to make utterance (and hearing) possible.30 But because the meaning of
29
For brevity or the principle of economy in Panini's grammar see: Buiskool, 1939:1, 155; Cardona, 1969 and 1976:204-205 and references; Kiparsky, 1991:239-261; and, most recently, Smith, 1992, and Bhate, 1993.
30
In the critical investigation of the meaning of each and every phoneme, already the MBh had to accept that some phonemes were possibly present (or sometimes absent) only to make utterance and hearing of other, more crucial phonemes, possible. Cf. the use of the phrase uccaraṇasāmarthyāt (e.g. MBH 1.3.9, 1:265.10), and the terms mukhasukhārtha (e.g. MBh 1.1.1, 1:42.23-24, contrasted with asaṁdehārtha), śravaṇārtha (e.g. MBh 1.3.2, 1:260.11-14). According to the Käsikä on P. 2.4.36 the phoneme i of jagdhi is for the sake of utterance (ikära uccaraṇārthaḥ, nanubandhaḥ); similarly the i of cli in P. 3.1.43 (Kāšikā: ikāra uccaraṇārthaḥ, cakāraḥ svararthaḥ).
Jan E.M. Houben, Pune, March 1994 (pre-final version)
Page
16

Page #17

this syllable was no longer recognized, the relevant passages could easily become corrupt. The first step of the corruption may have been made when a 'knowledgeable' scribe emended an ununderstood ji which he found in his source, to a Pāṇinian technical term with which he was familiar: bha, or, in the form in which it occurs several times in the MBh, bham. 3.7 Not only does the term ji perfectly fit into the passage of the Vrtti explaining 2.40, also the kārikā itself, if we try to forget the Vịtti for a while, becomes less vague and richer in meaning. How does the term ji suit 2.444? According to 2.444, “it is understood in just (one) unit (mātrā) that the sentence has a single meaning" (see above, section 3.0). Again, the statement seems vague and cryptical, unless we connect it with the concrete example of ji standing for the sentence ig yanaḥ (bhavati). Punyarāja, oblivious of the JV's technical term ji, is forced to interpret mātray) in the kārikā unconvincingly as a reference to the whole term samprasārana as a single unit (ataḥ samprasāranam ityevam ekasamkhyena laghiyastvān mātrayā vyapadiśyate). Something similar was already done by the author of the Vņtti, but he explained mātrā as a reference to samprasārana and so forth' (Iyer, 1983:314.5). Of course, the implication of a reference to ji, prosodically equivalent to a single mātrā and standing for the sentence ig yanah (bhavati) is that also the term samprasāraṇa and in fact any word and sentence is to be considered as a single unit. The crucial step of the example of ji is presupposed but no longer emphasized in the Vștti on 2.444 and was completely forgotten since Punyarāja. As explained above (section 3.3 and note 23), the word mātrā may refer to any (small) unit, but in the context of linguistic units it denotes especially a well-defined prosodial unit. 3.8 If we now cast a glance at another work attributed to Bhartshari, namely the Mahābhāşya-Dipikā, we find that there too, Bhartphari showed much interest in the problem of referring to a whole sentence or complex expression through one single term. The problem is inevitably discussed when the MBhD comments on the samprasārana sūtra P. 1.1.45 (MBHD 8:1-3). In the second Āhnika the problem is even discussed at a place where it is by no means called for from the point of view of the MBh on which the MBD is commenting: The MBhD suddenly asks how the word idam in a phrase in the MBh can possibly refer to a whole sentence-meaning and starts an elaborate discussion (MBHD 2:16.23-17.2). Commenting on the MBh on P 1.1.44, the MBhD investigates in great detail how vibhāṣā can be the name of the expression na
Jan E.M. Houben, Pune, March 1994 (pre-final version)
Page 17

Page #18

vā (MBHD 66:23.18-25.2). The broad outlines of the discussion in the MBh are followed in the MBhD, but the issues raised in the MBh are treated in an extremely elaborate and rather independent way. 3.8 While the interest shown in the MBhD for the problem of how a single term may refer to a complex expression or sentence corresponds with the two kārikās and the theme of the second Kānda of the VP, we miss in the MBHD any reference to the extreme case of only one single phoneme referring to a whole sentence meaning. If the MBhD is accepted as Bharthari's earlier work, we may surmise that Bharthari, while writing that work, was not yet acquainted with the JV. This could either mean that Bharthari had not yet widened his horizon to include the grammar of the Jainas in all its technical details, or that that grammar was at that time not yet written. Once BhartȚhari became familiar with that grammar, the fact that a whole sentence was conventionally equated with a single phoneme impressed him so much that he referred to it in two kārikās. 3.9 As for the author of the Vịtti, he shows awareness of the relevance of the technical term ji for the interpretation of kārikā 2.40. But he seems to admit this relevance only grudgingly. In his interpretation of 2.444, where this term seems equally relevant, it is even more relegated to the background in his explanation. Above we have seen how explicit references to the Jainas are avoided in the Vștti's treatment of VP 1.110 and 113-114 (cf. note 21(c)). This contrasts with the explicit and non-polemical references to the Jainas and Buddhists in the MBHD, and it reinforces our impression that the Vștti is not by the same author as the one who wrote the VP-kārikās and the MBhD.31 4.0 We have thus seen that Bharthari shows explicit awareness of the Jainas in the MBhD, and that some of his statements gain in significance if we assume that he was referring to views and works of the Jainas. Apparently, Bhartphari's horizon included the non-Vedic schools such as that of the Jainas. This means that we, as modern students of Bhartshari, also have to widen our horizon to include these schools, in order to be able to fully appreciate the accomplishment of BhartȚhari.
31 Cf. Bronkhorst, 1988 and Houben, forthcoming, a and b. It is also possible that earlier, explicit references in the Vrtti to Jainas have disappeared at a certain stage of the transmission of the text, in a period of strong tensions between Brahmans and non-Brahmans.
Jan E.M. Houben, Pune, March 1994 (pre-final version)
Page 18

Page #19

In our introductory paragraph, we have also made the very general remark that Bhartṛhari's attitude may be described as 'encyclopedic' and as 'perspectivistic'. It is well-known that the Jainas developed a characteristic approach to Indian philosophy which may also be called 'encyclopedic' and as 'perspectivistic'. It would be difficult to determine to what extent Bhartṛhari was influenced by the Jainas in his perspectivistic attitude, to which extent he followed in this respect other sources such as his own grammatical tradition, and to what extent he followed his personal inclinations and insights. Whereas a more profound reflection on the similarities and contrasts between Bhartṛhari's perspectivism and that of the Jainas must be reserved for a later occasion, it seems admissable to assume that there was at least some reinforcement from early Jaina 'perspectivism' on Bharthari's attitude, and vice versa from Bhartṛhari's attitude on later exponents of the Jaina approach of anekāntavāda such as Mallavādin.32
32
Cf. Halbfass, 1988:268-269, 355, and Frauwallner's introduction to Jambuvijaya's edition of Mallavādin's Dvādaśāranayacakra (Dvādaśāraṁ nayacakram, ed. Jambuvijaya, vol. 1, Bhavnagar 1966).
Jan E.M. Houben, Pune, March 1994 (pre-final version)
Page
19

Page #20

ABBREVIATIONS
JV = Jainendravyākarana. Ref. to Tripathi's edition (Tripathi, 1956). MB = Patañjali's Mahābhāşya. References to (number of volume):(page).(line) in Kielhorn's edition, usually preceded by the number of Pāṇini's sūtra commented upon. MBHD = Mahābhāşya-Dipikā. Ref. to the recent Poona edition, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1985-1991). The only available manuscript was reproduced in Mahābhāşyadipikā of Bharthari, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1980. MS = manuscript. TS = Tattvārthādhigamasutra. Ref. to H.R. Kapadia's edition (Tattvärthasūtram, SriUmāsvātivācakamukhyasandrbdham. Edited by Hiralal Rasikdas Kapadia, Bombay, 1926). Cf. also Dixit, 1974. VP = Bharthari's Vākyapadiya; references to the kärikās (with two or three arabic
numerals separated by periods) follow W. Rau's critical edition of the kārikās (Rau,
1977). VP I = Iyer's edition (Iyer. 1966). [References to this edition: VP 1:(page) (line).) VP II = Iyer's edition (Iyer, 1983). [References to this edition: VP II:(page). (line).)
by Hilaman Kapadidas Kachilia. Bombay. 1926)act.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abhyankar, K.V. and Shukla, J.M. 1977 A Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar. Vadodara: University of Baroda. Reprint
1986. (Gaekwad's Oriental Series no. 134.) Acharya, K.C. (ed.) 1968 Prāk tasarvasva by Mārkandeya. Critically Edited with Introduction and
Indices. Ahmedabad: Prakrit Text Society. Aklujkar, A.N. 1971 "The number of kārikās in Trikāndi, book I” Journal of the American Oriental
Society 91: 510-513. 1978 "The number of kārikā-s in Trikāndi book II” Adyar Library Bulletin 42:142
163. 1993 "Once again on the authorship of the Trikāndi-Vrtui" Asiatische Studien /
Études Asiatiques vol. 77.1:45-57. Bhate, Saroja
"Pānini: The Economist par excellence." Paper read at the International
Conference on Sanskrit and Related Studies. Cracow, September 23-26, 1933. Bronkhorst, Johannes 1985 "On the chronology of the Tattvārtha Sütra and some early commentaries"
Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 29:155-184. 1988 - "Études sur Bharthari, 1: L'auteur et la date de la Vrtti." Bulletin des Études
Indiennes, 6:105-143.
1993
Jan E.M. Houben, Pune, March 1994 (pre-final version)
Page 20

Page #21

Buiskool, Herman Eildert 1939 The Tripādi, being an abridged English recast of Pūrvatrāsiddham (an
analytical-synthetical inquiry into the system of the last three chapters of
Pāņini's Astādhyāyi). Leiden: E.J. Brill. Cardona, George 1969 Studies in Indian grammarians, I: The Method of Description Reflected in the
Sivasūtras. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. ( = Transactions of
the American Philosophical Society, 59, 1:3-48.) 1976 Pāṇini. A survey of research. The Hague, Mouton & co. (Indian reprint: Delhi,
1980.) 1988 Pāņini: His work and its Traditions. Vol. 1. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Deshpande, Madhav M. 1979 Sociolinguistic Attitudes. An Historical Reconstruction. Ann Arbor: Karoma. 1993
Sanskrit & Prakrit. Sociolinguistic Issues. (MLBD Series in Linguistics, vol.
6.) Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Dixit, K.K. 1971 Jaina Ontology. Ahmedabad: L.D. Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Series no. 31. Institute of
Indology. 1974 Pt. Sukhlalji's Commentary on Tattvārtha Sūtra of Vācaka Umāsvāti.
Translated by K.K. Dixit. L.D. Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Series no. 44. Institute of
Indology. Frauwallner, E. 1959 "Dignāga, sein Werk und seine Entwicklung" Wiener Zeitschrift für die
Kunde Südasiens 3:83-164. [= Kleine Schriften: 759-841 ] Gaurinath Sāstri
The Philosophy of Word and Meaning. Calcutta. Halbfass, w. 1988 India and Europe, An Essay in Philosophical Understanding. Albany: State
University of New York Press, 1988. (Indian edition: Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass, 1990.) Houben, Jan E.M. 1992 The Sambandha-samuddesa and Bharthari's Philosophy of Language. Utrecht
University, 1992. 1993 “Who are Bharthari's padadarsins? On the development of Bhartrhari's
Philosophy of Language." Asiatische Studien / Etudes Asiatiques 47.1:155-169. forthcoming, a "Bharthari's Vākyapadiya and the ancient Vịtti." forthcoming, b "Bharthari's Perspectivism (1): The Vștti and Bharthari's Perspectivism
in the first Kānda of the Vākyapadiya." Iyengar, Rangaswami 1951 "Bharthari and Dirnāga", Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic
Society (New Series) 26:147-149. Iyer, K.A.S. (ed.) 1966 Vākyapadiya of Bharthari (Kānda 1) with the Commentaries Vrtti and
Paddhati of Vìṣabhadeva. Deccan College Monograph Series, no. 32. Poona: Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute.
1959
Jan E.M. Houben, Pune, March 1994 (pre-final version)
Page 21

Page #22
1983 Vakyapadiya of Bharthari. (Kanda 2) Containing the Tika of Punyaraja and the Ancient Vrtti. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Iyer, K.A.S. 1969 Bharthari, a Study of the Vakyapadiya in the light of the ancient commentaries, Poona. Jambuvijaya Muni 1954 "Bharthari aur Dinnaga ka samaya", Nagari Pracarini Patrika 60.3/4:227-233. Joshi, S.D. 1967 The Sphotanirnaya (Chapter XIV of the Vaiyakaranabhusanasara) of Kaunda Bhatta. Edited with introduction, translation and critical notes by S.D. Joshi. Poona: University of Poona. (Publications of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit. Class C, No. 2) Joshi, S.D. and Roodbergen, J.A.F. 1986 Patanjali's Vyakarana-Mahabhasya, Paspasahnika. Introduction, Text, Translation and Notes. Poona: University of Poona. (Publications of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit. Class C, No. 15) Kiparsky, P. 1991 "Economy and the Construction of the Sivasutras" in: Paninian Studies (Professor S.D. Joshi Felicitation Volume). Centre for South and Southeast Asian Studies, no. 37. Michigan, University of Michigan. Muir, J. 1874 Original Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and History of the People of India. Their Religion and Institutions. Volume Second. Third Edition. London. Pischel, Richard 1981 A Grammar of the Prakrit languages. Translated from German by Subhadra Jha. Second, Revised edition. (First Edition in German: 1900; First edition of English Translation: 1955.) Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Rau, Wilhelm 1977 Bhartrhari's Vakyapadiya. Die mulakarikas nach den Handschriften herausgegeben und mit einem pada-Index versehen. Wiesbaden. (Abhandlungen fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes XLII, 4.) Sadhu Ram, "Bharthari's date." Journal of the Gariganatha Jha Research Institute 9, 135 151. Santi Bhiksu Sastri 1963 "Agamasamuccaya alias Vakyapadiya --- Brahmakanda of Bharthari" Translated and annotated by Santi Bhiksu Sastri, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl Marx Universitat Leipzig, 12. Jahrgang 1963, Heft 1:191-228. Scharfe, H. 1977 Grammatical Literature. (History of Indian Literature, Vol. 5, fasc. 2.) Wiesbaden: Harassowitz. Sharma, Virendra, 1977 Vakyapadiya -- Sambandhasamuddesa. A critical study with special reference to the commentary of Helaraja. Hoshiarpur. (Panjab University Indological Series 9.) [In Hindi.] 1952 Jan B.M. Houben, Pune, March 1994 (pre-final version) Page 22