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 Mimamsak 1.1. Both Bhartshari and Sabara pay a good deal of attention to the subject of uha 'modification, adjustment'. Bhartshari discusses it in the first Ahnika of his commentary on the Mahabhasya (AL 5.18-8.17, Sw 6.179.27, Ms 2b9-3c1), while parts of Adhyaya 9 of Sabara's Bhasya deal with it. Two cases in particular are treated by both the authors and allow of a detailed comparison. The first case is most easily introduced with the help of Sabara's Bhasya on Purva Mimansa Sutra 9.3.10: asti pasur agnisomiyah, yo diksito yad agnisomiyam pagum alabhata iti / tatra pasaikatvabhidhayi mantrah, aditih pasam pramumoktv etam iti / tatha pasabahutvabhidhayi, aditin pasan pramumoktu etan iti / .../ asti dvipasur vikrtih / maitram svetam alabheta, varunam krenam apam causadhinam ca samdhavannakama iti / tatra codakena pasabhidhayinau mantrau praptau / tayoh samsayah / kim bahuvacananto'vikarena pravartate, ekavacanantasya nivittih, uta bahuvacananto nivartate, ekavacananta uhitavyah, utobhayor api pravrttir abhidhanavipratipattis ca, utaikavacananta uhitavyo bahuvacananto'pi na nivarteta / kim praptam / "There is the Agnistomiya animal (sacrifice) laid down in the text yo diksito yad agnisomiyam 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): aditin pasam pramumoktu etam (May Aditi loosen this noose'); also [there is another mantra] speaking of the plurality of the noose: aditin pasan pramumoktu etan. ... [Then again, ] there is a modificatory sacrifice (vikrti) [of the Agnisomiya] 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, varunam krsnam etc. ('The white [goat] should be sacrificed to Mitra and the black (goat] to Varuna'). In accordance with the General Law, both the mantras that mention a noose come to be regarded as to be used at this sacrifice of two animals]. In regard to [the use of] these two (mantras at this last sacrifice of two goats, there arise] the following questions: (a) Is (the word] in the plural form to be used in its unmodified form and that in the singular form to be excluded? Or (b) should the plural form be excluded and the singular form be modified [into a dual form]? Or (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. Ganganatha Jha, vol. III p. 1561; modified) The problem here raised is subsequently discussed in the Bhasya. 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): anyayas tv avikarena / anyayanigado bahuvacananto'vikarena pravartate / ekavacananto nivartitum arhati / kutah / nasyaikasmin pase pravartamanasya dretah pratighatah / yathaivaikasmin pase pravartate, tatha dvayorapi pravartitum arhati / nasav ekasya vacakah, na dvayoh / evam arsac codako 'anugrhito bhavisyati / itaratha hi uhyamane yathaprakrti mantro na krtah syat / na dvayoh pasayoh, ekasmims.ca pase kascid viseso 'sti / tasmad avikarena bahuvacanantah prayujyate, ekavacanantasya 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 Mimamsa 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. Canganatha Jha, p. 1562; modified) As said before, Sabara does not accept this position. He comes to the conclusion, under sutra 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 Mahabhasya (AL 6.8-12; Sw 7.9-13; Ms 2c7-10; CE I 5.14-17): tathaikasminneva prakrtipase pasan iti bahuvacanantam sruyate / aditih * pasan pramumoktv iti / tatrapi vikrtav uho nasti / vajasaneyinam tu ekavacanantah pathyate aditih pasam iti / tesam uhah prapnoti / ... athava pasesu noha ity anena tu naigamavibhasa / bahuvacane sati yathestam prayogo bhavati / The Ms. is very corrupt, but this reconstruction seems to be essentially correct. I translate: "... The plural pasan 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 Va jasaneyins [the mantra) is read in the singular, aditin 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 pasa] one uses [the word) as one wishes (i.e. either in the plural or adjusted to the situation)." Bhartshari here represents the point of view of a particular Vedic school different from the vajasaneyins. His Vedic school had laid down the rule that no modification takes place in the case of the word pasa used in the plural, and Bhartshari interprets this rule in two ways. Interestingly, the line aditin pasam pramumoktv etam does not occur in the scriptures of the Vajasaneyins, 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 aditih pasan pramumoktv etan 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 Maitrayaniya. The conclusion must be that Bhartshari's description of uha, or rather of the absence of uha, in aditin pasan pramumoktu does not represent the position of any group of Mimansakas, but rather the position of the Maitrayaniya branch of the Yajurveda. The Mimansakas 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 aditin pasan pramumoktv etan and aditin 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 Maitrayaniya. It is true that the Taittiriya texts are more often quoted in his Bhasya, but Garge (1952:19f) has shown that sabara's Bhasya nonetheless shows a clear preference for Maitrayaniya readings wherever possible. Garge's data are perhaps most easily understood by assuming that Sabara, a Maitrayaniya, continued and codified the Mimansaka tradition which by itself had no particular predilection for Maitrayaniya 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 Purva Mimamsa Sutra 9.3.22 and 9.3.27-4.27) deal in detail with the adhrigu mantra, a passage that occurs in but slightly differing form in a number of texts. Nothing in 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 sutra 9.4.16) that the total number of ribs must be mentioned where two or more animals are involved, not a repetition of the numeral 'twenty-six' (iyatta varikrinam prakrtau vaktavya / ihapi sa codakena pradisyate / tena nabhyasah / sa hi pasunimittakah / tasmat samasya vacanam vankrinam 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; AsvsS 3.3; SSS 5.17.

Page #5
Bhartshari and Mimamsa 105 citing the sentence that precedes saovimsatir. This remark - tathavyayam anekasmin pasau dvir abhyasyate - can be interpreted with the help of MAS 5.2.9.5 yany avyayany anekani tani dvir abhyasyante ... saqvimsatih saovimsatin. It thus comes to mean: "Then, in case there is more than one animal, the indeclinable [that follows, viz. sadvimeatih) is repeated." Unlike Sabara, parts of Bhartshari's treatment of uha show the influence of the Manava Srauta Sutra. We saw how MSS 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' (uhaprakarana) of the Manava Srauta Sutra. Once (AL 7.5-6; Sw 8.11-12; Ms 2d 10-11; CE I 6.6-8) he says: aghasad aghastam aghasannagrabhisur aksannity uhaprakarane pathyate "In the section on modification the forms aghasat, aghastam, aghasan, agrabhisun and aksan are read." This must refer to MSS 5.2.9.6: havisi praise suktavake ca adat adatam adan, ghasat ghastam ghasan, aghasat aghastam aghasan, karat karatam karan, aghrabhit aghrabhistam agrabhisuh, aksan Then again (AL 7.20-21; Sw 9.3-4; Ms 3a 8-9; CE I 6.21-22): tatrohaprakarana evaisam mata pita bhrata sanabhisamsargi sabda ity evamadiny anuhyanity pathyate "... in the same section on modification it is read that of the words mentioned earlier] the words indicative of siblings and kin mata, pita, bhrata and the like should not be modified." This reflects MSS 5.2.9.7: mata pita bhrata sagarbhyo'nu) sakha sayuthyo nabhirupam asamsargi sabdas caksuh srotram van manas tvan medo havir barnih Syenam vaksa ity anuhyam ""His mother, his father, his brother from the same womb, his friend in the herd'; the form of nabhi 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 uha can be traced to the Manava Srauta Sutra, nor to any other Srauta Sutra. of particular interest is the stanza which introduces his discussion of uha 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 jnatinama Iny upama/ cendriyani ca/ etani noham gacchanti adhrigau visamam 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 Maitrayaniyas. Bhartshari based his discussion of uha not on some preexisting works of Mimamsa but on ritual works which had no, or little, connection with Mimamsa. This situation allows us to understand how Sabara could describe and reject an opinion (on aditih pasan pramumoktu etc., see section 1.1 above) which is so close to Bhartshari's. The Mimamsakas, 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 Sabara 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 Kumarila in his Tantravarttika on Purva Mimansa Sutra 1.3.24 (p. 197) and ascribed to a tikakara who is also credited (p. 209) with the authorship of the stanza that we know as Vakyapadiya 2.14 (Swaminathan, 1963:69), i.e., apparently to Bhartshari. That is to say, Bhartshari is here quoted as an authority on uha in his own right. Bhartshari's independence from the influence of Mimamsa when dealing with ritual details makes this a more likely assumption than that this stanza belonged to the Mimamsa work in verse with which he appears to have been acquainted. See section 2, below. Helaraja on Vakyapadiya 3.14.591 (590), p. 413 l. 24-25, quotes the same stanza and calls it 'tradition of the knowers of uha' (uhavidam amayah).

Page #7
Bhartrhari and Mimamsa 107 1.3. Another instance where Bhartrhari 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 Sunaskarnastoma sacrifice (AL 118.3; Sw 137.26-138.1; Ms 39a7-8): Sunaskarnastomayajnavad etat syat, yatha pradhanasya maranenarthina tetin pravartayanti "This is like the Sunaskarnastoma sacrifice: desirous of the main thing by means of death, they cause the sacrifice to proceed." The Sunaskarna Agnistoma sacrifice is discussed in Sabara's Bhasya om PMS 10.2.57-61. This sacrifice is enjoined by the injunction "Desiring one's own death one should perform this sacrifice, if he wishes that he should reach the Heavenly Region without any disease" (maranakamo hy etena yajeta, yah kamayetanamayah 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 Bhartrhari's. This is true to the extent that Parthasarathi Misra in his Sastradipika on PMS 10.2.57-58 (adhikarana 23, vol. II, p. 334f.) quotes Bhartrhari as authority when accepting that point of view (cf. Swaminathan, 1961: 315-16): svarga evatra maranenarthinah phalam na maranam / maranakama ity angikrtamarana ity arthah / tena yo hy evam jnatva svargam prapnavaniti kamayate, tasyayam kratuh / 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 Misra; see below.

Page #8
108 Johannes Bronkhorst Parthasarathi's quotation does not only cast light on the form and meaning of Bhartshari's remark; it also indicates that Parthasarathi (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 Maitrayaniyas. It occurs in his comments on the line prayajah savibhaktikah karyan of the Mahabhasya (1.3.1o). Bhartshari is here clearly influenced by the Manava Srauta Sutra (5.1.2.6) which reads: punar adheye prayajanuyajanam purastad voparistad va vibhaktih kuryat / ye yajamahe 'samidhah samidho 'gna ajyasya vyantu' agnir agnis 'tanunapad agna ajyasya vetv' agnim agnim 'ido 'gna ajyasya vyantu' agner agner 'barhir agna 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 yajamahe etc." The first and introductory sentence of this passage is included in Bhartshari's remarks on the subject, which however go beyond the Manava Srauta Sutra 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 Mahabhasya Dipika reads (AL 12.25-13.4; Sw 15.21-16.1; Ms 5a 2-5; CE I 11.10-14): vibhaktinam api sarvasam prayoge prapte ya dvyaksara va satyas caturaksara va bhavantiti vacanad agninagnineti na prayujyate / tatha na Sabdajami kuryat / Sabdajami hi tad bhavati yat pancamyantam/ tasmad agner agner ity anena rupena sasthyanta prayujyate / punaradhyeye prayajanuyajanam purastad voparistad va vibhaktih kuryat / narasamso agnim agnim iti va ubhayatha dretatvat / "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 sabdajami. Sabdajami is that which has an ablative ending. Therefore it is the genitive which is used in the form agner agneh, [not the ablative]. When [fire] is to

Page #9
Bhartshari and Mimamsa 109 be lit again one should recite the vibhaktis before or after the preliminary offerings. Or narasamso ... agnim agnim [is used instead of tanunapad ... 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.), agnav agnau (loc.). The essential correctness of the above reading of Bhartshari's Mahabhasya Dipika is confirmed by Sivaramendra Sarasvati's Ratnaprakasa, a subcommentary on the Mahabhasya. It says in this connection (p. 56-57): tatrapi sambuddhitane 'ntanam na prayogah, 'avrttya dvyaksarah santas caturaksara bhavanti' iti vacanat / sambuddhyantasya dvyaksaratve 'pi dvirvacanottaram purvarupe sati 'agne 'gne' iti tryaksaratvat / tane 'ntayor adita eva dvyaksarat vabhavac ca / tatha nasyantam api na prayoktavyam, 'na sabdajami kuryat, sabdajami hi tad bhavati yat pancamyant am' iti vacanat / ... / evam ca catursv avasistaprayajamantresu yathakramam prathamadvitiyasasthisaptamyekavacanantanam agnisabdaprakrtikanam padanam prayogah kartavyah / ... / tatha cayam purastatprayogah: 'ye yajamahe agnir agnih samidhah samidho 'gna ajyasya vyantu vausat' / 'ye yajamahe agnim agnim tanunapad agna ajyasya vetu vausat' / 'ye yajamahe agner agner ido 'gna ajyasya vyantu vausat' / 'ye yajamahe agnav agnau barhir agna ajyasya vetu vausat' iti / pascatprayogas tu 'ye yajamahe samidhah samidho 'gna ajyasya vyantu agnir agnih vausat' ityadih / It is true that Sivaramendra refers immediately after this to Visnumisra's Ksiroda, a now lost commentary on the Mahabhasya, for further elucidation. It is also true that he then mentions Bhartshari's commentary (haritika) and quotes from it a passage which clearly belongs to Bhartshari's subsequent treatment of 'vibhaktis' in accordance with the Asvalayana Srauta Sutra (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 Mahabhasya Dipika. We return to Bhartshari's passage. It shows relationship with the Manava Srauta Sutra, as we have seen. It further quotes a line that has close affinity with MS 1.7.3, KS 9.1, Kaps 8.4" in order to justify that ------------------ 5. All these texts have yad dvyaksarah satis caturaksarah 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 sabdajami; sabdajami is that which has an ablative ending. Subsequently Bhartshari observes that tanunapad is sometimes replaced by narasamso. Something similar was noted by the commentator Gargya Narayana on AsvsS 2.8.6 (see Rau, 1980: 176) and by Sivaramendra Sarasvati (see Bronkhorst, 1981:174), both in connection with the Asvalayana 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 Maitrayaniyas. Few old Prayogas have survived and their study has hardly begun. Yet the suspicion could be voiced that "some sort of Prayogas must have been in vogue even before the composition of the Srautasutras proper" (Srautakosa 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 Caturmasya sacrifices and compared them with the Hiranyakesi Srauta Sutra, under which they resort. Interestingly, the older of these two Prayogas, by Mahadeva Somayajin, deviates a number of times from the Hiranyakesi Srauta Sutra. This shows that Bhartshari may indeed have used Prayoga manuals belonging to his Vedic school, and that the few deviations from the Manava Srauta Sutra which we noticed above do not prove that these manuals belonged to another school than that of the Manavas. . 2.1. We conclude from the above that Bhartshari was not a Mimamsaka. Yet he was acquainted with Mimamsa. He uses the word 'Mimamsaka' several times in his commentary on the Mahabhasya. The line siddha dyauh siddha prthivi siddham akadam iti (Mbh 1.6.18-19) is elucidated by Bhartrhari's remark (AL 22.23; Sw 27,19; Ms 8a4; CE I 19.11): arhatanam minamsakanam ca naivasti vinasah esam "According to the Jainas and Mimansakas 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 darsanasya pararthatvat in a discussion concerning the eternality of words. This must be a reflection of PMS 1.1.18 nityas tu syad darsanasya pararthatvat. Note however that Bhartshari's quote does not only lack the initial words of the sutra, it also has an additional word at the end,

Page #11
Bhartphari and Mimamsa probably viprapravrttatvat which is absent from the sutra. The following quotation in the Dipika seems to throw more light on Bhartshari's relationship with Mimansa. In the third Ahnika Bhartshari proclaims (AL 96.3-4; Sw 113.14-15; Ms 31b4-5; CE III.3.19-20): nanantaryam sambandhahetuh / evam hy ucyate / arthato hy asamarthanam 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 vamnanasamarthyac codanarthena gamyetarthanam hy arthavattvena vacanani pratiyante'rthato hy asamarthanam anantarye 'py asambandhas tasmacchrutyekadesah 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 Vaidyanatha's Chaya (p. 160, 162) and which reads: yasya yenabhisambandho/-arthasambandho durasthasyapi tena sah / artha to hy asamarthanam anantaryam akaranam // This suggests that Bhartshari knew a Mimansa work which contained verse. This impression is strengthened by another quotation in the Mahabhasya Dipika, 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 arthac ca pathac ca pravsttes ca manisinah / sthanan mukhyac ca dharmanam ahuh kramavidah 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 (Srutilaksanam anupurvyam tatpramanatvat), artha in 5.1.2 (arthac ca), patha is the ------------------------------ 6. Bhartshari's example of Sruti is hrdayasyagre 'vadyati, atha jinvayah, atha vaksasah. 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 (pravrttya tulyakalanam tadupakramat ), sthana in 5.1.13 (sthanac cotpattisamyogat), mukhyakrama finally in 5.1.14 (mukhyakramena va'rganam tadarthatvat). Again we are left with the impression that Bhartshari was acquainted with a work on Mimansa which contained verse. 2.2. The fact that the work on Mimamsa used by Bhartphari appears to have contained verses may help us in identifying its author. Only one author on Mimamsa is thought to have written an early work on this subject which contained verses; this is Bhavadasa. Sucaritamisra's commentary Kasika on Kumarila's slokavarttika quotes a half verse from Bhavadasa' (Kane, 1929: esp. 153 fn. 3). It seems clear that Bhavadasa preceded Sabara (Kane, 1929; Mishra, 1942:16-17; Frauwallner, 1968:10of., 107, 112.) The assumption that Bhartshari used Bhavadasa's work does not conflict with anything in the Mahabhasyadipika, nor in the Vakyapadiya, as far as I know. It may be noted that on one occasion, where we seem to know the definition used by Bhavadasa, Bhartshari does not quote Bhavadasa but gives a definition of his own. Sabara on PMS 12.1.1 quotes a definition of the word prasanga: prasangasabdartho "nyair uktah, evam eva prasangah syad vidyamane svake vidhav iti. The quoted line is half a sloka, the whole of which is given on PMS 11.1.1; it is plausible that it derives from Bhavadasa. Bhartshari gives an own definition of this technical Mimamsa term in his commentary (AL 45.4-5; Sw 54.2-3; Ms 1464-5; CE I 37.11-12): yady arthi prayojako anyadvarenartham pratipadyate sa prasanga ity ucyate. A closer investigation shows however that Bhrtshari's definition agrees contentwise with Bhavadasa's sloka, whereas Sabara has changed the interpretation of the verse so as to make it suit his own ideas. See Bronkhorst, 1986. 2.3. If indeed we can accept that Bhartshari used a text on Mimamsa differ ent from Sabara's Bhasya we may be in a position to understand a passage that occupied Yudhisthira Mimansaka (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. bhavadasena coktam: athata ity ayam sabda anantarye prayujyate. 8. Frauwallner (1968:101) places him in the first half of the 5th century.

Page #13
Bhartshari and Mimamsa 113 dharmaprayojano veti mimamsakadarsanam / avasthita eva dharmah / sa tv agnihotradibhir abhivyajyate / tatpreritas tu phalado bhavati / "[The words in the Mahabhasya (1.8.5-6)] dharmaprayojano va ... 'bringing about dharma'' [express] the view of the Mimansakas. [According to them) dharma is eternal. It is however manifested by such sacrifices as] Agnihotra etc. Instigated by these (dharma] produces result." Mimamsaka contrasts this statement with a passage from Jayanta Bhatta's Nyayamanjari which reads (p. 664): urddhamimams akah yagadikarmanirvartyam apurvam nama dharmam abhivadanti yagadikarmaiva sabara bruvate "The old Mimamsakas declare dharma, [also] called apurva, to be produced by ritual activities such as sacrifices. The followers of Sabara say that the ritual activities such as sacrifices are themselves [dharma)..10 The two passages combined seem to indicate that the Mimansakas known to Bhartshari were older than Sabara. Mimamsaka 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 Diksita in his sabda kaustubha (vol. I, p. 11): atra prayujyate pravartyate'neneti karanalyudantah prayojayatiti kartsvyutpattya bahulakat kartrlyudanto va ubhayathapi pravartakavidhiparah pumlingah prayojanasabda ekah / phalaparah klibo 'parah / . 1o. cf. Sabara's Bhasya on PMS 1.1.2: yo ho yagam anutisthati tam dharmi ka iti samacaksate / yas ca yasya karta sa tena vyapadisyate / yatha paeako Panaka tti/.

Page #14
114 Johannes Bronkhorst ma. This indication consists in the twice quoted phrase dadhimadhvadayo dharmah '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): yatha purvakalam prayuktani dirghasattrani idanim aprayujyamanany api dadhimadhvadayo dharma iti karmatadivisayah sidhyata evam anyaih prayuktanam sarvakalam idanim aprayujyamananam apy anuvidhanam yuktam / ye tu dadhimadhvadayo dharma iti tesam vyakarane 'yam artho na sambhavati / na hi iha sabdoccaranat 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 Mimamsa older than Sabara's Bhasya, most probably Bhavadasa's Vstti. We are however fully justified in thinking that Bhartshari cannot have lived long after sabara. 3. The above observations, if correct, allow us to draw the following con clusions. Bhartshari was acquainted with Mimansa, but did not use it where we would expect him to use it. In the context of ritual details he rather draws upon another tradition, most probably on the traditional manuals current in his Vedic school, that of the Maitrayaniyas. And where he makes references to Mimamsa, it is never to Sabara's Bhasya, but rather to a Mimansa work in verse, or containing verse, which has not survived, but may have been Bhavadasa's Vstti. He may have known the Purva Mimansa Sutra, or a part of it, but this is not certain.

Page #15
Bhartshari and Mimamsa 115 References Bhartshari: Mahabhasyadipika. 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 Mahabhasya Tika. 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 Caturmasya Sacrifices. With special reference to the Hiranyakesi Srautasutra. 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 altesten Erkenntnislehre der Karmamimams a Wien: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. (Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 259. Band, 2. Abhandlung; Veroffentlichungen der Kommission fur Sprachen und Kulturen Sud und Ostasiens, Heft 6). Garge, Damodar Vishnu (1952): Citations in Sabara-Bhasya. Poona: Deccan College. (Deccan College Dissertation Series, 8.). Helaraja: Prakirnaprakasa. In: Vakyapadiya of Bhartrhari with the commen tary of Helaraja, 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. Trubner. (Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde, III. Band, 2. Heft.) Jayanta Bhatta: Nyayamanjari. Vol. I. Edited by K. S. Varadacharya. Mysore: Oriental Research Institute.

Page #16
116 Johannes Bronkhorst Jha, Ganganatha (tr.) (1933-36): Shabara-Bhasya. 3 vol. Baroda: Oriental Institute. Jha, Canganatha (1942): Purva-Mimamsa in its sources. Benares: Benares Hindu University. Joshi, s. D., and Roodbergen, J. A. F. (1973): Patanjali's Vyjakarana-Maha bhasya. Tatpurupahnika (P. 2.2.2-2.2.23). Poona: University of Poona. (Publications of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, Class C, No. 7) Kane, P. V. (1929): "Bhavadasa and Sabara svamin." Annals of the Bhandar kar Oriental Research Institute 1o, 153-54. Kumarila Bhatta: Tantravarttika. See under 'Sabara'. Mimamsaka, Yudhisthira (1973): Samskrta Vyakarana-Sastra ka Itihasa. Parts I-III. Sonipat: Rama Lal Kapur Trust. Samvat 2030. Mishra, Umesha (1942): "Critical bibliography." Appendix to Jha 1942. Partha sarathi Misra: Sastradipika. Edited by P. N. Pattabhirama Sastri. New Delhi: Sri Lala Bahadura Sastri Kendriya Samskrta Vidyapitham. Part II. 1980-81. (Samskrta Vidyapitha Granthamala 38.) Patanjali: Vyakarana-Mahabhasya. Edited by F. Kielhorn. Third Edition by K. V. Abhyankar. Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 196272. Rama swami Sastri, K. S. (1937): "Date of Parthasarathimisra 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: Minamsa Bhasya. In: Mimams adarsana. Edited by Kasinatha Vasu devasastri Abhyamkara and Pt. Ganesasastri Josi. Poona: Anandasrama. 1973-84. (Anandasrama Samskstagranthavali 97.) Srautakosa. Vol. I, English section, Part I. By R. N. Dandekar; preface by C. G. Kashikar. Poona: Vaidika Samsodhana Mandala. 1958. Sivaramendra Sarasvati: Ratnaprakasa. In: Mahabhasya Pradipa Vyakhyanani. Adhyaya 1 pada 1 Ahnika 1-4. Edited by M. S. Narasimhacharya. Pondichery: Institut Francais d'Indologie. 1973. (Publications de l'Institut Francais d'Indologie No. 51,1.) Swaminathan, V. (1961): "Bhartphari and Mimamsa." 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 Mahabhasya." Adyar Library Bulletin 27, 59-70. Vaidyanatha: Chaya. In: Patanjali's Vyakarana Mahabhasya, edited by Raghu nath Kashinath Shastri and Sivadatta D. Kudala. Bombay: Nirnaya-sagar 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