Nakamura On Bhartrhari

This document is a detailed critique by Ashok Aklujkar of an article by Professor Hajime Nakamura titled "Bhartshari The Scholar," published in the Indo-Iranian Journal (1960). Aklujkar, a scholar of Sanskrit and Indian philosophy, systematically analyzes Nakamura's article, identifying what he considers to be numerous inaccuracies in translations, interpretations of Bhartṛhari's philosophical concepts, and comparisons made by Nakamura.

The core of Aklujkar's argument is that Nakamura often takes Bhartṛhari's verses out of context, leading to misunderstandings of his philosophical positions. Aklujkar dedicates the majority of his critique to correcting specific mistranslations and misinterpretations, providing his own more accurate translations and contextual explanations, supported by references to Bhartṛhari's Trikāṇḍī (referred to as Vākyapadīya by some scholars) and its commentaries.

Here's a breakdown of Aklujkar's main points:

• Purpose of the Critique: Aklujkar states his intention is "śāstra-śuddhi" (purification of a branch of learning) and that his focus is on providing correct translations and understanding of Bhartṛhari's philosophy, rather than solely refuting Nakamura.

• Accuracy of Texts and Commentaries: Aklujkar notes that Nakamura may not have been aware of or utilized the most accurate and comprehensive editions of Bhartṛhari's works and their commentaries, referencing his own published and forthcoming works that address these textual issues.

• Specific Mistranslations and Misinterpretations: Aklujkar meticulously goes through Nakamura's article, providing:

  • Verse Number and Nakamura's Translation: He quotes Nakamura's translation of a particular verse or passage.
  • Original Sanskrit: He presents the Sanskrit text of the verse in question.
  • Aklujkar's Corrected Translation: He offers his own translation, arguing it is more accurate and contextually appropriate.
  • Contextual Explanation: He explains why Nakamura's interpretation is flawed, often highlighting how the verse's meaning changes when considered within its larger philosophical context or in relation to specific commentaries. Key concepts discussed and re-interpreted include:
    • The nature of smṛti (tradition) and its relation to śruti (revealed scripture).
    • Bhartṛhari's views on the segmentation of linguistic units and the nature of grammar.
    • The meaning of terms like drșța-prayojana (having mundane purposes), adrșța-prayojana (having non-mundane purposes), and linga (indications).
    • Bhartṛhari's concept of agama (inherited lore, tradition) and its relationship to the Vedas and other schools of thought.
    • The meaning of vāc (speech/language) and its three levels (vaikhari, madhyama, paśyanti).
    • The status of grammar as the "science of sciences."
    • The role of perception, inference (anumāna), and testimony (āgama) in knowledge acquisition, particularly in relation to transcendental matters.
    • Bhartṛhari's views on the eternality of the Vedas compared to the Mīmāmsakas.

• Critique of Nakamura's Conclusions: Aklujkar challenges Nakamura's broader conclusions:

  • Half-hearted Advocacy of Agama: He refutes Nakamura's suggestion that Bhartṛhari's advocacy of agama was superficial, arguing that Nakamura's own misinterpretations lead to this unfounded conclusion.
  • Total War Against Inference: Aklujkar asserts that Nakamura misrepresents Bhartṛhari's stance on inference. According to Aklujkar, Bhartṛhari did not declare war on inference but rather highlighted its limitations and the lack of guarantee for its validity. Bhartṛhari emphasized that inference, while useful, is not absolute and needs to be grounded in or supported by perception and agama, especially when dealing with non-mundane matters. Inference, for Bhartṛhari, is more for interpretation and justification of established truths rather than for outright refutation.

• Incorrect Comparisons: Aklujkar points out one specific instance where Nakamura's comparison of Bhartṛhari's view on the eternality of the Vedas to that of the Mīmāmsakas is inaccurate. He clarifies that Bhartṛhari believed the Veda, after cosmic dissolution, exists in a unitary form (as śabda-tattva-brahman), while the Mīmāmsakas believed even the divisions of the Veda are eternal.

In essence, Aklujkar's article is a scholarly intervention aimed at correcting the record regarding the philosophical insights of the ancient Indian thinker Bhartṛhari, specifically in response to what he perceives as a flawed interpretation by Professor Nakamura. The critique is characterized by its detailed engagement with textual evidence and nuanced understanding of philosophical concepts.