Two Textual Studies Of Bhartrhari - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Two Textual Studies Of Bhartrhari" by Ashok Aklujkar:

This article presents two main textual studies concerning the work of the grammarian and philosopher Bhartṛhari.

Part 1: The Title Vākyapadiya

The primary argument of the first half of the article is to challenge the widely held belief that the title Vākyapadiya refers to all three kāṇḍas (books or sections) of Bhartṛhari's monumental work. Aklujkar contends that the title Vākyapadiya originally applied only to the first two kāṇḍas. He argues that ancient writers understood and explained the meaning of the title more precisely than is often acknowledged.

Evidence for the Two-Part Division:

Aklujkar presents several pieces of evidence to support the idea that Bhartṛhari's work was conceived in two major divisions:

The Vākyapadiya and the Prakīrṇaka: The first division involved the Vākyapadiya (the first two books, including the author's own commentary or vṛtti) and the Prakīrṇaka (the third book). The entire work, when divided this way, did not have a single common name.
The Trikāṇḍī: The second division was more superficial, naming the entire work Trikāṇḍī (meaning "three books"). Each kāṇḍa within this division was named after a prominent word in its initial statement.
- Concluding Verses of the Second Kāṇḍa: Verses 478-487 of the second kāṇḍa act as concluding verses, connecting it to the third kāṇḍa. These verses suggest that the first two kāṇḍas offer a concise summary of grammatical views, while the third kāṇḍa elaborates on them in detail and in light of other philosophical systems.
- Prakīrṇaka as a Separate Book: The third kāṇḍa is often referred to as Prakīrṇaka (meaning "miscellaneous" or "supplementary"). The existence of commentaries solely on the third kāṇḍa (like Helārāja's) and the absence of commentaries on the first or second kāṇḍa in manuscripts containing the third kāṇḍa commentary suggest its relative independence. I-ching also records a commentary by Dharmapāla on the Prakīrṇaka only.
- Introductory Verses to Commentaries: Introductory verses, typically found at the beginning of commentaries on independent works, appear with the commentary on the Prakīrṇaka but not with the commentary on the second kāṇḍa.

Evidence for the Title Vākyapadiya Referring Only to the First Two Kāṇḍas:

Manuscript Colophons: Some manuscripts indicate the completion of the Vākyapadiya-kārikā at the end of the second kāṇḍa. Aklujkar argues that colophons marking the end of the second kāṇḍa are more likely to reflect historical truth, as copyists might have mistakenly extended the title to the third kāṇḍa.
Helārāja's Usage: Helārāja, a commentator, explicitly refers to the first two books as the Vākyapadiya multiple times in his commentary on the third kāṇḍa. He, however, refers to the third kāṇḍa as the Prakīrṇaka.
Vardhamāna's Reference: Vardhamāna, in his Gaṇa-ratna-mahodadhi, refers to Bhartṛhari as the author of both the Vākyapadiya and the Prakīrṇaka.
I-ching's Mention: If I-ching's mention of "Peina" is identified with the Prakīrṇaka, then the term Vākyapadiya must refer to the first two kāṇḍas.
Significance of the Title's Formation: The title Vākyapadiya is formed from the compound vākya-pade. Aklujkar argues that if it covered all three kāṇḍas, the significance of the title, which relates to "sentence" and "word," would be diminished, especially given the importance and distinct content of the first kāṇḍa.

Addressing Counterarguments:

Aklujkar anticipates and refutes potential objections:

Manuscript Inclusion: The fact that some manuscripts include the third kāṇḍa under the Vākyapadiya title is attributed to scribal error or later interpretations.
Derivation from Titles: While the title derives from vākya and pada, this doesn't necessitate its inclusion of the Pada-kāṇḍa (third kāṇḍa).
Helārāja's Reference to Three Kāṇḍas: Helārāja's reference to the entire work as a Trikāṇḍī does not mean he considered the Vākyapadiya to encompass all three; rather, it highlights the prominence and independence of the third kāṇḍa.
Eight Topics: Helārāja's statement that the Vākyapadiya deals with eight topics is interpreted by Aklujkar to mean that the first two kāṇḍas lay the groundwork, and the third kāṇḍa further elaborates on them.
Verses from the Third Kāṇḍa: Aklujkar suggests that verses quoted from the third kāṇḍa as being from the Vākyapadiya might be due to later writers' broader usage of the term or errors.

Meaning and Significance of the Title Vākyapadiya:

Aklujkar proposes that the title Vākyapadiya was coined to reflect the principal concern of the first two books: the sentence (vākya) and its meaningful constituents (pada). These books delve into eight key topics related to linguistic units, meaning, and their interrelations, a scope accurately captured by the title. He also draws parallels with explanations of the term from grammarians like Jayaditya and Salikanatha, who understand it as a work based on vākya and pada.

Part 2: Bhoja's Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa and the Vākya-kāṇḍa-vṛtti

The second half of the article shifts focus to a significant discovery: Bhoja's influential work, Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa (SP), contains a considerable number of literal borrowings from Bhartṛhari's vṛtti (commentary) on the Vākya-kāṇḍa.

Significance of the Discovery:

Textual Reconstruction: This finding is crucial for reconstructing portions of the Vākya-kāṇḍa-vṛtti, which is not fully available in print and suffers from corruption in the sole known manuscript.
Critical Study of Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa: It provides additional material for a critical study of the SP, especially given the scarcity of its manuscripts.
Author's Method: It reveals Bhoja's compositional method, which involved extensively quoting and integrating material from existing works, including Bhartṛhari's vṛtti, to support his own discussions.
Authorship of the vṛtti: Bhoja's reliance on the vṛtti suggests that he considered it an integral part of Bhartṛhari's work, thus indirectly supporting Bhartṛhari's authorship of the vṛtti.

Methodology for Comparison:

Aklujkar details the methodology used to identify these borrowings, including citing critically edited passages from the vṛtti, noting variant readings, and quoting passages from the SP, primarily from the edition by Yadugiri Svami and the supplement to the Abhyankar-Limaye edition. He provides numerous examples of verbatim borrowings to illustrate the point.

Conclusion:

The article strongly argues that the title Vākyapadiya originally pertained only to the first two kāṇḍas of Bhartṛhari's work, with the third kāṇḍa being a distinct supplement known as the Prakīrṇaka. The latter part highlights the important discovery of Bhoja's literal borrowings from the Vākya-kāṇḍa-vṛtti, which aids in textual scholarship and sheds light on compositional practices in ancient India.