Concluding Verses Of Bhartrharis Vakya Kanda

Author(s): Ashok Aklujkar
Publisher: Ashok Aklujkar

Page 6

14
ABORI : Diamond Jubilee Volume
not a single word in the verse that would justify the addition of the element “ because of the affectionate personal attention ” so crucial to this interpretation. Furthermore, it is apparent from the clauses guruņā mama ayam āgamah prañitaḥ and guruņā mama ayam āgama-samgrahah prañitah that the author of the Tikā construes asmākam in the verse with praạitah, understands -pranitah in the sense of some such word as pratipăditah ('stated, explained, delivered, given'), and interprets asmākam as a genitive substitute for asmabhyam (=mahyam, in this instance ). However, the natural connection of asmākam is with guruņā. If the guru is not related to the author of the verse, i. e. to the person referred to by asmat, there is no justification at all for bringing him in; the expectancy whose teacher ?" must be satisfied. Secondly, the word pranita, at least in the writings of Bhartphari and his near contemporaries, does not ever seem to have been used in the sense the author of the Tikā seems to assign to it.18 And even if we assign that sense to pranita, we do not get past difficulties. If we say asmäkam guruņā ayam āgamaḥ pratipăditah, we are guilty of overlooking the constituent sangraha and the obvious reference of ayam to the work Väkyapadiya. On the other hand, if we say asmākam guruņā ayam āgama-samgrahah pratipăditah, we make a statement that goes against the massive evidence favouring Bhartshari's, and not his teacher's, authorship of the āgama-samgraha called Vākyapadiya. Thus, the Tikā explanation is far from satisfactory.
2.4 Raghunātha Sharmā (1968 : 575) mostly follows the Tikā. If he is aware of any of the difficulties pointed out above, he does not say so. The only significant addition made by him , ayam agama-samgraho guruņāsmākan krte pranita iti vā yojanā, suffers from lack of evidence ; neither the manuscripts of the Vāk yapadiya nor any of the known medieval works "attribute the authorship of the āgama-sangraha called Vāk yapadiya to Bhartphari's teacher. Besides, there is no justification for supplying krte.19
(Continued from the last page) vidhivac cayan mama vyakaranagamah // mayapi guru-nirdistad bhasyan nyayaviluptaye kanda-traya-kramenāyan nibandhah parikirtitaḥ //. In my view, S. Iyer (1969: 3) offers an unjustifiably specific meaning (see 2.5 below ) to these verses in his remark : "..Vasurāta gathered together the traditions in a composition for the sake of his disciple Bhartphari and instructed him to write his own work on the basis of that."
18. Cf... yaih pratyakşa-dharmabhis tatra tatra pravacane sūtranutantra-bhas yāņi pranitani tair eva sistaih .. (Vriti 1.23d. p. 63. 9). Note also the use of pranety in 1.23d, Vytti 1. 148150 pp. 203-205, and Tripadi p. 214. 4, and of pranayana in Tripadi p. 37. 17-18.
19. I shall leave out of consideration the translations by Goldstücker 1861: 238 (".. my Guru .. taught me the compendium of this grammatical work”) and Weber 1862: 161 ("Von meinem Lehrer .. ward mir gelehrt hier dieser samgraha des Texts"). They are more arbitrary than some of the interpretations rejected here.