Studies On Bhartrhari 3

Author(s): Johannes Bronkhorst
Publisher: Johannes Bronkhorst

Page 11

BHARTRHARI ON SPHOTA AND UNIVERSALS
15
As in the case of the pot, it is not possible to say that sphota and sound are different, even though the latter, unlike the former, has a spatial and a temporal dimension. This is exactly what is stated in VP 1.99:16
And a connection with space etc. is also seen in the case of corporeal objects (such as pots); [in the same way] there is no difference between sound and word (i.e. sphota). even though we distinguish different locations [in the case of sound].17
The identical nature of sphota and sound is illustrated with the help of the doctrine according to which the sense organ is of the same nature as the objects it perceives:18
Just as sense organs and their objects are suited to each other in a way which is fixed and does not change, in the same way sphota and sound [are suited to each other] as manifested and manifestor. (100)
In the world the cause which elucidates odour etc. - [which are objects] whose sense organs have the same nature (as they themselves] is fixed and determined for each substance. (101)
According to this doctrine, the organ of smell is constituted of earth, of which smell is the characteristic property; the organ of sight is fire, which has colour as its characteristic property; and so on. The nature of the sense faculty and its object are therefore identical.
Why is the view of sphota as universal attributed to 'some'? Does it mean that Bhartṛhari himself did not accept this point of view?
The situation appears to be somewhat more complicated. In point of fact, Bhartṛhari recognizes two possible views as to the thing denoted by words: it is the universal or the substance (dravya). 19 In the Jatisamuddeśa (VP 3.1-110) the point of departure is the view that words denote universals; in the following Dravyasamuddeśa (VP 3.111-128) words are taken to denote substance. Bhartṛhari does not appear to make a choice between these two alternatives.
16 VP 1.99: desādibhiś ca sambandho dṛṣṭaḥ kāyavatām apil deśabhedavikalpe 'pi na bhedo dhvaniśabdayoḥll
17 This interpretation of the stanza differs from the one offered in the Vrtti; see Appendix. 18 VP 1.100-101: grahaṇagrahyayoḥ siddha yogyata niyata yathal vyangyavyanjakabhāvena
tathaiva sphotanādayohil sadṛśagrahananam ca gandhādinām prakāśakami nimittam niyatam loke pratidravyam avasthitam// I prefer the reading -bhavena in 100c to -bhave 'pi, which is slightly better supported by the Mss.
19 See VP 3.2, quoted and translated above. Herzberger translates dravya with 'individual'; I prefer 'substance'.