Concluding Verses Of Bhartrharis Vakya Kanda

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided text, "The Concluding Verses Of Bhartrharis Vakya Kanda" by Ashok Aklujkar:

This paper by Ashok Aklujkar offers a detailed analysis and new interpretations of verses 481-490, which appear at the end of the second book (Vākya-kāṇḍa) of Bhartṛhari's Trikāṇḍi or Vākyapadīya. Aklujkar acknowledges the extensive existing scholarship on these verses but aims to introduce novel considerations and refute previously unchallenged interpretations.

Core Argument: Authorship of Verses 481-490

The central thesis of the paper is that verses 481-490 were not composed by Bhartṛhari himself, but rather by one of his students. This argument is built on several points:

• Interpretation of Verse 487: Verse 487 states, "Having frequently reflected upon those nyāya-prasthāna-mārgas and his own view, our teacher composed this compendium of traditional knowledge." Aklujkar argues that if Bhartṛhari were the author of this verse, it would imply his teacher composed the kārikās and vṛtti up to verse 480, contradicting the overwhelming manuscript and traditional evidence for Bhartṛhari's authorship of the main work.
• Student's Motivation: A student composing these verses would have a clear motive: to connect the preceding two kāṇḍas with a planned third kāṇḍa and to avoid the impression that Bhartṛhari's work abruptly ended. The plural "asmākam" (our) in verse 487 can be seen as supporting this, representing a group of students.
• Disagreement with Existing Interpretations: Aklujkar critiques various attempts to reinterpret verse 487 to make it fit Bhartṛhari's authorship, finding them forced, lacking textual support, or doing violence to the original meaning. This includes the interpretations offered by the Ṭīkā (commentary), Raghunātha Sharma, Baladeva Upādhyāya, and S. Iyer.

Analysis of Specific Verses and Concepts:

• Verses 481-482 (Context of the Mahābhāṣya and the Saṁgraha): Aklujkar argues that these verses jointly provide the context for verse 483. He refutes the interpretation that the Saṁgraha was unavailable or lost at the time of Patañjali, citing Patanjali's own statements and the description of the Mahābhāṣya as saṁgraha-pratikañcuka. Instead, they describe a situation where immature intellects couldn't grasp the Mahābhāṣya due to its depth, Patañjali's multi-disciplinary approach, and the loss of appreciation for the Saṁgraha's comprehensive discussions.
• Verse 484 (ārṣe viplāvite granthe): Aklujkar strongly refutes Paul Thieme's suggestion that "ārṣe viplāvite granthe" refers to Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī. He argues that the context remains focused on the Mahābhāṣya and the Saṁgraha. The mention of grammarians like Vaiji (or variants) and their reliance on "dry logic" (śuṣka-tarka) points to their engagement with the Mahābhāṣya, which, unlike the Aṣṭādhyāyī, explicitly demands knowledge of other systems for proper understanding.
• The term saṁgraha-pratikañcuka: Aklujkar analyzes this term extensively, rejecting interpretations that suggest it means "partisan of the Saṁgraha" (Goldstücker) or "defensive armor" (Thieme). Based on the Tantra-vārttika of Kumārila, he concludes that pratikañcuka means "incorporating contents, expressing the same matter in another composition" or "old wine in a new bottle." This meaning fits the Mahābhāṣya as a recast of the Saṁgraha. He also delves into the etymology of pratikañcuka, suggesting it originally meant "another dress" or "disguise," implying a substantial correspondence despite a change in appearance, and that this sense is particularly apt for literary works.
• Verse 486 (parvatād āgamam labdhvā): Aklujkar identifies a textual problem in this verse. He argues that the construction āgamam labdhvā sah bahu-śākhatvaṁ nitah is ungrammatical. He proposes an emendation to āgamaḥ labdhvā but notes that it doesn't fully resolve the issue of the repeated use of the word āgama without clear specification, suggesting the phrase itself might be a corruption. He also critiques the Ṭīkā's attempt to differentiate between the āgama in verse 485 and the mūla-bhūta vyākaraṇāgama attributed to Rāvaṇa, finding it lacks textual justification in the context.

Implications and Significance:

• Authorship of the Vākyapadīya: If verses 481-490 are not by Bhartṛhari, it impacts the understanding of the original composition and transmission of the Vākyapadīya, potentially suggesting that the kārikās were separated from the vṛtti later, and that verses 481-490 were added as an epilogue by a student.
• History of Sanskrit Grammar: The paper highlights the importance of these concluding verses for understanding the transmission and interpretation of foundational Sanskrit texts like the Mahābhāṣya and the role of the lost Saṁgraha.
• Textual Criticism: Aklujkar emphasizes the need for rigorous textual criticism, engaging with manuscript traditions and offering new insights into the meaning of specific terms and phrases.

In essence, Aklujkar's paper is a significant contribution to the study of Bhartṛhari's Vākyapadīya, challenging the conventional understanding of the authorship of its concluding verses and offering new, well-argued interpretations of key passages and terms.