Tibetan Citations Of Bhartaharis Verses And Problem Of His Date

Here is a comprehensive summary of the provided text, "Tibetan Citations Of Bhartrhari's Verses And Problem Of His Date" by Hajime Nakamura:

This article by Hajime Nakamura investigates the presence of verses attributed to the Indian philosopher Bhartṛhari in Tibetan translations of later Mahāyāna Buddhist philosophical works. Nakamura aims to compile these Tibetan citations, identify their Sanskrit originals, and discuss the implications for dating Bhartṛhari.

Key Findings and Arguments:

• Tibetan Citations Identified: Nakamura presents several Tibetan citations (marked as "fr." for fragment) of verses attributed to "Bhadrahari," "Bhadrihari," "Bhatahari," "Bharitehari," or "Bhandrihari." These variations in spelling are noted as evidence for the original Sanskrit name being Bhartṛhari, which was difficult to transcribe into Tibetan.

• Connection to Vākyapadīya: A significant discovery is that the Sanskrit originals of several of these Tibetan verses can be found in Bhartṛhari's renowned work, the Vākyapadīya. This provides strong evidence for the attribution.

• Philosophical Parallels: The verses attributed to Bhartṛhari in Tibetan texts often express philosophical ideas that resonate with later Buddhist Idealism (vijñaptimātratā), as evidenced by the commentary of Asvabhāva on the Mahāyāna-sūtrālamkāra-țīkā.

• Bhartṛhari's Vākyapadīya and Buddhist Thought: The article highlights how Bhartṛhari's philosophical discussions, particularly in the Vākyapadīya, engage with concepts and arguments that later influenced Buddhist philosophy. The author notes parallels with Buddhist thinkers like Dignāga.

• Debate on Bhartṛhari's Date: A major focus of the article is the problem of accurately dating Bhartṛhari.

  • Critique of I-tsing's Account: Nakamura critically examines the traditional dating of Bhartṛhari based on the account of the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim I-tsing. I-tsing stated Bhartṛhari died forty years before his own stay in India (c. 651-652 AD). However, I-tsing also mentions Bhartṛhari was a contemporary of Dharmapāla, who commented on Bhartṛhari's work. Since Dharmapāla lived earlier (530-561 AD), these two statements by I-tsing are contradictory, suggesting an error in his report.
  • Evidence from Scholarly Connections: The article draws on the work of H. R. Rangaswamy Iyengar, who establishes a connection between Bhartṛhari and Vasubandhu and his pupils. Evidence from Punyarāja (commentator on the Vākyapadīya) and Jain scholar Simhasūrigani (early 6th century AD) suggests Bhartṛhari was a pupil of Vasurāta, who was a contemporary of Vasubandhu. This places Bhartṛhari in the 5th century AD.
  • Dignāga as a Landmark: The article discusses the dating of Dignāga, a prominent Buddhist philosopher. Scholars generally place Dignāga around the 5th century AD. As Nakamura notes that Bhartṛhari's ideas are echoed or even quoted by Dignāga (and vice-versa), this reinforces the idea that Bhartṛhari lived around the same time as or before Dignāga.
  • Conclusion on Dating: Based on the convergence of these various pieces of evidence – the Tibetan citations, the philosophical connections with Buddhist thinkers, and the critique of I-tsing's account – Nakamura concludes that Bhartṛhari, the author of the Vākyapadīya, likely lived around 450-500 AD.

• Philosophical Nuances and Attributions:

  • The article touches upon the distinction between pariṇāmavāda (emanation theory) and vivartavāda (manifestation theory). While Bhartṛhari is sometimes associated with pariṇāmavāda, some verses attributed to him (like fragment 11) seem to align more with vivartavāda. Nakamura suggests that the strict distinction between these terms was not as pronounced in Bhartṛhari's time, or that the attribution of certain verses might be complex.
  • The article also notes how verses with similar philosophical content to those attributed to Bhartṛhari are found in other traditions, including Upanishadic texts (Sureśvara), Jain scholars (Prabhācandra, Abhayadeva), and other Buddhist philosophers (Dignāga, Gaudapada). This indicates a shared philosophical landscape in ancient India.

In summary, Hajime Nakamura's article provides compelling evidence from Tibetan Buddhist texts that confirms the existence of verses attributed to Bhartṛhari in these traditions. By analyzing the Tibetan spellings and identifying Sanskrit originals, particularly within Bhartṛhari's Vākyapadīya, he strengthens the attribution. Crucially, the article revisits and refutes the traditional dating of Bhartṛhari based on I-tsing, using scholarly connections and the dating of contemporary figures like Dignāga to propose a revised timeframe for Bhartṛhari, placing him in the mid-to-late 5th century AD.