Studies On Bhartrhari 3

Author(s): Johannes Bronkhorst
Publisher: Johannes Bronkhorst

Page 14

JOHANNES BRONKHORST admittedly neither the most important nor strongest - which is directly related to the interpretation of VP 1.96-110, 120-121 presented in the last part of the present article. This interpretation deviates from the one given in the Vrtti in some important details. I shall contrast the two interpretations, and show that the one given in the Vrtti is more forced and artificial than its competitor. The interpretation of the Vrtti leads to difficulties under VP 1.99, translated above. Its last pada states that there is no difference between sound and word (na bhedo dhvanisabdayoh); this at any rate would be its straightforward interpretation. This interpretation makes good sense in the context of sphota conceived as a universal, for universals and individuals represent the same thing, be it from its real and from its unreal side; see VP 3.32 translated above. According to the Vrtti, on the other hand, there is no denial of difference between sound and sphota in this stanza, but denial of difference of location. And pada c (desabhedavikalpe 'pi) - which we translated 'even though we distinguish different locations (in the case of sound)' - is, of necessity, interpreted in the Vrtti as 'even though we wrongly distinguish different locations (for sound and sphota)'.27 But this makes little sense, for the tendency is to confuse sound and sphota, not to assign different locations to them. Regarding the stanza as a whole, the Vrtti feels obliged to consider it an answer to a rather absurd double objection. The first objection is:28 "The word is not manifested, because there is a difference of location (between it and that which manifests it). For pots etc. are manifested by lamps etc. (only) when they are in the same location. But words are perceived at a location different from the conjunctions and disjunctions of the organs (of speech) which manifest them." This first objection loses its force if one assumes that rather the sounds manifest the word,29 so the Vrtti raises its second objection:30 "How is a word, which is located in one single place, manifested by sounds which are located in several places, far removed from the word]?" The absurdity of this second objection - the only one that remains - follows from the fact, already stated above, that the tendency is to confuse sound and sphota, not to assign different locations to them. 27 Ed. Iyer p. 163 1. 2-3: ... saty api desabhedavikalpabhimane naivasau tayor bhedo vidyata iti. 28 Ed. Iyer p. 162 1. 3-5: desabhedan nabhivyajyate sabdah samanadesastha hi ghaladayah pradipadibhir vyajyantel karanasamyogavibhagabhyam tu vyanjakabhyam anyatra Sab dopalabdhir itil . 29 Id. 1. 5: sa cayam dhvanisu vyanjakesv aprasangah 30 Id. 1. 5-6: katham ekadesasthah Sabdo nanadesair ativiprakrstair dhvanibhir vyajyata itil