Two Textual Studies Of Bhartrhari

Author(s): Ashok Aklujkar
Publisher: Ashok Aklujkar

Page 2

548
Journal of the American Oriental Society, 89.3 (1969)
such. The second way of dividing the work was losophy, elucidated a number of grammatical relatively superficial, even mechanical. It had a views in the Mahābhāşya, and explained the imcolorless name Trikāndi for the whole and named portant vākya-nyāyas. Thus, there is a clear each kända after the most important word in difference of setting and point of view in the the first statement of that kanda.
composition of the first two kändas on the one 1.2. In the course of the discussion concerning hand and the third kända on the other. the conclusion given above about the exact range (c) Moreover, while the former are not divided of reference of the term Vākyapadiya, the present into samuddesas, the latter has no less than fourarticle clarifies also the meaning of the term. It teen samuddesas and there is reason to believe points out that an explanation of the formation that it once had at least sixteen (footnote 5). Vākyapadīya should not stop with "vākyam ca It shows a way of sectioning the discussion that padam ca; vakya-pade adhikrtya krtah granthah is absent from the first two books. Vākyapadīyam." Our sources are more specific (d) At the end of the commentary on the second on this point than scholars have heretofore kända. (BSS p. 291) we find the following verse: noticed.
"gurave Bhartrharaye sabda-brahma-vide namah / 2.1. There are a number of indications in sup- sarva-siddhanta-sandoha-sāråmsta-mayāya ca // port of the view that the division of the Trikāndi That the verse is meant to mark the conclusion into two parts-one consisting of the first two of a work or of a relatively independent part of a books and the other of the third book-was in work, is obvious. tended by the author.
(e) The third kāņda is referred to as Prakırnaka, (a) Verses 478-487 of the second kända are 'book or section devoted to miscellaneous matlike the concluding verses which one so often ters' or 'supplement', in some manuscripts concomes across at the end of Sanskrit compositions taining Bharthari's kārikās only, in all the known (Mānavalli, p. 1; Kunhan Raja, p. 291).
manuscripts of Helārāja's commentary on the (b) They are also meant to connect the third third kānda, and in the works of Vardhamāna kānda with the first two kandas. According to and I-ching (3.1 below). This points to the fact those verses, the first two kāndas contain a brief that the book was not considered to be a part of yet comprehensive statement of the views of the grammarians, while the third kända discusses
5"tatra dvadasa, saf (sad, dvadasa ?), caturvimšatir va these views in minute detail and also in the light
laksananiti Laksana-samuddege säpadesam savirodham
vistarena vyakhyāsyate."-ortti 2.77; "atra sad, dvadasa, of other systems of philosophy ("vyākarand
caturvimSatir vaitäni laksanāni tavad iha pradarsyante. gamah" and "ägamam" in 2.482-483 whereas etesam ca vitatya sopapattikam sanidarSanam sva-rupam "āgama-darsanaih" and "ägamaih" in 2.486- Pada-kande Laksana-samuddele vinirdistam iti grantha487). Thus, conciseness was the main principle followed in the composition of the first two; but
haka-pramadadinā vā Laksana-samuddesas ca Pada
kānda-madhye na prasiddhah."-ika 2.77, BSS p. 101 the latter was planned to be very extensive in (see footnote 6); "esă ca Țikākstā sva-vsttau sä сa tulyalength, in details, and in its scope; "saprapance balesvasambhavad ityadina bahu-prakara darsita. na svarūpatah” as the third introductory verse of ceyatta prakäränām asyäs tenápi tatra darfita. yasmad the Prakirnaka-prakasa says. It discussed the uktam seyam aparimāņa-vikalpā badha vist arena Badha
samuddebe samarthayişyata iti."-lika 2.77, BBS p. 106. philosophical problems from the point of view
Sadhu Ram's (1956: 71-79) contention that the Lakşaņaof the grammarian, studied the use of important
samuddeda and the Badha-samuddeda were not chapters philosophical terms in different schools of phi- of the Pada-kända but parts of Bharthari's commentary
on the Mimämsd-8 ltras, does not seem to rest on a sound
basis of evidence. Kunhan Raja's (p. 292 fn. 25) remark that the men- The second kända commentary printed in the tion of three kändas at the end of the second kanda is Benares Sanskrit Series is usually ascribed to Punyarāja. slightly puzzling, is proved to be incorrect by the signifi- In a forthcoming article, I wish to point out that a good cance of the concluding verses pointed out in these lines. case can be made for Helārāja's authorship of it.