Studies On Bhartrhari

Author(s): Johannes Bronkhorst
Publisher: Johannes Bronkhorst
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269568/1

Page #1

101
Johannes Bronkhorst
Studies on Bhartshari, 2.
Bhartshari and Mîmāmsāk
1.1. Both Bhartshari and Sabara pay a good deal of attention to the subject
of üha 'modification, adjustment'. Bhartshari discusses it in the first Ahnika of his commentary on the Mahābhāşya (AL 5.18-8.17, Sw 6.179.27, Ms 2b9-3c1), while parts of Adhyāya 9 of Sabara's Bhāşya deal with it. Two cases in particular are treated by both the authors and allow of a detailed comparison.
The first case is most easily introduced with the help of Sabara's Bhāșya on Pūrva Mīmāņsā Sūtra 9.3.10:
asti pasur agnisomiyah, yo dikşito yad agnişomiyam pagum alabhata iti / tatra pāśaikatvábhidhāyi mantrah, aditih pašam pramumoktv etam iti / tathā pasabahutvābhidhāyi, aditiņ pāśān pramumoktu etān iti / .../ asti dvipasur vikrtiḥ / maitram svetam alabheta, vārunam krenam apām causadhinām ca samdhāvannakāma iti / tatra codakena pāsābhidhayinau mantrau prāptau / tayoḥ samsayah / kim bahuvacananto'vikārena pravartate, ekavacanantasya nivịttiḥ, uta bahuvacanănto nivartate, ekavacanānta uhitavyaḥ, utobhayor api pravrttir abhidhänavipratipattis ca, utaikavacananta uhitavyo bahuvacanānto'pi na nivarteta / kim prāptam / "There is the Agniștomiya animal (sacrifice) laid down in the text yo dikșito yad agnişomiyam pasum alabhate ('When one, being initiated, sacrifices the animal dedicated to Agni-Soma'). In connection with this there is a mantra, speaking of the singleness of the noose (pasa): aditiņ pašam pramumoktu etam (May Aditi loosen this noose'); also [there is another mantra] speaking of the plurality of the noose: aditiņ pasan pramumoktu etān. ... [Then again, ] there is a modificatory sacrifice (vikrti) [of the Agnișomiya] at which two animals [are killed], laid down in the text
*
This article was written with the financial assistance of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (N.W.0.).

Page #2

102
Johannes Bronkhorst
maitram svetam alabheta, vāruņam krsnam etc. ('The white [goat] should be sacrificed to Mitra and the black (goat] to Varuņa'). In accordance with the General Law, both the mantras that mention a noose come to be regarded as to be used at this sacrifice of two animals]. In regard to [the use of] these two (mantras at this last sacrifice of two goats, there arise] the following questions: (a) Is (the word] in the plural form to be used in its unmodified form and that in the singular form to be excluded? Or (b) should the plural form be excluded and the singular form be modified [into a dual form]? Or (c) should both (the plural and the singular forms] be used, there being a diversity of expression (i.e. option) [regarding the one to be actually used in any particular case]? Or (d) should the singular form be modified, the plural form also [in its modified form (?)] not being excluded ?" (tr. Gangānātha Jhā, vol. III p. 1561; modified)
The problem here raised is subsequently discussed in the Bhäşya. Four solutions are proposed, the fourth one of which is finally accepted. For our present purposes it is however interesting to study the first solution, which is not accepted by Sabara. It reads (on PMS 9.3.10):
anyāyas tv avikāreņa / anyāyanigado bahuvacananto'vikārena pravartate / ekavacanānto nivartitum arhati / kutaḥ / nāsyaikasmin påse pravartamānasya dretaḥ pratighātaḥ / yathaivaikasmin pase pravartate, tathā dvayorapi pravartitum arhati / nāsāv ekasya vācakah, na dvayoḥ / evam ārşać codako 'anugrhito bhavişyati / itarathā hi ühyamane yathāprakrti mantro na krtah syāt / na dvayoḥ pāśayoh, ekasmims.ca pase kaścid viseşo 'sti / tasmad avikāreņa bahuvacanantah prayujyate, ekavacanāntasya nivrttir iti /
That which is uncompatible [should be used) in its unmodified form'; [i.e.] the plural form, which is incompatible with the primary sacrifice at which there is only one animal], is used [at the sacrifice of two animals] in its unmodified form, and the singular form should be excluded. Why so? Because we find no obstacle to its being used in the case of there being [only one animal and] one noose; (so that ] just as it is used in the case of [one animal and) one noose, so should it be used also in the case of there being [two animals) and two (nooses; especially as the plural form] is expressive of neither one nor two. In thus (using the plural form in its unmodified form, ]

Page #3

Bhartshari and Mímāmsā
103
the scriptual injunction of the General Law becomes honoured; while in the other case, if [the words ] were modified, then the mantra would not be used in the form in which it is used at the primary sacrifice. Nor is there any difference between one noose and two nooses (so far as the applicability of the plural form is concerned). From all this it follows that the plural form is used in its unmodified form and the
singular form is excluded." (tr. Cangānātha Jhā, p. 1562; modified) As said before, Śabara does not accept this position. He comes to the conclusion, under sūtra 9.3.13, that both the plural form and the singular form must be modified into a dual form. But this rejected position is rather close to the one adopted by Bhartshari, where he says in his commentary on the Mahābhāşya (AL 6.8-12; Sw 7.9-13; Ms 2c7-10; CE I 5.14-17):
tathaikasminneva prakrtipase pāśān iti bahuvacanāntam srüyate / aditih • pasan pramumoktv iti / tatrāpi vikrtāv uho násti / vājasaneyinām tu
ekavacanāntah pathyate aditih pāśam iti / teşām ühaḥ prāpnoti / ... athavā păseşu noha ity anena tu naigamavibhāşa / bahuvacane sati
yathestam prayogo bhavati / The Ms. is very corrupt, but this reconstruction seems to be essentially correct. I translate:
"... The plural päsän is heard in aditih pasan pramumoktu even though there is but one single noose (pasa) in the primary sacrifice. Here ... there is no modification in the modificatory sacrifice. But among the Vā jasaneyins [the mantra) is read in the singular, aditiņ pasam ... For them modification applies. ...
Or the statement that there is no modification in the case of nooses (pl.!) expresses a Vedic option: where there is a plural number [of paša] one uses [the word) as one wishes (i.e. either in the plural or adjusted to the situation)."
Bhartșhari here represents the point of view of a particular Vedic school different from the vājasaneyins. His Vedic school had laid down the rule that no modification takes place in the case of the word pasa used in the plural, and Bhartshari interprets this rule in two ways. Interestingly, the line aditiņ pašam pramumoktv etam does not occur in the scriptures of the Vājasaneyins, but in TS 3.1.4.4. Bhartshari's mistake (what else could it be?) allows us to conclude that he was not a Taittiriya either. The

Page #4

104
Johannes Bronkhorst
presence of aditiḥ pasān pramumoktv etān in MS 1.2.15, KS 30.8 suggests that Bhartshari belonged to one of these two Vedic schools. Other evidence (see Rau, 1980; Bronkhorst, 1981; 1987) supports the view that he was a Maitrāyaṇiya.
The conclusion must be that Bhartshari's description of uha, or rather of the absence of uha, in aditiņ pasan pramumoktu does not represent the position of any group of Mimāņsakas, but rather the position of the Maitrāyaṇīya branch of the Yajurveda. The Mimāņsakas on the other hand, or at any rate Sabara, did not confine their attention to one Vedic school. Only thus could they be confronted with the situation in which both the mantras aditiņ pāśān pramumoktv etān and aditiņ pasam pramumoktu etam apply. The question that remains is how the similarity between the point of view accepted by Bhartshari and the one rejected by Sabara is to be explained.
This question gains interest in view of the fact that Sabara too may have been a Maitrāyaṇiya. It is true that the Taittiriya texts are more often quoted in his Bhāşya, but Garge (1952:19f) has shown that sabara's Bhāşya nonetheless shows a clear preference for Maitrāyaṇīya readings wherever possible. Garge's data are perhaps most easily understood by assuming that Sabara, a Maitrāyaṇīya, continued and codified the Mimāņsaka tradition which by itself had no particular predilection for Maitrāyaṇiya texts.
1.2. Both Bhartshari (AL 7.10-8.8; Sw 8.16-9.17; Ms 3a 2-b6; CE I 6.11-7.7)
and Sabara (on Pūrva Mimāmsā Sūtra 9.3.22 and 9.3.27-4.27) deaļ in detail with the adhrigu mantra, a passage that occurs in but slightly differing form in a number of texts. Nothing in Bhartshari's discussion shows any influence from Sabara. Indeed it appears that the two authors disagree on how to deal with the part sadvimsatir asya vankrayas 'it has twenty-six ribs'. Sabara winds up a long discussion on this matter by stating (on sūtra 9.4.16) that the total number of ribs must be mentioned where two or more animals are involved, not a repetition of the numeral 'twenty-six' (iyattā varikrinām prakrtau vaktavyā / ihāpi să codakena pradisyate / tena nābhyāsah / sa hi pasunimittakaḥ / tasmāt samasya vacanam vankrinām kartavyam iti /). Bhartrhari makes an enigmatic remark after
1.
MS 4.13.4; KS 16.21; AiB 6.6-7 (2.6-7); TB 3.6.6; AśvśS 3.3; ŚŚS 5.17.

Page #5

Bhartshari and Mîmāmsā
105
citing the sentence that precedes şaờvimšatir. This remark - tathāvyayam anekasmin pasau dvir abhyasyate - can be interpreted with the help of MÁS 5.2.9.5 yāny avyayany anekāni tāni dvir abhyasyante ... şaqvimšatiḥ şaờvimsatin. It thus comes to mean: "Then, in case there is more than one animal, the indeclinable [that follows, viz. şadviméatih) is repeated."
Unlike Sabara, parts of Bhartshari's treatment of üha show the influence of the Mānava Srauta Sūtra. We saw how MŚS 5.2.9.5 was needed to understand one of Bhartshari's remarks. At two other occasions he makes a direct reference to the section on modification' (ühaprakarana) of the Mānava Srauta Sūtra. Once (AL 7.5-6; Sw 8.11-12; Ms 2d 10-11; CE I 6.6-8) he says:
aghasad aghastām aghasannagrabhişur akşannity ühaprakaraṇe pathyate "In the section on modification the forms aghasat, aghastām, aghasan,
agrabhişun and akşan are read." This must refer to MŚS 5.2.9.6:
havişi praişe sūktavāke ca adat adatām adan, ghasat ghastām ghasan, aghasat aghastām aghasan, karat karatām karan, aghrabhit aghrabhiştām
agrabhişuh, akşan Then again (AL 7.20-21; Sw 9.3-4; Ms 3a 8-9; CE I 6.21-22):
tatrohaprakarana evaişam mātā pitā bhrātā sanābhisamsargi sabda ity evamādiny anuhyānity pathyate
"... in the same section on modification it is read that of the words mentioned earlier] the words indicative of siblings and kin mātā, pitā, bhrātā and the like should not be modified."
This reflects MŚS 5.2.9.7:
mātā pitā bhrātā sagarbhyo'nu) sakha sayūthyo nābhirupam asamsargi sabdās cakşuh srotram van manas tvan medo havir barnih Syenam vakşa ity anūhyam
""His mother, his father, his brother from the same womb, his friend in the herd'; the form of nābhi joined with (the ending) a; the words 'eye, ear, voice, mind, skin, fat, oblation (?), sacrificial grass, eagle-shaped breast', all these are not to be modified." (tr. Van Gelder, p. 174)

Page #6

106
Johannes Bronkhorst
Not all of Bhartshari's examples regarding üha can be traced to the Mānava Srauta Sūtra, nor to any other Srauta Sūtra. of particular interest is the stanza which introduces his discussion of üha in the adhrigu mantra, and which has not been traced in any earlier work (AL 7.10-11; Sw 8.16-17; Ms 3a 2-3; CEI 6.11-12):
argani jñātināma Iny upamā/ cendriyāni ca/ etāni noham gacchanti adhrigau vişamam hi tat // "Limbs of the body, names of relatives, comparison and organs of sense, these do not undergo modification; for it (?) is irregular in the case of adhrigu."
This stanza, which governs Bhartshari's ensuing discussion, must be assumed to have belonged to the ritualistic tradition of some Vedic school, probably the Maitrāyāṇiyas. Bhartshari based his discussion of üha not on some preexisting works of Mimāṁsā but on ritual works which had no, or little, connection with Mimāmsā.
This situation allows us to understand how Sabara could describe and reject an opinion (on aditih păsăn pramumoktu etc., see section 1.1 above) which is so close to Bhartshari's. The Mimāmsakas, who took a broader view of the sacrifical rites than those adhering to the traditions of particular Vedic schools, would nonetheless borrow ideas from individual Vedic schools, either to accept or to reject them. All we have to assume is that Śabara was acquainted with at least some of these ritual books.
It seems that the works which Bhartshari used did not survive him for long. The above stanza (angani ...) is quoted by Kumārila in his Tantravārttika on Pūrva Mimāņsā Sūtra 1.3.24 (p. 197) and ascribed to a ţikakara who is also credited (p. 209) with the authorship of the stanza that we know as Vākyapadiya 2.14 (Swaminathan, 1963:69), i.e., apparently to Bhartshari. That is to say, Bhartshari is here quoted as an authority on üha in his own right.
Bhartshari's independence from the influence of Mimāmsā when dealing with ritual details makes this a more likely assumption than that this stanza belonged to the Mimāmsā work in verse with which he appears to have been acquainted. See section 2, below. Helārāja on Vākyapadiya 3.14.591 (590), p. 413 l. 24-25, quotes the same stanza and calls it 'tradition of the knowers of uha' (ühavidām āmāyaḥ).

Page #7

Bhartṛhari and Mîmāmsā
107
1.3. Another instance where Bhartṛhari gives evidence of drawing upon a tradition quite independent of the Mimamsakas occurs on P. 1.1.5 and consists of an illustration with the help of the Sunaskarṇastoma sacrifice (AL 118.3; Sw 137.26-138.1; Ms 39a7-8):
Sunaskarnastomayajñavad etat syat, yatha pradhanasya maranenarthina tetin pravartayanti
"This is like the Sunaskarṇastoma sacrifice: desirous of the main thing by means of death, they cause the sacrifice to proceed."
The Sunaskarna Agniṣṭoma sacrifice is discussed in Sabara's Bhāṣya om PMS 10.2.57-61. This sacrifice is enjoined by the injunction "Desiring one's own death one should perform this sacrifice, if he wishes that he should reach the Heavenly Region without any disease" (maraṇakāmo hy etena yajeta, yaḥ kamayetanamayaḥ svargam lokam iyam iti; tr. Ganganatha Jha, p. 1721). The question raised under PMS 10.2.57-58 is whether or not the sacrifice should be continued after the sacrificer has taken his life by throwing himself into the fire. The answer is that the sacrifice must be completed. A number of reasons is given for this, none of them even resembling Bhartṛhari's. This is true to the extent that Parthasarathi Miśra in his Sastradipika on PMS 10.2.57-58 (adhikarana 23, vol. II, p. 334f.) quotes Bhartṛhari as authority when accepting that point of view (cf. Swaminathan, 1961: 315-16):
svarga evātra maraṇenarthinaḥ phalam na maranam / maranakama ity angikṛtamarana ity arthaḥ / tena yo hy evam jñātvā svargam präpnavānīti kamayate, tasyayam kratuḥ / tatha ca haribhir uktam 'pradhanasya marayendrthina ifyan pravartayanti'iti /
mean
"Heaven is here the fruit he wishes [to attain] by means of death, not death [itself]. The words 'desiring [one's own] death' (maranakama) sacrifice is 'accepting [one's own] death'. Therefore, this [meant] for him who, knowing this, wishes to attain to heaven. This has been expressed by [Bhartr]hari with the words 'desirous of the main thing (i.e. heaven) by means of death they cause the sacrifice to proceed."
4. The Ms reading has been emended with the help of the quotation by Parthasarathi Miśra; see below.

Page #8

108
Johannes Bronkhorst
Pārthasārathi's quotation does not only cast light on the form and meaning of Bhartshari's remark; it also indicates that Pārthasārathi (loth century A.D. according to Ramaswami Sastri, 1937) had no (longer ?) access to the sources from which Bhartshari drew his example.
1.4. We turn to another passage where Bhartshari to all appearances draws
upon the tradition of the Maitrāyaṇiyas. It occurs in his comments on the line prayājāḥ savibhaktikāḥ kāryān of the Mahābhāşya (1.3.1o). Bhartshari is here clearly influenced by the Mänava Srauta Sūtra (5.1.2.6) which
reads:
punar adheye prayājānuyājānām purastād vopariştad vā vibhäktih kuryāt / ye yajāmahe 'samidhaḥ samidho 'gna ajyasya vyantu' agnir agnis 'tanunapad agna ajyasya vetv' agnim agnim 'ido 'gna ajyasya vyantu' agner agner 'barhir agnă ajyasya vetu' agner agner iti / "When [fire] is to be lit again one should recite the vibhaktis before or after the preliminary and final offerings, as follows: ye yajāmahe
etc."
The first and introductory sentence of this passage is included in Bhartshari's remarks on the subject, which however go beyond the Mānava Srauta Sūtra in giving some kind of justification for the choice of 'vibhaktis' (i.e. agnir agnih etc.) and even lead to an outcome that is different in one point; he also gives an alternative. Bhartshari's Mahābhāşya Dipikā reads (AL 12.25-13.4; Sw 15.21-16.1; Ms 5a 2-5; CE I 11.10-14):
vibhaktinām api sarvāsām prayoge prāpte yā dvyakşarā vā satyas caturakşarā vā bhavantiti vacanād agnināgnineti na prayujyate / tatha na Sabdajāmi kuryat / Sabdajāmi hi tad bhavati yat pañcamyantam/ tasmad agner agner ity anena rūpena şaşthyanta prayujyate / punarādhyeye prayājānuyajānam purastād vopariştäd vă vibhaktih kuryāt / narāśamso agnim agnim iti vā ubhayatha dretatvāt / "Although it would follow (from what precedes in Bhartshari's commentary) that all case-endings be used, the form agninagnina is not used because it has been stated 'which have two syllables or four syllables'. Similarly one should not use sabdajāmi. Sabdajāmi is that which has an ablative ending. Therefore it is the genitive which is used in the form agner agneh, [not the ablative]. When [fire] is to

Page #9

Bhartshari and Mîmāmsā
109
be lit again one should recite the vibhaktis before or after the preliminary offerings. Or narasamso ... agnim agnim [is used instead of tanūnapad ... agnim agnim] because it is seen both ways."
This shows that according to Bhartshari the following four 'vibhaktis' are to be used: agnir agnih (nom.), agnim agnim (acc.), agner agneh (gen.), agnāv agnau (loc.).
The essential correctness of the above reading of Bhartshari's Mahabhāsya Dipikā is confirmed by Śivarāmendra Sarasvati's Ratnaprakāśa, a subcommentary on the Mahābhāşya. It says in this connection (p. 56-57):
tatrāpi sambuddhiţane 'ntānām na prayogaḥ, 'avrttyä dvyakşarāḥ santas caturakşarā bhavanti' iti vacanāt / sambuddhyantasya dvyakşaratve 'pi dvirvacanottaram pūrvarūpe sati 'agne 'gne' iti tryakşaratvāt / tāne 'ntayor adita eva dvyakşarat vābhāvāc ca / tathā nasyantam api na prayoktavyam, 'na sabdajāmi kuryāt, sabdajāmi hi tad bhavati yat pancamyant am' iti vacanāt / ... / evam ca caturşv avasiştaprayājamantreşu yathākramam prathamadvitiyāşaşthisaptamyekavacanāntānām agnisabdaprakrtikānām padānām prayogaḥ kartavyaḥ / ... / tathā cāyam purastātprayogaḥ: 'ye yajāmahe agnir agnih samidhaḥ samidho 'gna ajyasya vyantu vauşat' / 'ye yajāmahe agnim agnim tanūnapad agna ajyasya vetu vauşaț' / 'ye yajāmahe agner agner ido 'gna ajyasya vyantu vauşat' / 'ye yajāmahe agnav agnau barhir agna ajyasya vetu vauşat' iti / pascātprayogas tu 'ye yajāmahe samidhaḥ samidho 'gna ajyasya
vyantu agnir agnih vaușaț' ityādih / It is true that Sivarāmendra refers immediately after this to Vişnumisra's Kșíroda, a now lost commentary on the Mahābhāşya, for further elucidation. It is also true that he then mentions Bhartshari's commentary (hariţikā) and quotes from it a passage which clearly belongs to Bhartshari's subsequent treatment of 'vibhaktis' in accordance with the Aśvalāyana Srauta Sūtra (see Bronkhorst, 1981: 174). Yet there can be no doubt that also the above passage was composed under the direct or indirect influence of Bhartshari's Mahābhāşya Dipikā.
We return to Bhartshari's passage. It shows relationship with the Mānava Srauta Sūtra, as we have seen. It further quotes a line that has close affinity with MS 1.7.3, KS 9.1, Kaps 8.4" in order to justify that
------------------ 5. All these texts have yad dvyakşarah satis caturakşarāḥ kriyant [e].

Page #10

110
Johannes Bronkhorst
only 'vibhaktis! with two or four syllables are acceptable. Then however it deviates from any known text by quoting a remarkable rule: One should not use sabdajāmi; sabdajāmi is that which has an ablative ending. Subsequently Bhartshari observes that tanūnapad is sometimes replaced by narāśamso. Something similar was noted by the commentator Gārgya Nārāyaṇa on AśvśS 2.8.6 (see Rau, 1980: 176) and by Sivarāmendra Sarasvati (see Bronkhorst, 1981:174), both in connection with the Aśvalāyana version of the 'vibhaktis'.
1.5. What is the source from which Bhartshari derived his detailed know
ledge on ritual matters? The most likely answer is that he used Prayoga manuals belonging to the Maitrāyaṇīyas. Few old Prayogas have survived and their study has hardly begun. Yet the suspicion could be voiced that "some sort of Prayogas must have been in vogue even before the composition of the Srautasūtras proper" (Srautakośa Vol. I, English section, Part I, Preface, p. 7; see already Hillebrandt, 1879: XV; 1897:38). Bhide (1979: 150f.) studied two extant Prayogas of the Cāturmāsya sacrifices and compared them with the Hiranyakesi Srauta Sūtra, under which they resort. Interestingly, the older of these two Prayogas, by Mahādeva Somayājin, deviates a number of times from the Hiranyakeśi Srauta Sūtra. This shows that Bhartshari may indeed have used Prayoga manuals belonging to his Vedic school, and that the few deviations from the Mānava Srauta Sūtra which we noticed above do not prove that these manuals belonged to another school than that of the Mānavas.
.
2.1. We conclude from the above that Bhartshari was not a Mimāmsaka. Yet he
was acquainted with Mimāmsā. He uses the word 'Mimāmsaka' several times in his commentary on the Mahābhāșya. The line siddha dyauh siddha prthivi siddham ākādam iti (Mbh 1.6.18-19) is elucidated by Bhartrhari's remark (AL 22.23; Sw 27,19; Ms 8a4; CE I 19.11): arhatānām mināmsakānam ca naivāsti vināśaḥ eşām "According to the Jainas and Mimāņsakas there is no destruction of these", i.e., of sky, earth and ether. At another place (AL 29.10-11; Sw 35.2; Ms 9d7; CEI 24.15) Bhartshari quotes the words darśanasya parārthatvat in a discussion concerning the eternality of words. This must be a reflection of PMS 1.1.18 nityas tu syad darśanasya pararthatvát. Note however that Bhartshari's quote does not only lack the initial words of the sūtra, it also has an additional word at the end,

Page #11

Bhartphari and Mîmāmsā
probably viprapravrttatvāt which is absent from the sūtra.
The following quotation in the Dipikā seems to throw more light on Bhartshari's relationship with Mimāņsā. In the third Ahnika Bhartshari proclaims (AL 96.3-4; Sw 113.14-15; Ms 31b4-5; CE III.3.19-20):
nanantaryam sambandhahetuḥ / evam hy ucyate / arthato hy asamarthänām anantaryam akaranam/
"[Mere] contiguity is no cause of relationship. Thus, verily, it is said: "contiguity is no cause of relationship between [words] which
are not semantically connected'." The quotation in this passage had to be reconstructed to some extent, and this could be done with the help of PMS 4.3.11 (api vāmnānasamarthyāc codanarthena gamyetarthanam hy arthavattvena vacanāni pratiyante'rthato hy asamarthänām anantarye 'py asambandhas tasmacchrutyekadesaḥ sah), as pointed out by Palsule (Notes. p. 66 of his edition; cf. Swaminathan, 1961: 314). What is more, the quoted line occurs in precisely that form in a verse cited in Vaidyanātha's Chāyā (p. 160, 162) and which reads:
yasya yenābhisambandho/-ärthasambandho dūrasthasyäpi tena saḥ / artha
to hy asamarthänām ānantaryam akāranam // This suggests that Bhartshari knew a Mimāņsā work which contained verse.
This impression is strengthened by another quotation in the Mahābhāşya Dipikā, on P. 1.1.46, in the context of sequential order. Here Bhartshari cites the following verse (AL 274.1-2; Ms 95b1-2):
Sruter arthăc ca păthăc ca pravșttes ca manişinah / sthānan mukhyāc ca dharmāņām āhuḥ kramavidaḥ kraman // "Those sages who know about sequential order say that the sequential order of things (?) [is determined) on the basis of scriptural assertion, meaning, [order of] text, commencement, place and [order of] the
principal." This verse is close to PMS 5.1.1-15, as already observed by Swaminathan (1961: 317). All its elements occur there: sruti in PMS 5.1.1 (Srutilakşaņam anupūrvyam tatpramāṇatvāt), artha in 5.1.2 (arthāc ca), pātha is the
6. Bhartshari's example of Sruti is hrdayasyägre 'vadyati, atha jinvāyah,
atha vakşasah. The same example is given by Sabara under PMS 5.1.5.

Page #12

112
Johannes Bronkhorst
subject-matter of 5.1.4, even though not called by this name, pravrtti appears in 5.1.8 (pravrttyä tulyakālānām tadupakramat ), sthana in 5.1.13 (sthānāc cotpattisamyogāt), mukhyakrama finally in 5.1.14 (mukhyakramena vä'rgānām tadarthatvāt). Again we are left with the impression that Bhartshari was acquainted with a work on Mimāņsā which contained verse.
2.2. The fact that the work on Mímāmsā used by Bhartphari appears to have
contained verses may help us in identifying its author. Only one author on Mimāmsā is thought to have written an early work on this subject which contained verses; this is Bhavadāsa. Sucaritamisra's commentary Kāśikä on Kumārila's slokavārttika quotes a half verse from Bhavadāsa' (Kane, 1929: esp. 153 fn. 3). It seems clear that Bhavadāsa preceded Sabara (Kane, 1929; Mishra, 1942:16-17; Frauwallner, 1968:10of., 107, 112.)
The assumption that Bhartshari used Bhavadāsa's work does not conflict with anything in the Mahābhāșyadipikā, nor in the Vākyapadiya, as far as I know. It may be noted that on one occasion, where we seem to know the definition used by Bhavadāsa, Bhartshari does not quote Bhavadāsa but gives a definition of his own. Sabara on PMS 12.1.1 quotes a definition of the word prasanga: prasangasabdārtho "nyair uktaḥ, evam eva prasangaḥ syad vidyamāne svake vidhāv iti. The quoted line is half a śloka, the whole of which is given on PMS 11.1.1; it is plausible that it derives from Bhavadāsa. Bhartshari gives an own definition of this technical Mimāṁsā term in his commentary (AL 45.4-5; Sw 54.2-3; Ms 1464-5; CE I 37.11-12): yady arthi prayojako anyadvāreņārtham pratipadyate sa prasanga ity ucyate. A closer investigation shows however that Bhrtshari's definition agrees contentwise with Bhavadāsa's sloka, whereas Sabara has changed the interpretation of the verse so as to make it suit his own ideas. See Bronkhorst, 1986.
2.3. If indeed we can accept that Bhartshari used a text on Mîmāmsā differ
ent from Sabara's Bhāșya we may be in a position to understand a passage that occupied Yudhisthira Mimāņsaka (1973: 1: 385 fn. 1). It reads (AL 31.2-3; Sw 36.19-21; Ms lob 7-8; CE I 25.24-26):
-
-
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
-
-
-
-
-
-
7. bhavadāsena coktam: athāta ity ayam sabda anantarye prayujyate. 8. Frauwallner (1968:101) places him in the first half of the 5th century.

Page #13

Bhartshari and Mímāmsā
113
dharmaprayojano veti mimāmsakadarśanam / avasthita eva dharmaḥ / sa tv agnihotrādibhir abhivyajyate / tatpreritas tu phalado bhavati / "[The words in the Mahābhāşya (1.8.5-6)] dharmaprayojano vā ... 'bringing about dharma'' [express] the view of the Mimāņsakas. [According to them) dharma is eternal. It is however manifested by such sacrifices as] Agnihotra etc. Instigated by these (dharma] produces result."
Mīmāmsaka contrasts this statement with a passage from Jayanta Bhatta's Nyāyamañjari which reads (p. 664):
urddhamīmāms akah yāgādikarmanirvartyam apūrvam nāma dharmam abhivadanti yāgādikarmaiva sābara bruvate "The old Mimämsakas declare dharma, [also] called apūrva, to be produced by ritual activities such as sacrifices. The followers of Sabara say that the ritual activities such as sacrifices are themselves [dharma)..10
The two passages combined seem to indicate that the Mimāņsakas known to Bhartshari were older than Sabara. Mimāmsaka goes further and concludes that Bhartrhari himself is much earlier than Sabara. This need not be true. In fact, Bhartshari's commentary contains an indication that its author knew a view according to which the constituents of the sacrifice are dhar
9. We must assume that Bhartrhari considers prayojana here synonymous
with prayojaka 'bringing about' for the following reasons: (i) otherwise tatpreritas makes no sense; (ii) a few lines further down we find the explanation dharmasya ... prayojaka /n. Joshi and Roodbergen (1973:82 fn. 326) explain this meaning as follows: "The word prayojana is formed by adding the suffix Lyut (i.e. ana, P. 7.1.1) to the stem prayuj, in the sense of karana: 'instrument' (P. 3.3. 117). Thus the meaning of prayojana can be analyzed as prayujyate anena tat prayojanam: 'that by which something is regulated is (called) prayojana'. Taken in this sense, prayojana comes to mean prayojaka: "regulator'." It seems however more correct to account for prayojana in this sense by P. 3.3.113 (krtyalyuto bahulam). This is done, e.g., by Bhattoji Dikṣita in his sabda kaustubha (vol. I, p. 11): atra prayujyate pravartyate'neneti karanalyudantah prayojayatiti kartsvyutpattyā bāhulakāt kartrlyudanto vā ubhayathapi pravartakavidhiparah pumlingah
prayojanaśabda ekaḥ / phalaparaḥ klibo 'parah / . 1o. cf. Sabara's Bhāsya on PMS 1.1.2: yo ho yagam anutişthati tam dharmi
ka iti samācakşate / yas ca yasya kartā sa tena vyapadisyate / yatha paeako Πάνακα tti/.

Page #14

114
Johannes Bronkhorst
ma. This indication consists in the twice quoted phrase dadhimadhvādayo dharmaḥ 'curds, honey, etc. constitute dharma'. The phrase is quoted (twice) in a difficult and corrupt passage, which may however be reconstituted as follows (M$ 11b3-5; AL 34.8-12; Sw 40.21-25; CE I 28.17-20):
yathā pūrvakālam prayuktani dirghasattrāņi idānim aprayujyamānāny api dadhimadhvādayo dharma iti karmatādivişayaḥ sidhyata evam anyaiḥ prayuktānām sarvakālam idānim aprayujyamānānām apy anuvidhanam yuktam / ye tu dadhimadhvādayo dharma iti teşām vyākarane 'yam artho na sambhavati / na hi iha sabdoccăranāt dharma iti /
This may tentatively be translated :
Just as long Soma sacrifices were used formerly, and even though they are not used now, the aim of sacrificial activity is attained since curds, honey etc. constitute dharma; so the laying down of rules for things which have been used by others all the time is proper, even though these things are not used now. But this is not possible in grammar for those who [hold) that curds, honey etc. constitute dharma. For no dharma comes forth from uttering sound.
Much is unclear in this passage. But it shows that we do not have to conclude that Bhartshari lived much before Sabara. It seems more appropriate to conjecture that Bhartshari used a text on Mimāṁsā older than Sabara's Bhāșya, most probably Bhavadāsa's Vștti. We are however fully justified in thinking that Bhartshari cannot have lived long after śabara.
3. The above observations, if correct, allow us to draw the following con
clusions. Bhartshari was acquainted with Mimāņsā, but did not use it where we would expect him to use it. In the context of ritual details he rather draws upon another tradition, most probably on the traditional manuals current in his Vedic school, that of the Maitrāyaṇīyas. And where he makes references to Mímāmsā, it is never to Sabara's Bhāşya, but rather to a Mimāņsā work in verse, or containing verse, which has not survived, but may have been Bhavadāsa's Vștti. He may have known the Pūrva Mimāņsā Sūtra, or a part of it, but this is not certain.

Page #15

Bhartshari and Mîmāmsā
115
References
Bhartshari: Mahābhāşyadipikā.
1) Edited by K. V. Abhyankar and V. P. Limaye. Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 1970. (Post-Graduate and Research Department Series No. 8.). 2) Partly edited by V. Swaminathan under the title Mahābhasya Tikā. Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University. 1965. (Hindu Vishvavidyalaya Nepal Rajya Sanskrit Series Vol. 11.) 3) Manuscript reproduced. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 1980. 4) Critical edition'. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. At this moment four volumes have been published: Ahnika I by Johannes Bronkhorst (1987), Ahnika 3 by G. B. Palsule (1983), Ahnika 5 by V. P. Limaye, G. B. Palsule and V. B. Bhagavat, and Ahnika 6 part 1 by V. B.
Bhagavat and Saroja Bhate. Bhattoji Diksita: Sabdakaustubha. Vol. I, Fasc. I to IV. Edited by Pandit
Sri Mukund Sastri Puntamkar. Benares: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office. 1933.
Bhide, V. V. (1979): The Caturmāsya Sacrifices. With special reference
to the Hiranyakesi Srautasūtra. Pune: University of Poona. (Publications of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, Class B, No. 5)
Bronkhorst, Johannes (1981): "On some Vedic quotations in Bhartrhari's
works." Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 7, 173-75. Bronkhorst, Johannes (1986): "Tantra and Prasanga." Aligarh Journal of
Oriental Studies 3, 77-80. Bronkhorst, Johannes (1987): "Further remarks on Bhartshari's Vedic affilia
tion." Studies in Indian culture. S. Ramachandra Rao Felicitation
Volume. Bangalore, pp. 216-223. Frauwallner, Erich (1968): Materialien zur ältesten Erkenntnislehre der
Karmamimāms ā Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. (Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 259. Band, 2. Abhandlung; Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Sprachen und Kulturen Süd
und Ostasiens, Heft 6). Garge, Damodar Vishnu (1952): Citations in Sabara-Bhasya. Poona: Deccan
College. (Deccan College Dissertation Series, 8.). Helārāja: Prakirnaprakāśa. In: Vākyapadiya of Bhartrhari with the commen
tary of Helārāja, edited by K. A. Subramania Iyer. 2 parts. Poona:
Deccan College. 1963-73. Hillebrandt, Alfred (1879): Das altindische Neu- und Vollmondsopfer. Jena:
Gustav Fischer. Hillebrandt, Alfred (1897): Ritual-Litteratur. Vedische Opfer und Zauber.
Straßburg: Karl J. Trübner. (Grundriß der Indo-Arischen Philologie
und Altertumskunde, III. Band, 2. Heft.) Jayanta Bhatta: Nyayamañjari. Vol. I. Edited by K. S. Varadacharya.
Mysore: Oriental Research Institute.

Page #16

116
Johannes Bronkhorst
Jha, Ganganatha (tr.) (1933-36): Shabara-Bhāşya. 3 vol. Baroda: Oriental
Institute.
Jha, Canganatha (1942): Purva-Mimāmsă in its sources. Benares: Benares
Hindu University.
Joshi, s. D., and Roodbergen, J. A. F. (1973): Patanjali's Vyjākarana-Maha
bhāşya. Tatpurupāhnika (P. 2.2.2-2.2.23). Poona: University of Poona. (Publications of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, Class C,
No. 7) Kane, P. V. (1929): "Bhavadāsa and Sabara svāmin." Annals of the Bhandar
kar Oriental Research Institute 1o, 153-54. Kumārila Bhatta: Tantravārttika. See under 'Sabara'.
Mímāmsaka, Yudhisthira (1973): Samskrta Vyakarana-Šāstra kā Itihasa. Parts
I-III. Sonipat: Rāma Lāl Kapūr Trust. Samvat 2030. Mishra, Umesha (1942): "Critical bibliography." Appendix to Jha 1942.
Pārtha sārathi Misra: Śästradipikā. Edited by P. N. Pattabhirama Sastri.
New Delhi: Šri Lala Bahādura Šāstri Kendriya Samskrta Vidyāpitham. Part II. 1980-81. (Samskrta Vidyapitha Granthamālā 38.)
Patañjali: Vyakarana-Mahabhäşya. Edited by F. Kielhorn. Third Edition by
K. V. Abhyankar. Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 196272.
Rama swami Sastri, K. S. (1937): "Date of Pārthasarathimisra and sequence of
his works." Indian Historical Quarterly 13, 488-97.
Rau, Wilhelm (1980): "Bhartshari und der Veda". Studien sur Indologie und
Iranistik 5/6 (Festschrift Paul Thieme), 167-80.
Sabara: Mināmsā Bhāşya. In: Mimams ādarśana. Edited by Käsinātha Vāsu
devaśāstri Abhyamkara and Pt. Gaņeśaśāstri Josi. Poona: Anandāśrama. 1973-84. (Anandāśrama Samskstagranthāvali 97.)
Srautakosa. Vol. I, English section, Part I. By R. N. Dandekar; preface by
C. G. Kashikar. Poona: Vaidika Samsodhana Mandala. 1958.
Sivarāmendra Sarasvati: Ratnaprakasa. In: Mahabhāşya Pradipa Vyakhyanani.
Adhyâya 1 pâda 1 Ahnika 1-4. Edited by M. S. Narasimhacharya. Pondichéry: Institut Francais d'Indologie. 1973. (Publications de l'Institut Francais d'Indologie No. 51,1.)
Swaminathan, V. (1961): "Bhartphari and Mimāmsā." Proceedings of the AZZ
India Oriental Conference 2o (1959), vol. II, part 1, pp. 309-17.
Swaminathan, V. (1963): "Bhartrhari's authorship of the commentary on the
Mahābhāşya." Adyar Library Bulletin 27, 59-70. Vaidyanātha: Chāyā. In: Patanjali's Vyakarana Mahābhāşya, edited by Raghu
nath Kāshināth Shāstri and Sivadatta D. Kudāla. Bombay: Nirnaya-sāgar Press. 1932.

Page #17
Bhartshari and Mimansa 117 van Gelder, Jeanette M. (tr.) (1963): The Manava Srautasutra. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture. (Sata-Pitaka Series, Indo-Asian Literatures, Vol. 27.) ABBREVIATIONS AiB Aitareya Brahmana AL Abhyankar and Limaye's edition of Bhartshari's Mahabhasya Dipika AsvsS Asvalayana srauta Sutra CE : 'Critical Edition' of Bhartshari's Mahabhasya Dipika KS Kathaka Samhita Kaps Kapisthala Samhita Mbh. Mahabhasya Ms. Manuscript of Bhartshari's Mahabhasya Dipika Maitrayani Samhita Manava Srauta Sutra PMS Purva Mimansa Sutra SSS sankhayana Srauta Sutra Sw Swaminathan's edition of Bhartshari's Mahabhasya Dipika Taittiriya Brahmana TS *Taittiriya Samhita MS MSS TB