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