Authorship Of Vakyapadiya Vrtti

Here's a comprehensive summary of Ashok Aklujkar's article "The Authorship of the Vākyapadiya-Vrtti," based on the provided text:

Central Argument: Ashok Aklujkar's article aims to refute the conclusion that the Vrtti (commentary) on the first two kāṇḍas (sections) of Bhartṛhari's Vākyapadiya was not written by Bhartṛhari himself. He strongly advocates for the traditional attribution and argues that the Vrtti is an integral and inseparable part of the Vākyapadiya, not a later addition.

Traditional View and Emerging Doubts:

• Tradition: For a long time, it has been a strong tradition in India to attribute the Vrtti of the first two kāṇḍas of the Trikāṇḍi (the complete work) to Bhartṛhari. This tradition is supported by manuscripts, ancient commentaries, and the writings of numerous later scholars and philosophers.
• Sources of Doubt: However, modern scholars often entertain doubts about this traditional authorship. These doubts stem from several observations:
  • The Vrtti occasionally offers multiple interpretations for a single verse (kārikā).
  • The epithet tatra-bhavat (a polite term meaning "that venerable one") appears in the Vrtti, and in some ancient usage, it serves as an epithet for Bhartṛhari himself, but here it seems to refer to someone else.
  • Some scholars perceive divergences in views and terminology between the Vrtti and the kārikās.
• Madeleine Biardeau's Counter-Argument: Aklujkar specifically addresses and aims to refute Madeleine Biardeau's conclusion, which posits that the Vrtti was written by Hari-vrşabha (another name) after Kumārila, and that the tradition mistakenly attributed it to Bhartṛhari due to name confusion.

Aklujkar's Defense of Traditional Authorship:

Aklujkar presents a multi-pronged approach to defend the traditional authorship, focusing on refuting the doubts and providing new internal evidence.

1. Addressing Doubts (Negative Defense):

• Multiple Interpretations: Aklujkar argues that the apparent alternative explanations in the Vrtti are not signs of uncertainty but rather reflect Bhartṛhari's skillful engagement with his own verses. He suggests that the kārikās were deliberately composed to be open to multiple interpretations, and the Vrtti elucidates these different levels and contexts. The use of apara ("another") often signals approval and adherence to a broader tradition, not a disagreement. Bhartṛhari's known penchant for varied interpretations, seen in his commentary on the Mahābhāṣya, supports this.
• The Epithet Tatra-bhavat: Aklujkar contends that tatra-bhavat is a general honorific in Sanskrit and not exclusively an epithet for Bhartṛhari. He cites examples of its use by other scholars to refer to different individuals, including Bhartṛhari's own teacher, Vasurāta. Furthermore, the Vrtti uses this term to refer to authors later than Patañjali whose views align with Bhartṛhari's, indicating it's a reference to a respected predecessor, not an indication of a different author.

2. Presenting New Internal Evidence (Positive Demonstration):

Aklujkar emphasizes that while external evidence (testimony of later authors) is strong, internal evidence (structural and compositional aspects of the text itself) has been largely overlooked. He focuses on two main types of internal evidence:

• Syntactical Evidence:

  • Interdependence of Vrtti and Kārikās: Aklujkar demonstrates instances where a kārikā is syntactically incomplete without the Vrtti, and vice versa. He provides examples (like 1.92 and 1.65) where phrases or pronouns in the kārikās clearly depend on the preceding or following commentary, indicating a unified authorship and an intended reading together.
  • Unconventional Commentary Introductions: In about ten instances, the Vrtti connects to the following kārikā in a manner distinct from how typical commentaries introduce external texts. These connections are syntactically integral and crucial for understanding the flow of ideas, suggesting the author of the Vrtti is also the author of the kārikās.
  • Essential Supplementation: Aklujkar highlights numerous cases (around 36) where the Vrtti is essential for understanding the objection or query addressed in a kārikā. Similarly, in about 42 cases, the Vrtti reveals when a kārikā switches to an alternative view. Crucially, he argues that at least 25 kārikās would be incomprehensible regarding their relevance, background, or context without the Vrtti.

• Compositional Evidence:

  • Anticipation of the Vrtti: Aklujkar points to kārikās 1.24-26, which enumerate eight topics discussed in the Vākyapadiya. Verse 1.27, instead of discussing the first six topics as expected, begins with the seventh. Aklujkar posits the logical explanation is that the first six topics are primarily elaborated in the Vrtti accompanying verses 1.24-26, making the Vrtti an integral part of the overall composition that anticipates and complements the kārikās.
  • Transfer of Terms and Concepts: He analyzes verses 1.47-49, showing a deliberate transfer from dhvani to nāda and from a pronoun to sphota. This transfer is only explainable if the Vrtti (specifically on 1.47) introduces the term sphota, which is not present in the preceding kārikās, indicating a compositional unity and intended linkage.

Conclusion:

Aklujkar concludes that the kārikās clearly need supplementation to be fully understood, thus evincing the author's plan to write a gloss. Since the available Vrtti provides this necessary supplementation and is supported by a continuous and well-documented tradition, it must be the gloss written by Bhartṛhari. He dismisses the idea of a lost original gloss being replaced by a later one as unfounded speculation. He firmly believes the Vrtti is not just an appendage but an inseparable component of the Vākyapadiya, written by the same author.