Bhattoji Diksita On Sphota

Author(s): Johannes Bronkhorst
Publisher: Johannes Bronkhorst
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269205/1

Page #1

Journal of Indian Philosophy (2005) 33:3-41 DOI 10.1007/s10781-004-9052-4
© Springer 2005
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
BHATTOJI DĪKSITA ON SPHOTA*
The philosophy of grammar has only four major representatives in the history of Indian thought. One of these is Bharthari, who lived in the fifth century C.E. The other three lived more than a 1000 years later, in Benares, and may have known each other. The first of these three, Bhattoji Dīksita, was the paternal uncle of the second, Kaunda Bhatta. The third one, Nāgeśa Bhatta, was a pupil of Bhattoji's grandson. This shows that Bhattoji revived the philosophy of Sanskrit grammar after an interval of more than 1000 years.
The sphota does not exclusively belong to the domain of the philosophy of grammar. It is true that a number of grammarians had ideas about this issue, but they were not the only, nor indeed the first ones to do so. The earliest notion of a word and of a sentence as entities that are different from the sounds that express them, may well be found in the early scholastic speculations of the Buddhist Sarvāstivādins, who were not grammarians. Not all of the later thinkers who expressed themselves on the sphota were grammarians either. Some well-known examples are the following: The Yoga Bhāsya, without using the term sphota, propounds that the word is unitary and without parts.' The Mīmāmsaka Kumārila Bhatta criticized the concept (in his Slokavārttika, chapter on Sphotavāda) but not without adopting an important part of it (viz., the indivisible speech sounds); the Vedāntin Sankara did the same (on Brahmasūtra 1.3.28). Another Mīmāmsaka, Mandana Miśra, wrote a treatise (called Sphotasiddhi) to prove its existence.
Bhattoji's understanding of the sphota differs from that of most or all of his predecessors. There is a fundamental difference between his discussion of the sphota in the Sabdakaustubha and most, if not all, of what had been said about it before. The sphota, for Bhattoji's predecessors (and apparently some of his successors), was meant to solve an ontological issue, to respond to the question: What is a word (or a sound, or a sentence)? Within the grammatical tradition this
*Thanks are due to Madhav Deshpande, who made the Praudhamanoramakhandana of Cakrapāni available to me.

Page #2

JOHANNES BRONKHORST
question had been asked in Patañjali's Mahābhāsya in the form: “What is the word in 'cow'?” (gaur ity atra kah sabdah; Mahā-bh I p. 1 1.6). This question, and the answer to it proposed by Patañjali, had its role to play in subsequent discussions. Patañjali had not used the word sphota in this context, but rather in connection with individual speech sounds. Individual speech sounds, words and longer linguistic units (called sentences in subsequent discussions) share a disturbing quality. They are all made up of constituent parts that succeed each other; these constituent parts do not coexist simultaneously. This can be illustrated with the help of the word like gauh, assuming for the time being that the constituent sounds are really existing 'things': Gauh is a succession of the sounds g, au, and visarga, which do not occur simultaneously. This inevitably raises the question whether such a thing as the word gauh can be said to exist; the same question can be repeated with regard to each of the constituent sounds (each of which is a succession of constituent parts), and with regard to longer linguistic units. The upholders of the sphota maintained that all these linguistic units exist as independent unitary entities (often believed to be eternal) that are different from the vibrations whose succession manifests them. The issue discussed here is an ontological one which, in and of itself, has nothing much to do with semantic questions, even though words and sentences normally do express meaning, whereas individual speech sounds do not. All this changes with Bhattoji. For him the question is not so much 'What is a word?' or 'What is a speech sound?' but rather 'What is expressive?' The answer to this last question is, for Bhattoji: the sphota. The sphota is defined by its being expressive; other considerations are secondary.
(For those acquainted with John Brough's article “Theories of general linguistics in the Sanskrit grammarians" Bhattoji's ideas may recall Brough's description of the sphota as "simply the linguistic sign in its aspect of meaning-bearer (Bedeutungsträger)" (1951: 34, (406, 86]). Brough criticizes Keith's description of the sphota as 'a sort of hypostatization of sound' and S.K. De's characterization of it as a 'somewhat mystical conception'. Whatever the applicability of Brough's understanding to the concept of sphota held by Bhattoji and his successors, it seems clear that it is hardly if at all applicable to those thinkers who preceded Bhattoji." This does not imply that the sphota as an entity was a 'somewhat mystical conception'. In many of its manifestations it is to be understood against the background of the omnipresent ontology of Vaisesika in Brahmanical thought, in which a cloth is an altogether different entity from the thread that constitutes

Page #3

BHATTOJI DIKSITA ON SPHOTA
5
it, and a pot a different entity from its two halves. This is what Bhattoji reminds us of when he points out that what he calls the akhandapadasphota is a single entity in the same way in which a cloth is a single entity. The modern study of sphota and related issues is contaminated by ideas borrowed from Western philosophy and linguistics to the extent that a major intellectual effort is required to understand these concepts once again in their own cultural context.]
An article dealing with 'Bhattoji Dīkṣita on sphota' should first show that such a changed concept of the sphota finds expression in Bhattoji's work. Next it should try to answer the question why this is the case; in other words, it should investigate how this concept fits in systemically along with Bhattoji's other ideas, both philosophical and grammatical. And thirdly it might consider what circumstances allowed Bhattoji to deviate from the tradition which he was expected to continue.
The present article will be brief on the first point. It will show that Bhattoji's concept of sphota differs from its predecessors without presenting a full history of that concept. The question as to why Bhattoji introduced this change will be skipped in this article, to be taken up at another occasion. The remainder of this article will concentrate on the personality of Bhattoji and the circumstances in which he worked; this may help to explain his relative originality within the grammatical tradition which he represents.
BHATTOJI'S CONCEPT OF SPHOTA
Bhattoji's Sabdakaustubha presents in its first chapter eight points of view which are said to be possible with regard to the sphota; these points of view accept respectively (i) the varṇasphota, (ii) the padasphota, (iii) the vakyasphota, (iv) the akhandapadasphota, (v) the akhandavākyasphoṭa, (vi) the varṇajatisphota, (vii) the padajatisphota, and (viii) the vākyajātisphoṭa. This presentation comes after a long discussion which tries to determine which grammatical elements in a word are really expressive. This discussion becomes ever more complicated, and it turns out that the morphemes in a linguistic utterance are far from simple to determine. At this point Bhattoji continues (p. 7 1.1): "In reality expressiveness resides exclusively in the sphota" (vastutas tu vācakatā sphoṭaikanisthā).
The first point of view which he then presents holds that all the constituent sounds, provided they occur in a certain order, are expressive. The Sabdakaustubha formulates it as follows:5

Page #4

JOHANNES BRONKHORST
kiñcidvarnavyat yāsādināśaktatāvacchedakānupūrvībhangasya pratipadam autsargikatvāt tatra ca kenacit kvacit prathamam śaktigrahāt kena kasya smāranam ity atra vinigamanāvirahād rşabho vrṣabho vrsa ityādāv iva kar kār kur cakar ityādinām prayogasamavāyinām sarveșām eva varṇānām tattadānupūrvyacchinnānām vācakateti varnasphotapakşah
"Because a deviation from the sequence which delimits the state of denoting, by way of an interchange of sounds and the like, is natural in words, and because - since someone gets to know the denotative power of a word for the first time with regard to any one (possible sequence] - it is not possible to determine which (variant) calls to mind which [other one), the varnasphotapaksa is that all sounds (varna) that occur in an utterance and that are delimited by this or that sequence - as for example (the forms) kar, kār, kur, and cakar (in the case of the verb kr) - are expressive, just as in the case of the words rsabha, vrsabha, vrsa etc. (which all mean 'bull')."
The preceding discussion of morphemes and the mention in this passage of various ways in which the root kr may appear in a verbal form suggest that the upholder of the varnasphota attributes primary expressiveness to morphemes. This is confirmed by some remarks later on in the discussion, where Bhattoji tries to show that the varnasphota finds support in the classical treatises. We read there:
astāv apy ete pakṣāḥ siddhāntagrantheșu tatra tatropanibaddhāḥ / tathā hi, sthānivatsūtre 'sarve sarvapadādeśāḥ' iti bhāşyagranthah / padyate ‘rtho 'neneti arthavad iha padam na tu suptiñantam eva / tathā ca er uh' ity asya tes tur ity artha iti tīkāgranthas ca varnasphote 'nukülah / tathā sthānyarthābhidhānasamarthasyaivādeśatvam iti sthānentaratamaparibhāşayaiva 'tasthasthamipām'ityādişu nirvāhāt tadartham yathāsamkhyasūtram nārabdhavyam iti bhāṣyam api / padasphoțavāk yasphoțau tu ....
“All these eight points of view have been explained at various places in the authoritative treatises. An instance is the Bhāsya on the sthānivatsūtra (P. 1.1.56 sthānivad ādeso 'nalvidhau) (which states:] 'All (substitutes] are substitutes of whole padas'. In this passage pada means 'what has meaning', as shown by the derivation meaning is obtained (padyate) by it'; it does not mean 'what ends in a nominal or verbal affix' (as it is defined in P. 1.4.14 suptiñantam padam). And similarly, also the Tīkāgrantha is in agreement with the varnasphota when it says: 'the meaning of er uh is tes tuh'.8 Similarly the Bhāsya [states) that, given that only something that is capable of expressing the meaning of the substituend (can be] a substitute, because one can accomplish (the desired effect] in the case of (P. 3.4.101) tasthasthamipām (tāmtamtāmah) with the help of the sthānentaratamaparibhāsā (= P. 1.1.50 sthāne 'ntaratamah), the pathāsamkhyasūtra (= P. 1.3.10 yathāsamkhyam anudeśah samānām) must not be used. The padasphota and the vāk yasphota on the other hand
All the examples in this passage concern morphemes, and the fact that immediately after it the padasphota and the vāk yasphota are going to be discussed shows that this passage is about the varnasphota (as it says explicitly in connection with the Tīkāgrantha).

Page #5

BHATTOJI DIKSITA ON SPHOTA
It follows from the above that the upholder of the varnasphota believes that primary expressiveness resides in the morphemes (primarily stems and suffixes) that make up words. And yet varna does not mean morpheme' but 'speech sound, phoneme'. 10 Bhattoji's choice of terminology is confusing, and it appears that at a result some later thinkers ended up applying the term varna to morphemes, which was not Bhattoji's intention."
11
This understanding of Bhattoji's varnasphota is confirmed by the fact that the initial presentation of the varnasphota is followed by the statement that the expressiveness of morphemes is contested (karprabhṛtayo vacakā na veti ceha vipratipattiśarīram). 12 The edition by Gopal Sastri Nene, no doubt under the influence of Nageśa's Sphoṭavāda, sees this as the final sentence of the section on the varnasphota. In reality it is a criticism of the varṇasphota which serves the purpose of introducing the then following padasphota. Indeed, Bhattoji explains two pages later that among the eight points of view on the sphota each of the preceding views is refuted by the one that follows it, and that the final one corresponds to that of the authorities.
13
7
4
It is clear that the upholder of the varnasphota as presented by Bhattoji does not worry about the question whether the sequence of sounds expressive of meaning really exists as an independent entity or not. The conviction that he has found what is expressive of meaning in language viz., the sounds, provided they are used in a certain order seems to be enough to satisfy him.14 Those who accept the then following two positions the padasphotapakṣa and the vakyasphoṭapakṣa - are no more demanding. Since it is practically impossible in the spoken forms rāmam, rāmeņa, rāmāya to separate the morpheme that designates the person Rāma, the adherent of the padasphota accepts that only the whole word is expressive. Since complete words can be joined by sandhi in such a way that the resulting form can no longer be separated into two whole words (for example, hare ava becomes hareva, dadhi idam becomes dadhīdam) the position called vakyasphotapakṣa maintains that only whole sentences are expressive. In these three cases the question as to the ontological status of meaningful elements is not raised, even less answered; we only know that words and sentences, like morphemes, consist of sounds that are delimited by a certain sequence.
The
This changes with the positions that succeed it. akhandapadasphota and the akhandavākyasphota, and in a certain way also the three kinds of jatisphota, correspond to the independent entities that had been postulated by earlier thinkers and which have a

Page #6

JOHANNES BRONKHORST
distinct ontological status. In the case of the akhandapadasphota and akhandavākyasphota, as we have seen, Bhattoji makes a comparison with a cloth which, from the Vaišesika perspective, is ontologically different from the constituent threads. The fact, however, that three of the possible points of view which Bhattoji presents totally ignore the ontological side of the sphota shows that the sphota for Bhattoji is not primarily an ontologically independent entity, different from its constituent sounds or words. This is interesting if one remembers that something like an ontological craze characterizes much of classical Indian philosophy. It must suffice here to illustrate this with one example. Mandana Miśra in his Sphotasiddhi, when confronted with the view that speech sounds themselves might be expressive, responds:16 “This is not right, (i) because sounds do not singly convey (meaning), (ii) because they do not co-exist, and (iii) because they cannot act together since, as they occur in a fixed order, they do not co-occur at the same time,...” Clearly Mandana Miśra would not have been impressed with Bhattoji's enumeration of possible points of view.17
Bhattoji insists that he did not invent the eight possible positions about the sphota himself. We have already seen that he cites two passages from the Mahābhāsya and one from a Tīkāgrantha (probably Kaiyata) to support the varnasphotapaksa. The first Bhāsya passage, which occurs under P. 1.1.20 (Mahā-bh I p. 75 1.13) and P. 7.1.27 (Mahā-bh III p. 2511.12), is the first half of a verse that states: "All (substitutes] are substitutes of whole padas according to Pāṇini the son of Dāksī; for if there were modification of a part of a pada, they could not be eternal" (sarve sarvapadādeśā dāksīputrasya pāņineh / ekadeśavikāre hi nityatvam nopapadyatell). This verse clearly presupposes that padas are eternal, and it is also clear that the term is not used here in its usual technical sense. It appears to imply that according to the author of this verse, and apparently according to Patañjali as well, morphemes are eternal. This means, if anything, that morphemes are different from the constituent speech sounds, and does not therefore support Bhattoji's varnasphotapaksa, the position according to which speech sounds are expressive if they occur in a certain order. 18
The second Bhāsya passage invoked to justify the varnasphotapaksa must be the following one on P. 1.3.10 (yathāsamkhyam anudesah samānām):19 "What example is there with regard to this [sūtra)? is... [An example is] (P. 3.4.101:) tasthasthamipām tāmtamtāmah ‘The tas, thas, tha and mip replacements for LA, marked with N, are obligatorily replaced by tām, tam,

Page #7

BHATTOJI DIKSITA ON SPHOTA
ta and am, respectively. 20 But is not the same established by what is nearest with respect to place (by P. 1.1.50 sthāne 'ntaratamah '[A substitute coming) in the place (of an original should be) the nearest'?')? How is there nearness [between these substitutes and their substituends)? Something expressive of singularity will come in the place of something expressive of singularity, something expressive of duality in the place of something expressive of duality, something expressive of plurality in the place of something expressive of plurality.” This passage implies that suffixes (or at any rate certain suffixes) have meaning, but this is only part of the position which Bhattoji ascribes to the upholder of the varnasphota.
The evidence marshaled from authoritative works for the varnasphota, as will be clear from the above, is weak. For the padasphota and the vāk yasphota, on the other hand, Bhattoji can directly refer to a passage by Kaiyata on the words yenoccăritena ... in the Paspaśāhnika of the Mahābhāsya, 22 where it is stated that according to the grammarians words and sentences are different from their constituent sounds and that only they, unlike the latter, are expressive of meaning; they are, furthermore, called sphota.23 Bhattoji adds, as he must, that Kaiyata's passage deals with the akhandapadasphota and akhandavāk yasphota.24
In order to lend textual support to his sakhanda padasphota and vākyasphota Bhattoji cites a passage that occurs at various places in the Mahābhāsya and which states that there must be eternal, unchanging sounds in eternal words.25 This passage may have puzzled more than one theoretician of the sphota. By stating that there are eternal sounds in eternal words it somehow disagrees with the classical position on the sphota, which holds the opposite: the word (= word-sphota) is an entity different from the sounds, so that there are no sounds in the word. Nor does it agree with Bhattoji's position, which does not assign ontological independence to the sakhandapadasphota. Kaiyata interprets this Bhāsya passage as expressing the jātisphotapaksa; Bhattoji, as we have seen, interprets it differently. Whatever may have been Patañjali's original intention, Bhattoji interprets this passage in a way which deviates from the preceding tradition so as to justify his new understanding of sphota.
Bhattoji refers to further passages from Kaiyata to bolster his presentation of eight positions about the sphota.26 The first of these passages does not read, as claimed by Bhattoji, kecid varnasphotam apare padasphotam vāk yasphotam cāhuh, but rather: kecit dhvanivyangyam varṇātmakam nityam sabdam ūhuh / anye

Page #8

10
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
varnavyatiriktam padasphotam icchanti vākyasphoṭam apare samgirante/.27 Contrary to Bhattoji's claim, it does not mention the varnasphota. We may assume that Bhattoji considered the first part of this passage (... varṇātmakam nityam sabdam ...) to support his varnasphota, sakhandapadasphota and sakhandavākyasphota, the second part (... varnavyatiriktam padasphotam ...) to support his akhandapadasphota, and the third ([varnavyatiriktam] vākyasphotam ...) his akhandavākyasphota. The phrase kecit dhvanivyangyam varṇātmakam nityam sabdam ahuh; is no doubt most amenable to an interpretation in accordance with Bhattoji's first three kinds of sphota, but the very fact that the 'some' referred to by Kaiyata consider the word which consists of speech sounds (varnatmaka) to be eternal (nitya) suggests that they assign to it an ontological status of its own, contrary to Bhattoji's first three kinds of sphota. Indeed, this phrase looks like a paraphrase of the Bhāṣya line nityesu śabdesu kūṭasthair avicālibhir varṇair bhavitavyam which we considered above. We saw that Kaiyaṭa looked upon this line as an expression of the jatisphotapakṣa. We must conclude that Kaiyata's own phrase kecit dhvanivyangyam varṇātmakam nityam sabdam āhuḥ, too, must in all probability be understood as an expression of that same jätisphotapakṣa. It does not therefore support Bhattoji's first three kinds of sphota.
Bhattoji then refers to Kaiyata's comments on Śivasūtra la i un, which oppose a vyaktisphoṭavādin to a jatisphoṭavādin. Confusingly, Kaiyata's comments concern the Bhāṣya passage which contains the same line nityeṣu sabdeṣu kūṭasthair avicālibhir varnair bhavitavyam which, as we have seen, had been invoked by Bhattoji to support the sakhaṇḍapadasphota (and sakhandavākyasphota). We had occasion to point out that Kaiyata, contrary to Bhattoji, found in this line support for the jätisphotapakṣa. It appears therefore that Bhattoji invokes a passage from Kaiyata with which he disagrees to support the greater force of the jatisphotapaksa.28
Kaiyata's third passage occurs at the end of the second Āhnika and comments on the Bhāṣya words akṣaram na kṣaram vidyāt (Mahā-bh I p. 36 1. 6). Here Kaiyața mentions the varṇasphota, the padasphota and the vakyasphota, and ascribes to them vyavahāranityatā ‘eternality for practical purposes'. If Bhattoji is to be believed, Kaiyaṭa ascribes full eternality to the jätisphota, but this is less clear from his text as found in the printed editions.29 Bhattoji mentions a variant reading which appears to agree with the editions I have used in which the jätisphota is looked upon as 'eternal for practical
-

Page #9

BHATTOJI DIKṢITA ON SPHOTA
11
30
purposes'. But whatever reading one accepts, the most one can deduce from Kaiyaṭa's statement is that he recognized six kinds of sphota, which are probably to be identified as the akhandavarnasphota (which has little or nothing in common with Bhattoji's varṇasphota), the akhandapadasphota, the akhandavākyasphota, and the varṇajatisphota, the padajatisphota, and the vakyajātisphota.
At this point Bhattoji claims further support from the side of Patanjali and Kaiyața on P. 1.1.46 adyantau ṭakitau. 31 Patanjali is supposed to have mentioned the varnasphota and the padasphota here. This is subject to interpretation, for these terms in any case are not to be found in this part of the Mahabhāṣya (nor indeed anywhere else in this text). The words ascribed to Kaiyata are relatively close to Kaiyata's own, with this difference again that Kaiyața does not here use the expression padasphota.32 What he refers to would be, in Bhattoji's terminology, the akhandapadasphota.
Bhattoji then rounds off his discussion by pointing out that all this has been clearly set out by Patanjali and Kaiyața on sutras 1.2.45 (arthavad adhātur ...), 1.1.68 (svam rūpam sabdasya ...), 1.1.70 (taparas tatkalasya), and elsewhere.33 When looking up these passages, one is disappointed. Only on P. 1.1.70 does Patanjali use the word sphota, and Kaiyața the expression vyaktisphoṭa. Kaiyaṭa here refers back to the Paspaśāhnika under yenoccāritena (discussed above), where, he says, the matter has been considered.
34
It seems clear from the above that Kaiyata's commentary on the Mahābhāṣya mentions many of the kinds of sphota which Bhattoji enumerates. There is however a major difference. All kinds of sphota accepted by Kaiyața have primarily ontological status, they are existing entities that are different from their parts. Some of these sphotas (viz., words and sentences) have meaning, others (sounds) do not. With Bhattoji expressiveness becomes the defining characteristic of all types of sphota, their ontological status being secondary. Bhattoji does not reject the ontological sphotas - on condition, of course, that they have meaning - but adds them to other sphotas that have no independent existence. The result is his list of eight kinds of sphota, some of which had not figured in Sanskrit literature before him.3
35
BHATTOJI'S PERSONALITY AND CIRCUMSTANCES
It is now time to consider what we know about Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita as a person. It turns out that to study a recent thinker like him is very

Page #10

12
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
different from studying early Sanskrit authors. We know next to nothing about Bharthari and most other Sanskrit authors of his time. About Bhattoji we know a fair amount. If we take the bits of information collected in the secondary literature (all of which I have not been able to verify) we get the following picture. Bhattoji came from the South (perhaps Mahārāstra") and ended up in Benares where he became the student of a well-known grammarian, Sesa Krsna.39 Sesa Krsna was not his only teacher - also Appayya Dīksita 40, Sankara Bhatta and Nộsimhāśrama2 are sometimes stated to have been his teachers -, but Sesa Krsna plays an important role in what follows. Sesa Krsna himself is known for his commentary on Rāmacandra's Prakriyākaumudī, called Prakāśa, and we may assume that Bhattoji was trained by Sesa Krsna in the Prakriyākaumudī. This work was going to be the source of inspiration for his own Siddhāntakaumudī.
However, the relationship between Bhattoji and the descendants of his teacher turned sour after the death of the latter. Many of the details remain obscure, but a variety of facts and sources allow us to get a reasonably clear picture of the situation. They are as follows.
Bhattoji did not only compose the Siddhāntakaumudī, which follows the model of the Prakriyākaumudī and improves upon it, but also a commentary on it, known by the name Praudha Manoramā. In this commentary he criticizes the Prakriyākaumudī as well as the commentary composed by his own teacher, Sesa Krsna.45
Sesa Krsna had not been the first to write a commentary on the Prakriyākaumudī. The grandson of its author, called Vitthala, had composed one called Prasāda. Sesa Krsna often critically refers to this commentary, and calls its author prāc 'the former one'. 44 (Rāmacandra the author of the Prakriyākaumudī is referred to as ācārya, even though Sesa Krsna does not always agree with him.) This word prāc, it appears, often designates preceding authors of similar works. Sesa Krsna's Prakriyāprakāśa therefore refers in this way to the preceding commentator on the Prakriyākaumudī, viz. Vitthala. Bhattoji's Praudha Manoramā uses the term, similarly, to refer to the author of the preceding Prakriyāgrantha, viz. Rāmacandra.45 Bhattoji's Sabdakaustubha, which is a commentary on the Mahābhāsya (see below), uses prāc to refer to the preceding commentator of the Mahābhāsya, viz. Kaiyata. The use of this word is not pejorative, as is shown by the fact that Panditarāja Jagannātha's Kucamardinī, which was composed to defend the Prakriyākaumudī and its commentator Sesa Krsna, refers to the

Page #11

BHATTOJI DIKṢITA ON SPHOTA
author of the Prakriyakaumudi as präcīnaprakriyägranthakṛt (e.g. ed. Sadashiva Sharma p. 161. 1; ed. Madhusudana p. 25 1.5, p. 31 1.7).
As already stated, Bhattoji uses the term prac in his Praudha Manorama to refer to Rämacandra the author of the Prakriyakaumudī. This text contains numerous references to this 'former one' (prac) whose book (grantha) is sometimes called prakriyāgrantha. Connected with the former one' Bhattoji sometimes mentions his commentator (note the use of the plural), as well as the 'author of the Prasada'. This happens, for example, in a passage whose structure is as follows:48
13
yat tu praccā... uktam, yac ca tadvyākhyātṛbhir ... uktam, yac c[a] ... prasādakṛtā ... kṛtam, tad etat sakalam bhāṣyakaiyaṭāparyälocanamulakam.
"What has been stated by the former one, and what has been stated by his commentator, as well as what has been done by the author of the Prasada, all this is based on a lack of careful consideration of the Bhāṣya and Kaiyaṭa."
This passage shows us the way in which Bhattoji criticizes his predecessors. It also allows us to identify them with precision. The words which Bhattoji attributes to 'the former one' (veti kecit sakhyah, sukhyah, sakhyuh, sukhyuh; with variant for the last four words: sakhyah, sukhyah) clearly corresponds to the following passage from the Prakriyäkaumudi (ed. Trivedi I p. 167, on P. 7.3.116; cp. ed. Miśra I p. 260): veti kecit / sakhyah, sakhyah, with variants for the last word: sakhyuh and sukhyuh. Bhattoji attributes to the author of the Prasada five metrical lines (two and a half slokas). These occur in the commentary called Prasada of Vitthala (I p. 167 1.12-16) in exactly the same form. The 'commentator', finally, is attributed with the following words: ubhayam apy etad bhāṣye sthitam. This phrase occurs in Sesa Krsna's Prakāśa, in exactly this form (1 p. 260 1.21).49 In other words, the 'commentator' is Sesa Krsna, Bhattoji's former
teacher.
We see from this passage that Bhattoji's criticism of his predecessors is direct, but not impolite. The following passage, in which Bhattoji criticizes the former one' (präc), i.e. Rämacandra, along with his grandson (tatpautra), i.e. Vitthala, provides another example of this:50
yat tu prácoktam 'uhäv itäv' iti, yac ca tatpautrena vyakhyatam 'ukära ugitkäryārtha' iti, tad asangatam iti bhāva.
"The idea is that what has been stated by the former one - viz., that u and i [in asun which is prescribed in P. 7.1.89 pumso 'sun] are markers and what has been explained by his grandson - viz., that u is there in order that the effect of having u, r or ! as marker [may apply] (by P. 7.1.6 ugitas ca) is impossible."

Page #12

14
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
The remark attributed to the 'former one is found in the Prakriyākaumudī (ed. Trivedi I p. 283; ed. Miśra I p. 387), and the one attributed to his grandson in Vitthala's Prasāda (I p. 283).
Bhattoji's criticism of Sesa Krsna is polite, too. We have seen that the latter is sometimes referred to as ‘his commentator' (in the plural). He is occasionally referred to as prāc 'former one' but always, it seems, in the plural.” Elsewhere Bhattoji gives no specification as to whom he is referring to, simply saying "they say'. For example, his statement yat tu vadanti: 'napumsake sasi yunji ity atra num na syād' iti$2 refers to a line in Sesa Kșsna's Prakāśa which says: tena napumsake sasi yunji ity atra num bhavati." And Bhattoji's yat tu vyācakhyuh: "upadeśakāle yau sakāranakārau tadantety arthah / devadattasya gurukulam itivat samudāyenasambandhan nāsamartha[ sa]māsa' iti4 literally cites a passage from Sesa Kșsna's Prakāśa." Sometimes Sesa Krsna is referred to under the heading 'others' (again in the plural). Bhattoji mentions, for example, 'others' in connection with Rāmacandra (prāc) and Vitthala (tatpautra) in the following line: yac cānyair vārttikena pūritam artham udāharati' ity avatāritam." The phrase attributed to these 'others' occurs in exactly that form in Sesa Kșsna's Prakāśa.57 But however politely Sesa Krsna's positions are referred to, they are always rejected.
[The Praudha Manoramā also refers to an Tīkākst on the Prakriyākaumudī. On the one occasion that has come to my notice it ascribes a phrase to him which occurs in but slightly different form both in Vitthala's Prasāda and Sesa Kșsna's Prakāśa.58 This designation therefore remains ambiguous.]
It is true that Bhattoji did not write his Praudha Manoramā until after the death of Sesa Krsna.” It is also true that while referring to his teacher he respectfully uses the plural (tad)vyākhyātsbhih, anyaih, prāñcah, or quite simply a plural form of the verb) where the singular has to be good enough for Rāmacandra (prācā) and his grandson Vitthala (tatpautreņa, prasādakstā). It is even true that he begins this commentary with a verse in which he emphasizes that he has composed it after careful reflection on his teacher's words. We yet learn that the family of his teacher was not amused by the systematic rejection of the latter's points of view. Both Cakrapāņi (or Cakrapāņidatta), the son of Sesa Krsna's son Sesa Vīreśvarao?, and Panditarāja Jagannātha, Vīreśvara's pupil, composed a criticism of the Praudha Manoramā.03 According to the latter, Bhattoji's mind had been marred by hatred for his teacher (ed. Sadashiva Sharma p. 2; ed. Madhusudana p. 3: gurudvesadūsitamati). These critical

Page #13

BHATTOJI DIKSITA ON SPHOTA
attacks were answered by Bhattoji's grandson Hari Diksita in his (Bṛhat) Śabdaratna.64 Isolated remarks in these commentaries create the impression that strong feelings were involved in these debates, yet that the most common and apparently most appropriate way to express them was through the intermediary of complex and detailed discussions of difficult technical points of grammar. The participants in these debates must have thought that this was the surest way to be heard and to score points.
Unfortunately we do not know whether Bhattoji lived to see his positions defended by his grandson. For his own attitude toward his critics we only have an uncertain tradition to go by, which records that he called Jagannatha a mleccha.65 If it is true that he did so (which is uncertain), we do know what specific circumstance made him use this term. For Jagannatha, according to a claim which I am in no position to verify, had been introduced to the court of the Mughal ruler Shah Jahan by the Mahārāja of Jaipur, where, according to one account, he had defeated the Moslim scholars present and refuted their claim to the extent that Sanskrit was not the original language; Sanskrit, according to them, had developed out of Arabic.66 He had subsequently been honored by the emperor, who is believed to have bestowed on him the title panditarāja. But Jagannatha had been careless enough to start a relationship with a Moslim woman called Lavangi, whom he married. It is not clear whether at that occasion he converted to Islam, but it seems beyond doubt that it took some time before he once again found favor with the Sanskrit scholars of Benares. Bhattoji's accusatory use of the term mleccha 'barbarian, sinner, heathen' makes a lot of sense in this context.
67
15
In view of all that precedes we are entitled to conclude that for some length of time a lively debate took place in Benares, in which critics of the Siddhantakaumudi and its commentary Praudha Manorama were pitched against those who sympathized with Bhattoji (or simply admired the Siddhantakaumudi for its intellectual qualities). It seems beyond doubt that not only academic opinions fueled this debate, and that for the main participants it had deep personal roots, connected with judgments about how one should behave towards one's teacher, or when choosing one's bride. It is at the same time clear that these personal feelings and judgments were to at least a considerable extent funneled, so to say, through detailed academic or if you prefer: scholastic debate.
We can delve a bit deeper into Bhattoji's past and find out more about an earlier phase of his relationship with his teacher Sesa Krsna.

Page #14

16
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
Bhattoji is known to have written two grammatical works before the Siddhantakaumudi and the Praudha Manoramā. These are the Śabdakaustubha and the one known by the names Vaiyakaraṇa Bhūṣaṇa Kārikā and Vaiyākaraṇamatonmajjana. It is in these works that we find most of his ideas about the philosophy of grammar. These ideas did not bring him instant fame, it appears. The Sabdakaustubha has only in part been preserved, which suggests that it was not much used in the beginning. Regarding the Vaiyakaraṇa Bhuṣaṇa Kārikā the view has been propounded that it has only survived along with i.e., included in the commentaries of Kaunda Bhatta. That would mean that, if Kaunda Bhatta had not composed these commentaries, this work might not have survived.70 Not unrelated to this issue is the uncertainty which exists regarding the name which Bhattoji himself gave to this second work. Later authors - among them Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa, Hari Dīkṣita and Vaidyanatha Payagunda - call it Vaiyakaraṇamatonmajjana. However, it seems that the Vaiyākaraṇamatonmajjana was noted, and commented upon, by someone else, a pupil of Bhaṭṭoji called Vanamāli Miśra, a manuscript of whose commentary called Vaiyakaraṇamatonmajjinī has been preserved.72
71
Some indications seem to confirm that the Sabdakaustubha was initially barely taken into consideration even by authors who knew it. Śesa Kṛṣṇa's other son Seṣa Nārāyaṇa, author of a commentary on the Mahabhāṣya called Sūktiratnākara (ed. Pt. Bhāgavata 1999) appears to have known this early work of Bhattoji. An introductory stanza to the Sūktiratnākara states (no. 14, p. 3):
harikaiyaṭabhaṭṭiyāṣ tikāḥ santy eva yady apihadya/
tad api gabhiraduruhatvadyair bodhaya nālam taḥ||
"Although there exist nowadays commentaries [on the Mahābhāṣya] by [BhartṛJhari, by Kaiyata and by Bhatta, they do not suffice to understand [that text] on account of (its?, their?) deep and abstruse nature and other reasons."
It is not immediately clear which is the commentary by Bhatta mentioned by Seṣa Nārāyaṇa. Yudhisthira Mīmāmsaka's history of grammatical literature makes no mention of any commentator before Seṣa Nārāyaṇa called Bhatta. Bhattoji, on the other hand, uses that appellation for himself, for example in the fifth introductory stanza to his Sabdakaustubha: bhattojibhatto januṣaḥ saphalyam labdhum Thate. Mīmāmsaka lists Bhattoji's Sabdakaustubha as a commentary on the Aṣṭādhyāyī, but this does not appear to be correct. Another one of its introductory stanzas announces "I extract the gem of
73

Page #15

BHATTOJI DIKSITA ON SPHOTA
17
the word (or: gem which is the word, sabdakaustubha) from the ocean which is the Bhāsya pronounced by Patañjali" (st. 3cd: phanibhāsitabhāsyābdheh sabdakaustubham uddhare).74 The text follows throughout the division into Ahnikas which characterizes the Mahābhāsya, and closely follows the text of that work. References to the Bhāsya, moreover, often use the future, 76 which only makes sense in a text which presents itself as a commentary on it. It is not surprising that Bal Shastri's edition of the Mahābhāsya with commentaries states, on its title page, that it contains the Mahabhashya of Patanjali ... with the commentaries Bhattoji Deekshita's 'Shabdakaustubh” etc." Baladeva Upādhyāya calls it a commentary on the Astādhyāyī which is also considered a work that critically evaluates the Mahābhāsya. 78
These considerations make it likely that Sesa Nārāyana was acquainted with Bhattoji's Sabdakaustubha. It is remarkable that this author, who regularly cites Kaiyata, never cites Bhattoji." He does however refer to him in other ways. Towards the end of his long discussion of sphota, for example, Sesa Nārāyana attributes to 'someone' certain views in which we recognize without difficulty Bhattoji's points of view. Sesa Nārāyana says here (p. 281.28 - p. 291.2):
tad evam sakhandākhandabhedena padavāk yavyakrisphoraś caturdhā, sakhandayos tayor jātirūpatāpīti dvau jātisphotāv iti şodhā, jātivyaktibhedena varnasphoto 'py apara ity api kaścit. "Someone furthermore (holds] that the padavyaktisphota and the vāk yavyaktisphota, because [both of them) are divided into two:) sakhanda- and akhanda-, are of four kinds, that moreover the two (of these) that are sakhanda- can take the form of a jāti, so that there are two jatisphotas (and one arrives at six kinds, and that there is also a different varnasphota that can be jāti or vyakti.'
The Sanskrit is ambiguous, and it is not impossible that the following translation is to be preferred:
"The padavyaktisphota and the vāk yavyak tisphota are therefore in this way of four kinds, because (both of them) are divided into two:) sakhanda- and akhanda-; the two sof these) that are sakhanda- can moreover take the form of a jāti, so that there are two jātisphotas (and one arrives at six kinds. Someone furthermore (holds] that there is also a varnasphota that can be jāti or vyakti."
Either way, Sesa Nārāyana here clearly enumerates eight kinds of sphota, which can be specified as follows: (i) sakhandapadavyaktisphota, (ii) sakhandavāk yavyaktisphota, (iii) akhandapadavyaktisphota, (iv) akhandavākyavyaktisphota, (v) padajātisphota, (vi) vākyajātisphota, (vii) varnajātisphota, (viii) varnavyaktisphota. He does

Page #16

18
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
not accept all of them. His enumeration corresponds, be it in a different order, to the list of positions which we know from Bhattoji's Sabdakaustubha (and from the Vaiyākarana Bhūsaņa Kārikā or Vaiyākaranamatonmajjana along with Kaunda Bhatta's commentaries). Sesa Nārāyana himself does not appear to accept the sphota as primarily a meaning-bearer but rather as an ontological entity, even though the only sphotas he admits (word and sentence) do have meaning. 80
For our present reflections it is particularly important to know that already sesa Krsna's Prakāśa, which was composed before the Sūktiratnākara, 81 appears to have been acquainted with the Sabdakaustubha.82 This one may conclude from the fact that the Prakāśa refers twice to opinions of the Dīksita (in Sanskrit the plural is used: dīksitānām vyākhyāne; yat tu dīksitah). Tripāthī (1977: (o)) appears to think that these are references to Sesa Nārāyana, the author of the Sūktiratnākara, but no evidence is known to me that Sesa Nārāyana was ever called Dīksita.83 Hueckstedt (2002: 52) accepts that these are references to Bhattoji, but admits that he has not been able to find the citations in the surviving works of that author; he suggests that they may have belonged to the parts of the Sabdakaustubha which have not survived. However, there are references to Bhattoji without mention of his name. Some examples have come to my notice, and a systematic investigation might bring to light more of them. The Prakāśa on P. 4.1.105 gargādibhyo yan refers to 'others' (anye) who hold a position which actually occurs in the Sabdakaustubha on that sūtra (there 4.1.107) but not in the Kāśikā with its two early commentaries, nor in any other work known to me that Sesa Krsna might have been acquainted with. 84 The Prakāśa on P. 1.3.3 halant yam informs us that 'others' like to interpret this sūtra by repeating it; I have found this position mentioned only in the Sabdakaustubha.85 On P. 1.3.1 bhūvādayo dhātavah the Prakāśa mentions 'others' who maintain, on the basis of inference, that roots that occur only in sūtras (sautra dhātu) are covered by it; once again, I have found this point of view only in the Sabdakaustubha. Sesa Krsna's remarks on Sivasūtra 2 are interesting because, besides attributing to 'others' an opinion which, from among earlier works, we only find in the Sabdakaustubha, they add a detail which is absent in Bhattoji's work. This might be taken to indicate that Sesa Krsna knew Bhattoji's opinions, perhaps from oral discussions, but not necessarily their final expression in the Sabdakaustubha.

Page #17

BHATTOJI DIKSITA ON SPHOTA
19
Tripāthī (1977: (au)) and Mīmāmsaka (sam. 2030: I: 487 n. 1) cite a line from the Sabdakaustubha (tad etat sakalam abhidhāya prakriyāprakāśe gurucaranair uktam: tajjñānam it yādau tu ścut vam bhavaty eva') #8 which shows that Bhattoji was acquainted with Sesa Krsna's Prakriyāprakāśa at the time of writing his Sabdakaustubha, and that Sesa Krsna was, or had been, his teacher at that time. This fact, along with the circumstance that Sesa Krsna's Prakāśa refers to the Dīksita and is familiar with at least some opinions which Bhattoji expresses in his Sabdakaustubha, allow us to conclude that the times of composition of Sabdakaustubha and Prakriyāprakāśa overlapped, the latter perhaps having been completed slightly before the former. 89
The fact that Bhattoji's early works did not initially attract much attention may be of some importance in the context of our present investigation. It means that Bhattoji's main impact was in the field of technical grammar, where he gained both acclaim and opposition. His contribution to the philosophy of grammar may have had to wait for his nephew Kaunda Bhatta before it drew a wider readership. Commentaries on the Sabdakaustubha were written, but not until later, the first surviving one (Visamapadī) being from the hand of Nāgesa, the second (Prabhā) from that of Vaidyanātha Pāyagunda.” It is true that Jagannātha may also have written a critical commentary on it, and that Cakrapāni refers to the Kaustubha;92 also the name of a text called Sabdakaustubha Dūsana by a certain Bhāskara Dīksita has come down to us. These critical treatises do not however seem to have survived.
Some of the personal details so far uncovered do not depict the stereotype which we may have of Sanskrit pandits. These men were not withdrawn scholars who devoted their lives to the service of a timeless tradition. The little we know about their private lives paints a different picture altogether. It introduces us to ambitious students goaded on by inflated egos and personal jealousies, keen to establish their reputations and pull down those of others, using any excuse available.
Having gained some insight into the personality and personal context of Bhattoji Dīksita, it will be interesting to learn something more about the world he lived in. We know that Bhattoji had ended up in Benares, and that he composed the works that made him famous in that same city. How do we have to imagine the life and daily surroundings of Sanskrit pandits of his time? We know from Muslim sources that Benares was "The chief seat of learning in

Page #18

20
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
Hindustan (to which) crowds of people flock from the most distant parts for the purpose of instruction ..."93
A particularly valuable source of information is the letter which the French traveler François Bernier wrote to the poet Chapelain in October 1667 and in which he describes, among other things, his visit to Benares which apparently had taken place the year before. Bernier characterizes Benares as the school for all Hindus and compares it to Athens. Brahmins and religious people who dedicate themselves to study go to Benares. However, there are no regular colleges and classes as in Europe, he writes. The teachers are scattered over the city, in their houses, or in the gardens of the suburbs, where they have been accepted by rich merchants. The number of students which each teacher has is small, ranging from four until a maximum of 15 in the case of the most famous ones. These students stay with their teacher for 10 or 12 years. Bernier is not impressed with the diligence of the students, pointing out that they do not torment themselves and eat the khichri which they are provided with by the rich merchants. 94
Bernier's account becomes more personal where he relates that he went to see the chief of the pandits, who lives there. This scholar, he tells us, was so famous for his knowledge that the emperor Shah Jahan granted him a pension of Rs. 2000, both to honor his science and to please the Rajas. Bernier describes the appearance of this famous scholar in some detail, and adds that he had already known him in Delhi. In fact, this chief of pandits had often visited Bernier's boss (whom he calls his Agah, i.e., Daneshmend Khan) in the hope of regaining his pension which Aurangzeb, once he had acceded to the throne, had taken away from him. When Bernier visited him in Benares, the chief of pandits received him warmly, and offered him refreshments in the library of his university along with the six most famous pandits of the city.”
Gode has argued in two publications (1941; 1969) that the chief of pandits known to Bernier must have been a Sanskrit author known by the name Kavīndrācārya Sarasvati." However, Gode's arguments are circumstantial and not totally compelling (as he himself admits). It is also clear that Bernier's expression chef des Pandits is close to the Sanskrit title panditarāja which Jagannātha is reported to have received from the emperor (see above); the title vidyānidhāna “repository of learning' which Kavīndrācārya supposedly received from Shah Jahan does not correspond to this French expression.98 Chronologically both scholars fit. Jagannātha is believed to have

Page #19

BHATTOJI DĪKSITA ON SPHOTA
21
received patronage from Shah Jahan and Dara Shikoh (perhaps already from Jahangir). Some time after the execution of Dara Shikoh in 1659 he is thought to have moved to Benares, where Bernier may conceivably have met him in 1666. In the more recent of his two publications on this subject Gode refers to a passage from a work called Padshah Namah by Abdul Hamid Lahori, which states that a certain Kavīndra Sanyāsi received from Shah Jahan two thousand rupees in cash. This is exactly the amount which the chief of pandits known to Bernier received as pension until Aurangzeb stopped it, but it does not necessarily prove that the scholar mentioned in this passage is the same as the one known to Bernier. 100 Moreover, the fact that Bernier's chief of pandits offered him refreshments in the library of his university (la collation dans la bibliothèque de son université), and that Bernier states some pages earlier that there are many Sanskrit books with which a large hall at Benares is entirely filled (p. 255: "... dont j'ai vu une grande salle toute pleine dans Bénarès”), does not necessarily prove Gode's surmise that this hall "is probably identical with Kavīndrācārya's Manuscript Library”. All this means that it is possible, though far from certain, that one of the actors in the drama in which Bhattoji Dīksita played a role has been known to and described by a visiting Frenchman. We are clearly far removed from the lifeless authors of ancient Sanskrit texts.
We have to consider the question how these scholars earned, or tried to earn their living. Bernier mentions both rich merchants and, in the case of the chief of pandits, patronage from the Mughal court. Texts from this period often mention the patronage received from kings. 101 These were often regional kings, petty rulers of small states. Examples such as Panditarāja Jagannātha, on the other hand, show that such support could also come from Muslim rulers, even from the emperor in Delhi."02 According to the New Catalogus Catalogorum, this scholar received patronage from a long list of rulers: Emperor Jehangir (1605-1627 A.D.), Shah Jahan (1628-1658 A.D.), Asaf Khan (Noor Jahan's brother, died 1641 A.D.), Jagat Simha, King of Udaipur (1628-1629 A.D.) and Prānanārāyana, King of Kāmarūpa or Assam (1633–1666 A.D.).103 Others had to be content with less prominent patrons. It is clear from the introductory verses that Sesa Krsna wrote his Prakāśa at the command of a king Vīravara, who may have been a minister of Akbar.104 His son Sesa Nārāyana, author of a commentary on the Mahābhāsya called Sūktiratnākara,

Page #20

22
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
praises in his introductory stanzas a certain "king Phirimdā” (phirimdā nrpah; st. 8); this same Phirimdā is further on (st. 10) referred to as caudharī, which means as much as 'village headman' (Hintze, 1997: 70; cp. Richards, 1993: 81). Bhattoji, his brother Rangoji and his nephew Kaunda Bhatta appear to have received patronage from two rulers belonging to the Keladi royal family, Venkatappa Nāyaka I (1592-1629) and his grandson Vīrabhadra (1629-1645);103 these were rulers of the Ikkeri kingdom, one of the fragmented heirs of the Vijayanagara state. 106
In order to understand how and why Sanskrit scholars should be the recipients of patronage at all, we must recall that at the time of Bhattoji Benares was part of the Mughal empire. This empire had been consolidated by Akbar in the sixteenth century by the introduction of a system of government meant to reduce tension between the different components of the population. Akbar himself showed an active interest in ancient Sanskrit literature, and had various old texts - among them the Atharva Veda, the Mahābhārata, the Rāmāyana and many others - translated into Persian."07 Historians point out that by giving high office to the Rajputs - who were not only concentrated in Rajasthan but also scattered all over north India -, by using them as military commanders and provincial governors, the Hindu community was induced to accept the Mughal government in a way as its own.108 Moreover, rotation of office and resumption of property at death had the effect that Mughal nobles were inclined to ostentation and public spending. 109 Together these features of Mughal government go a long way toward explaining an upswing in the number of possibilities for patronage at that time. There would be more money available for patronage, and the number of potential patrons would be large, and changing. The support which Bhattoji and his family received from the rulers of Ikkeri shows that patronage might even come from near or outside the boundaries of the Mughal empire." All this would then be responsible for the competitive atmosphere in which young scholars had to gain a place and established ones might have to justify the positions they had attained. It is not surprising that both for potential patrons and for potential recipients of patronage Benares was the scene where much of this competitive activity was carried out.
Patronage did not only come from political rulers. We have seen that François Bernier mentions rich merchants in particular. The prosperity of the Mughal empire apparently filtered down to reach traditional Sanskrit scholars also through this channel.

Page #21

BHATTOJI DIKSITA ON SPHOTA
23
The establishment of the Mughal empire may in this way have created more rather than fewer opportunities for bright Sanskrit scholars, both young and old. One of the priorities of these scholars was, inevitably, to attract the attention of one or more potential patrons. One way to do so would be to participate in one of the oral debates which apparently were held at the courts of various rulers. We have already seen that Jagannatha supposedly defeated Muslim scholars at the court of Shah Jahan. Indeed, it is known that already Akbar had organized debates at his court, and had even built a debating-hall (called House of Worship, 'Ibadat Khāna) in the gardens of his palace at Fathpur-Sikri; initially only schools of Muslim theology had participated, later representatives of other religions as well. But debates also took place in less glamorous surroundings. Rangoji Bhatta, who was both Bhattoji's brother and Kaunda Bhatta's father, is recorded to have defeated the Dvaita scholar Vidyadhīśayati in debate at the court of the Keladi ruler Venkaṭappa. More complete information about the places where and the frequency with which such debates took place, and about the ways in which the winner might be expected to be rewarded, would be of great interest for an understanding of the inner dynamic of Sanskrit scholarship at that period. For the time being we have to be guided by the impressions gained from a small selection of sources.
112
The preceding reflections suggest that at the time of Bhattoji, more perhaps than before, there was place for original characters. Success did not primarily depend upon respect for tradition and for the elders. Indeed, a scholar might deviate from traditional thinking and behavior and yet impress his readership or audience. Characters like Bhattoji and Panditarāja Jagannatha had a place in this world, and may indeed have gained notoriety precisely because they did and said things that were not altogether sanctioned by tradition. At the same time it should not be forgotten that the freedom of thought and behavior of the pandits of Benares was relative. As a group they still represented traditional Hinduism which, in spite of the comparatively tolerant attitude of the early Mughal emperors, remained under threat from Islam. In the district of Benares alone 76 Hindu temples are recorded to have been destroyed by Shah Jahan, and several more by Aurangzeb. Innovative ideas were therefore strictly confined to areas that were not threatening to the tradition as such, even though they might be threatening to a particular thinker and his relatives. Bhattoji, as we have seen, went out of his way to show that his new ideas about the sphota were really not new at all.'
113
114

Page #22

24
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
NOTES
Yoga Bhāsya on sūtra 3.17: ... ekam padam ekabuddhivisayam ekaprayatnāksiptam abhāgam akramam avarņam bauddham antyavarnapratyayavyāpāropasthāpitam ... 2 Cp. Joshi, 1967: 7: “Since for (later grammarians (i.e., Bhattoji and his successors)], the term sphota necessarily refers to the significant unit, they tried to interpret the term varnasphota to mean the smallest meaningful units like stems, roots and suffixes. ... To Patañjali the term sphota need not necessarily involve consideration of meaning." Further Joshi, 1967: 10: "Patañjali has never used the term sphota to refer to a single indivisible meaning-bearing unit. The term sphota as used by Patanjali always stands for the structure of expression which may or may not have meaning". Cardona, 1968: 448: "Joshi rightly and importantly stresses ... that for Bhartshari sphota is not used uniquely with reference to the meaning-conveyor word'. This is worth emphasizing in view of the influence exerted by J. Brough's article 'Theories of General Linguistics in the Sanskrit Grammarians' ..., wherein Brough maintains that for Bhartrhari, as for later grammarians, sphota was ... 'simply the linguistic sign in its aspect of meaning bearer (Bedeutungsträger)." See further below. 3 Similarly Cardona, 1976: 303: "Brough's exposition of sphota was heavily influenced by later Pāņinīyas." 4 Bhattoji Dīksita, Sabdakaustubha (ed. Nene et al.) I p. 71.15–17: ekah pata itivad ekam padam vāk yam vety abādhitapratiter varnätiriktam eva padam vāk yam vā akhandam varnavyangyam / kat vapratitir aupādhikiti cet? pate 'pi tathāt vāpatteh/. 5 Bhattoji Dīksita, Sabdakaustubha (ed. Nene et al.) I p. 7 1.4-9. 6 Bhattoji Dīksita, Sabdakaustubha (ed. Nene et al.) I p. 81.13-19. 7 This passage occurs twice in the Bhāsya, not under sūtra 1.1.56, but under P. 1.1.20 (Mahā-bh I p. 75 1.13) and P. 7.1.27 (Mahā-bh III p. 251 1.12). See further below.
It seems likely that the reference is to Kaiyata on P. 1.1.56 sthānivad ädeso 'nalvidhau (I p. 399 1.11-16): dvividha ādesah, pratyaksas cāster bhür it yadih / anumānikas cair urityādih / atra hi ikārenekärāntah sthāny anumīyate / ukārenokārāntas cadeśah / tatas tes tur iti sampadyate / etc. For a discussion what is at stake, cp. Joshi & Roodbergen, 1990: p. VIII f. and transl. p. 6 n. 30. 9 The reference is no doubt to Mahā-bh I p. 267 1.8-12 (on P. 1.3.10). See further below. 10 Cp. Gaurinath Sastri, 1980: 60: "it is necessary to point out that by varņa-sphota it is not meant that each and every letter is regarded as sphota but the letter or letters constituting either a stem or a suffix are regarded as such"; and p. 63: "according to (the grammarians' theory of varna-sphota the stem and the suffix ... are denotative of sense". Joshi, 1967: 73: “The term varnasphota does not mean that each single phoneme is regarded as sphota, but the phoneme or phonemes constituting either a stem or a suffix are regarded as such." Il So Cardona (1976: 303): 'in the view of such later Päninīyas the term varna does not mean 'sound unit' in this context; it denotes a unit lower than a word, namely a base or an affix". Similarly Sri Krsna Bhatta Maunin, who in his Sphotacandrikā (p. 1 1.22) speaks of a varna which is of the nature of a stem or a suffix (prakrtipratyayarüpa). Since this last author refers to the Bhusana of Kaunda Bhatta (p. 2 1.29), he is to be dated after the latter. Ramajna Pandeya (1954: 49 f.) tries to improve upon the scheme of Bhattoji and his successors by replacing their varnasphota with the pair prakrtisphota and pratyayasphota. Further refinements lead him to a total of sixteen kinds of sphota. 12 Bhattoji Dīksita, Sabdakaustubha (ed. Nene et al.) I p. 7 1. 9-10. Bhattoji does not say, nor indeed intend, that this remark concerns isolated morphemes, but this is how Nāgeśa interprets him (Sphotavāda p. 5 1.6–7: prayujyamānapadanantargalā

Page #23

BHATTOJI DĪKSITA ON SPHOTA
25
varņā väcaka na veti vipratipattiśarīram). For Nägesa, then, this statement deals with a minor issue within the discussion of the varnasphota. 15 Bhattoji Dīksita, Sabdakaustubha (ed. Nene et al.) I p. 9 1.14–16: yady apihāstau paksā uktās tathāpi vāk yasphotapakse tātparyam granthakstām / tatrāpi jātisphote ily avadhe yam, purvapūrvopamardenaivottarottaropanyäsāt/. 14 Cp. Joshi's observations cited in note 2, above. " It has already been pointed out above that Bhattoji's emphasis on the semantic role of the sphota is responsible for his negligence of the ontological side. This has confused also modern commentators. John Brough has already been mentioned. As for Gaurinath Sastri, see note 17 below. 16 Iyer, 1966: 9–10: naitat sāram, pratyekam apratyāyakatvāt, sāhityābhāvāt, niyatakramavartinām ayaugapadyena sambhūyakäritvānupapatteh, ... " Nor was Gaurinath Sastri, who states (1980: 72-73): "we should like to point out that we do not appreciate their i.e., of the later standard works of Sanskrit grammarians, JB) conception of pada-sphota and vāk ya-sphota as also of akhanda-padasphota and akhanda-vāk ya-sphota. ... (Alny interpretation which tends to impair the indivisible character of sphota, cannot be accepted by us. It may be pointed out in our favour that the earlier exponents of the theory of sphota mean by pada-sphota and vākya-sphota what to the later exponents are akhanda-pada-sphota and akhandavāk ya-sphota respectively." 18 For further evidence for the unitary nature of Patanjali's morphemes and words, see Bronkhorst, 1987: 46 ff. 19 Mahā-bh I p. 267 1.8-12: kim ihodaharanam / ... / tasthasthamipām tāmtamtāmah iti / nanu caitad api sthāne 'ntaratamenaiva siddham / kuta antaryam / ekārthas yaikārtho dvyarthasya dvyartho bahvarthasya bahvartho bhavisyatiti / 20 Tr. Sharma, 1995: 660. 21 Tr. Joshi & Roodbergen, 1991: 66. 22 Bhattoji Dīksita, Sabdakaustubha (ed. Nene et al.) 1 p.8 1.19-20: padasphotavākyasphotau tu ihaiva praghattake yenoccăritena' iti bhāsyapratīkam upādāya kaiyatena bhāsyārthatayā varnitau / 23 Kaiyata I p. 7: vaiyakaranā varņavyatiriktasya padasya väik yasya vā vācakat vam icchanti/ varnānām pratyekam vācakatve dvitīyādivarnoccāraṇānarthak yaprasangātānarthakye tu pratyekam utpattipakse yaugapadyenotpattyabhāvāt, abhivyaktipakse tu kramenaivābhivyaktyā samudāyābhāvāt / ekasmrtyupārūdhānām vācakatve 'sarah' 'rasah' ityādāv arthapratipattyavisesaprasangāt tadvyatiriktah sphoto nādabhivyangyo vācako vistarena vākyapadiye vyavasthäpitah/ 24 Bhattoji Dīksita, Sabdakaustubha (ed. Nene et al.) I p. 8 1. 20-21: varņavyatiriktasya padas ya vāk yasya veti vadatā tayor akhandatäpy uktā /. 29 Bhattoji Dīksita, Sabdakaustubha (ed. Nene et al.) I p.8 1.21--23: 'nityesu śabdesu kūtasthair avicālibhir varnair bhavitavyam' iti tatra tatra bhāsye sakhandatoktā /. The quoted line occurs Maha-bh I p. 18 1.14-15 (on Sivasūtra 1 vt. 12); p. 75 1.8-9 (on P. 1.1.20 vt. 5); p. 112 1. 24 (on P. 1.1.46); p. 136 1.12-13 (on P. 1.1.56 vt. 11); etc. 26 Bhattoji Dīksita, Sabdakaustubha (ed. Nene et al.) I p. 8 1.26-32: paspaśāyām eva praghattakāntare 'kim punahityādi bhāsyam upādāya 'kecid varnasphotam apare padasphotam vāk yasphotam cāhuh' iti vadatā kaiyatena 'a i unity atra vyaktisphotajātisphotayor balābalam cintayatā prayāhārāhnikānte 'aksaram na ksaram vidyāt' iti bhāsyavyākhyānāvasare vyavahāranit yatā tu varnapadavāk yasphotānām, nityat vam tu jātisphotasyeti pratipadayatā, anupadam eva brahmatattvam eva hi śabdarüpatayā pratibhätity artha iti vyācaksanena sarve paksäh sūcitā eva /. 27 Kaiyata on kim punar nityah sabdah āhosvit kāryah, Paspaśāhnika, I p. 26. 28 Kaiyata, I p. 65 ff., esp. p. 68 (vyaktisphotapakse nirākrte jātisphotapaksa evāśrīyate) and p. 69 (avaśyāśranīyatām ākrtipaksasya darśayati).

Page #24

26
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
29 Kaiyata, I p. 117: vyavahāranit yalayā tu varnapadavāk yasphotānām (nityat vam). jātisphotasya vā. The word nityat vam has been added on the authority of another edition (Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi etc., 1967). Bhattoji was apparently acquainted with a reading: vyavahāranityatā tu varnapadavāk yasphotānām, nityat vam tu jätisphotasya. 30 Bhattoji Dīksita, Sabda kaustubha (ed. Nene et al.) I p. 8 1.32 - p. 91.1: yadā tu avidyaiva jātir iti paksas tadabhiprāyena jātisphotasyäpi vyavahāranit yateti 'aksaram na kşaram vidyāt' ity, asya kaiyatiye pathāntaram. 3 Bhattoji Dīksita, Sabda kaustubha (ed. Nene et al.) I p. 9 1.1-4: 'adyantau takitau' iti sūtre ca bhäsya eva varnasphotapadasphotāvuktau / asat yam eva prakrtipratyayavibhāgam tadartham cāśritya rekhāgavayanyāyena satyasya padasphotasya vyut padanam abhipretam iti tatraiva kaiyatah /. 32 Cp. Kaiyata on P. 1.1.46 (on athavaitayānupūrvyāyain sabdāntaram upadišati), 1 p. 349: ... arthavattām asrityāsat yaprakrtipratyayopadešena satyasya padasya vyut pādanam kriyate, rekhāgavayeneva satyagavayas ya. 33 Bhattoji Dīksita, Sabdakaustubha (ed. Nene et al.) I p. 91.4-6: 'arthavad adhātuh' 'svam rūpam sabdasya' 'raparas tatkālasya' ityādisūtres api spastam idam bhāsyakaiyatādāv ity alam bahunā. 34 Mahā-bh I p. 181 1.19-24 (on P. 1.1.70 vt. 5); Kaiyata on P. 1.1.70, 1 p. 539: 'evam tarhi iti / vyaktisphoto 'tra vivaksitah / sa ca nityah / etac ca 'yenoccăritena' ity atra paspaśāyām vicaritam iti tata eve boddhavyam/. 38 Judging by the summary by G.B. Palsule in the Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies of the Sphotatattvanirūpana which may have been composed by Sesa Krsna (Coward and Kunjunni Raja, 1990: 215 f.), Bhattoji's teacher had not dealt with these eight positions about the sphota either. The text summarized was not available to me. ,50 There are many historical records from the time of Bhattoji (see Sharma, 1938). Most of these do not however concern themselves with Sanskrit scholars; information about them has to be culled from colophons, introductory stanzas, stories that have somehow survived, etc. 37 This is a debated issue. The first reliable census of the population of Benares was published by James Prinsep in the Asiatic Researches in 1832. According to Dalmia, 1997: 94, “Prinsep's figures provide statistical evidence that there were indeed large communities of Brahmans in the city; they constituted 12% of the population, and here again the Maharastrian Brahmans outnumbered the rest. They constituted, in their turn, 30% of the total Brahman population." It is to be kept in mind that Prinsep's census came after a period, during the 18th century, during which Maharashtrians, both Brahmin and Maratha, had been investing heavily in Benares, and grants to Brahmins had greatly increased, especially under the direct patronage of the Peshwa (Gordon, 1993: 146). According to another tradition Bhattoji was of Andhra origin; see e.g. Upadhyāya, 1994: 60. 38 Gode (194la: 322) reports a tradition according to which Bhattoji Dīksita built in Benares a house for himself at Kedār-Ghāta (Sanskrit perhaps Kedāreśvara-Ghatta) and settled there permanently. 39 See note 43, below. 40 Appayya Dīksita is saluted in Bhattoji's Tattvakaustubha; see Mīmāmsaka, sam. 2030: 1: 487. EIP V p. 240 (s.v. Appayya Dīksita) tells the following story: "One of Appayya Dīksita's important pupils was Bhattoji Dīksita, the author of the Siddhāntakaumudī, who came from the north to study Vedānta and Mīmānisa and wrote Sabdakaustubha as a commemoration of his discipleship under Appayya. A story is told that Bhattoji found Appayya living unostentatiously in a village, belying widespread fame and royal patronage." None of the claims in this passage are supported by evidence.

Page #25

27
BHATTOJI DĪKSITA ON SPHOTA
41
Haraprasad Shastri, 1912: 11; EIP V p. 241 s.v. Bhattoji Dīkṣita; Salomon, 1985: xix, xxvi.
42
Gode, 1940: 66 ff.; Manudeva Bhattacharya's introduction to his edition of Kaunda Bhatta's Brhadvaiyäkaraṇabhusana p. 5; Upadhyaya, 1994: 61. 43 Cf. the following passage from Jagannatha's Praudhamanoramakucamardana (as cited in Belvalkar, 1915: 39 n. 1): iha kecit = Bhattojidikṣitäh] nikhilavidvanmukuṭamayūkhamālālālitacaraṇānām... Sesavamsavatamsānām Sri-Krsnapanditānām prasādād āsāditaśabdānusāsanās teṣu ca parameśvarapadam prayāteṣu kalikālavasamvadībhavantah Prakriyaprakasam svayamnirmitāyām manoramāyām akulyakārṣuh | să ca prakriyaprakāśakṛtām pautrair asmadgurupanditaviresvarānām tanayair düsitäpi svamatipariksärthe punar asmäbhir niriksyate /. Mimämsaka, sam. 2030: I: 486 n. 1 cites the same passage in a rather different form. See also Mīmāmsaka, sam. 2030: I: 541; Kane, HistDh 1,2 p. 967 n. 1508; p. 48-49 of the introduction to the edition of Jagannatha's Rasagangadhara mentioned in the bibliography; p. (15) of Sitaram Shastri's introduction to his edition of the Praudha Manorama; Hueckstedt, 2002: 51-52 n. 18. Extracts from Jagannatha's text (including this passage) can be found at the end of the edition of the Praudha Manorama by Pt. Sadashiva Sharma Shastri. This passage is found on p. 1-2 of Madhusudana's edition. For an English translation, see Joshi, 1980: 107. This statement shows that Bhattoji was the pupil of Sesa Kṛṣṇa, not of the latter's son Śeṣa Vīreśvara, as maintained by Ranganathasvami Aryavaraguru (1912), Altekar (1937: 40) and Das (1990: 326 n. 14). For another critical passage from the same work, see Sitaram Shastri's introduction to his edition of the Praudha Manoramā, p. (13) n. 2.
44 The introduction (Prästāvikam) by Bhagiratha Prasada Tripathī to the edition Rāmacandra's Prakriyakaumudi with Seşa Kṛṣṇa's Prakāśa (see bibliography; p. (i) f.) shows that Sesa Krsna's prac is indeed Vitthala the author of the Prasada. See further below.
45 A comparison of the following passages illustrates the contrasting ways in which Bhattoji's Praudha Manorama and Seṣa Kṛṣṇa's Prakāśa use this term: (i) Bhattoji Dīkṣita, Praudha Manorama I p. 204: yat tu praca 'tat-siva ity atra jastve kṛte, khari ca' ity uktam tan na ... | yat tu tatpautrenoktam tado ya 'vasane iti cartve kṛte, paścāc chiva ity anena sambandhe, jhalam jaso 'nte iti jaśtve, khari ca iti cartvam' iti | tad atisthaviyah /. (ii) Rämacandra, Prakriyākaumudi (ed. Miśra I p. 145; ed. Trivedi I p. 90): tad siva ity atra jaśtve kṛte - khari ca. (iii) Seṣa Krsna, Prakāśa I p. 146: atra pracoktam 'tado va'vasane iti cartve kṛte paścac chiva ity anena sambandhe jhalam jaso 'nte iti jastve tad siva iti sthite khari ca iti cartvam' iti /. (iv) Vitthala, Prasada I p. 90: tado vāvasāne iti cartve kṛte paścat siva ity anena sambandhe jastvam jhalam jasonte iti tataś ca tad siva iti sthite khari ceti anena cartve...
46
The following are examples: (i) Bhattoji Dīkṣita, Sabdakaustubha (ed. Nene et al.) I p. 47 1.24-26: atra prañcah: thakārasthāniko dhakarasthāniko vā dakāro 'tra bhāṣyakṛto vivakṣitaḥ, ato na purvottaravirodhaḥ iti | rjavas tu vārttikamate sthitvedam bhasyam ato na virodha ity ahuh. This concerns P. 3.3.57 ṛdor ap. The explanation of this sūtra referred to in the Sabdakaustubha is not found in the Käsika and its classical commentaries, nor in the Prakriyākaumudī and its commentaries by Vitthala and Seṣa Kṛṣṇa. It belongs to Kaiyata (I p. 84 1. 12-13; on Maha-bh I p. 23 1. 21-22): atrahuḥ: thakārasthāniko dhakarasthāniko vā dakāro 'tra vivakṣitaḥ kas tarhi dakāra' iti. Nothing similar is found in Bhartṛhari's commentary (Palsule, 1988: 21). (ii) Bhattoji Dīkṣita, Sabdakaustubha (ed. Nene et al.) I p. 54 1. 23-p. 55 1.2: tathapy abhyase upadhmaniyasya seṣe 'abhyase car ca' iti jastvena bakāra eva śruyeta / isyate tv abhyase jakāra iti prañcaḥ / appears to refer to Kaiyata (1 p. 99 1.11-12; on Maha-bh I p. 28 1.26: yady ubjir upadhmaniyopadhah pathyata ubjijiṣatity upadhmaniyāder eva dvirvacanam prapnoti): upadhmaniyāder iti / yadi

Page #26

28
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
dvirvacane pürvatra kartavye jaštvam asiddham athāpi pūrvatrāsiddhiyam advirvacana iti siddham, sarvathobibjisatiti prāpnoti/; Bhattoji next shows Kaiyata's position to be wrong.
Occasionally someone else is called prāc, sometimes Patañjali himself. This seems to be the case in the following passage: Bhattoji Dīksita, Sabdakaustubha (ed. Nene et al.) I p. 108 1.3-5: yat tu dvirvacane 'ci' iti sütre aci kim? jeghriyate dedhmiyate iti prācām pratyudaharanam, tad āpātatah appears to refer to Mahā-bh I p. 155 1.16 (on P. 1.1.59): ajgrahanasyaitat prayojanam iha mā bhūt jeghriyate dedhmīyata iti . 47 Cp. Sitaram Shastri's introduction to his edition of the Praudha Manoramā, p. (4)
Bhattoji Dīksita, Praudha Manoramā (ed. Sitaram Shastri) p. 404-405. 49 Bhattoji's use of prāc in the Praudha Manoramā is not fully consistent. Consider the following passages, where he clearly copies Sesa Krsna in referring to Vitthala in this manner: (i) Bhattoji Dīksita, Praudha Manorama I p. 559: yat tu prāñcah: 'āpi' iti kakāraviśesanam/ 'sarvikā' it yādau tv ekādeśasya sthānivadbhāvād akārena vyavadhāne 'pi vacanasamarthyad bhavisyati iti/ tan na / (ii) Sesa Krsna, Prakāśa I p. 433: 'äpi' iti ... / atah kakāraviśesanam / ... / 'sarvikā' it yādau tv ekādeśasya sthānivadbhāvād akāreņa vyavadhāne 'pi vacanasāmarthyad bhavisyati iti prāñcah / vastutas tu ... (iii) Vitthala, Prasāda I p. 328: nanu căpity anena kim višesyate / yady ucyeta kakāra iti tadā sarvikā kārikety atrāpi na syāt akārena vyavadhānāt na ca vācyam ekādese krte nästi vyavadhānam iti tasya "acah parasmin ...' iti sthānivadbhāvād iti ced ucyate / yena nāvyavadhānam tena vyavahite 'pi vacanaprāmānyād ity ekena varnena vyavadhanam āśrīyate /. 50 Bhattoji Dīksita, Praudha Manoramā (ed. Sitaram Shastri) p. 531. See also note 45, above. 31 See the examples given in Sitaram Shastri's introduction to his edition of the Praudha Manorama p. (5) n. 2. 52 Bhattoji Dīksita, Praudha Manorama (ed. Sitaram Shastri) p. 500. 53 Sesa Krsna, Prakāśa I p. 340 1.14. 54 Bhattoji Dīksita, Praudha Manoramā (ed. Sitaram Shastri) p. 484. 55 Sesa Krsna, Prakāśa I p. 335 1.21-22. Occasionally an unspecified plural refers to both Vitthala and Sesa Krsna, as in Bhattoji Dīksita, Praudha Manoramā (ed. Sitaram Shastri) p. 434, where yat tu vadanti: 'evam sati supi ca iti dirghatvam syād' iti / tan na / rejects an opinion held by both these authors, but whose formulation follows Vitthala (Vitthala, Prasāda I p. 195 1.19-20; sesa Krsna, Prakāśa I p. 293 1.15). For further examples see Sitaram Shastri's introduction to his edition of the Praudha Manoramā p. (4)–(5) n. 4. 56 Bhattoji Dīksita, Praudha Manorama (ed. Sitaram Shastri) p. 412. 57 Šesa Krsna, Prakāśa I p.268 1.12–13. 58 Bhattoji Dīksita, Praudha Manoramā (ed. Sitaram Shastri) p. 68-69: yat tu 'ika eva sthāne stah' iti prācă vyākhyātam, yac ca tattīkākstoktam 'aniyamaprasange niyamārtham idam' it yādi, tat sarvam bhāsyavirodhāt upeksyam. Both commentaries on the Prakriyäkaumudi have: aniyamaprasange niyamo vidhiyate (Vitthala, Prasada I p. 30 1.22; Sesa Krsna, Prakāśa I p. 52 1.14). 59 This is clear from Jagannatha's passage cited in note 43, above. A pupil of Bhattoji, called Varadarāja, composed several abridgments of the Siddhāntakaumudi. A surviving manuscript of one of those, the Laghusiddhāntakaumudī, dates from 1624 C.E. This text refers to the Sabdakaustubha, but not to the Manorama in a context where one would expect this. It follows that the Siddhantakaumudī and the Sabdakaustubha were composed at any rate before 1624. A later work by Varadarāja, the Gīrvänapadamañjarī, does mention the Manoramā. See Gode, 1941a: 320 ff. Gode points out in another publication (1940: n. 1) that manuscripts of the Praudha Manorama dating from 1652 and 1657 C.E. have been preserved in the

Page #27

BHATTOJI DIKSITA ON SPHOTA
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. The Manorama is mentioned in Kaunda Bhatta's Vaiyakaraṇabhūsana, an abbreviation of which is the Vaiyakaranabhūsa nasära; a manuscript of this abbreviation has been preserved which dates from 1650 C.E. (Gode, 1954: 207 f.), another one that dates from 1637 C.E. according to Biswal (1995: 56). A manuscript of the Sabdakaustubha dating from 1633 C. E. has equally been preserved (Gode, 1940: 73).
Deshpande, 1992: 74 contains the remark that Kaunda Bhatta studied grammar under Sesa Krsna. (The same point of view is found in the Hindi introduction to the edition of the Vaiyākaraṇabhūsaņasāra by Prabhākara Miśra, p. (16).) By way of justification Deshpande refers to the introduction to S. D. Joshi's Ph.D. dissertation of 1960 (Harvard University). This dissertation has meanwhile been published (Joshi, 1993, 1995, 1997). I do not find in its introduction any statement to the effect that Kaunda Bhatta studied with Sesa Krsna. Moreover, Joshi (1967: 59) speaks about "Sesakrsna, the teacher of Bhattoji Diksita" in a context where a mention of Kaunda Bhatta would have been appropriate, if indeed Joshi was of the opinion that Sesa Krsna was his teacher. See further note 62, below. 00 Bhattoji's use of the plural to express respect is confirmed by his use of the plural in passages of his Vedabhāsyasāra where he agrees with Madhava the author of the Vedabhāsya, and of the singular where he disagrees with that same author; see Gode, 1941b: 76 n. 2. 61 Bhattoji Dīksita, Praudha Manoramā I p. 1: dhyāyam dhyāyam param brahma, smāram smāram guror girah / siddhantakaumudivyākhyām kurmah praudhamanoramām //. Neither Hari Dīksita's Brhat Sabdaratna nor Nägeśa's Laghu Sabdaratna on this passage give the name of Bhattoji's teacher, but both contain the enigmatic specification that the singular guroh indicates that Bhattoji obtained all his knowledge from one single teacher. 62 See the bibliography under Cakrapāņidatta. Bali, 1976: 15 claims that Vīreśvara himself wrote a Praudha Manoramā Khandana, and supports this with a reference to Yudhisthira Mīmāmsaka's Itihāsa. This is incorrect. Mīmāmsaka (sam. 2030: I: 540541), basing himself on the passage cited in note 43 above, correctly states that Vireśvara's son wrote such a criticism. This son appears to have been Cakrapani or Cakrapānidatta. Sitaram Shastri's introduction to his edition of the Praudha Manoramā (p. (14)) states, on the basis of the two introductory verses it cites from this author's Praudhamanoramākhandana, that Cakrapāņi was Vīreśvara's pupil; this may not exclude that he was his son. (Sitaram Shastri reads vīreśvaragurum sesavamšottamam where the edition available to me has vateśvaram gurum sesavamsottamsam.) See also EIP V p. 223: "We know of no works authored by Sesa Vīreśvara)." If it is true that both Kaunda Bhatta and Hari Diksita refer to this same Vireśvara as the "ornament of the Sesa lineage" (Das, 1990: 326 n. 14), we may have to conclude that Vīreśvara somehow managed to stay out of the conflict opposing his lineage to that of Bhattoji. Alternatively - since Hari Dīksita's presumed reference to Vīreśvara is ambiguous - one may be tempted to think that Kaunda Bhatta's commentaries were composed before the conflict arose. Note that śesabhūsana in one of the introductory verses of the Bhūsana(-sāra) refers to Sesa Krsna according to Prabhākara Miśra (see his edition of the Vaiyakaranabhūsana sāra, pp. (16)-(17), 10). See further my forthcoming article "Bhattoji Dīksita and the revival of the philosophy of grammar."
Cakrapāni also continued Sesa Krsna's tradition by composing a commentary (called Prakriyapradīpa) on the Prakriyākaumudī; see Mimämsaka, sam: 1: 532 and Cakrapāni, Praudhamanoramākhandana p. 16 1.8; p. 18 1.12-13; etc. 63 Part of Jagannatha's Manoramākhandanarūpā Kucamardini ("She who crushes the nipple (of the lovely woman (manorumā)]") has been edited; see the bibliography.

Page #28

30
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
A Manoramākhandana by a certain Keśava is mentioned at NCC vol. 5, p. 60. Nothing seems to be known about this author.
Already Jagannātha's father Peru Bhatta appears to have been Vīreśvara's pupil (Upadhyāya, 1994: 67; Nāgesa on the second introductory verse of Jagannātha's Rasagangadhara); this suggests that Jagannatha may have been a lot younger than Sesa Krsna, and probably much younger than Bhattoji Dīksita as well. Jagannātha's father was also, in matters Mīmāmsaka, a student of Khandadeva, if Nāgesa's commentary on the Rasagangādhara (verse 2) is to be believed. This Khandadeva, according to McCrea (2002), reacts in his works to the ideas of the New Grammarians, i.e., Bhattoji Dīksita and, perhaps, Kaunda Bhatta. Once again, the age difference between Bhattoji and Jagannātha appears to have been great. [Lawrence McCrea informs me that, according to his pupil and commentator Sambhubhatta, Khandadeva died in Benares in 1665 at the age of 90.] 64 Mīmāmsaka, sam. 2030: I: 541; Joshi, 1980: 107-108. According to Upādhyāya (1994: 63) Bhattoji's son Bhānuji Dīksita - known for his commentary called Rāmāśramī or Vyākhyāsudhā on the Amarakosa - composed a Manoramämandana to defend his father's views against Cakrapāni. For examples of the way in which Hari Dīksita deals with criticisms uttered by Cakrapāni and Jagannātha, see Sitaram Shastri's introduction to his edition of the Praudha Manoramā, pp. (16) ff. The Laghu Sabdaratna, though ascribed to Hari Dīksita, was composed by his pupil Nāgesa; see Bronkhorst, 1986: 188 ff.; Joshi, 1980. (For the opposite opinion, see Abhyankar, 1952; 1964. This opinion is criticized in Bhat, 1965.)
Mīmāmsaka (sam. 2030: I: 533) refers to a commentary on the Prakriyakaumudi called Tattvacandra by a certain Jayanta of uncertain date, which is based on Sesa Krsna's commentary. One wonders whether and to what extent this text participated in the debate between the two camps. 65 Mīmāmsaka, sam. 2030: 1: 489-490; Introduction to Brahma Datta Dvivedī's edition of the Vaiyakaranabhūsanasära p. 36. 66 See Giridharaśarmā Caturvedī's introduction to the edition of Jagannātha's Rasagangādhara mentioned in the bibliography, p. 4 n. 1; further pp. 46 ff. ("Jagannāthapanditarājah'); Chaudhuri, 1954: 47 ff. We may suspect that the reported topic of debate does not correspond to historical reality. For another apocryphal account of the impression made by Jagannātha on the Mughal emperor, see Sarma, 2002: 71. 07 See Nāgesa on Jagannātha's Rasagangādhara p. 4: vastutas tu jagannāthapan ditarāja iti prthvīpatidattanāmābhilāpo 'yam. Further Chaudhuri, 1954: 48, and note 98, below. According to the end of Jagannātha's own Asaphavilāsa, the title panditarāya had been bestowed upon him by Shah Jahan; see Sarma, 2002: 71 n. 1. 68 Gode, n.d., Athavale, 1968. 69 Sitaram Shastri's introduction to his edition of the Praudha Manoramā gives the following romantic description of what supposedly happened in Benares (p. (16): (e)vam lekhapralekhādinā navīnakhandanagranthapranayanādinā tadanim vārāṇasyām sabhyasabhāsu vidvatsamavāyesu jānhavīghattasopānesu devágļhesu, vidusām kathanopakathanesu sahrdayānām svairagosthibandhesuca pratirathyam pratimandiram pratikutikotaram ca praudhamanoramām adhikrtyaiva vicāravimarśas tarka aksepapratisamādhānādikam ca janasammardena śrotrjanakolāhalena preksakavrndasādhuvādakaratādanādibhiś ca sākam samrambhena tathā samudiyāya yathā sarvam dinmandalam eva ksubhitāntarālam ivāsīt. Pathak, 1995: 15, repeats this passage without acknowledgement. 70 Cp. Manudeva Bhattacharya's remark in the introduction to his edition of Kaunda Bhatta's (Bșhad-) Vaiyākaranabhūsana (p. 12): yadi nāma śrīkaundabhattena bịhadbhūsanavyākhyā no vyadhāsyata, tarhi vaiyakaranamatonmajianasya majjanam evābhavisyat ity api kalpayitum sakyate. Manudeva Bhattachārya is

Page #29

BHATTOJI DIKṢITA ON SPHOTA
also of the opinion (p. 16) that the Bṛhad-Vaiyakaraṇabhuṣaṇa contains many citations from lost portions of the Sabdakaustubha. Since the Vaiyakaraṇabhūṣaṇa refers to the Manorama and is therefore later than this text, we cannot be sure that Bhattoji lived to see Kaunda Bhatta's commentaries on his work.
71 For references see Manudeva Bhattacharya's commentary Rūpālī on Kaunda Bhatta's Brhadvaiyakaranabhüsana, pp. 328-332.
72 Joshi, 1993: 10.
73 References in the Sabdakaustubha to a Bhatta are to the Mīmāmsaka Kumārila Bhatta. An example is Sabdakaustubha (ed. Nene et al.) I p. 22 1.24: tatha cakṛtyadhikarane bhattair uktam: niyogena vikalpena dve và saha samuccite/ sambandhaḥ samudayo va visistä vaikayetara, which quotes Kumarila Bhatta's Tantravärttika on sutra 1.3.30 (TanVar vol. II, p. 234).
14 The beginning of another work by Bhattoji, the Tattvakaustubha, refers back to this line: phanibhäṣitabhäsyäbdheh sabdakaustubha uddhṛtah sänkaräd api bhasyabdheh [tattva/kaustubham uddhare / (Gode, 1955: 203).
31
75 An indication in the text supporting that the Sabdakaustubha was intended as a commentary on the Mahabhāṣya is the remark to the extent that Kaiyata has described the word-sphota and the sentence-sphota in this very praghattaka (I p. 81. 1920: padasphotavakyasphotau tu ihaiva praghattake 'yenoccaritena' iti bhāṣya pratikam upadaya kaiyatena bhäsyärthataya varṇitau). The meaning of praghattaka must be as noted in the Vacaspatyam (VI p. 4431 s.v. praghattaka: ekārthapratipadanärthagrantha vayavabhede sam/khya]praf vacana/bhasye drstam). viz. a portion of a book. In this case a portion of the first Ahnika of the Mahabhāṣya must be intended, because it is there that we find the words yenoccaritena ..., and it is on these words that Kaiyata's speaks about the word-sphota and sentence-sphota. 76 E.g., Bhattoji Dīkṣita, Sabdakaustubha (ed. Nene et al.) I p. 22 1.22: yat tu sarūpasūtre bhäsye vaksyate, p. 23 1.7-8: vakṣyati hi varttikakṛt; p. 23 1.33-p. 24 1.1: ata eva bhāṣye vakṣyate; p. 33 1.8: vakṣyati hi tatra vārttikakāraḥ; p. 46 1.11-12, p. 71 1.26: bhāṣyakāro vakṣyati, p. 51 1.27: asiddhavatsütre bhäsyakṛtä vakṣyamāṇatva[1]; p. 61 1.4: tatha ca vakṣyati 'nud vācya uttarartham tu, iha kimcit trapo iti' (= Mahabh III p. 267 1.12, on P. 7.1.73 vt. 3); p. 68 1.10-11: 'tit svaritam' iti sütre bhāṣyakārair vaksyamāṇatvā[1]; p. 74 1.28-29: 'naveti vibhāṣā' iti sūtre bhāsyakāro vakṣyati; p. 75 1.8-9: ubhe abhyastam saha' iti sahagrahanam värttikakṛd vakṣyati, bhāṣyakāras tubhegrahanam evaitadartham iti vaksyati; etc.
77 The editor is not quite as explicit in the Sanskrit preceding the beginning of the edition (p. 1): mahāmahopadhyāyabhattojidiksitaviracitena sabdakaustubhena samalankṛtam, vyākaraṇa-mahābhāṣyam, tadvyäkhyānabhūtaḥ kaiyataviracitah pradipah etc.
78 Upadhyaya, 1994: 61: ... yaha mahābhāṣya kā bhi vivecaka grantha mānā jātā hai. Bhāgavata, 1999: Upodghāta p. 013.
80
A systematic search for references in the Suktiratnākara could not here be undertaken and remains a desideratum. Compare, however, the following passages: (i) Sesa Nārāyaṇa, Sūktiratnākara p. 123 1.6-8: anye tu kāropadeso rlvarnayoh savarnyanityatvajlapanärthah tena kipta3šikha ity atr[a]... plutah sidhyati; (ii) Bhattoji Diksita, Sabdakaustubha (ed. Nene et al.) I p. 42 1.30-31: Ikäropadešas tüktarityā klptasikhe plutasiddhaye sävarnyānityatām jñāpayitum kartavya ev[a]. See further below.
81 See Seṣa Nārāyaṇa, Sūktiratnākara p. 2 v. 6: yah... prakriyākaumudirkām... kṛtavan... so 'yam... srikṛṣṇa eväparah kṛṣṇah sesanṛ simhasuritanayah... 82 Mīmāmsaka (sam. 2030: I: 490) states that in his Sabdakaustubha Bhattoji criticizes the Prakriyaprakāśa at many places, but gives no concrete examples. He appears to be mistaken.

Page #30

32
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
83 Bali (1976: 2), referring to the introduction of an edition of the Vaiyakarana Bhūsana Sāra not accessible to me, states: "[Bhattoji's) predecessors are believed to have professed as priests in a Vaisnava temple and hence were called by the designation of Dīksita." Houben (2002: 477 n. 14) sees in the frequent title of Dīksita added to names an indication that Sanskrit intellectuals widely adhered to the Vedic ritual system. Witzel, 1994: 265 - with a reference to Kuttanīmata vs. 38 - points out that in Kashmir -diksita was the title of a Brahmin initiated to the solemn Vedic sacrifices such as the Soma ritual. Witzel also cites the following statement from Albīrūnī (ibid.): "When (a Brahmin) is busy with the service of one fire, he is called istin, if he serves three fires, he is called agnihotrin, if he besides offers an offering to the fire, he is called diksita." $4 Compare the following two passages: (i) Sesa Krsna, Prakāśa II p. 280 1.9-10: anye tu manutantu ity ekam samudāyam pathanti na tu dvau sabdau / tathā ca bahvrcabrāhmane prayogah 'manutantavyam uvāca' iti /. (ii) Bhattoji Dīksita, Sabdakaustubha (ed. Nene et al.) III p. 71: manutantusabdo 'tra pathyate / samudāya ekā prakstih / na tu prakrtidvayam / tathā ca bahv;cabrāhmaṇam / mānutantavyam uvāceti. 85 Compare: (i) Sesa Krsna, Prakāśa 1 p. 28 1.14: anye tu 'halant yam' iti sarvam eva sūtram āvartayanti /. (ii) Bhattoji Dīkṣita, Sabdakaustubha (ed. Nene et al.) II p. 56 1.15–16: sampūrņasūtrāvrttyä halsūtrasyāntyam halantyam iti vā /. This is, incidentally, not the position favored by Bhattoji. 86 Compare: (i) Sesa Krsna, Prakāśa I p. 56 1.21-22: anye tu dhātvadhikarena kāryavidhānāt sautrāņām api dhātūnām pātho 'numīyate ity āhuh /. (ii) Bhattoji Dīksita, Sabdakaustubha (ed. Nene et al.) II p. 50 1.5-7: na caivam sautresy avyāptih / stambh vādinām uditkaranena dhāt vadhikāriyakāryavidhänena ca dhātutvānumānāt /. 87 Compare: (i) Sesa Krsna, Prakāśa I p. 16 l. 20–22: anye tv āhuh: Ikāropadeśar Ivarnayoh sāvarnyānityatvajāpanārthah, tena praklpyamānam ity atra rvarṇān nasya nat vam na bhavati, klptaśikhah ity atra canrta iti plutapratisedho na bhavatīti; (ii) Bhattoji Dīksita, Sabdakaustubha (ed. Nene et al.) I p. 42 1. 30–31: Ikāropadešas tūktarityā klptaśikhe plutasiddhaye savarnyānityatām jñāpayitum kartavya ev[a]; cp. note 80, above. The part praklpyamānain ity atra rvarnan nasya natvam na bhavati has nothing corresponding to it in the relevant part of the Sabdakaustubha. 88 Bhattoji Dīksita, Sabdakaustubha (ed. Nene et al.) I p. 114 1.16. The sentence which Bhattoji ascribes to Sesa Krsna's Prakriyāprakāśa occurs in that work under P. 8.4.40 stoh ścunā ścuh (vol. I p. 138 1.18). 89 The situation is slightly complicated by the fact that Appayya Dīksita, claimed to have been one of Bhattoji's teachers, is said to have composed a grammatical work called Kaumudiprakāśa. Moreover, it is claimed that “[Bhattoji Dīksita] wrote Sabdakaustubha as a commemoration of his discipleship under Appayya" (EIP V p. 240). If all this is true, there may have been another commentary called Prakāśa on the Prakriyākaumudī, composed by another Dīksita, viz. Appayya. Both Bhattoji when referring to the Prakriyāprakāśa of his teacher, and Sesa Krsna while referring to a Dīksita, might then conceivably refer to this work. This is however unlikely, for none of the above claims is supported by evidence known to me. The New Catalogus Catalogorum merely mentions a Kaumudīprakāśa "by Tolappa (wrongly Appa) Dīksita" (s.v. Kaumudīprakāśa). 90 Mīmāmsaka, sam. 2030: I: 488 f. 9. He says, for example, in his Kucamardini (ed. Sadāshiva Sharma p. 2 1.21; ed. Madhusudana p. 4 1.3): amum cartham 'anudit' sütragatakaustubhakhandanāvasare vyak tam upapădayisyāmah. Further ed. Sadashiva Sharma p. 21 1.14, ed. Madhu

Page #31

BHATTOJI DIKSITA ON SPHOTA
33
sudana p. 43 1.11-12: adhikam kaustubhakhandanad avase yam. Note however that Jagannātha frequently criticizes the Kaustubha in his Kucaniardini. Y E.g., Cakrapani, Praudhamanoramākhandana p. 7 1.19; p. 17 1.3; p. 19 1.19. 93 Cohn, 1962: 314 [486), with reference to Abul Fzl-i-Allami, Ain-i-Akbari vol. II, tr. H.S. Jarrett, 2nd edn., Calcutta 1949, pp. 169-170. 94 Bernier, p. 254: "La ville de Bénarès ... est l'École générale, et comme l'Athènes de tous les hindous des Indes, où les brahmanes et les religieux, qui sont ceux qui s'appliquent à l'étude, se rendent. Ils n'ont point de collèges et de classes ordonnées comme chez nous; cela me semble plus tenir de cette façon d'école des Anciens, les maîtres étant dispersés par la ville dans leurs maisons, et principalement dans les jardins des faubourgs, où les gros marchands les acceptent. De ces maîtres, les uns ont quatre disciples, les autres six ou sept, et les plus renommés douze ou quinze tout au plus, qui passent les dix et douze années avec eux. ... ils étudient doucement et sans beaucoup se tourmenter, en mangeant leur khichri ou mélange de legumes que les riches marchands leur font apprêter." P. 259: "... Bénarès, cette fameuse école de toute la gentilité des Indes". 9 Bernier (p. 259 f.): "Lorsque je descendais le long du Gange et que je passai par Bénarès ..., j'allai trouver le chef des Pandits, qui fait là sa demeure ordinaire. C'est un fakir ou religieux tellement renommé pour son savoir que Shah Jahan, tant pour sa science que pour complaire aux Rajas, lui fit pension de deux mille roupies, qui est environ mille écus. C'était un gros homme très bien fait et qu'on regardait avec plaisir. Pour tout vêtement il n'avait qu'une espèce d'écharpe blanche de soie qui était liée à l'entour de la ceinture et qui pendait jusqu'à mi-jambe, avec une autre écharpe rouge de soie assez large qu'il avait sur ses épaules comme un petit manteau. Je l'avais vu plusieurs fois à Delhi dans cette posture devant le roi dans l'assemblée de tous les Omrahs, et marcher par les rues tantôt à pied tantôt en palanquin. Je l'avais aussi vu et j'avais conversé plusieurs fois avec lui, parce que, pendant un an, il s'était toujours trouvé à notre conférence devant mon Agah, à qui il faisait la cour, afin qu'il lui fit redonner sa pension qu'Aurangzeb, parvenu à l'Empire, lui avait ôté pour paraître grand musulman. Dans la visite que je lui rendis à Bénarès, il me fit cent caresses, et me donna même la collation dans la bibliothèque de son université avec les six plus fameux Pandits de la ville." 96 He is followed in this respect by Pollock (2001: 407-408; forthcoming). 97 Cp. Gode, 1969: 71: "I could not ... produce direct and independent evidence in support of this identity." Upādhyāya (1994: 77 f.) yet takes it for granted that Gode's identification of Bernier's chef des Pandits is correct. 98 Gode (n.d.: 452 n. 1) refers to a paper by Dr. Qanungo ("Some sidelights on the character and court-life of Shah Jahan", Journal of Indian History, Madras, vol. 8, 1929, pp. 49 and 50) according to which: "Jagannātha Kalāwant was first given the title of Kaviraya and after some time that of Mahā Kavirāya." See further note 67, above. 99 Jagannatha appears to have composed a work called Jagadābharaṇa in honor of Dara Shikoh; Upadhyāya, 1994: 67-68. 100 According to Qanungo's article specified in note 98: "On the 22nd Rabi-us-Sani Jagannātha Kalāwant presented to the emperor 12 literary pieces composed in the name of His Majesty (Shah Jahan), who was so pleased that Jagannātha was weighed against silver and the whole amount of Rs. 4500 was presented to Jagannātha." Moreover: "Jagannātha (Kalāwant) headed the list of authors at the Mughal Court." 101 Cp. Sherring, 1868: 346-47: "One of the principal reasons that Benares is so famous is, that it was formerly the resort of large numbers of Brahmans, who, divided into schools and colleges, pursued the study of the ancient Sanskrit writings. At one time there were many hundreds of such establishments, in which thousands of

Page #32

34
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
students were taught the philosophical tenets of Hinduism, and princes and nobles, in all parts of India, vied with each other in the support they rendered to the priests and pandits of Benares, and to the numerous Sanskrit colleges established in it. Enormous sums were annually given for this purpose, so that learned pandits and their disciples were alike nourished and cared for. Such munificence to teachers and pupils naturally attracted to Benares aspiring young Brahmans, from every province of India, who, receiving a thorough education in certain branches of philosophy, during their long and severe course of study, returned, eventually, to their native villages and towns, and became great local authorities on all religious topics, and the defenders and expounders of the national creed." Sherring further indicates that, "especially since the mutiny, the amount of ... support has greatly diminished" (p. 347). 102 Further examples are discussed in Chaudhuri, 1954; see also Chaudhuri, 1954a. 103 NCC vol. 7 p. 137 s.v. Jagannātha Panditarāja. 104 So Hueckstedt, 2002: 50–51, which draws upon Tripāthī, 1977: (ā), (u); similarly Pathak, 1995: 13. See further Upadhyāya, 1994: 60. Belvalkar (1915: 38) describes this patron as "a (petty) king of Patrapunja, a small place in the Duab formed by the Ganges and the Yamunā." 105 Gode, 1954: 209 ff.; 1955. See also note 112, below. 106 Schwartzberg, 1978: 2006. Ikkeri was situated near Shimoga in the present state of Karnataka, at the higher end of a path crossing the Western Ghat (Deloche, 1968: 55, 92). A map from 1737 made for Jesuits which clearly indicates the "Prince d'Ikkeri" is reproduced opposite p. 1 in Murr, 1987: vol. II. It is not without interest to note that Bhattoji's patron Venkatappa Nāyaka I, according to the information provided by Pietro della Valle in 1623, gave in to the same temptation as his enemy Panditarāja Jagannatha, viz. that of becoming "fond of a Moorish Woman", as a result of which his chief wife no longer engaged with him in the "Matrimonial Act" (Grey, 1892: II: 207-209). We further learn from Della Valle that Venkatappa was a Lingavant (Lingayat), a vegetarian, and stingy (p. 246), a worshipper of Aghoreśvara (p. 272), and having "neither State, Court, nor appearance, befitting a true King" (p. 216). The rulers of Ikkeri were no doubt perfect examples of what Nicholas Dirks calls little kings, to be distinguished from a great king; cp. Frenz, 2000: 45 ff. 107 Smith, 1902: 423. 108 Cp. Richards, 1993: 19 ff.; Spear, 1973: 31-34: "Akbar's stroke was to raise himself from the position of a leader of a minority Indo-foreign group (the Muslims) to the accepted ruler of all Hindustan. The previous sultans of Delhi had, it is true, employed Hindus largely in their administration and used Hindu contingents in their wars, but they were always subordinate with no say in policy, the troops mercenaries to be hired and fired. ... Akbar's method was to make a deal with the Hindus and to do this through their militant representatives, the Rajputs. ... The Rajputs were not only concentrated in Rajasthan, the area of their continued independence, but scattered all over north India as chiefs and groups of sturdy cultivators. They were the spearhead of Hinduism as the Brahmins were the mind. ... [B]y a series of understandings Akbar brought the Rajput chiefs into the service of the empire. In effect the Rajputs were to be given high office and imperial honours in return for allegiance and loyal service. The method was the employment of Rajput chiefs as military commanders, provincial governors, and members of Akbar's confidential circle or 'privy council'. ... Thus in effect the Rajputs became partners in the empire and through them the whole Hindu community came to accept the Mughal government as in some sense their own." Cp. also Dalmia, 1997: 67: "The revenuepaying patterns estimated by the information given in the Ain-e-Akbari for the districts of Jaunpur, Ghazipur-Ballia and Banaras, according to Bernhard (sic) Cohn [(1969: 347)], were roughly 50 percent Rajputs, 30 percent Bhūmihar, 11 percent

Page #33

BHATTOJI DIKSITA ON SPHOTA
35
Brahmans and 3 percent Muslims, though in the Banaras region the Bhūmihars owned as much as 79 percent of the land." (p. 65-66: "The Bhūmihars were a caste settled mainly in what is today western Bihar and eastern Uttar Pradesh. They had always tended to claim Brahmanical status, but they did not carry out priestly functions and were essentially landed classes with distinct customs and practices.") See further Cohn, 1969: 346-349: "[The position (of Rajputs] as land controllers and revenue payers was usually based on conquests of semi-aboriginal tribes ... in the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries and of other Rajput clans or of Muslim jagirdars from pre-Mughal times. ... In general, Rajputs were replacing Muslim families as zamindars during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries." 109 Spear, 1973: 41 draws attention to two measures in particular that were installed: "The first was rotation of office; Mughal officers rarely held high appointments, such as governorships, for more than three or four years at a time. The second was the resumption of their property at death. The assignments of land were for life only; the next generation had to start from the bottom with an official appointment. During life, payments were always in arrears so that they were only able to make ends meet by means of advances from the Treasury. At death, the great man's property was sealed and nothing was released until the advances had been recovered. The process amounted to death-duties of about a 100%. Aware of the fate which hung over them the Mughal lords accentuated the situation by heavy spending. Why not get the glory to be derived from ostentation and public works when you could pass nothing on to your family? Thus the Mughal nobles were notable for their ostentation, their crowds of retainers with even more than the average insolence of office, their works of piety in the shape of mosques, wells, and rest houses, of ease like their gardens and summerhouses, and of remembrances like their great doned tombs." 110 Pietro della Valle says the following about Venkatappa Nāyaka (Grey, 1892: II: 243): “I style him King because the Portugals themselves and the Indians do so; but, in truth, Venk-tapa Naieka, (not only because his Predecessors were a few years ago Vassals and simple Naiekas, that is feudatory Princes, or rather Provincial Gouvernours, under the King of Vidianagher; and at this day he himself reigns absolutely by Usurpation, and is in effect no other then a Rebel; (and God know how long his House will abide in greatness); but also much more by reason of the smallness of his territory, though it be great, in respect of other Indian Gentile-Princes) deserves not the Appellation of King; and the less because he pays Tribute to Idal-Sciàh, who although a greater Prince, is but small for a King and payes Tribute to the Moghol. In short, Venk-tapà Naieka, although now absolute, should in my opinion, be call'd a Royolet rather than a King ..." For some remarks about indigenous banking techniques, esp. the so-called hundi, see Bouchon, 1994: 144, Chatterjee, 1996: 187 ff.; for further remarks concerning the following century, see Kieffer, 1983: 234 ff. (“Les banquiers et les techniques bancaires"). " Smith, 1902: 130 ff.; 1958: 346 f. Richards, 1993: 35 observes: “Father Monserrate gives a vivid picture of a series of bitter disputations with the ulema at the Mughal court. On these occasions, from the Jesuit point of view at least, Akbar was noticeably sympathetic to the Christian point of view and impatient with the inability of the Muslim theologians to argue effectively against them." Richards further points out (p. 37) that from 1578 onward Akbar dispensed pious grants of land to learned and religious men of all religions - not just Islam: “Yogis living in monasteries (maths) received lands. Zoroastrian divines (Parsis) obtained lands. Even Brahmin priests enjoyed Akbar's largess." 112 NCC vol. 5, p. 92, with reference to Adyar D. VI.560, and following dates: 1619– 1631 A.D. for Vidyādhāśayati and 1592-1629 A.D. for Venkatappa. This information is no doubt based on the following verse which occurs at the end of Kaunda Bhatta's BỊhadvaiyakaranabhūsana (p. 331): vidyādhisavaderusanjñakayatim brī

Page #34

36
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
madhvabhattārakam. jitvā keladivenkatayyasavidhe 'py andolikām prāptavan / yas cakre niunivaryasūtravivrtim siddhantabhangam tathā, mādh vänām tam aham gurūpamagurum rangojibhattam bhajell. We learn from this verse that the real name of the opponent must have been Vaderu / Baderu, and that vidyādhisa and yati were his attributes. Gode (1940: 65 n. 1) cites the following passage from an article in the Karnatak Historical Review (January-July 1937) by Dr. Saletore: "As regards the age in which [Bhattoji Dīksita) lived we learn from the opening verses of TattvaKaustubha that he wrote it at the order of Keladi Venkatendra (Keladi Venkatendrasya nirdeśāt vidusām mude). (Read Hultzsch, Report on Sanskrit Mss of South India, II, Intro, Pp. xii, 122, Madras, 1895-1896). The ruler Venkatendra mentioned here is to be identified with king Venkatapa Nāyak I, who ruled from A.D. 1582 till A.D. 1629 (Rice: Mysore and Coorg from the Inscriptions, p. 157). King Venkatapa Nīyak was noted for the patronage he gave to learned men (Read Keladi Basavaraja, Sivatattvaratnākara, Kallola VI, Taranga XIII. Ed. by B. Ramarao and Sundara Sastri, Mangalore, 1927; cf. S.K. Aiyangar, Sources of Vijayanagar History, p. 345). He himself seems to have composed a commentary in Sanskrit on the Siva Gītā of Padmapurāna (Trien. Cata. of Mss in the Govt. Ori. Mss Library, Madras, p. 2623)." See further note 106, above. 113 Smith, 1958: 380, 416; Richards, 1993: 175; Altekar, 1937: 35 ff. 114 This suggests that the contrast which according to Houben (2002: 463 f.) exists between Bhattoji, who highlights his differences from his predecessors, and Bharthari, who tries to hide them, is in need of careful specification.
REFERENCES
Abhyankar, K.V. (1952). Date and authorship of the Sabdaratna and the Brhat
Sabdaratna. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 32 51951). 258--
260. Abhyankar, K.V. (1964). Authorship of the Laghusabdaratna. Annals of the Bhan
darkar Oriental Research Institute 45, 152-158. Altekar, A.S. (1937). History of Benares (from the Earliest Times Down to 1937).
Benares: Culture Publication House, Benares Hindu University. Athavale, R.B. (1968). New light on the life of Panditarāja Jagannātha. Annals of the
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Golden Jubilee Volume, pp. 415-420. Bali, Suryakant (1976). Bhattoji Diksita. His Contribution to Sanskrit Grammar. New
Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Bal Shastri (ed.) (1988). Mahabhashya of Patanjali vol. I part I (Nawahnikam),
with the commentaries Bhattoji Deekshita's 'Shabdakaustubh', Nagojibhatta's 'Uddyota' & Kaiyata's 'Pradipa', Ab[h]inavarajlakshmi by Pt. Guru Prasad
Shastri. Vārānasī. Belvalkar, Shripad Krishna (1915). An Account of the Different Existing Systems of
Sanskrit Grammar. Second revised edition: Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan, Delhi/
Varanasi, 1976. Bernier, François (1981). Voyage dans les États du Grand Mogol. Fayard. Bhāgavata, Vāmanaśāstrī (ed.) (1999). Sesa-Nārāyanaviracitah Sūktiratnākarah I.
Pune: Anandāśrama. Bhānuji Dīksita: Rāmāśrami. In: Nāmalingānuśāsana or Amarakosa of Amar
asimha, with the Rāmāsrami (Vyakhyāsudhā) commentary of Bhānuji Dīksita (Rāmāśrama), edited with the easy Maniprabhā (Prakāśa) Hindi commentary and notes etc., by Pt. Haragovinda Sāstrī. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office. 1970. (Kashi Sanskrit Series, 198.)

Page #35

BHATTOJI DIKSITA ON SPHOTA
37
· Bhat, M.S. (1965). In S.N. Gajendragadkar & S.A. Upadhyaya (eds.), Authorship of
the Laghuśabdaratna. H.D. Velankar Commemoration Volume (pp. 203-205).
Bombay. Bhattoji Dīksita: Praudha Manoramă. (1) Edited, with the Brhacchabdaratna of Hari
Dīksita and the Laghusabdaratna of Nāgesa Bhatta, by Sitaram Shastri. First volume. Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University. 1964. (Hindu Vishwavidyalaya Nepal Räjya Sanskrit Series, 8.) (2) Edited, with the Laghuśabdaratna of Hari Dīksita, the Jyotsnä of Jagannātha Sāstrī Pandeya, ... the Kucamardini of Panditarāja Jagannātha, ... by Pandit Sadashiva Sharma Shastri. Benaras:
Chaukhamba Sanskrit Series Office. 1991. (Haridas Sanskrit Series, 23.) Bhattoji Dīksita: Sabdakaustubha. (1) Vol. I, ed. Pt. Gopāl Šāstrī Nene and Pt. Srī
Mukund Sāstrī Puņtāmkar (navāhnika); Vol. II with Sphotacandrikā of Sri Krsna Bhatta Mauni, ed. Pt. Gopāl Šāstrī Nene; Vol. III, ed. Vindhyeśwarī Prasad Dvivedī and Ganapati Sastri Mokāte. Reprint: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, Varanasi, 1991. (Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, 2.) (2) See under Bal
Shastri. Biswal, Banamali (1995). The Samāsasaktinirnaya (Chapter V of the
Vaiyākaranabhūsana) of Kaunda Bhatta. Critically edited with introduction and
exhaustive explanatory notes. Allahabad: Padmaja Prakashan. Bouchon, Geneviève (1994). L'Empire dans sa Prospérité = Markovits, 1994: 133
157 (chapitre VII). Bronkhorst, Johannes (1986): Tradition and Argument in Classical Indian Linguistics.
Reidel, Dordrecht. (Studies in Classical India, volume 6.) (Reprint: Motilal Ba
narsidass, Delhi, 2003.) Bronkhorst, Johannes (1987). Three Problems Pertaining to the Mahābhāsya. Poona:
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. (Post-graduate and Research Department Series, 30; Pandit Shripad Shastri Deodhar Memorial Lectures, Third
Series.) Brough, John (1951). Theories of general linguistics in the Sanskrit grammarians.
Transactions of the Philological Society, 27-46. Reprint: Staal, 1972: 402-414;
Brough, 1996: 79--98. Brough, John (1996). Collected Papers In Minoru Hara & J.C. Wright ed., London:
School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Cakrapānidatta: Praudhamanoramākhandana. Ed. Vidhyeśvarī Prasāda Dvivedin.
Benares: E.J. Lazarus. (Published in The Pandit 32, 1910, 1-60; 33, 1911, 61-76;
34, 1912, 77-120; 35, 1913, 121-134; 36, 1914, title page). Cardona, George (1968). Review of Joshi, 1967. Journal of the Oriental Institute,
Baroda, 17, 445 450. Cardona, George (1976). Panini, A Survey of Research. The Hague: Mouton. Rep
rint: Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1980. Chatterjee, Kumkum (1996). Merchants, Politics & Society in Early Modern India,
Bihar: 1733-1820. Leiden etc.: E.J. Brill. (Brill's Indological Library, 10). Chaudhuri, Jatindra Bimal (1954). Muslim Patronage to Sanskritic Learning. 2nd ed.
Calcutta: Prācyavāņi. Chaudhuri, Jatindra Bimal (1954a). Contributions of Muslims to Sanskrit Learning:
Khan Khānān Abdur Rahim ( 1557–1630 A.D.) and contemporary Sanskrit learning
(1551-1650 A.D.). Calcutta: Prācyavānī. Cohn, Bernard S. (1962). Political systems in eighteenth century India: the Banaras
region. Journal of the American Oriental Society 82, 312-320. Reprint: Cohn, 1987:
483-499. Cohn, Bernard S. (1969). Structural change in Indian rural society 1596-1885. (Land
Control and Social Structure in Indian History. Ed. Robert E. Frykenberg. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.) Reprint: Cohn, 1987: 343-421.

Page #36

38
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
Cohn, Bernard S. (1987). An Anthropologist Among the Historians and Other Essays.
Delhi etc.: Oxford University Press. Coward, Harold G. & K. Kunjunni Raja (ed.) (1990). Encyclopedia of Indian Phi
losophies, Volume V: The Philosophy of the Grammarians. Delhi etc.: Motilal Ba
narsidass. Dalmia, Vasudha (1997). The Nationalization of Hindu Traditions. Bhāratendu
Harischandra and Nineteenth-Century Banaras. Delhi etc.: Oxford University
Press. Das, Karunasindhu (1990). A Paninian Approach to Philosophy of Language
(Kaundabhatta's Vaiyakaranabhūsanasāra critically edited and translated into
English). Calcutta: Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar. Deloche, Jean (1968). Recherches sur les Routes de l'Inde au Temps des Mogols
(Étude Critique des Sources). Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve. (Publications de l'Ecole
Française d'Extrême-Orient, 67.) Deshpande, Madhav M. (1992). The Meaning of Nouns. Semantic Theory in Classical
and Medieval India: Nāmārtha-nirnaya of Kaundabhalta. Dordrecht, Boston,
London: Kluwer (Studies of Classical India, 13). Frenz, Margret (2000). Vom Herrscher zum Untertan. Spanning verhältnis zwischen
lokaler Herrschaftsstruktur und der Kolonialverwaltung in Malabar zu Beginn der britischen Herrschaft (1790-1805). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. (Beiträge zur
Südasienforschung, Südasien-Institut, Universität Heidelberg, 188.) Gaurinath Sastri (1980). A Study in the Dialectics of Sphota. Delhi etc.: Motilal
Banarsidass. Gode, P.K. (n.d.): The tradition about liaison of Jagannātha Panditarāja with a
Muslim lady (yavanī) - is it a myth?" (Bhāratiya Vidyā 6(1), 57-62.) Reprint:
Gode, 1954: 452-459. Gode, P.K. (1940). A new approach to the date of Bhattoji Dīksita. Annals of the
S.V. Oriental Institute (Tirupati) 1, 117–127. Reprint: Gode, 1954: 65–74. Gode, P.K. (1941), Bernier and Kavindrācārya Sarasvatī at the Mughal court.
Journal of S.V. Oriental Institute, Tirupati 1(4), 1-16. Reprint in: Gode, 1954: 364
379. Gode, P.K.(1941a). Varadarāja, a pupil of Bhattoji Dīksita and his works - between
A.D. 1600 and 1650. (Festschrift Prof. P.V. Kane (1941), pp. 188-199.) Reprint:
Gode, 1954: 316-329. Gode, P.K. (1941b). A rare manuscript of the Vedabhāsyasāra of Bhattoji Dīksita.
Adyar Library Bulletin 5, 176-180. Reprint: Gode, 1954: 75–78. Gode, P.K. (1954). Studies in Indian Literary History. Vol. II. Bombay: Bhāratīya
Vidya Bhavan. (Shri Bhadur Singh Singhi Memoirs, vol. 5.) Gode, P.K. (1954a). The chronology of the works of Kondabhatta (a nephew of
Bhattoji Dīksita): between A.D. 1610 and 1660. Adyar Library Bulletin 18(3-4),
210-216. Reprint: Gode, 1956: 207-211. Gode, P.K. (1955). The contact of Bhattoji Dīksita and some members of his family
with the Keladi rulers of Ikkeri - between c. A.D. 1592 and 1645. Journal of the
Oriental Institute (Baroda) 4(1), 33–36. Reprint: Gode, 1956: 203-206. Gode, P.K. (1969). Some evidence about the location of the manuscript library of
Kavīndrācārya Sarasvati at Benares in A.D. 1665. In Studies in Indian Cultural
History vol. III (P.K. Gode Studies vol VI), I: 71-76. Gordon, Stewart (1993). The Marathas 1600-1818. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni
versity Press. (The New Cambridge History of India, ed. Gordon Johnson, vol. 2/
4.) Grey, Edward (1892). The Travels of Pietro della Valle in India. From the old English
translation of 1664 by G. Havers. Edited, with a life of the author, an introduction and notes. 2 vols. London: Hakluyt Society.

Page #37

BHATTOJI DĪKSITA ON SPHOTA
39
Haraprasad Shastri (1912). Dakshini pandits at Benares. Indian Antiquary 41, 7-13. Hintze, Andrea (1997): The Mughal Empire and its Decline. An Interpretation of the
Sources of Social Power. Aldershot, Brookfield USA, Singapore, Sydney: Ashgate. Houben, Jan E.M. (2002). The Brahmin intellectual: history, ritual and 'time out of
time'. Journal of Indian Philosophy 30, 463–479. Hueckstedt, Robert A. (2002). Some later arguments on iko van aci. In Madhav M.
Deshpande & Peter E. Hook. (eds.), Indian Linguistic Studies. Festschrift in Honor
of George Cardona (pp. 44-72). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Iyer, K.A. Subramania (ed., tr.) (1966). Sphotasiddhi of Mandana Miśra. Poona:
Deccan College Post-graduate and Research Institute. (Deccan College Building
Centenary Series, 25.) Jagannātha Pandita: Rasagangādhara. With the commentaries of Nāgeśa Bhatta and
Mathurā Nātha śāstrī. Delhi etc.: Motilal Banarsidass. Reprint 1983. Jagannātha Pandita. Kucamardini or Kucamardana. (1) See under Bhattoji Dīksita,
Praudha Manoramā. (2) Manorama-Kuchamardanam of Paditarāj Jagannath, with the Balakrida Hindi commentary, ed. Acharya Madhusudan Shastri,
Krishnadas Academy, Varanasi, 1983. Joshi, S.D. (1967). The Sphotanirnaya (Chapter XIV of the Vaiyakarana
bhūsaņasāra) of Kaunda Bhatta. Edited with Introduction, Translation, and Critical and Exegetical Notes. Poona: University of Poona. (Publications of the
Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, Class C, No. 2.) Joshi, Shivaram Dattatray (1993, 1995, 1997). "Kaunda Bhatta on the meaning of
Sanskrit verbs." Nagoya Studies in Indian Culture and Buddhism, Sambhāsā 14,
1-39; 16, 1-66; 18, 1-34. Joshi, S.D. & J.A.F. Roodbergen (1990). Patanjali's Vyakarana-Mahābhāsya,
Sthānivadbhāvähnika. Part I (P. 1.1.56-1.1.57). Introduction, text, translation and notes. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. (Research Unit Publica
tions, 11.) Joshi. S.D. & J.A.F. Roodbergen (1991). The Astādhyāyi of Panini. With translation
and explanatory notes. Volume I (1.1.1-1.1.75). New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi. Joshi, Venkateshshastri (1980). Authorship of the Laghuśabdaratna. In
D.G. Koparkar & G.U. Thite (eds.), Problems in Sanskrit Grammar, by
Venkateshshastri Joshi. (pp. 107-161) Poona: Dastane Ramchandra & Co. Kaiyata: Mahābhāsyapradīpa. See Patañjali (2). Kaunda Bhatta: Bịhadvaiyakaraṇabhūsaņa. Edited, with 'Rūpālī notes and ap
pendix, by Pt. Manudeva Bhattachārya. Varanasi: Chaukhamba Amarabharati
Prakashan. 1985. (Harjivandas Prachyavidya Granthamala, 2). Kaunda Bhatta: Vaiyakaranabhūsanasāra. (i) Edited, with 'Prabhā' commentary by
Pt. Srī Bālakṣsna Pancholi, and with 'Darpana' commentary, by Sri Harivallabha Sästrī. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office. 1969. (Kashi Sanskrit Series, 188.) (ii) Edited, with Prābhākara Hindi and Sanskrit commentary, by Prabhakara Miśra. Varanasi: Arabindamiśra, Makarandamiśra. 1982. (iii) Edited, with 'Darpana' Hindi commentary, by Brahma Datta Dvivedī. Varanasi, Delhi:
Chaukhambha Orientalia. 1985. (Chaukhambha Prachyavidya Series, 17.) Kieffer, Jean-Luc (1983). Anquetil-Duperron. L'Inde en France au XVIIIe siècle.
Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Markovits, Claude (ed.) (1994). Histoire de l'Inde moderne 1480–1950. Fayard. McCrea, Lawrence (2002). Novelty of form and novelty of substance in seventeenth
century Mīmāmsā. Journal of Indian Philosophy 30, 481-494. Mīmāmsaka, Yudhisthira (sam. 2030). Samskrta Vyākarana-Šāstra kā lihāsa. 3
parts. Bahālagadha, Sonīpāta (Haryana): Ramlal Kapur Trust. Murr, Sylvia (1987). L'Inde philosophiqu entre Bossuet et Voltaire. I: Moeurs et
coutumes des indiens (1777), un inédit du Père G.-L. Coeurdoux s.j. dans la

Page #38

40
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
version de N.-J. Desvaulx. II: L'indologie du Père Coeurdoux: stratégies, apologétique et scientificité. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve. (Publications de l'Ecole
Française d'Extrême-Orient, 146.) Nägesa Bhatta: Rasagangādharatikā. See under Jagannatha. Nāgesa Bhatta: Sphotavāda. Edited, with his own commentary Subodhinī, by
V. Krishnamacharya. Adyar, Madras: The Adyar Library and Research Centre.
1946. Reprint 1977. Palsule, G.B. (ed., tr.) (1988): Mahābhāsyadipikā of BhartȚhari. Fascicule V: Ähnika
II. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. (Post-Graduate and Research
Department Series, 31.) Pandeya, Ramajna (1954). An Introduction to the Philosophy of Sanskrit Grammar.
Banaras: Government Sanskrit Library. (The Princess of Wales Sarasvati Bhavana
Studies, XI.) Patañjali: Vyakarana-Mahābhāsya. (1) See abbreviations, under Mahā-bh. (2) Edi
ted, with Kaiyata's Pradīpa and Nāgoji Bhatta's Pradīpoddyota, by Vedavrata.
Rohataka: Harayānā-sahitya-samsthāna. 5 vols. 1962-1963. Pathak, Parushottam Prasad (1995). Nāgesamate paribhāsāņām vivecanam. Delhi:
Eastern Book Linkers. Pollock, Sheldon (2001). The death of Sanskrit. Comparative Studies in Society and
History 43(2), 392-426. Pollock, Sheldon (forthcoming): The languages of science in early-modern India. In
K. Preisendanz (ed.), Halbfass Commemoration Volume. Vienna: Akademie der Wissenschaften. Rāmacandra: Prakriyākaumudī. (1) The Prakriyākaumudī of Rāmachandra, with
the comentary Prasāda of Vitthala. Ed. Rao Bahadur Kamalashankar Pranashankar Trivedi. 2 vols. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 1925, 1931. (Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series 78, 82.) (2) Prakriyakaumudi by Rāmacandrācārya with Prakāśa by Srikrisna. Edited, with his Raśmi, by Muralīdhara Miśra. Introduction (Prāstāvikam) by Bhāgiratha Prasāda Tripāthī. 3 vols. Varanasi: Sampurnanad Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya. 1977-1980. (Sar
asvatībhavana-Granthamālā, 111-112.) Ranganathasvami Aryavaraguru, S.P.V. (1912). On the Seshas of Benares. Indian
Antiquary 41, 245-253. Richards, John F. (1993). The New Cambridge History of India, 1.5. The Mughal
Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Salomon, Richard (1985). The Bridge to the Three Holy Cities. The Sāmānya-pra
ghattaka of Nārāyana Bhatta's Tristhalisetu. Delhi etc.: Motilal Banarsidass. Sarma, Sreeramula Rajesware (2002). From yāvanī to samskrtam: Sanskrit writings
inspired by Persian Works. Studies in the History of Indian Thought Indo-shisőshi
Kenkyū (Kyoto) 14, 71-88. Schwartzberg, Joseph E. (ed.) (1978). A Historical Atlas of South Asia. Chicago and
London: University of Chicago Press. Sesa Krsna: Prakriyāprakāśa. For the edition used, see Rāmacandra. Sesa Nārāyaṇa: Sūktiratnākara. See Bhāgavata, 1999. Sharma, Rama Nath (1995). The Astādhyāyī of Pānini. Volume III. English trans
lation of adhyāyas two and three with Sanskrit text, transliteration, word-boundary, anuvștti, vștti, explanatory notes, derivational history of
examples, and indices. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Sharma, Sri Ram (1938). A Bibliography of Mughal India (1526-1707 A.D.). Bom
bay: Karnatak Publishing House. Reprint: Porcupine Press, Philadelphia, 1977. Sherring, M.A. (Matthew Atmore) (1868): Benares, the Sacred City of the Hindus in
Ancient and Modern Times. Reprint: B.R. Publishing Corporation, Delhi, 1975.

Page #39
BHATTOJI DIKSITA ON SPHOTA 41 Smith, Vincent A. (1902). Akbar the Great Mogul, 1542-1605. 2nd edn., revised. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Smith, Vincent A. (1958). The Oxford History of India. 3rd edn., edited by Percival Spear. ... Part II, revised by J.B. Harrison. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Spear, Percival (1973): A History of India. Volume Two. Reprinted with revisions. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Sri Krsna Bhatta Maunin: Sphotacandrika. Ed. Pt. Gopal Sastri Nene. See under Bhattoji Diksita: Sabdakaustubha. Staal, J.F. (ed.) (1972). A Reader on the Sanskrit Grammarians. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Reprint: Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1985. Tripathi, Bhagiratha Prasada (1977). Prastavikam. See under Ramacandra, Prakriyakaumidi (2). Upadhyaya, Baladeva (1994). Kasi ki panditya-parampara (kasistha samsksta vidvanom ke jivanacarita evam sahityika avadanom ka pramanika vivarana) [1200-1980). 2nd edn. Varanasi: Visvavidyalaya Prakasana. Vacaspatyam. Vachaspatyam (a comprehensive Sanskrit dictionary), compiled by Sri Taranatha Tarkavachaspati. 3rd edn. 6 vols. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office. 1969-1970. (Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, 94.) Vitthala: Prakriyaprasada. For the edition used, see Ramacandra. Witzel, Michael (1994): The Brahmins of Kashmir. In Y. Ikari (ed.), A Study of the Nilamata. Aspects of Hinduism in Ancient Kashmir (pp. 237-294). Kyoto: Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University. ABBREVIATIONS: ASS Anandasrama Sanskrit Series, Poona Kane, HistDh Pandurang Vaman Kane, History of Dharmasastra, second edition, Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 5 vols., 1968-1977 Maha-bh Patanjali, (Vyakarana-) Mahabhasya, ed. F. Kielhorn, Bombay 1880-1885 NCC New Catalogus Catalogorum, by V. Raghavan, K. Kun junni Raja, etc., Madras: University of Madras, 1968 ff. TanVar Tantravarttika of Kumarilabhatta (ASS, 97) Section de langues et civilisations orientales Universite de Lausanne BFSH 2 CH-1015 Lausanne Switzerland E-mail: johannes.bronkhorst@unil.ch