Vakyapadiya and Sankhyakarika

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

Raja Bhartrhari is known to be the great scholar who wrote the Vakyapadiya as a treatise on the Sphotavada and he is the acknowledged authority on the grammar of philosophy and he is also believed by many to be the author of a Vartika on the Sankhyakarika, the authoritative text on the Sankhya philosophy. Such being the possibility, has any scholar come to know of any studies carried out so far, which throw light on the great Monist Raja Bhartrhari's appying the principles of Sphotavada in his Vartika of the Sankhyakarika ?

Regards,

Sunil KB

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

Please permit me to elaborate my mail as follows :

It is the belief of some (including me as well) that Raja Bhartrihari, who wrote the Vakyapadiya, the treatise on the Sphotavada, is also the writer of the Yuktidipika, which also indicates that its author is a raja (king). It is known that Raja Bhartrihari gave up the throne in his prime of his youth to became an ascetic and his brother Vikramaditya succeeded him. Vacaspati Mishra includes two verses from the text of the Yuktidipika in his Tattvakaumudi, the commentary on the Sankhyakarika, and he calls that text as the Raja-Vartika. Thus, in short, the Vakyapadiya and the Yuktidipika could have been written by the same person, Bhartrihari.

In this august forum there are eminent scholars like Prof. Ashok Aklujkar, Prof. Madhav Deshpande, Prof Korada Subrahmanian and several others, who are the present day authorities on Vakyapadiya and I hope they will like to throw some light on my query.

Regards,

Sunil KB

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

Dear Dr Bhattacharya

There is no any reference to Yuktidipika/Rajavartika in Vakyapadiyam or its commentgaries.

I have not come across any direct or indirect reference by Madhava /Bhattoji/Nagesa etc. anywhere in their works.

I shalll keep in mind the point raised by you and in future , if I come across any piece of info , let you know.

Samkhyadarsanam is taken by Patanjali and Hari mainly in two instances - to decide Lingam and Anupalabdhi(atisaukhmyat...).

dhanyo'smi

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Personal Website: www.korada.org

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Prof. Subrahamanyam,

Thank you for your kind reply. Is it possible that Bhartrihari thought of writing the Vakyapadiya only after he finished his work on  the Yuktidipika, the Vartika to explain the Sankhyakarika, by looking at the deep inner meanings of the Karikas? Bhartrihari was a monist whereas the popular impression has almost always been that Sankhya is dualistic, though together with Yuga they recognze the Superior  (and unifying ?) Ishvara.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[Nagaraj Paturi]

1. 'Monism' is a coined English word that may not very well suit the discussions on VaiyaakaraNa stand on Brahman and its relation with the Saadhaka.

 

2. Whether Bhartrihari and Raja Bhartrihari are one and the same or not a dispute not yet resolved.

 

3.  Bhartrihari believed in knowledge in multiple Shastras since he says,

 

 " प्रज्ञा विवेकं लभतेभिन्नैरागमदर्शनैः " . But hearsay about his authorship of several different books such as Yuktidipika or Saankhyakaarika  needs thorough scrutiny.

 

Experts in textual criticism like Prof. Ashok Ajlukar only can help in the resolution of such disputes.

 

4. Recognition of Ees'vara is part of Dvaita also. That is not an index of 'non-dualism' .

 

सुधीविधेयः

 

नागराजः

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[sunil bhattacharjya]

amaste,

1)

I used Monism, as many others do, only to indicate the Ekatva or Advaita.

2)

There could be two or more Bhartriharis. Manu gives permission to name the descendents after the ancestors. That does not really discount the possibility of there being one Bhartrihari who was the stalwart in the grammar of philosophy and that he could have a role of the interpretation of "Shabda" in Yuktidioika.
3)

I agree the experts like Prof. Ashok Aklujkar and others may be of immense help to clarify the issues.

4)

In Yoga the Ishvara is one who is beyond the hold of the Prakrti and the souls escaping (by way of Ishvara-pranidhaana) the hold of Prakrti cannot become anything different from the Ishvara, though that has not been elaborated. Otherwise there will be many Ishvaras, which is not acceptable.  That elaboration that Ishvara is one, obviously has been left for the higher levels of Vedanta.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

 Is it possible that Bhartrihari thought of writing the Vakyapadiya only after he finished his work on  the Yuktidipika, the Vartika to explain the Sankhyakarika, by looking at the deep inner meanings of the Karikas? Bhartrihari was a monist whereas the popular impression has almost always been that Sankhya is dualistic, though together with Yuga they recognze the Superior  (and unifying ?) Ishvara 

 --  Vidvan Sunil Bhattacarya

Dear Dr Bhattacarya

Bhartrhari borrowed 'अनादिनिधनं ब्रह्म’ from  शान्तिपर्व of Mahabhaaratam whrein सेश्वरसांख्यम् is also analysed ( Yoga also has got the name सेश्वरसांख्यम्).

You are referring to the three verses - प्रधानास्तित्वम् ....सह सिद्धिभिः - quoted by Vacaspati  at the end of साङ्ख्यतत्त्वकौमुदी , in the context of षष्टिपदार्थी - राजवार्तिकम् । But this is निरीश्वरसाङ्ख्यम् -  even there is the controversy about -पुरुषः(आत्मा) एकः or अनेकः (verse 18) between Kapila and Isvarakrsna.

It is difficult  to decide as to whether Hari penned Vakyapadiyam or Rajavartikam first , assuming he  authored both.

Just like Vacaspati he might have done one after the other or like Nagesa he was doing both simultaneously .

Finally it is अद्वैतम् - ie the अखण्डवाक्यार्थ established in Vakyapadiyam is akin to तत्त्वमसि of अद्वैतिनः।

We cannot go by stories/hearsay.

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Personal Website: www.korada.org

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Madhav Deshpande <mmd...@umich.edu> wrote:

Dear Shri Sunil Bhattacharjyaa,

     I have, in the past, read the research on Yuktidīpikā by Shiv Kumar and Bhargava, Harzer-Edeltraud and Wezler, and have not come across any notion that the author of this text is the same as the author of the Vākyapadīya.  Yes, the Yuktidīpikā is alternatively referred to as Rājavārttika, but the "Rāja" in this title has no connection with Bhartṛhari.  No grammatical works of Bhartṛhari refer to his being a "Rājā".

     Ashok Aklujkar may have more to say on this topic.  With best wishes,

Madhav Deshpande

On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 10:28 PM, sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Awaiting your kind comments.

Regards,
Sunil KB

--
Madhav M. Deshpande
Professor of Sanskrit and Linguistics
Department of Asian Languages and Cultures
202 South Thayer Street, Suite 6111
The University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1608, USA

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Prof. Subrahmanyamji,

Yes, we cannot exactly say any one of the two was written first. These could have also been written in parallel.

You also said :

Quote

You are referring to the three verses - प्रधानास्तित्वम् ....सह सिद्धिभिः - quoted by Vacaspati  at the end of साङ्ख्यतत्त्वकौमुदी , in the context of षष्टिपदार्थी - राजवार्तिकम् । But this is निरीश्वरसाङ्ख्यम् -  even there is the controversy about -पुरुषः(आत्मा) एकः or अनेकः (verse 18) between Kapila and Isvarakrsna.

Unquote

Ishvarakrishna's treatment seems to be based on "the Sankhya dictum : Ishvara is Asiddha" and the role of Prakrti alone seems to be emphasized. particularly so in the few Karikas before and after the Karika 61. In this context it is also interesting to note that these few Karikas before and after the Karika 61are missing (or not attnded to) in the Yuktidipika.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[Ashok Aklujkar]

My name has been mentioned more than once in this particular discussion. Hence I will participate, although the time is inconvenient to me, given the other deadlines I am facing (and have missed).

For sound historical conclusions one should, minimally, (a) take all evidence into consideration, particularly evidence coming from mutually independent sources, (b) explain, while citing evidence favourable to one's position, how any conflicting evidence that may be there could have come into existence, (c).attach greater value to objective pieces of evidence (colophons of manuscripts, features of diction (including presence or absence of compounds, command of standard grammar etc.), *explicitly stated* differences of views, and so on). To concentrate on only a few pieces of evidence or not to recognize the relative strengths, balaabala, of different kinds of evidence is not the proper way to reconstruct history.

Repeated revisiting of primary sources is also necessary. No matter how great an earlier scholar may be as a human being, as a teacher or as a figure in one's sampradaaya, a historian should not hesitate to check if what he or she said agrees with his/her and other sources -- books, inscriptions, coins, archaeological artifacts , etc. -- literally and precisely. In fact, dispassionate pursuit of scholarship should be viewed as the best way of showing respect for such persons. A person's being great in one field of human activity does not mean that that person should be accepted as an authority even in historical research (nor should historical research be thought of as the best thing one can do in life).

I make the preceding general observations in the hope that they will lead to better argumentation in the BVP and other lists concerned with history and in the hope that they will help in understanding the particulars I write below.

In the known sources, the VP author has never been referred to with the title raaja(n) as Prof. Madhav M. Deshpande has observed. There is thus a strain in connecting the VP author with the Raaja-vaarttika, if "raaja(n)" in the title of that work is taken as a reference to its author. Even if "bhart.r" in "Bhart.r-hari" is understood as a synonym of "raaja(n)," there would be the question, "Why is not the work mentioned as Bhart.r-vaarttika?"

Secondly, if we are going to make an exception in the case of "Bhart.r-hari," should we not make an exception in the case of "Bhart.r-mitra," "Bhart.r-me,n.tha," "Bhart.r-prapa:nca" etc.? Should we not extend to those names also the synonymity of "bhart.r" and "raajan"? If not, will we not be making an exception only to facilitate a particular preconceived conclusion? Will our argument not be circular?

There is no similarity of diction or style between the VP and the YD. (Terminology common to all or most Sanskrit ;saastra texts should not be used to claim similarity; it is distinctive features of diction and style in the VP that we need to demonstrate as existing in the YD.)

The YD quotes Dig-naaga/Di:n-naaga. Dig-naaga utilizes Bhart.r-hari's work, but Bhart.r-hari does not show awareness of Dig-naaga's work. Therefore, it is not possible to place Bhart.r-hari and the YD author in the same segment of time. (See the introduction of the best edition of the YD published so far, namely the one by Professors Albrecht Wezler and Shujun Motegi.) Note also that the YD author quotes VP verses with "aaha ca" as one would of a well-known old author (p. 7 of Pandeya's edition; 13 of the Wezler-Motegi edition).

The YD has vaarttika parts and their explanations. Its chapters are titled aahnikas. The model (or at least one major model) for its construction is Pata;njali's Mahaabhaa.sya. The title "Raaja-vaarttika" should refer to the vaarttikas in it, not to its whole text. This means that the YD author is very unlikely to be the same person as the Raaja-vaarttika author, unless it can be proved that the YD author was commenting on his own work. (I differ from what Wezler and Motegi have to say about the authorship of the YD).

Even in the case of the three verses quoted by Vaacaspati-mi;sra that are found in the YD, note that they are like a quotation between introductory verse 8 and introductory verse 12. The future tense in "kaartsnyenehaabhidhaasyate" of verse 12 forms a continuation of the future tense use in "iha vyaakhyaa kari.syate" of verse 8. (The verse numbers are 13 and 9 according to R.C. Pandeya'd edition.)

In the other work known as "Raaja-vaarttika", that of Akala:nka in the Jaina tradition, "raaja(n)" does not seem to refer to a particular author. There the word seems to have a sense similar to that of "raaja(n)" in "raaja-danta" etc. covered by Paa.nini 2.2.31. Even in the Saa:nkhya tradition, therefore, the meaning of "Raaja-vaarttika" could have been something like 'the principal or most prominent vaarttika text' (compare the use of "magisterial" for a study or scholarly contribution in English).

One should therefore not go on articulating possibilities basing oneself on a belief. One must first ascertain if the belief has any basis in primary sources. Also, to read a decisive force in very broad comparisons (illustrated by questions such as 'Could a grammarian have written a Saa:nkhya text?') is not of much use. People were, of course, at least as variously interested and as multi-talented in the past as they are now. Also, authors were not bound in the past only to express their preferred positions or to stick to a single scholarly interest if they are not so bound now.

I will not be participating further in this discussion if it continues only in the direction mentioned in the last paragraph.

a.a.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste Prof. Aklujkarji,

Thank you for your reply. I am sorry if ihad encroached upon your valuable time and you had to miss other deadlines because of that.

I had the impression that a discussion on this topic will be incomplete unless and until you say something on it, and particularly so because you are an esteemed member of this forum. I have learnt that the author of the Yuktidipika might be having a similar view to Bhartrhari of the process of revelation of the Veda (or Samkhya knowledge), and both the Yuktidipika and Vakyapadiyavrtti quote the same description of the process of Veda revelation and transmission from Nirukta 1.20. I also learned that you also discussed this in your article "Veda Revelation according to Bhartrhari" in the book Bhartrhari: Language, Thought and Reality.

You seem to confirm that YD was written later than VP (quoting Pandeya's dition) and that is possible even if both are written by the same author. You also said that Dig-naaga utilized Bhart.r-hari's work and it will be kind of you if you give the reference, of course, if you have the time.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste Prof. Ashok Aklujkarji,

Thank you for your reply. I am sorry if I had encroached upon your valuable time and forced you to reply and you had to miss other deadlines because of that. I had the impression that a discussion on this topic would not be complete unless and until we hear something from you on it, and particularly so because you are a highly esteemed member of this forum.

There seems to be a general opinion that the author of the Yuktidipika was a sort of grammarian, who was familiar with the vyakarana tradition from Panin to Patanjali and he treated the Sankhyakarika as Sutra and composed the Yuktidipika i two layers - Vartika and Bhashya. In this respect also Bhartrhari did seem to fit in well as the author

I also understand that the author of the Yuktidipika might be having a similar view to Bhartrhari of the process of revelation of the Veda (or Samkhya knowledge), and both the Yuktidipika and Vakyapadiyavrtti quote the same description of the process of Veda revelation and transmission from Nirukta 1.20. I also learned that you also discussed this in your article "Veda Revelation according to Bhartrhari" in the book Bhartrhari: Language, Thought and Reality.

You also seem to say that YD was written later than VP (quoting Pandeya's edition) and that is possible even if both are written by the same author.

Now kindly permit me to refer to your following statement :
Quote

The YD quotes Dig-naaga/Di:n-naaga. Dig-naaga utilizes Bhart.r-hari's work, but Bhart.r-hari does not show awareness of Dig-naaga's work. Therefore, it is not possible to place Bhart.r-hari and the YD author in the same segment of time. (See the introduction of the best edition of the YD published so far, namely the one by Professors Albrecht Wezler and Shujun Motegi.)

Unquote

However when I asked Shujun Motegi if in their Introduction to the book on Yuktidipika there is any statement that Dignaaga utilized Bhartrhari's work, but Bhartrhari does not show awareness of Dignaaga's work, Shujun Motegi clearly said that  so far they have not discussed the relation between Dignaaga and Bhartrihari.

Such being the counter-views I hope you would like to clear the situation from your side and all of us in the forum will be benefitted.

Best regards,