Two Literary Conventions Of Classical India

Author(s): Johannes Bronkhorst
Publisher: Johannes Bronkhorst
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269609/1

Page #1

TWO LITERARY CONVENTIONS OF CLASSICAL INDIA
Johannes Bronkhorst
The centuries around the middle of the first millennium of the Common Era are extraordinarily important for the study of Indian culture. These centuries saw, among other things, the rule of the Guptas over large parts of India, and it is very likely that the peace and stability imposed by these rulers, along with their tolerance and encouragement, gave rise to a cultural renaissance. In the realm of literature, a large number of texts which we now consider classical attained their definite forms in this period. It is true that our knowledge of the chronology of Indian literature is very incomplete, yet it is not impossible that, for example, the great epic of India, the Mahābhārata, reached in these centuries the form which has been brought to light in the critical edition of this text. It appears that this was a time of collecting and codifying. The Jaina canon of the Svetāmbaras was collected in this period. The classical texts of several schools of philosophy date from this period, such as the Nyāya Bhāsya of the Naiyāyikas, and the Padārthadharmasamgraha, or Prasastapādabhāsya, of the Vaišesikas. The Sāṁkhya system found its classic exposition in the Samkhya Kārikā, the Yoga in the Yoga Bhāsya. The Mīmāmsakas codified their system in the Sābara Bhāsya, and Sanskrit grammar produced its most important, and perhaps first, commentary on the Mahābhāsya, by Bhartshari. But also other kinds of works have been brought in connection with the Gupta period, such as the Kāma Sūtra, the Artha Sāstra, and the Manu Smrti. Also the non-Brahmanical religions were productive. I may mention here only a few of their literary productions: the Tattvārthādhigama Bhāsya of the Svetāmbara Jainas, and the Abhidharmakosa Bhāsya of the Sarvāstivāda and Sautrāntika Buddhists have remained classic expositions of these sects.
1
This is the slightly modified text of a lecture given on a few occasions both inside and outside Switzerland, most recently in Poona (India). It briefly discusses some of the issues which have engaged the attention of the author for some time, and are likely to occupy him in the future. Apart from presenting some results of earlier research, it raises a number of questions, not all of which may allow of a definite answer at present. G. Bühler - in Bühler and Kirste, 1892 - has collected evidence in support of the view that the Mahābhārata had reached its present form in about the fifth century C.E.
2

Page #2

TWO LITERARY CONVENTIONS OF CLASSICAL INDIA 211
This enumeration is of course not complete. Nor do I wish to give a complete survey of the literature of this period. What I wish to emphasize is that for the study of pre-Gupta India we are often to a large extent dependent upon texts which reached their definite form in the centuries now under consideration.
The relationship between these texts and their predecessors can be of various types. In the case of a text like the Mahabharata it is clear that this definite form is really a collection of parts many of which may be considerably older than the collected form. The same is true of the Manu Smrti, if indeed this text reached it classical form in the middle centuries of the first millennium. It seems likely that the Manu Smṛti had predecessors, at least one of which was a Dharma text of the Manava school of the Maitrāyaṇī Samhita. It is true that there have been different opinions regarding the question whether the predecessor of the Manu Smrti was written in prose or in verse. But both the main exponents of these two views viz., Bühler and P.V. Kane agreed that there was a predecessor of this text, even though they could not adduce positive evidence to support this. In the meantime, however, it has become almost certain that Bhartṛhari, who was himself a Manava, was still acquainted with the, or a, Dharma text of that school, and that he identified a verse line as belonging to it.' A collection whose date is rather precisely known is the Jaina Svetambara canon. The Śvetāmbaras themselves believe that its final redaction took place 980 or 993 years after the death of Mahāvīra, i.e., in 453 or 466 C.E.4
Not all texts from the period under consideration are collections or reeditions of earlier works. Apart from the really original works, which will not be dealt with in this lecture, there are a great many commentaries amongst them. Most commonly these are commentaries on earlier sütras. or verses, in both cases on works which express themselves briefly and concisely. From among the works enumerated above we may mention the Nyaya Bhāṣya which comments on the Nyaya sūtras, the Yoga Bhāṣya which explains the Yoga sūtras, and the Tattvarthädhigama Bhāṣya which is a commentary on the Tattvärtha sūtras. The Abhidharmakośa Bhäṣya comments not on sūtras, but on verses. It however treats these verses as sutras by cutting them into pieces; it even refers to these pieces as sūtras. The verses of the first two chapters of Bhartṛhari's Väkyapadiya are
3 Bronkhorst, 1985.
4 Schubring, 1962: 78; Jaini, 1979: 51-52.

Page #3

212
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
similarly commented upon in a commentary, the Vrtti, which unfortunately has been preserved only partially.
In this lecture I wish to concentrate on the relationship between the various commentaries and the sūtras or verses contained in them. The importance of a correct understanding of this relationship is beyond question. The sūtras in particular are not infrequently, the earliest expressions of certain systems of thought which we have, and the Bhāsyas are so to say the glasses through which we have to look at them.
Bhāsyas enclose sūtras. Together they form a whole which reads like a single work in prose that contains short nominal phrases, the sūtras. This single whole might erroneously be considered the work of one single author. What is remarkable is that some authors of Bhāsyas appear to have gone out of their way to create this impression that sūtras and Bhāsya together are indeed one whole. The following cases illustrate this:
(i) The Yoga Bhāsya is ascribed by the later tradition to a mythical person called Vyāsa, and the sūtras to Patañjali. The earlier tradition knows nothing of Vyāsa, and the colophon of the Bhāsya calls the whole work - sūtras and Bhāsya - not Yoga Bhāsya but Yogaśāstra, and refers to but one single author, Patañjali. The Bhāsya never mentions any variant readings of sūtras, and what is more, where it refers to a sūtra it uses the first person, as if the sūtras were composed by the author of the Bhāsya. Yet there can be no doubt that they, or most of them, were not. Some sūtras have not been correctly interpreted by the Bhāsya, which would be impossible if the Bhāsyakāra had been their author. This is not the occasion to deal in detail with the sūtras which have been misinterpreted in the Yoga Bhāsya, the more so since I have dedicated an article to this question.? I find it hard, however, to resist the temptation to briefly mention one example. Yoga sūtra 1.25 reads:
tatra niratiśaya
sarvajñabījam
5 6 7
Bronkhorst, 1985a: 203 f. Bronkhorst, 1985b: 170. Bronkhorst, 1985a.

Page #4

TWO LITERARY CONVENTIONS OF CLASSICAL INDIA 213
The preceding sūtra deals with God (īśvara), which is a special kind of self. The present sūtra can therefore be translated:
In Him is the unsurpassed germ of the omniscient one.
This is not however the way the Yoga Bhāsya interprets this sūtra. I shall not quote the Sanskrit text, but merely observe that according to this Bhāsya the present sūtra contains an inference which supposedly shows that there must be an omniscient one. In reality this sūtra speaks about Kapila, who is an incarnation of the special self which is God, as can be proved in various ways.
(ii) As said already, it is not now possible to go deeper into this and other related questions. Instead we turn to another example of a text which, though commentary, treats itself and the sūtras enclosed in it as one indivisible whole. This text is the Tattvārthādhigama Bhāsya. As you may know, the Tattvārthādhigama Bhāsya is accepted as an authoritative work by the Svetāmbara Jainas, who hold moreover that its author, Umāsvāti, was also the author of the Tattvārtha sūtras contained in it. This view is contested by the Digambara Jainas, who agree with the contents of the sūtras but not with those of the Bhāsya.
· Like the Yoga Bhāsya, the Tattvārthādhigama Bhāsya never mentions variant readings of sūtras; and references to the sūtras often use the first person. Yet other indications leave no doubt that the sūtras had a different author. Sūtras and Bhāsya differ on certain points of doctrine, and their choice of words differs; certain sūtras, moreover, are incorrectly interpreted in the Bhāsya. Again it is not possible to go into details, which have been discussed elsewhere.8
(iii) After discussing a Brahmanical and a Jaina work, our third example should be a Buddhist text. The Madhyāntavibhāga Šāstra of Vasubandhu is a combination of verses, the kārikās, and prose, the Bhāsya. Unlike the Yoga Bhāsya and the Tattvārthadhigama Bhāsya, the Madhyāntavibhāga Bhāsya refers to the verses contained in it in the third person, so that one is not misled into thinking that both verses and Bhāsya have one author. What is more, the initial verse of the Bhāsya provides some information about the author of the verse text. It reads:
8
Bronkhorst, 1985b.

Page #5

214
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
śästrasyasya pranetāram abhyarhya sugatāmajam/ vaktāram cāsmadādibhyo yatiṣye 'rthavivecane//
Having honoured the author/promulgator of this sastra and him who taught it to/expressed it for me and others, I shall make an effort to explain its meaning.
The commentator Sthiramati is of the opinion that the author of the verse text is Bodhisattva Maitreya, its teacher Asanga; but this is not stated in the verse, nor indeed anywhere else in the Madhyāntavibhāga Śāstra. The verse can be interpreted differently and does not help to determine the author of the verse text. The only information regarding authorship occurs at the end of the Bhasya and says that Vasubandhu is thè author." The fact that the verse text came to be ascribed to Maitreya reminds us of the Yoga Sutra, which came to be ascribed to an equally legendary person, Vyasa, probably for the same reason that no indications regarding its true authorship are provided.
For our present purposes it is particularly interesting to see that verses and Bhāṣya occasionally join syntactically. Verse 1.14c, for example, is embedded in a Bhasya sentence, as follows (MAVS p. 36):
yaś cāsau tadabhāvasvabhāvaḥ sa na bhāvo nāpi cābhāvaḥ
Another instance is verse 1.17cd (p. 40):
yadi samalā bhūtvā nirmalā bhavati kathaṁ vikāradharmiṇītvād anityā na bhavati/ yasmād asya abdhātukanakākāśaśuddhivac chuddhir isyate āgantukamalāpagamāt na tu tasyaḥ svabhāvānyatvari bhavati/
Before we leave this text an observation may be made regarding its name. The colophons call it Madhyāntavibhāga-kārikā-bhāṣya or Madhyāntavibhāga-sastra. The commentator Sthiramati, however, speaks about the Madhyāntavibhāga-sūtra-bhāṣya (p. 3). It seems obvious that the kārikās and their parts are here referred to as sūtras, as we saw was the case in the Abhidharmakosa Bhāṣya.
(iv) Our fourth and final example is the Artha Śästra, supposedly written by Kautilya. This work too consists of verses and prose. Hartmut Scharfe (1968) has shown that at least two persons left their traces in the composition of this work, one of whom, the earlier one, wrote in verse, the other one in prose. Scharfe adduces several arguments in support of this,
9 MAVS p. 192: kṛtir ācāryabhadantavasubandhoḥ

Page #6

TWO LITERARY CONVENTIONS OF CLASSICAL INDIA 215
among them the fact that the contents of the verses do not always agree with those of the prose. The verse text, moreover, calls its author Kautilya in the very beginning and states that he tore away the land of the Nandas at the very end, while the prose text calls itself a compilation in the first line and its author Visnugupta in the last 10
The exact relationship between the portions of Kautilya and those of Visnugupta is not clear. The concluding lines of the text state that Visnugupta composed both Sūtra and Bhāsya. What exactly is meant is not clear. It seems likely that here too the verses and parts of verses adopted in the prose are referred to as sūtras. This is what happened in the case of the Abhidharmakośa Bhāsya, while Sthiramati referred to the verses of the Madhyāntavibhāga Šāstra as sūtras.
The concluding lines of Visnugupta are interesting in this context. They form a verse in āryā metre and read:
drstvā vipratipatti bahudhā śāstresu bhāsyakārānām/ svayam eva visnuguptaś cakāra sūtraṁ ca bhāsyaṁ ca//
The second line means, of course, that Visnugupta himself made Sūtra and Bhāşya, which does not exclude the possibility that he borrowed extensively from earlier authors, as we shall see. The first line can be interpreted in different ways. Vipratipatti means basically 'opposition' or 'contradiction'. The line may therefore speak of the opposition of the Bhāsyakāras against the Sūtra, or against each other. In the first case it concerns an incorrect interpretation of the Sūtra, in the second a difference of opinion among themselves. Another and at least as important difficulty lies in the word śāstresu. Does this word refer to the books, or sciences, on which the Bhāsyakāras wrote their Bhāsyas? Another interpretation is possible. The whole line may be understood to speak about the opposition of the Bhāsyakāras in the Šāstras." This would mean that the Bhāsyakāras were at the same time the writers of Šāstras. This is less peculiar than it seems. Visnugupta describes himself in the same verse as the author of a Bhāsya, but he is also the author of a Šāstra, the Artha Šāstra. A parallel case is constituted by the Yoga Bhāsya, which calls itself - including the sūtras contained in it - Yoga Šāstra. And the names Madhyāntavibhāga-kārikā Bhāsya, Madhyāntavibhāga-sūtra Bhāsya and
10 Scharfe, 1968: 80-81. 11 Falk (1986: 59, 58 n. 12) has a third interpretation: “Visnagupta sah häufig einen
Widerspruch in den Lehren der Kommentar-Verfasser...".

Page #7

216
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
Madhyāntavibhāga Šāstra are used side by side, as we have seen. A Šāstra is in these cases a work which combines sūtras (or kārikās) and Bhāsya, a work which brings a number of elements together and unites them into one. This is exactly what Visnugupta's Artha Šāstra says in its first line:
... yāvanty arthaśāstrāni pārvācāryaih prasthāpitāni prāyaśas tāni saṁhrtyaikam idam arthaśāstraṁ krtam This single (eka) [work called] Artha Šāstra has mainly been made by compiling all the Artha Sastras produced by earlier teachers.
This is not the place to study how many authors have contributed to the Artha Sāstra as we now know it. It is clear that the prose sections may contain parts which derive from various commentators preceding Visnugupta. The statistical investigations of Th.R. Trautmann (1971) do indeed support multiple authorship.12
These four examples - the Yoga Šāstra, the Tattvārthādhigama Bhāsya, the Madhyāntavibhāga Sastra and the Artha Šāstra - must suffice to show that there was a tendency in the period which we consider to unite sūtras and Bhāsya into one indivisible whole, which retained no traces of the original separateness, and authorship, of the enclosed sūtras.
INT
Besides this tendency - perhaps we should say literary convention - there is a second one to which I would like to draw your attention. It finds expression in what I will call the Vārttika style. In order to understand this style and its probable origin we must turn to the grammatical literature of ancient India.
I do not need to remind you that among the sciences of India grammar is one of the oldest and most important. Its influence on other fields of knowledge was consequently great. It has even been claimed that the grammar of Pāṇini played in India a role similar to that of Euclid's geometry in Europe. Both were, in their respective contexts, methodological guidelines for science and philosophy13
One of the most important texts of Pāninian grammar is the Vyākarana-Mahābhāsya, or simply Mahābhāsya, attributed to Patañjali
st and most impat. It has evemilar to that
dia a ros even belce on oth
h were
12 See also Falk, 1986, esp. p. 69. 13 Staal, 1965.

Page #8

TWO LITERARY CONVENTIONS OF CLASSICAL INDIA 217
(who is not the same as the Patañjali who composed the Yoga Sūtra or Yoga Bhāsya). The Mahābhāsya is an ancient text, and may indeed date back to the second century preceding the Common Era. This Mahābhāsya contains within itself nominal phrases which are called 'vārttikas'. The researches of Franz Kielhorn in the last century have shown that most of these vārttikas derive from an author different from Patañjali, who was called Katyāyana.14 Kielhorn was not the first to recognize this fact. To a great extent he followed the Sanskrit commentators on the Mahābhāsya, primarily Kaiyata, whose work he completed by trying to identify each and every vārttika.
The point to which I wish to draw your attention is that there is reason to think that these nominal phrases called vārttikas have not always been known to derive from a different author named Kātyāyana. In works belonging to the centuries which engage our attention the word vārttika is used to designate portions of the Mahābhāsya which are far more than just the nominal phrases; sometimes the portions called vārttika do not even contain such nominal phrases. The word vārttika is used in this peculiar way in the Yuktidipikā - the most extensive commentary on the Samkhya Kārikā - and, more frequently and more importantly, in Bhartrhari's commentary on the Mahābhāsya.
Once again it is not possible, within the time reserved for this lecture, to discuss these points in detail. Those of you who wish to pursue this question may refer to an article which has recently been published in the Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens (Bronkhorst, 1990). The relevant passages strongly suggest that around the middle of the first millennium the nominal phrases which we know by the name vārttikas were not recognized as the work of a different author.
This observation finds further and unsuspected support in the testimony of the Chinese monk I-ching, who visited India in the seventh century. I-ching's remarks about Sanskrit grammatical literature have always seemed rather problematic. A detailed study by John Brough has led him to conclude that I-ching could not distinguish between vārttikas and Bhāsya.s What Brough did not know, and could not know, is that I-ching was apparently not the only one who was not aware of this distinction. It seems possible that no one at that time was aware of it.
14 Kielhorn, 1876. 15 Brough, 1973: 257.

Page #9

JOHANNES BRONKHORST
Let me make it clear that the nominal phrases which we call värttikas had not escaped the attention of the grammarians of the middle centuries of the first millennium. They even had a separate name for them: vākyas. My point is that they do not seem to have been considered as having an own author in many cases. The evidence is complicated and not completely satisfactory. The one fact which seems to stand out clearly, however, is that the word värttika was used to cover more than just väkyas; they covered väkyas along with the accompanying Bhāṣya-portion, or even portions of the Bhāṣya that are without väkyas altogether,
Whether or not I have been able to convince you that the värttikas in the Mahabhāṣya were not looked upon as deriving from a different author, a number of works from the period which we are now studying have the appearance of being imitations of the Mahābhāṣya considered in this way. Note that the Mahäbhäṣya, once the vārttikas are no longer looked upon as the work of someone else, becomes a work characterized by a remarkable style, a style in which ordinary prose passages are frequently interrupted by short nominal phrases vākyas which are subsequently explained. This remarkable style - which we may call 'Varttika style' - was noticed, and more than that, it was imitated as well. Several works of the middle of the first millennium of the Common Era imitate this style, and even call themselves Vārttikas. An example is the Tattvärtha Värttika of Akalanka, which reads like the Mahābhāṣya including Katyāyana's värttikas. An other example is the Raja Värttika alias Yuktidipika, which I just mentioned. Other works again imitate the Värttika style, but do not call themselves Värttika. Perhaps the best known example is the Nyaya Bhāṣya, in which this style was already noticed by Ernst Windisch in 1888.
218
IV
These, then, are the two literary conventions which I wanted to bring to your notice. The first one is the tendency in commentaries, usually Bhāṣyas, to swallow up the sutras, or verses, on which they comment, so that together they come to look like one single work: I shall use the expression 'Bhāṣya style' to refer to it; note however that this Bhāṣya style does not necessarily occur in all Bhāṣyas. The second is the tendency to write in what I have called the 'Värttika style': a style in which ordinary prose and short nominal phrases alternate. Again I do not claim that this style is found in all works that call themselves Värttika.

Page #10

TWO LITERARY CONVENTIONS OF CLASSICAL INDIA 219
I have no doubt that many of you will have reservations about the existence of these two conventions, and I cannot blame you for it. It is not possible within the time allotted for this lecture to present all the supporting evidence. This evidence has been published in a few articles, and those of you who are interested may refer to those. During the remainder of this lecture I shall start from the assumption that these two literary conventions are a fact for the period under consideration, and I shall deal with some of the questions which arise in connection with these. Some of these questions may be answerable; others may remain unanswered.
(i) I begin with two texts the single or plural authorship of which has been debated for a while. These are the Vākyapadiya and the commentary on its first two books often referred to as the Vrtti. All traditional authors have accepted that both these texts were written by Bhartshari. Doubts about this have not been raised until modern times.
Let us look at the arguments which supposedly support the view that Vākyapadiya and Vrtti have one single author. I quote Cardona (1976: 297):
The major arguments for concluding that the Vịtti was composed by Bharthari himself are as follows. The Vrtti does not record variant readings of verses, but later commentators do. Later authors consider the verses and Vrtti to form a single work. Further, there are striking similarities in thought and expression between the Tripādi (this is the name Cardona uses for Bhartrhari's commentary on the Mahābhāsya) and the Vștti.
The author who has most vigorously argued that verses and Vrtti have one single author, is Ashok Aklujkar (1972). Aklujkar recognizes that the argument of similarity between the commentary on the Mahābhāsya and the Vrtti does not carry much weight. He however emphasizes the fact that Vrtti and verses were intended to be read consecutively, and illustrates this with the help of a number of examples.
All this boils down to the following three points: (a) The Vrtti does not record variant readings of verses. (b) Vrtti and verses are meant to be read consecutively, they form one whole. (c) Later authors look upon verses plus Vrtti as one whole.
It will be clear that these three points do no more than exemplify the Bhāsya style which we discussed in the beginning of this lecture, and which occurs in a number of other works, as we have seen. These three points cannot therefore be used as evidence to show that verses and Vţtti had

Page #11

220
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
one single author. The fact that the later tradition is unanimous in ascribing the Vrtti to the author of the verses carries as little weight as the tradition among the Svetāmbara Jainas that Tattvārthādhigama Bhāsya and Tattvārtha Sūtra have one single author.
There are, on the other hand, a number of indications which show that verses and Vịtti have different authors. I mention the most important ones:16 (a) In a few cases the Vștti gives two alternative explanations of one verse." (b) On two occasions the Vștti quotes a tatrabhavat. Both the views ascribed to this tatrabhavat coincide with views expressed in the Vākyapadīya. 18 (c) The concluding verses of the second kānda of the Vākyapadiya are not commented upon in the Vstti. This is reason to think that they are the concluding verses of the Vrtti. And indeed, they contain the line
pranīto gurunāsmākam ayam āgamasaṁgrahah (2.487 in Rau's critical edition).
This means, in Aklujkar's (1978) translation:
Our teacher composed this compendium of traditional knowledge.
The conclusion is inescapable that the author of the Vrtti is different from the author of the verses.
(ii) It is known that the Vaiseșika Sūtra was once commented upon by a Vākyakāra and by a Bhāṣyakāra. This suggests that there was once a commentary in Vārttika style on the Vaiseșika Sūtra, containing both vākyas and Bhāsya-portions. This possibility, in its turn, explains some otherwise obscure facts. I shall confine myself to one single example.
The Padārthadharmasangraha contains some passages in Vārttika style which appear to be borrowings from another text. One of those passages fits so badly into its context that the commentators have great difficulty making sense of it all. This passage begins with the nominal phrase "No, because body, sense-organs and mind are not conscious" (na, śarīrendriya
16 17
See Bronkhorst, 1988. These have been discussed by K.A. Subramania Iyer in the Introduction of his English translation of the first chapter of the Vākyapadiya (1965: xxix-xxxi). See Bronkhorst, 1988: 110 f.
18

Page #12

TWO LITERARY CONVENTIONS OF CLASSICAL INDIA 221
manasām ajñatvāt).19 However, the preceding lines contain nothing to which this nominal phrase could be a response. The following explanation of this nominal phrase, on the other hand, continues the preceding discussion in a satisfactory manner. It seems clear that Prasastapāda, the author of the Padarthadharmasangraha, borrowed here a passage in Värttika style from another work. About the nature of that other work there can be little doubt, for Prasastapäda is known to have written a commentary on the Vaiśesika Vākya-cum-Bhāṣya.20
(iii) The Nyaya Bhāṣya comments on the Nyaya sutras. The first of these sūtras gives a brief survey of the topics to be dealt with, and most of the remaining sutras fit well into this scheme. This is a reason to think that the Nyāya sūtras as a whole are no loose collection. Some few sūtras however, do not fit into the scheme. Sūtras 4.1.11-40, for example, look like an insertion, because they do not correspond to anything announced in the initial sütras. But if these sutras were inserted, the question is: who inserted them?
We have seen already that the Nyaya Bhasya is an example of a text which uses the Värttika style. This means that the Nyaya Bhāṣya commented on nominal phrases - the sūtras -, and besides this contained nominal phrases the väkyas which characterize the Värttika style. It is clear that in such a situation confusion can easily arise. One possible answer to the question who inserted the additional Nyaya sūtras may therefore be: they were inadvertantly taken over from the Bhāṣya.
I do not maintain that this is necessarily the right answer to this question. There are complications, which I have referred to in a published article (1985c). Yet it is clear that our awarenes of the Varttika style can influence the way we approach problems of this kind.
(iv) A similar situation presents itself in the commentary on Aryadeva's *Sataka ascribed to Vasu. Karen Lang (1988) has studied this commentary and expressed the view that it examplifies the Värttika style. This, she argues, may have the following consequence. It has long been assumed that the *Sataka cites four of the Nyaya sutras. In reality, according to Lang, these sutras may not be cited by the *Sataka, but by Vasu's commentary. The confusion could arise owing to the Värttika style of that
19 Pdhs p. 69 1. 10-11.
20 See Bronkhorst, forthcoming.

Page #13

222
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
commentary. It is clear that Lang's thesis, if true, might have chronological consequences. In that case we cannot take it for granted anymore that Aryadeva knew these Nyāya sūtras.
(v) Several of the preceding examples dealt with the Vārttika style and its possible effects on the texts commented upon in this style. Our last example, like the first one, will deal with the Bhāsya style. Tradition states that both the Abhidharmakośa - i.e. the verse text - and the Abhidharmakośa Bhāsya were composed by one and the same person, viz., Vasubandhu. I am not going to bore you with a detailed account of the controversy which has arisen regarding the reliability of the tradition of the life and works of Vasubandhu. This controversy mainly concerns the belief that Vasubandhu became a Mahāyānist later in life. No one seems to have seriously asked the question whether one and the same person wrote both Kośa and Bhāsya. This is remarkable, for verses and commentary represent different points of view: the verses mainly the Vaibhāșika, or Sarvāstivāda, position, the commentary the Sautrāntika position. The traditional account gives some kind of explanation for this, but one which on close inspection does not look very plausible. What is more, Kośa and Bhāsya do not just represent Vaibhāșika and Sautrāntika positions, as tradition would have it. If the Bhāsya is to be believed, some of the verses express Sautrāntika views. And what is even more surprising, the Bhāsya differs from the Kośa regarding the correct Vaibhāsika position in a few cases.
An example is the Bhāsya on Abhidh-k 3.2. This verse states that there are 17 places' (sthāna) in the Rūpadhātu, viz., three 'stages' (bhūmi) in the first three Dhyānas, eight in the fourth.21 The Bhāsya specifies these stages, enumerating, among others, Brahmapurohitas and Mahābrahmans in the first Dhyāna. Then the Bhāsya continues: “There are [only] 16 (places) according to the Kashmirians. As is well-known (kila), among the Brahmapurohitas a higher place has been erected for the Mahābrahman, which is like a tower (? parigana), inhabited by [only] one ruler; this is not however another stage (bhūmi)."22
Abhidh-k 3.2: urdhvaṁ saptadaśasthāno rūpadhātuh prthak prthak/dhyānaṁ tribhumika tatra caturthaí tv astabhūmikam// Abhidh-k-bh (P) p. 111 1. 26-27: ... sodaśeti kāśmīrāh/brahmapurohitesv eva kila sthānam utkrstataraṁ mahābrahmanah parigana ivābhinirvrttam ekanāyakaṁ na tu bhūmyantaram

Page #14

TWO LITERARY CONVENTIONS OF CLASSICAL INDIA 223
There can be no doubt that the ‘Kashmirians' here referred to are the Vaibhāsikas of Kashmir, for their opinion is found in the Mahāvibhāṣā, after which the Vaibhāsikas were named.23 Moreover, the ‘Kashmirians' are a few times explicitly connected with the Prakarana(-pāda), one of the canonical Abhidharma works of the Sarvāstivādins.24 And frequently the opinions ascribed to the ‘Kashmirians' can be found in the Mahāvibhāsā.25
A similar case is constituted by the Bhāsya on Abhidh-k 1.10c. This quarter verse states that smell is of four kinds (caturvidho gandhah). The Bhāsya explains the four kinds of smell: good and bad smell which can be excessive or non-excessive. 26 Then the Bhāsya continues: “But (smell is) threefold according to the Sāstra, which says) 'Smell is good, bad, or indifferent'.1:27 The quotation is from the Prakaranapada, 28 a canonical text of the Sarvāstivādins. Here again, therefore, verses and Bhāsya disagree as to what is the orthodox view of the Sarvāstivādins.
On one occasion the Bhāsya points at an insufficiency in a verse and rectifies it. This happens under verse 2.50, which reads:
Coexisting (causes) (sahabhū) have one another as effects, such as the elements (bhūta), thought and the accompaniments of thought, the characteristics and what they characterize.
This definition is not fully satisfactory, since the secondary characteristics (anulaksana, i.e. jātijāti etc.; see 2.46a) have as coexisting cause the dharma which they accompany, but not vice versa. The Bhāsya therefore completes the definition: “It must be added (upasaṁkhyātavyam) that even without mutuality a dharma is coexisting cause of its secondary characteristics, they not of it.”30
The references in the Bhāsya to the author of the verses do not allow us to draw any conclusions whatsoever. Sometimes these references use the first person. For example, the expression paścăd vaksyāmah 'we'll
23 See Abhidh-k (VP) II p. 3 n. 1. 24 Abhidh-k-bh (P) p. 84 1. 10-15 (on 2.51), p. 89 1. 7-13 (on 2.54). 25 See Abhidh-k (VP) I p. 76 n. 1, p. 89, p. 205, II p. 13 n. 3. 26 Abhidh-k-bh (P) p. 7 1. 6: sugandhadurgandhayoh samavisamagandharvāt. Yaśomitra
explains: anutkatotkatagandhatvād ity arthah. 27 Abhidh-k-bh (P) p. 71. 6-7: trividhas tu śāstre/ sugandho durgandhah samagandha iti/
See Abhidh-k (VP) I p. 18. Abhidh-k 2.50: sahabhūr ye mithahphalāh/bhūtavac cittacittanuvartilaksanalaksyavat// Abhidh-k-bh (P) p. 83 1. 23-24: vināpi canyonyaphalatvena dharmo 'nulaksanānām sahabhūhetur na tāni tasyety upasankhyātavyam.

Page #15

224
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
discuss [this] later' is used in the Bhāsya on 1.10 (p. 7 1. 10) to refer to verse 1.12; vyākhyāsyāmah at p. 89 1. 4 (on 2.54) refers to verse 5.12; the same term at p. 274 1. 24 (on 4.125) refers to verse 6.17; vaksyāmah at p. 353 l. 12 introduces verses 6.29 f. After what we have learned from the Yoga Bhāsya and Tattvārthādhigama Bhāsya we will not be tempted to derive conclusions from this usage, the more not because the references may be to the Bhāsya which explains those verses.
But nor can we draw conclusions from the references in the third person. On a number of occasions the Bhāsya uses vaksyati 'he'll say' in order to refer to a verse. For example, the one but last sentence of the first chapter of the Bhāsya (p. 37 1. 14-15) states: "He will explain later (paścăd vaksyati) that the female and male (sexual] organ's are part of the dhātu (called) 'body'.” This refers to verse 2.2 which explains (at least in the interpretation of the Bhāsya) that there are six organs (indriya), and that the female and male sexual organs are merely distinguished from the body, but not different from it, because of their supremacy regarding femininity and masculinity:31 The Bhāsya on the first part of Abhidh-k 2.33 indicates with the help of vaksyati that the last word of the verse (cetasah) is to be understood here too (p. 60 1. 25). The Bhāsya on Abhidh-k 2.67 uses the same device to show that anantaram is here valid from verse 68 (p. 103 1. 20). The use of vaksyati on Abhidh-k 3.17 (p. 128 1. 28) serves a similar purpose. References to the Bhāsya, on the other hand, use the first person: vaksyāmah (p. 107 1. 3 and 17, on 2.72) and pravaksyāmah (p. 400 1. 15, on 7.13) introduce immediately following portions of the Bhāsya; cintayisyāmah (p. 93 1. 16-17, on 2.55) refers to the Bhāsya on 5.27; paścād vaksyāmah (p. 343 1. 19) refers to the Bhāsya on 7.13 (p. 400). All these cases do not allow us to draw any conclusions, because cases are known where an author uses the third person to refer to his own verses. An example is Mandana Miśra, who - in the Brahmasiddhi, which consists of verses and commentary, both by the same author - uses on several occasions the third person in the commentary part to refer to his verses. 32
31 Abhidh-k 2.2: svārthopalabdhyādhipatyāt sarvasya ca sadindriyam/ strītvapuṁstvādhipatyāt
tu kāyāt strīpurusendriye // The Bhāsya explains (p. 39 1. 14-15): kāyendriyâd eva strīpurusendriye prthak vyavasthāpyete/ nārthāntarabhūte/ kaścid asau kāyendriyabhāga
upasthapradeśo yah strīpurusendriyākhyām pratilabhate/ 32 E.g., p. 75 1. 4: darśayati; p. 23 1. 17: āha.

Page #16

TWO LITERARY CONVENTIONS OF CLASSICAL INDIA 225
We finally consider one more point: the Bhāsya refers to the author of the verses as Ācārya.93 Verse 1.3, for example, is introduced in the following manner:
Why (should there be) teaching of Abhidharma, and by whom has it been taught for the first time, that the Acārya piously applies himself to pronouncing the Abhidharmakośa?34
The author of the verses is again referred to as Acārya in the Bhāsya on Abhidh-k 1.11. This verse explains a concept of the Vaibhāsikas. The Bhāsya points this out, then adds that the word ucyate 'it is said/is called' in the verse shows that this is said by the Acārya.95
The purpose of the last part of this lecture was to raise questions, rather than to solve them. The case of the Abhidharmakośa and Bhāsya is particularly complex, and much more research will have to be done before reliable conclusions can be drawn.
The same applies to the other examples which have been discussed. My main purpose has been to ask questions. In some cases an answer seems possible, in other cases this may not yet be the case. In spite of this, I hope that these questions constitute a modest contribution to the progress of our field of study. After all, the right question is often half the answer.
Added in proofs: Long after this article had been submitted for publication I discovered that the essentials of the 'Vārttika style' had already been correctly described by V.G. Paranjpe in his article “The text of the Nyāyasūtras according to Vācaspatimiśra”, PAIOC 10, 1941, 296-309.
33 Ruegg (1990: 64) considers this point not decisive and draws attention to
Haribhadrasūri's Anekāntajayapatākā (ed. Kāpadia, vol. i, p. 2.12) for a parallel. 34 Abhidh-k-bh (P) p. 2 1. 18-19: kimartham punar abhidharmopadeśah kena cāyari
prathamata upadisto yata ācāryo 'bhidharmakośam vaktum ädriyat(e). 35 Abhidh-k-bh (P) p. 8 1. 9: ucyata iti ācāryavacanam darśayati.

Page #17

226
JOHANNES BRONKHORST
References and abbreviations
Abhidh-k = Abhidharmakośa Abhidh-k (VP) = L'Abhidharmakośa de Vasubandhu, traduit et annoté par Louis de La
Vallée Poussin, 6 vols., Paris 1923-1931. Abhidh-k-bh (P) = Abhidharmakośabhāsya of Vasubandhu, ed. P. Pradhan, rev. 2nd ed.
Aruna Haldar, Patna 1975. Aklujkar, Ashok (1972): "The authorship of the Vakyapadiya-Vrtti." Wiener Zeitschrift für
die Kunde Südasiens 16, 181-198. Aklujkar, Ashok (1978): "The concluding verses of Bharthari's Vākya-Kānda." Annals of the
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 58-59 (1977-78; Diamond Jublilee Volume). 9-26. Bronkhorst, Johannes (1985): "The origin of an Indian dietary rule: evidence for a lost
Mänava work on Dharma." Aligarh Journal of Oriental Studies 2 (1-2) (Ram Suresh
Tripathi Commemoration Volume), 123-132. Bronkhorst, Johannes (1985a): "Patañjali and the Yoga sūtras." Studien zur Indologie und
Iranistik 10 (1984 (19851), 191-212. Bronkhorst, Johannes (1985b): "On the chronology of the Tattvärtha Sūtra and some early
commentaries." Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 29. 155-184. Bronkhorst, Johannes (1985c): "Nāgārjuna and the Naiyāyikas." Journal of Indian Philoso
phy 13, 107-132. Bronkhorst, Johannes (1988): "Études sur Bhartrhari, 1: L'auteur et la date de la Vrtti."
Bulletin d'Etudes Indiennes 6, 105-143. Bronkhorst, Johannes (1990): "Värttika.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 34,
123-146. Bronkhorst, Johannes (forthcoming): "The Vaiseșika vākya and bhāsya." Annals of the
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Brough, John (1973): "I-ching on the Sanskrit grammarians.” Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies 36, 248-260. Bühler, G., and Kirste, J. (1892): "Indian studies, No. II: Contributions to the history of the
Mahābhārata." Sitzungsberichte der Philosophisch-Historischen Classe der Kaiserlichen
Akademie der Wissenschaften 127, XII. Abhandlung. Cardona, George (1976): Pānini, a Survey of Research. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. 1980. Falk, Harry (1986): “Die Prüfung der Beambten im Arthaśāstra." Wiener Zeitschrift für die
Kunde Südasiens 30, 57-72. Iyer, K.A. Subramania (tr.) (1965): The Vākyapadiya of Bhartshari with the Vrtti. Chapter
I. Poona: Deccan College. (Deccan College Building Centenary & Silver Jubilee
Series, 26.) Jaini, Padmanabh S. (1979): The Jaina Path of Purification. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Kielhorn, Franz (1876): Kātyāyana and Patañjali: Their Relation to Each Other and to
Panini. Bombay. Reprint: Kleine Schriften I. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. 1969. Pp. 1-64. Lang, Karen (1988): "On Aryadeva's citation of Nyāya texts in the *Sataka." Wiener
Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 32, 131-140. Mandana Miśra: Brahmasiddhi. Edited, with Sankhapāni's commentary, by S. Kuppuswami
Sastri. Second edition. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications. 1984. (Sri Garib Das Oriental Series, 16.)

Page #18
TWO LITERARY CONVENTIONS OF CLASSICAL INDIA 227 MAVS = Madhyanta-Vibhaga-Sastra, ed. Ramchandra Pandeya. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. 1971. Pdhs = Padarthadharmasangraha: The Prasastapada Bhashya with Commentary Nyayakandali of Sridhara, edited by Vindhyesvari Prasad Dvivedin. Second edition. Delhi: Sri Satguru. 1984. (Sri Garib Dass Oriental Series, 13.) Rau, Wilhelm (ed.) (1977): Bhartrhari's Vakyapadiya. (Abhandlungen fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 42.) Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. Ruegg, D. Seyfort (1990): "On the authorship of some works ascribed to Bhavaviveka/Bhavya." In: Earliest Buddhism and Madhyamaka. Edited by David Seyfort Ruegg and Lambert Schmithausen. (Panels of the VIIth World Sanskrit Conference, 2.) * Scharfe, Hartmut (1968): Untersuchungen zur Staatsrechtslehre des Kausalya. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Schubring, Walther (1962): The Doctrine of the Jainas. Translated from the revised German edition by Wolfgang Beurlen. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. 1978. Staal, Frits (1965): Euclid and Panini. In: Universals. Studies in Indian Logic and Linguistics. University of Chicago Press. 1988. Pp. 143-160. Trautmann, Th.R. (1971): Kautilya and the Arthasastra. A statistical investigation of the authorship and evolution of the text. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Windisch, Ernst (1888): Ueber das Nyayabhashya. Leipzig.