Non Distinction Between Realities in Bhatrihari

8/12/2019 Non Distinction Between Realities in Bhatrihari

1/23

B h a r t r h a r i on th e N on-d is tinc tionbetween Rea l i t y and U nre ality

H id e y o O gaw a

0 . In tro d uc tio n

In h is Va k y a p a d i y a Bhar t rhar i argues that l a n g u a g e and reality are ne ve r d is con-

n e c t e d : Language t o u c h e s on reality t h ro u g h th e u n r e a l appearances o f re a li ty , th a t

is , what a ll words re fe r tois th e u l t im a te rea l i ty,Brahman. T h i s view is , o f co urse , c l o s e re f lec t ion o f th e id ea that thephenomenal w o rld , w h ic his th e r e a lm o f v erb al

communication vyavahdra ) o r th e s e m a n t ic f i e ld , is a ma n i fo ld appearance o f th e

one a b s o lu t e real i ty If both one word f o r x and another word f o r non-x re fe r toth e same reality x a n d non-x b e i n g equa l ly n o th in g b u t th e u n r e a l ap p earances ofBrahman t h e n th e c o n c e p t s o f x and o x wil l n o t b e differentiated from eacho t h e r. This is th e relativism Bhartrhar i holds . For B ha rtrha ri, the re fo re ,th ing s in

th e phenomenal w o r l d w h i c h seem to b e co n tra d ic to ry toe a c h o t h e r a re re la ti vi zed

whereas th e non-dual entity is b e y o n d relat ivizat ion;wi th r e g a r d to th is n o n -d ua l

rea l i ty v a r i o u s concep tua l iza t ions occur w h i c h p r o v i d e it with a ll kinds o f d elim ita-

t ions that have no a b s o l u t e status. Even th e one real i ty thus, cannot s t a n d on its

r igh ts t s r e l a t i v i z e d .What i s interesting is th a t , ino r d e r to exp la in the m an ifo ldappearance o f Brahman Bhar t rhar i i n t ro d u c e s th e no t ion o f capacity sakti) , so that

h e can secure fo r Brahman th e transcendence o f unity and m u l t ip l i c it y.Brah man is

assumed to have a var ie ty o f c o nc e pt ua li zin g capacities b y vir tue o f w h i c h it is seend i f f e r e n t lya n d i ts appearances ar e c o n c e p tu a l i z e d d i f f e r e n t ly,a n d w i t h re f e re n c e tow h i c h verba l i za t ion t akes place B r a hm a n - t sak t i - td a rs a n a v ik a lp a - ^ v y a v a h d ra ) .

This is a s imp l i f i e dp r o c e s s o f v e rb a liz a tio n .1

Bhar t rhar i mentions th re e fac to rsnecessary f o r communication vy avahara): se e ing so m eth in g riipana, a l o c a n a , d ar san a) , c o n c e p t u a l cogni t ion jnana, v i k a l p a )w h i c h d e t e r m i n e s it , a n d itsv e r b a l e x p r e s s i o n v ya pa de s a , a b h i l a p a ) . S e e K P 3 . 3 . 5 5 : riipanavyapadesabhydm lauk ik e v artm an is th i t a u / jnanam praty ab h i l ap am co sadrsau balapandi tau // W h e n they are in the co u rseo f e v e r y d a y life, th e i gno r a n t and th e w i s e [ c o m m u n ic a te s om e t h ing ] b y means o f see i n g it and


2/23

6 - i V K Si 5W 5E 12

Ta k i n g up w V P 3 . 3 . 8 7 ,th i s is th e k a r k a w h i c h a d e q u a t e l y e xp re sse s B h ar t rh ar i st h o u g h t as sta ted a b o v e : th e s e m a n t i c f ie ld is th a t inw h i c h th in g s co ntrad ic to ry

to e a c h o ther, s u c h as e x i s t e n c e a nd n on -e xis ten ce are m u t u a l l y r e l t i v i z e n

th e a p p e a r i n g o f th e u l t imate r ea l i ty a s th e phenomenal w o r l d m a k e s po ssib le its

verbal iza t ion . I t r e a d s a s f o llo w s :

V P 3 . 3 . 8 7 : tasm.dc ch ak t i v i b h d g en a ni tyah s a d a s a d d tm a k a h /

e k o r thah s a b d a v d c y a t v e b a h u r u p a h p ra k a s a te //

A t f i r s t s igh t , i t m i g h t appear t ha t in terpret ing th is kar ika is n o t diff icu l t . B u t, s in ce

th e essence o f Bh ar t rha r i s l i ngu i s t i ct h o u g h t is c o n d e n s e d t he r e , its cle ar u nd erstan d-in g is essential fo r plac in g th ekar ika in q u e s t i o n in c o n f o r m i t y w i t h h is in te nt io n . w th e in te rp re ta tio n s sch o la rshave a t t e m p t e d in th e p a s t are a s fo llo w s:

Iye r [ 9 7 : 9 ] : T h e r e f o r e , th e one e t e rn a l R eality , co nsistin go f e xiste n-

ce and non-existence sh ines t h r o u g h its diffe ren t powers in m a n y fo rm s

w h e n conveyed b y w o r d s .

Raghunatha S a r m a [ 1 9 7 4 :3 3 4 ]: t a s mdt sa rv av ya va hd rd nd m p urv okta ritya

v i k a l p a p r a b h a v a t v e n d s a d v i s a y a k a t v d t , ni tyah kutas tho n irv ik d ra h sad asad -

dtmakah svasminn a v id y d k a lp ita b h d v d b h d v a td d d tm y d d h y d sd p a n n a h , e k a hsa rv a v id h a b h e d a s u n y a h , a r th obrahmarupah s a b d a v d c y a tv a d a s d y d m s a k t i -

v i b h d g e n a s v d s r i t d n a n t a s a k t i b h e d e n a b ah u ru pa h a na nta b hd vd bh d v aru pa h ,

p r a k a s a t e pra t iya te / th e p o r t i o n under l ined : s a d as a d d tm a k a m e a n s

[ the en t i ty a r tha) ] w h i c h a c q u i r e s th e s u p e r i m p o s i t i o n o f th e id en ti ty

w ith b o th e x i s t e n c e a nd n on -e xis te nc e t ha t are th e c o n c e p tu a liz e d d u e

to n e s c i e n c e u p o n th e en tity itse lf . )

H o u b e n [ 1 9 9 5 : 5 ] : T h e r e fo r e , in accordance w i t h a d iffe rentia tio n o f

capacities , thepermanent o n e Thing-meant w h i c h is o f th e n a t u r e o f e x i-

s t en t and n o n - e x i s t e n t , m a n i f e s t s i tself a s m a nifo ld w h e n i t is e xp re sse d

b y w o r d s .

The q u e s t i o n is how w e s h o u l d t a k e th e p h r a s e s a d a s a d d t m a k a in p d d a b . E v e ry

in te rpre ta t ion is mi s l ead i n g e x c e p t Raghunatha Sarma s . I n view o f B h artrh ar i sex p res s i n g i t in words. They are a l ike in t h a t they r e s o r t to [ c o n c e p t u a l ]c o g n i t i o n and verbale x p r e s s i o n [i n co m m u n ica t io n ] . ) From h is n o n -d u a l i s t i c v i e w p o i n t , th e u l t imate o bje c t o f th esee in g sh o u ldb e B r a h m a n w h i c h is s e e n d i f f e r e n t lyd u e to th e cap acity o f n esc ie nc e (a vid ya sa kti ) .S e e P a d d h a t i o n Vrt t i a d V P 1 .9w h i c h w i l l b e dea l t with la ter. A nd a l so , fo r th e c o n n e c t io n o fc onc e p t ua l i z a t i on an d verbal izat ion s e e O ga w a [1 999].


3/23

B h a r t rh a r i on th e N o n -d i s t i n c t i o n between Rea l i t y and U n r e a l i t y O g a w a 7

fundamental thesis that th e u l t im a t e real i ty,th e u nd elim i ted , appears a s d elim i te d,

we have to s a y th a t th e on e permanen t real i ty a p p e a r s as b e i n g o f th e nature ofe x i s t e n c e and non-existence andnot that w h a t i s o f th e n a t u r e o f e x is te n c e a n d

non-existence appears as s o m e t h in g . F or B h a r t r h a r i , th e u l t i m a t e re a l i ty B ra h m ani s b e y o n d re la t iv izat ion and cannot i n v o l v e a c o n t r a d i c t i o n in it. T he re fo re , a g a in s t

th e in te rpre ta t ions b y I y e r a n d Houben w ho understand t ha t B ha rtrh a r i c o n sid e r sB ra h ma n to have th e tw o a s p e c t s o f sa t and asa t ,2 I w o u l d l ike to a r g u e th a t ta k in g

s a d a sa d d tm a k aas qua l i fy ing th e appearances o f B r a h m a n ( b a h u r u p a ) is m ore con-

s i s t en twith B h a r t r h a r i s thes i s . A s w i l lb e s e e n later, H e l a r a j a in terprets it in th a tmanner We m u s t g i v e h is v i e w s c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n . To m y u n d e r s ta n d in g , h isi n t e rp re t a t ion fa i thfu l lyref lects th e c o r e o f B h a r t r h a r i s l in g u is tic th o u g h t.

The q u e s t i o n o f th e s a r f o s a d a t m a f c a - in t e r p re t a ti o n is re la ted to th e q u e s tio n s o f

th e verba l i za t ion o f Brahman , th e re la t iv ism ho ld ing in th e domain o f th e th in g s inth e phenomenal w o r l d ,and th e capaci t ies o f B r a h m a n u n d e r l y i n g its v e rb a liz a tio n s.In th is p a p e r, examining t h e s e q u e s t i o n s , I sh allp r o p o s e a w in te rpre ta t ion o f th e

k a r i k a u nd er c ons id er ation.

1 . Convergence of a l l w o r d s upon the u ltim ate reality

In P a s p a s a h n i k a , comment ing on Katyayana's f i r s tvart t ika : sid dh e sabd drthasam -b a n d h e s ta ted wi th r e g a r d to th e permanence o f word meanings, Pata i i j a l i pu ts fo r -

w a r d th e view t h a t a substance d ravya is permanent and i ts f o r m s akr t i aret r ans i en t , and th e view t h a t a c l a s s p ro p e r ty {akrt i is permanent and a substance ist ra n s ie n t .3 Ine i ther view what i s d e n o t e d b y a word is e te rna l and re a l . In a g re e m e n t

with t h e s e v i e w s , in th e J a t is a m u d d e s a and Dravyasamuddesa , B h a r t r h a r i d ea ls w ith

th e w ord m ea ning s w h i c h are a b s t r a c t e d from a sen ten t ia l meaning, a s in g le in d i-

visible en t i t y,a n d w h i c h are to b e e q u a t e d with th e a b s o l u t e r ea l i t y. T h e y are au n i v e r s a l jd t i a n d a substance d ravya . In V T 3.1 .2 B ha rtrh a r ista tes a s f o ll o w s:

V P 3 . 1 . 2 : paddrthdndm a p o d d h d r ej d t i r v d dravyam eva vd /p a d d r t h a u sarvasabddndm n i t y d v e v o p a v a rn i t a u //

W h e n wo r d m eaning s a rea b s t r a c t e d [ f ro m a sen ten t i a l m e a n in g ] , fo r

any l inguis t icun i t [ in th e form o f a w o r d ] its meaning is n o th in g o th e r2Houben [ 1 9 9 5 : 3 1 5 ] : Th i s u l t im a te rea l i ty is sa id to b e permanent , and o f th e nature o f th e

exis ten t a nd n o n-e x is te n t.4tA. m *If r \J4A V b E 1X1 f *~ tLStLiTTU LX11111\^t \f^f &tf fft t Ifr^^UU UI\Ai/U14lit L4ft ltUL4li t / * * * f i . f ( y | j ^^ l i t / fr A f fr fr ^U L fr i1 1

akrt i r a n ity a /


4/23

8 - i y K g S5W 35 12

t h an e i ther a u n i v e r s a l or a substance. T h e y have been d e c l a r e d to b e

ind e e d e te rn a l[b y P a t a n j a l iin P a sp as ah n ik a ] .

t is w e l lk n o w n tha t Patanjali m e ntio ns V aj a p y a y a n aas a proponent o f the the o ry

that a word d e n o t e s th e u n iv e rsa l an d Vy a d i as a proponent o f th e view that i t

d e n o t e s a substance. B h a r t r h a r i t r i es to es t ab l i s hth e u n i v e r s a l va l id i ty o f the se

t h eo r i e s su c h e s t a b l i s h m e n t b e ing thetheme o f the se Samuddesas n o t o n ly f r o ma v i e w p o i n t o f how th ings a r e d e n o t e d b y words (v y d p d ra l ak san a )4 b u t a lso from a

m e t a p h y s i c a l po in t o f v ie w .

In th e J a t i s a m u d d e s a , B h a r t r h a r i a tte m p ts toes t l i sh th e u n iv e r s a l v a lid i ty o f

th e t h e o r y that th e word d e n o t e s th e u n i v e r s a l b y in t roduc ing th e 5 a i ia - m o d e l . H e

sta tes as f oll ow s:

V P 3 . 1 . 3 2 : sa tyasa tyau tu yau b h d g a u p r a t i b h d v a m v y av a s th i tau /

satyam y a t ta tr a s d jd t i r asa tyd v y a k t a y a h sm rtdh //

I t is t r ad i t i o n a l l ysaid that, o f th e r ea l an d u n r e a l a s p e c t s w h i c h are de-t e r m i n e d w i t h r e f e r e n c eto every e ntity , the re al[a spec t ]is th e u n iv e rs a l,

w h e re a s th e unreal o n e is th e ind iv id u al (v y ak ti) .

V P 3 . 1 . 3 3 : s a m b a n d h i b h e d d t sat taiva b h i d y a m d n d g av d d is u /jdt ir it y u c y a t e tasydm sarve s a b d d v yav asth i td h //

B e i ng i tself , b e i n g d i f f e r e n t i t e d a c c o r d i n g to th e th ing s re late dto it, isc a l l e dth e u n i v e r s a l [ s u c ha s g o t v a ( c o w n e s s ) ]when [ ab id ing ]in a n [ in d i-

v i d u a l s u c h a s ] a cow: everyword is d e t e r m i n e d to d e n o t e that [B e ing ].

V P 3 . 1 A 0 : d s r a y a h svd tmamdtrd vd b h d v d v d v yatir e k inah /

s v a s a k t a y o v d sat tdyd b h e d a d a r s a n a h e ta v a h / /

I t is its substratum or i ts o w n elements ( s v d t m a m d t r d ) o r e ntitie s d if-

f e r e n t from i t o r i ts o w n capac i t i e s w h i c h ar e th e causes o f i ts a pp ea rin g4Grammar ians m ai n c o n c e r n is w h a t th e words express andnot th e ac t u a l s ta te o faf f a ir s . I n

V P 3 . 1 . l l B har trh ar i s ta te sthat the meanings o f words ar e d e t e r m i n e d b y what th e w ords ac tu allyc o n v e y ( v y a p a r a l a k s a n a yasma t p a d a r t h a h samavas th i tdh) . From this po int o f v i e w , th e fo llo win gk ar i k as ar e stated: F P 3 . 1 . 1 2 : jatau padarthejatir va v i s e s o vapijativat / sabdai r ap e k sy ate y asm dda ta s te jativ acinah //( O n th e v i e w that th e u n i v e r s a l is a word mean ing , even w h e n th e w ord jd tir e f e r s to th e u n i v e r s a l i tself o r even w h e n th e word d e v a d a t t a to the p artic ular , t hos e w ords e xp ec tthe i r r e fe r e n ts tob e l ike th e universa l ; the re fo re , th e yare r e g a r d e d as what d e n o t e th e u ni ve rs al . )V P 3 . 1 . 1 3 : dravyadharma p a d a r t h e tu d r a v y e sarvo r tha u c y a t e / dravyadharm asrayad dravyamatah sarvo r tha isyate // ( O n the v i e w that a substance is a w ord m e an in g, o n th e o th e r h a n d ,an y m e an in gthat is e x p r e s s e d [b y th e w o r d ] h as th e p r o p e r t y o f s u b s t a n c e . T h e r e f o r e , an y m e an in g s a c c e p t e d as a substance b y r e so r tin g toth e p r o p e r t y o f s ub sta nc e . )


5/23

Bh a r t r h a r i on th e N o n -d i s t i n c t i o n between Real i ty and U n r e a l i t y O g a w a 9

a s different ia ted b h e d a d a r s a n a h e t u ) .

Every w o r d d e n o t e s B e i n g s a t t d , w h i c h is Brahman and th e highest u n iv e rs a l . T h e

i n d i v i d u a lbe ing th e l o c u s o f B e i n g , one h a s a s p e c i f i c u n i v e r s a l l ike cow ne ss g otv a)t h r o u g h th e differentiation o f B e i n g b y th e u n r e a l . Cowness, b e i n g a d e lim ited fo rm

o f B ein g , is a lso m e n t a ll y c o n s t r u c t e d p a r i k a l p it a a n d hence u n r e a l , s in c e s u c h

l o w e r , spec i f i c u n iv e r s a l s are what are c o n c e p tu a l ly assumed to b ep a r t s m d t rd o f a

B e i n g w h i c h is in e s s e n c epar t less . Thus a word w h i c h d e n o t e s cowness, g o in g b e y o n d

i t , ul t im te ly re f e r s toB e i n g . Moreover,e v e r y t h i n g in th e phenomenal w o r l d th a t isverba l i zab le h a s B e in g . Int h i s s e n s e a l s o a llwords d e n o t i n g th ings in th e p hen o m en al

w o r l d ca n b e sa id tor e f e r to B ein g . T h e r e f o r e it fo l lo w s th a tevery wo r d d e n o te s th eu n i v e r s a l in that they a ll re fer to th e highes t u n i v e r s a l , B e i n g . 5 I t is im po r ta n t to

n o t e in th i s c o n n e c t i o n t ha t B h a r t rh a r i d o e s n o t say b h e d a h e t u b ut b h ed ad arsa na he tu ,

i n t end ing to im p ly t ha t B e i n g w h i c h h a s a b s o l u t e u n i ty appears to b e d if fe re n tia te d

b y it s re la ta . T h e causes o f making B e i n g appear d i f f e r e n t l ya re said to b e itssubstratum or a n ind iv idual , i ts ow n d iv i s ions s u c h as cowness , e x t e r n a l e n t i t ie s l ik e

p lace , and i t s ow n c a p a c i t i e s . A m o n g t h e s e del imi t ingf ac to r s , p r e f e r e n c eis o b vio us lyg i v e n to th e c ap ac itie s o fB e i n g , B r a h m a n . For t h e s e del im iting fac to r s are th e u n re a l

appearances o f B r a h m a n b y v i r tue o f i ts capaci t ies , w h i c h is in consonance w ithB h a r t rh a r i s fundamental p o s itio n .6 T h isp o i n t w i l l b e e x p la in e d la te r .

In r e g a r d to th e v i e w t ha t every word d e n o t e s a substance, th e fo llo w in g k arik asin th e Dravyasamud-desaare worthy o f n o te :

V P 3 . 2 . 2 : satyam v a s t u t a d d k d r a i r asa tya i r a v a d h d ry a te /

s tyopddhi h ihsabdaih s a t y a m ev d b h id h iy ate //

T he r e a l entity is d e t e rm i n e d t h ro u g h i ts forms w h i c h are unreal. I t i sthe rea l [enti ty] t h a t is d e n o te d b ywords t h r o u g h th e u n re a l a d ju n c ts .

T h e view p re s e n te d h e ret ha t a ll w o r d s re fe r to th ereal entity S u b s t a n c e is in sta n-t i a t e d b y Crow model and G o l d e n N e c k l a c e model. O f th e Crow model i t is s a id a s

f o l l o w s :

V P 3 . 2 . 3 : adhruvena n i m i tt e n a d e v a d a t t a g r h a m y a th d /

g rh ita m g rh as a b d e n asuddham ev db h idh ty ate //5 H e l a r a j a on V P 3 . 1 . 3 5 : tatas ca sarvasabdanam s a t t a v a c a n a t v a j ja tipadarthavy dp tih /6 V T 3 . 8 . 3 6 : sat ta s v a s a k t i y o g e n a s a r v a r i i p a v y av as t h i t a / s a d h y a ca sadhanam c a iv a p h a la m

b h o k ta p h a l a s y a ca // S e e also V F 1 . 4 : e k a s y a s a r v a b i j a s y a y a s y a c e y a m anekadha / b ho k tr b ho k -tavyarupena bhogarupena ca s th itih //


6/23

1 0 4 y K S if lF S S 1 2

F or example D e v a d a t t a ' s house w h i c h h a s been understood th ro u g h a n f i xe d cause [i .e . , a crow on th e to p o f th e house] is d en o ted p rec isely

i n i ts puri ty b y th e word g rh a ( 'h ou se ') .

O f th e G o ld e n N ec k la c emodel on th e o t h e r h a n d , B hartrh ari s ta tesa s fo llo w s:

V P 3 . 2 . 4 : suvarnadi ya thd b h i n n a m 7sva i r a k ar a ir a p dy ib hih /

r u c a k d d y a b h i d h d n d n d m suddham evai t iv d c y a td m //

F or example th e gold and th e l i k e ,t h o u g h d i f f e r e n t i a t e db y th e ir o w n

impermanen t forms b e c o m e th e d e n o t a t a o f words l ike r u c a k a in theirpur i ty.

The Crow model shows that , a s th e word grha i s applied to D e v a d a t t a ' s house itself th e o cc as io n in gground n i mi t t a ) o f th e crow w h i c h i s an u nfixed an d ten tativ ed e t e r m i n e r (upalaksana) of th e h o u s e , so ar e words appl ied to th e real entity on the

o c c a s io n in g ground o f th e u n r e a l ad junc ts . A c c o r d i n g to t h i s m o d e l , it fo llo w s th at

th e things in th e phenomenal w o r l d , th e u n r e a l ad junc ts to th e re a li ty S ub s ta n c e ,

are n o th in g b u tth e o c c a s i o n i n ggrounds fo r th e ap p lic atio n o f th ewords to i t Onth e o th e r h a n d , th e G o ld e n N ec k la c em o d e l , w h i c h Hela ra ja c o n sid ers to b ea b etter

example fo r th e r e f e r e n c e o f th e word to S u b s t a n c e , shows that , j u s t a s th e w o rd

rucaka d e n o t e s a part icular mo d i f i c a t i o n of gold b u t g o e s b e y o n d i t a n d re fers to

th e gold i tse lf , s i m i la r l yth e word g o i n g beyond i t s u n r e a l forms r e fe r s to the realentity. In t h i s re spec t th e G o l d e n N e c k l a c e m o d e l h a s th e sa m e s t r uc tu r e as the

Satta-modeh l i ke th e Sa t t a - mo d e l , t h i s m o d e l shows that what i s d e n o ted b y aword i s a delimited form o f the real ent i ty (Substance).8 A c c o rd in g toth e G olden

N e c k l a c e m o d e l , the re fo re , it s e s t a b l i s h e dthat e v e r y word re fe rs toth e su bstan ce

on th e grounds that a ll w o r d s refer to th e real ent i ty go ing b e y o n d i t s u n rea l fo rm s.

T h e s e views d o not d i f f e rfrom each o t h e r in that b o th o fthem re f lec t an id eat h a t a ll w o r d s re fe r toth e permanent enti ty, Brahman . I n th e view tha t a s ub sta nc e s a word m ean in g th e S u b s t a n c e Brahman w h i c h i s d i f f e r en t i a t edb y i ts d if fe re ntadjuncts , is referred to a s sel f -subsistent p a r in i s th i ta ), tha t is , as so m eth in g w ith o u t

enter ing into any relat ionship to others; in th e v i e w that th e universa l is a w o rd

ha ve a d o p t e d Iyer 's reading instead of R au 's : y u k ta m .'He lara ja on V P 3 . 2 . 5 : pratiniyatakaraparicchinnavrtti tvdt sa rv a r th a tv ap ratib an d h ad asan k arah /


7/23

B h a r t r h a r i on th e N o n -d is tin ctio n between R ea l i t y and U n r e a l i t y O g a w a ) l l

meaning, th e Saita-Brahman is referred to a s persist ing in eve ry t h i ng .9 I n e i th e r

view w h a t H e l a r a j a rem arks hold s:

H e l a r a j a on V P 3 . 2 . 2 : ih a sarvasabdanam param drth ikam ta t tv a m s a k s d t

sprastum as aktdndm a n e k o p d d h iv isa y a n ih i ta p a d d n a m ta d r u p d lin g a n a m

v y a v a h d r e s a m d l a k s y a te /

Here [ in o u r system o f t h o u g h t ] i t is o b s e r v e d in v e r b a l tr a n sa c tio n s

( v y a v a h d r e ) tha t a l l w o r d s t h a t cannot directly t o u c h on th e u lt im a te

real i ty ta t tva) embrace i t w h e n t h e y are a p p l ied tov a r i o u s o b jec ts o f

ad junc t s .

Thus w h a t is c l ea r from th e arguments in th e J a t i s a m u d d e s a a nd D ra vy as am u dd e sa

is that a ll w o r d s re f e r to th e u l t i m a t e r ea l i t y, whi le d e n o t i n g its u n re a l a d ju n c ts

and t h a t th e u n r e a l a d ju n c ts toit play a r o l e o f th e occasioning ground fo r th ea p p l ic a tio n o f th eword to i t .10 Now le t u s c o n s i d e r th e f o l l o w i n g kar i ka in w h ich

B h a r t r h a r i d e c l a r e s B r a h m a n to b e th e u l t im a te r e f e r e n t o f th e w ord (v dcya):

V P 3 . 2 . 1 6 : v d c y d s d sarvasabdanam s a b d d s ca na p r th a k ta ta h /

a p r t h a k t v e ca sambandhas t a y o r n a n a t m a n o r iva //

That [u l t imate o r i g i n a lsource ( p a r a prakr t ih ) ] is w h a t a ll w ord s re f e rto and t h e s e words t h e m s e l v e s are no t d i s t i n c t from i t, s o t h a t th e re is r e l a t i o n be tween them o n l y as if i t w e r e be tween tw o s e p a r a t e e n ti t ie s ,

a l th o u g h th e reis n o tru e d is t in c tio n .

t is n o t u n t i l B r a h m a n appears as th e word s a b d a ) a n d th e meaning a r th a ) th a t

it e n te r s th e s e m a n t i c field. T h e r e f o r e , wha t is i nd i s pens ab l e fo r th e r e f e r e n c e o f th e

word to B r a h m a n is , w e y say, th e appearance o f B r a h m a n as th e p he n o m e n a l

w o r l d .

9Hel a ra j a on K P 3 . 1 . 3 5 : t a tas ca sarvasabdanams a t t a v a c a n a t a j j d t ipadar thavyap t ih / y ad yap i ca d r a v y a p a d a r t h e p i b r a h m a d r a v y a s y a b h i d h d n a mu p d d h i b h e d a b h i n n a s y av ak s y a ti ta th d p it a t p a r y a b h e d d da v a s t h d b h e d a h/ j d t ipaddr the sarvatranvayirupamj d t y a t m a n db ra h m a v iv a ks ita m/ d r a v y a p a d d r t h a n a y et u p a r in is th it ar u p amp a ra m d r th a ta y e ti d a rs a n a v ik a l p ah /

A c c o r d i n g to H e la ra ja[ o nV P 3 . 2 . 1 ]d r a v y a( subs tance ) deal t wi th in th e D ra vy asa mu dd esais ca l l ed p d r a m a r t h i k a d r a v y a( s u b s ta n c e o fan u l t im a te va lue , w h i c h forms a contrast tov y d v a h d r i k a d r a v y a l inguis t ics ub s t an ce ) . The u l t i m a t e rea l i ty ta t tva) is th e un i ve r s a l in th eform o f sa ttd in th e J a t i s a m u d d e s aand th e f or m er s ub sta nc ein th e Dravyasamuddesa .T he fau l t o fs d r v d r t h y at h a t a n y t h i n gc o u l d b e d e n o t e d b y any word ,w h i c hre fe r sto th es a m ereality,is a vo id edb y r e so r t i n g to th e restr ic t ion o f o u r co gn i t i ve facu l tyo f r e a l i z i n gth e rea l i ty.T h i s is c om p a ra bleto th a t th ec a p a c i ty o f th evisua l organ is l i m i t edw h e n s o m e t h i n gis l o o k e d t h r o u g h a tube. SeeV P 3 . 2 . 5 :d k a r a i s ca v y a v a c c h e d d tsarvarthyam a v a r u d h y a t e/ y ath aiv a c ak surd d ind m sd m arth ya mn d l ik d d ib h ih //


8/23

1 2 4 1 / K SS W 2E 12

2 . B hartrhari's relativ ism

A ll t h a t is d i rec t ly d e n o t e d b y w o r d s , th e a d j u n c t d e l i m i t i n gth e u l tim ate re a l -

i ty, c o n sti tu te s th ephenomenal w o r l d in w h i c h t h i n g s c o n tra d ic to ry toe a c h o th e r

( v i r u d d h a , v i r o d h i n )a re o b s e r v e d . B ha rtrh a ri s ta te s :

V T 3 . 2 . 1 7 : dtmd p a r a h p r i y o d v e s y o v a k t d vacyam p rayo jan am /

v i r u d d h d n i y a t h a i k a s y a svapne r u p d n i c e ta sa h / /

V P 3 . 2 . 1 8 : ajanmani ta thd n i t y ep a u rv a p a ry a v iv a rjite /

t a t tvejanmadirupatvam viruddham u pa la b h y a te //

J u s t a s , in a d r e a m , th e o ne m ind appears in c o n t r a d i c t o r y forms, as the

se l f a n d th e n o n - s e l f , f r iend and f o e , th e s p e a k e r and th e s p o k e n , [ th e ac t

o f s p e a k i n g a n d ] th e p u r p o s e ; in th e s a m e way, w h i l e th e u lt im a te re a l i ty

is unborn, e t e r n a l and d e v o i d o f i n n e r sequence, see i t a s h a v in g b ir th

and o t h e r c o ntra dic to ry a t t rib u te s .

T he pa i r s o f th in g s incon t r ad ic t ion wi t h e a c h o t h e r, th e m os t fundam ental and

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f p a i r s o f such t h i n g s in th e p h e n o m e n a l world, are given in th e v e rse

a d d u c e d b y B h a rtrh a ri .

Vr t t i on V P 1 . 1 : vyat i to bhedasamsargau b h d v a b h d v a ukra m akra m a u /

s a t y d n r t e ca v i sv d t m dp r a v i v e k d t p ra k d sa te / /

T h e s o u l o f th e u n i v e r s e , [ B r a h m a n ] , w h i c h i s b e y o n d b h e d a sa m s a rg a

d i ffe ren t ia t iona n d un i f i c a t i on ),b h a v a b h a v a( exis tence and n o n -e x is te n c e ) ,

k r a m a k r a m a ( s e q u e n c e and non-sequence ' , and s a t y a n r t a tr u th a n d

fa lse ) , a p p e a r s a s d iv e rs if ie d .

A c c o r d i n g to th i s v e r s e , t h o s e m u t u a l l y c o n t r a d i c t o r y th ings a re : b he d a sa m sa rg a

d i f f e r e n t i a t i o nand u n i f i c a t i o n ), b h a v a b h a v a( exis tence a n d n o n - e x i s te n c e ) , k ra m a-

k r a m a ( se q u e n c e and non-sequence) , s a t y a n r t a t ru th and f a l s e ) .Each i t e m o f e a c h

pair is r e l a t i v i z e da n d d e p r i v e d o f a b so lu te sta tu s.F or th e A d v a i t i n m o n i s t ) Bh ar t rh a r i , one a b s o l u t e r e a l i t y,B r a h m a n , is b e y o n d

d i f f e r e n t i a t i ona n d u n i f i c a t i o n b h e d a s a m s a r g a s a m a t i k r a m a ), b ein g free from a ny con -

cep t u a l i za t i o n s a r va v ika lpa t i t a t a t t va ) .T his im plie s th t d u e to n e sc ie n c e ( a v id y a ) ,

th e r ea l i ty m a y be so c o n c e p t u a l i z e d t h a t one can a s s u m ei t , in c o n tra d ic to ry m an -

n e r s , as one a nd d iv e rs ifie d.


9/23


10/23

1 4 - i s K S4S5W 3E 12

From th e v ie w p o in to f th e u l t i m a t e t ru th , however, t h e r e is n o s i n g u la r-

ity whose ch a rac t e r i s t i c is d i s t i n g u i s h e dfrom t h a t o f p l u ra l i t y.I t is th eu l t i m a t e rea l i ty th t m a n i f e s t s i tself a s different i teda nd u n i f i e d.

V P 3 . 6 . 2 4 : ekatvam dsdm saktindm nana tvam vet i k a lp a n e /av as t u p a t i t e j nd tva sa tya to na pardmrset //

Concerning th e cap ac i t i e s in th e form o f the se [ d i r e c t i ons d i s ] , o n e m a y

c o n c e i v ethem as u n i f i e d or as di fferen t ia ted . On ce on e re a l iz e s th a t th e

c o n c e p t i o n in either w ay r e f e r s to th e u n rea l i t y, on e c an n ot re fle xiv ely

grasp i t in re ali ty .

The t w o f o l d n e s sb a s e d upon s ingular i ty and plur l i ty is n o t h i n g more than th e c o n -

c e p t u a l i z e d (v ika lpi ta ) , s i n ce b o t h o f them are th e c on ce p tu al iz ed in th em se lv es.

In th i s c o n n e c t i o n , le t u s l o o k a t th e d i scu ss i o n a b o u t e x i s t e n c e a nd n on -e xist en ce

(bhdvdbhdva) .

V P 3 . 3 . 6 0 : y a t h d b h d v a m u p d sr i ty a ta d a b h d v o n ugamyate /

ta th d b h d v a m u p dsr i ty at a d b h d v o p i anugamyate //

J u s t as th e non-existence o f a t h i n g i s u n d e r s t o o d on th e b as i s o f i ts

e x i s t e n c e , simil r ly th e e x i s t e n c e o f a t h i n g i s u n d e r s t o o d on th e b a sis o fi ts n o n- ex is te nc e.

V P 3 . 3 . 6 1 : n a b h d v oj d y a t e b h d v o na i t i b h d v o n u p d k h y a td m /

ekasmdd dtman o na nyau b h d v d b h d v a uv ik a lp itau //

N e i th e r does non-existence becomeexistence n or does e x i s te n c e b e c o m e

s o m e th i n g i n d e f i n a b l e in i tself [ i . e . , n o n -e x is te n c e ]. E x is te n c eand non-

e x i s t e n c e are th e c o nc ep tu a liz edand are not different from th e on e re a li ty(dtman).

Thus i t is c lea r th a t fo r B h a r t r h a r i w h a t is su jec t to re la t iv iza t ion is n o t r e a lb u t th e c o n c e p t u a l i z e d and t h a t th ings rel t ive to e a c h o t h e r , b e in g e q u a lly th e

c o n c e p t u a l i z e d and b e i n g n o t d i s t i n c t from th e r ea l i t y,a r e not distin gu ish ed fro me a c h o t h e r. T h e same is t r u e o f B h a r t r h a r i s view o f r e a l i t y.H e sta tes:

V P 3 . 2 . 7 : na t a t tvd ta t tvayor b h e d a i ti v r d d h e b h y a dgamah /

a t a t t v a m i t i manyante t a t t v a m e v d v ic d r i ta m //


11/23

Bhartrhari on th e N o n - d i s t i n c t i o n between Rea l i ty a n d U n r e a l i t y O g a w a ) 1 5

Th e t radi t ion h a n d e d d o w n from th e e lde r s dec la r es t h a t t he r e i s n o d is -

t inct ion between th e r ea l a n d th e u n r e a l . T h e yh o ld th a t th e v e ry r e a l i ty

[ w h i c his accep ted ] i n s o f a r a s i t h a s n o t been analyt ical ly in v estig a ted is

th e un rea lity .

Even th e rea l i tycannot s t a n d on i t s r i gh t s i f i t is r e l a t i v i zedin t e r m s o f a n a ly tic a linvest iga t ion v i c a r a ) . O n t h i s p o i n t H e l a r a j a s remark is n o t e w o r t h y. H e sta te s:

H e l a r a j a on V P 3 . 2 . 7 : ta thd caviaritaramaniyam p a r ik s a y a v y a v a sth ap ita m

t a t t v a m e v a b h i n n a r nt i r th ikab h e d a d a r s a n a v y a v a s t h i t a b hedatmakam attatvam

m a ny a nte ... / Such b e i n g th e c a s e , th e very real i ty i .e . , th e un ity , w h i c h is b e lo v e di n s o f a r as i t h a s n o t been analyt ical ly invest iga ted and w h i c h is p os i te d

t h r o u g h examination is c o n s id e re d tob e th e un rea lity , i e th e m ultip lein e s s e n c e ,b y th e pagan w h o adhere to s e e i n g it a s d i ff e re n ti a te d .

W h a t is c o n s i d e r e d to b e r ea l from one v i e w p o i n t can b e r e g a r d e d as u n r e a l f r o m

another v i e w p o i n t . On ce s o m e t h i n g is a n a l y t i c a l l yinvest iga ted , it s hou ld b e re la -

t i v i z e d and l o s e s i t s a b s o l u t e s t a t u s . Thus w e c a n se e th a t fo rB h a r trh a r i th e re is sharp distinction between th e rea l ty w h i c h i s r e l a t i v i zed ,namely th e p he n o m e n a lw o r l d , and th e r ea l i t yw h i c h is b e y o n d re la t iv izat ion o r c o n c e p tu a l iz a tio n , n a m e ly ,

B r a h m a n . Th e u l t imate ly r ea l , w h i c h is never a n o b je c t o fa na ly tica l in ves tiga tionand hence beyond re la t iv izat ion , a p p e a r s s i m p l y as r e a l a nd u nre al.1 2

Concerning B h a r tr h a r i s re l a t i v i sm, c o n s e q u e n t l y, w e y say t h a t i t s u nd er ly in gidea is : f o n e c o n c e i v e s o f a c e r t a in thing a s x , s a y ,s a t y a real ) , t h e n room for

d u a l i s m necessa r i ly is g iven because x presupposes non-x s a y , a s a t y a u n re a l ) ; in

o r d e r to a v o i d fa l l ing into d u a l i s m , th e non-d is t inc t ion between x and non x is to

b e es tabl ished b y givin g re la tives t a tus to them. T h e i r re la t ive s ta tu s is g ua ra nte ed

b y th e fa c t th a t they a r e eq u a l l y th e appearances o f th e u l t imate rea l i ty a n d th e

c o n c e p t u a l i z e d in re la tio n toi t . I t is su ch re la t iv ism t h a t e n a b l e s B h a rtrh a r i to

r e n d e r e x i s t e n c e and non-existence and o t h e r p a irs o fc o n t r a d i c t o r y th ings m ere ly

phenomenal and to r e l ega te them to th e ph enomenal rea lm.

^ P a d d h a t i on Vrt t i a d V P l . l : t a tha v i ca rav i say a t v a t s a ty a n r ta y o h , v ic a ra v is a y a tv a c c at a s y a s a m b h a v a h/ y a t o v i c a r o b h i n n a d h a r m a v i s a y a h brahmanas c a b h e d a t sa n a s t i /


12/23

1 6 4 -y K f f is fc f lF S E 1 2

3 . C a p a c i t i e s and appearances of B rahm an

It is o n th e b as is o f th e capac ities attr ib u tedto Brahman t h a t a pa i r o f th in g s

c o n t r a d i c t o r y and re la t ive to e a c h o t h e r appears. w t h i n g s in th e ph en o m en al

w o r l d are d e p e n d s upon h o w th e capaci t ies o f Brahman are. C o n s i d e r th e fo llo win g

s t a tem en t s :

Vr t t ion V P 1.2 : e k a tv as y dv iro dh en asabdata t tve b r ah m a n isam uccitd v i-

ro d h in y a d tm a b hu td hs ak ta y a h /

In Brahman, th e W o rd -p rin cip le ,t h e r e are combined, w ith o u t c o n tr a -

d i c t i n gi ts uni ty, capaci t ies that are c o n t r a d i c t o r y and ident ica lw ith it.

Vr t t i on V P 1 . 2 : ta d evam a p r th a k tv a m p r th a k p r a ty a v a b h d s a m d n d m a p im i th a h sarvasak tindm /

Thus, in th i s way, a ll capacit ies, t h o u g h m a n i f es ti n g th e m s e lv e sas dif-

ferent ia ted , are not different from o n e a no th er.

Vr t t ion V P 1 A : e k a s y a h i brahmanas ta ttv d ny a tv db h y d m sa ttv ds a ttv d b h yd m

c d n iru k td v iro d h is a k ty u p a g rd h y a s y d s a ty a r u p a p ra v ib h d g a s y a s v a p n a v ijn d n a -

purusavad b a h i s t a t t v d h[ r e a d :a b a h i s - t a t t v d h ]p a r a s p a r a v ila k s a n d b h o k tr b h o k -ta v y a b h o g a g r a n th a y o v iv a r tan te /

I n d e e d , th e One, Brahman, r e c e i v e s th e capaci t ies w h i c h are defi nedn e i t h e r as ident ica lwith [it] t a t t va n o r as d i f f e r en t from [ it] an y a tv a

and ne i the r as e x i s t e n t s a t tva n o r as non-existent a s a t t v a , and whichare no t c o n t r a d i c t o r y to e a c h o t h e r a v i r o d h i n . 1 3I ts div is ionsa r e u nr e a l

( a s a tya rupaprav ibhdga) . It a p p e a r s as enti t ies t a t tva , w h i c h are not

ex i s t en t separa t e ly from i t , as d o e s th e s e l f pu r u sa , w h i c h is a w are ne ss

in e s s e n c e , in a dreaming s ta te ( sv ap n av ijn d n ap u ru sa ) ; th e [ap p ea rin g

enti t ies] a r e th e m u t u a ll y differentiated k n o t s , that is , th e e n jo y e r , th ee n j o y e d and th e e n jo ym e nt.

From t h e s e s t a te m e n t s we y say th e fo l lowing a b o u t th e c apac ities o f B rah m an :

T h e i r m a n if o ld n e s s d o e s n o t c o n t r a d i c t th e oneness o f B rah m an av iro dh a).

2 T h e cap ac ities th ata r e assumed to b e in Brahman are c o n t r a d i c t o r y to o n e

a n o th e r ( v ir o d h in ).

1 3 P a d d h a t ion Vr t t i on V P 1 .2 : a v ir od h in y ahi t i , v ir u d d h a k ar y ap r a s a v an u m i ta v ir o d h a a p y e k as -m i n nadhare yaugapadyena vrt te r a v iro d h in y a h /


13/23

B h a r t r h a r i on th e N o n - d i s t i n c t i o n between Rea l i t y and U n r e a l i t y O g a w a ) 1 7

3 T h e y are i d e n t i c a lwith B ra hm an d tm ab huta ).

4 T h e c ap a c itie s o fBrahman are no t different i ted from one another a p r t h a k t v a .5 T h e cap ac i t i e s are d e f in e d n e ith e ra s ident ical with Brahman nor a s d iffe re nt

from it a n d n e i t h e r as e x i s t e n t nor as non-existent, w h i c h im p lie s th a tt h ey a re unre al asatya).1*

6 T h e capaci t ies c o n tra d ic to ry toone another produce th e ap pearances d ifferent

from o ne a no th er .What is t r ue fo r th e capaci t ies o f Brahman is sa id o f th e th in gs in th e p he n o m e n a l

w o r l d as w e l l . Thus it h a s been stated :

Vr t t i on V P 1 . 9 : i h a i v a ik a s m i n sarvarupe brahmani y a h p a rik a lp a h sav i ru d d h a r u p a b h i m a t e b h y op a r i k a l p a n t a r e b h y o na b h id y a te /

Here [in o u r system o f t h o u g h t ] ,on e c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n wi th r e f e r e n c e to

Brahman , O ne and A l l , is n o t diffe ren t ia ted from th e o th er c o nc e p tu al-izat ions that a re be l i eved to b e c on tra dic to ry to i t.

This is fo r th e fo llo w in g reaso n :

Vr t t ion V P 1 . 9 : y a t a s caite sa rv av i k a l p a t i t a ekasminn a rth e s a rv as a k ti-

y o g a d drastfnam d a rs a n a v ik a lp a h /

For t h e s e [d i f fe ren tv i e w s ref lect th e [d i ffe rent]c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s v i k a l p a

o f th e appearances (d a rsan a) o fa s ingle enti ty d e v o i d o f a ny c on ce p tua l-

i z a t i on ;with r e f e r e n c e to it , t h e re occur such c o n c e p tu a liz a t io n s to th o s ew ho se e it d r as t r ) s i n ce it is c o n n e c t e d with a ll c ap ac itie s.

1 4 H e l a r a j a on K P 3 . 3 . 9 : s ak t m am vasturupatve t a t t v a n y a t v a v i c a r a n a / y u j y a t e k a lp i ta n a m tuy u k t a d v a y a v i y u k t a t a / / If capac i t i e s w e r e e ssen tia l ly rea l ,t h e n it w o u l d b e p r o p e r to in ve s t i -g a t e whether t h e y are iden t i ca l with o r d i f f e r e n t from [ the real]; however, it is p r o p e r th a t th eyar e dest i tu te of bo th [ identi ty wi th an d d i ff e r en ce from i t] s ince t h ey ar e th e c on ce p tu a l iz ed . )P ad d h a t i on Vrt t i a d V P 1 . 1 : saktinam ca svarupatve t a t t v a n y a t v a v i c a r a n a / y u jy a te k a lp ita n amtu y u k t a n v a y a v i v a r t a t a // I f capac i t ies were th e e s s e n c e [o f th e rea li ty] , it w o u l d b e proper toinves t iga te w h e t h e r t h ey ar e iden t i ca lwith o r d i f f e r e n t from it] h o w e v e r , it is p r o p e r tha t th e y a ree x c l u d e d from th e c o n n e c t i o n w i th [b o th id e n titywith and d i f f e r e n c e from it ] s ince they a r e th e c o n -ceptua l ized . ) T he source o f th e v e r s e , to w h i c h H e l a r a j a a n d Vrsabha g iv e a s l igh t ly d if f e re n t re a d -i n g , i s n ot tra ce ab le . S e e T S 3 4 0 (A tm a p arT ksa ) : b h e d d b h e d av ik alp asy av a s tv a d h is th a n a b h a v a ta h /t a t t v a n y a t v a d y a n i r d e s o n i h s v a b h a v e s u y u j y a t e / / Vr s a b h a in P ad d h a t i on Vrt t i a d V P 1 .1 in tro d u ce sth e argument a g a i n s t th e rea l i ty o f c ap a ci ti es as f o l l o w s : na t a rh i s a k t a y a h s an ti, ta ttv dn ya tv db hy ama n i r v a c a n i y a t v d t , s a s a v i s a n a v a t / [Thes is ] Capac i t ies ar e really inexis ten t . [ R e a s o n ] Because ofbeing i nde f inab le e i the r a s iden t i ca l with [ the rea li ty] o r as d i f f e r e n t from it . [E xam p le ] L ik e arab bit s ho rn .)

I t isto b e n o t e d in p a s s i n g tha t when in V P 3 . 3 . 9 B h a r t r h a r i d e f i n e s th e c a pa c i t y as b e in g b ey o n dd i f f e r e n c e an d ident i ty tarn s a k t i m . . . b he dd bh ed av a tik ra nta m ...) , h e n a tu ra l l y m e a n s to saytha t i t i su n rea l because o f b e in g th ec o n c e p t u a l i z e d . T h i s p o i n t Houben [ 1 9 9 5 : 1 8 4 ] m is se s .


14/23

1 8 < i-y K & 5 fc W 3 E 1 2

O ne s e e sand concep t ua l i ze s th e one ab so lu te rea l i tya s th e en jo y er and th e en jo y ed o ras th e k a r a k a sand th e a c t o f en joy ing d u e to its capacities.15 T h e s e appearances o f it

are equa l ly u n r e a l because their c a u s e s t h e m s e l v e sare u n re a l. T h erelativ e co ncep ts

o f th e e n jo ye r and th e en jo y ed ar e m u t u a l l y undifferentiated s ince th e capacities fo rbr ing ing them about are n o t d i s t i n c tfrom each o t h e r. Thus t h e n o n -d i ff er en ti ati on

o f relative c o n c e p t s co m es fro mth e fac t tha t d i f f e r e n tc o n c e p tu a l i z a t i ons a r ise w ith

r e f e r e n c eto a so le object , Brahman , and, as a consequence o f th i s , t h e i r sta tu s is

unreal in re la tio n to B ra h m an .

Whatever are c o n s i d e r e d to b e th e results o f Brahman s capac i t i e s are neither

different iatedfrom o ne another nor re a l, sin c eth e capaci t ies are such. On th is po in tB h a r t r h a r i states as f ollo w s:

VP3 . 1 . 2 2 : s a r v a s a k t y d t m a b h u t a t v a mehasyaiveti n irn a y a h /

bhdvdndm a t m a b h e d a s y ak a l p a n a s y d d a n a r th ik a //

T h e final an d u l t im a te t ru th n i rnaya is tha t [ B r a h m a nw h i c h is ] th e

O n e is i d e n t i c a lwi t h a ll sakt is [ it has ] . [ S u c hb ein g th ec a s e , ]i t w o u ld

b e p ur p ose le s sto a s su m e t h a t en t i t i e sa r e in e s s e n c edifferent from oneanother.

I f o n e can exp l a i n th e v a rie tyo f th e phenomenal world in terms o f th a t o f th e c ap ac -

ities o f Brahman, t h e n one need not go on to a s s u m et h a t th ings in th e p h en o m en a l

w o r l dar e th e m se lv es d if f e re n tia te d .

4 . Seeming iden t i ty be tw e e n r hm n nd its a p pea ra n ces

For B h a r t r h a r i re la t iv ism consis ts in non-d i ffe ren t ia t ion o f relative c o n c ep ts , w h ic h

is c l o s e l yconnected w i t h th e thesis tha t a ll w o r d scorrespondent to th e u n re a l a p -pearances converge u p o n th e a b so lu ter ea l i t y. Ho w is it p o s s i b l ethat a w ord g oesbeyond u nreal a d ju nc t s an d refers to th e r ea l i t y ? T h e answ er seem sto b e g iv en inth e fo llow ing karika:16

1 5 F o r B h a r t r h a r i th e fu n ctio n o fc o n c e p t u a l k n o w l e d g eis to d e t e r m i n e rep resen ta tio n s a p p ea r in gto mind ( a k d r a n i r u p a n a ) . I t is to w h a t ha s been d e t e r m i n e d n i r i ip i t a r th a b y c o n c e p tu a l k n o w le d g etha t th e w o r d is applied. F o r de ta i l s see O g aw a [199 9].

1 6 B r o n k h o r s t [ 9 9 : 3 ] explaining V P 3 . 1 . 3 3 , say s : There is th e d iv i s iono f Br a h m a n in to u n i-ve rsa l s . These u n i v e r s a l s are essentially i d e n t i c a lwi t h B r a h m a n . . . Houben [ 1 9 9 5 : 9 7 ] w h i l es u r v e y i n g th e Dravyasamuddesa, states: In V P 3 . 2 . 6it i s e m p h a s i z e d that , ult imately, th ese fo rm sto o ar e i d e n t i c a lwi th rea l i ty o r Su b s tan ce) . I t seems to m e t h a t t he y o v e r l o o k th e d iffic u lty inh a r m o n i z i n g th e i d e n t i t ybetween B r a h m a n and i ts a d ju n c ts w ith th eu n r e a l s tatus o f th e ad ju n cts .


15/23

B h a r t r h a r i on th e N o n - d i s t i n c t i o n between Rea l i t y and U n r e a l i t y O g a w a 1 9

V P 3 . 2 . 6 : t esv akaresu y a h s a b d a s t a t h d b h u t e su v a r ta te /

ta t tv a tm ak a tv a t te n a p in i t y a m ev a b h id h iy a te //

Even th e word w h ic h d e n o te st h o s e forms o f s u c h [ a n im p erm an en tna tu re ] re fe rs to th ev e r y e t e r n a l [ S u b s t a n c e ] ,s i n ce t h e s e a re e ssen ti al ly

i d e n t i c a lw ith it .

t is sa id t h a t th e word re fe r s toB r a h m a n because o f th e i d e n t i t y b e tw ee n B ra h m a nand i ts appearances t a t tva tm akatva t . J u d g i n g from w hat ha s been p o in te d o u t

concerning th e ca p a c itie s o fBrahman, t h a t is , th e ir id e n titywi t h it a tm a bh u ta ,

tha t s e e m s to b e plaus ib le . However, if B h a r t r h a r i h e r e i n t e n d e d r ea l l y to s a y th a t

th e rea l ent i ty and i ts appearances are i den t i ca lwi t h e a c h o t h e r, how c o u l d one sayth a t th eforms th e rea lent i ty h a s are u n r e a l ? A s ha s been s u g g e s t e d , th e a pp ea ra nc e s

o f th e u l t i m a t e r ea l i ty,b e i n g r e d u c e d to th e cap ac i t i e s tha t cannot b e d e f in e d e i th e r

as i d e n t i c a lw ith th ereali ty o r as different from it ( ta ttv a n y a tv d n irv a c a m y a ) , a re

u n r e a l . I f th e appearances w e r e iden t ica l wi t h Brahman , B r a h m a n c o u l d n o t b e o n e ;on th e o t h e r h a n d , if they were d i s t i nc t from it, dua l i t y w o u l d re su l t . 1 7 W hat does

B h a r t r h a r i me n by s a y i n g t h a t th e a d j u n c t s to th e r ea l i t ya r e i d e n t i c a lw ith it?T he q u e s t i o n r a i sed h e r e cannot b e w orked outw i t h o u t ta k in g B h a r t rh a r i s n o t io n

o f v i v a r t a i n to c o n s i d e r a t i o n . I t is w e l lk n o w n t h a t B h a r t r h a r i h a s d e f i n e d v iv a r ta a sf o l l o w s :

Vr t t ion V P l . l : e k a s y a t a t t v d da p r a cy u ta sy a b h ed a n u k dr e n d sa ty a v ib h ak ta n y a -

r u p o p a g r a h i t d v iv a r ta h /

V i v a r ta m e a n st h a t th e on e [real i ty] ,n ot d e p riv e do f its e s s e n c e , a s s u m e s

th e forms o f th o s e o th e rth ings a n y a w h i c h are u n r e a l a s a t y a a n d

d is t inc t from one another v ibhak ta , with s ee m i n g d is tin c tn e s s .

Vrsabha e x p l a i n s th is a s fo llo w s:

1 7 I n c o n n e c t i o n wi t h Brahman s transcendence o f d i f f e r en t i a t ion and unifica tion( b h e d a s a m s a r g a sa m a t ik r a m a ) , Vrsabha in P a d d h a t i on Vr t t i a d V P l .l s t a t e s as follow s:tarh i s a k t a y o y a d i brahmano vyat i r ik tah s a eva s i d d h d n t a v y a l o p a h , ekam e va y a d d m nd tam itisa rv d d v a i t a sy d s r i t a tv d t / a thavya t i r ik tas tata ekasmdd b rahm ano v y a t i r e k a n nanekata, ta ta s can a n a p a r i k a l p o t p a t t y a b h a v a h , s ak t ibhyov d n a n y a t v a d b r a h m a n a e k a t v a v a d a v a s d d a h/ T h e n , if th ecapac i t ies w e r e d i s t i n c t from B r a h m a n , th e very es tab l i shed v i e w o f ours would b e a b a n d o ne dbecause we a d m i t th e n o n - d u a l i t y o f e ve ry th in g, as B h a r t r h a r i s ta tes in V P 1 . 2 tha t B ra hm an ism e m o r i z e d in th e Veda as o n e ; b u t if t h e y were no t d i s t i n c t from t h a t on e B r a h m a n , [th ey ] w o u ldn o t b e m a n i f o ld because o f it s n o n -d i s t i n c t i o n from th e lat ter a n d hence t h e r e would n o t o c c u rv a r i o u s co n cep tu a l i za t i o n s ; o r , th e t h e o r y t h a t B r a h m a n is on e would b e r u i n e d because o f i tsn o n - d i f f e r e n c e f rom th e c ap a ci t ie s. )


16/23

2 0 K S itS 5 W ? E 1 2

P a d d h a t i on Vrt t i a d V P 1 . 1 : b h e d a p ra ty a v a b h a sa y o g y a ta p r a b h d v a d b h in -n iv a p r a t y a v a - b h d s a t e ta d abhinnam a p i , ta d b h e d a m a n u k a ro ti v e ti

/ etad uktam bhava t i / e k a m v a s t u svarupam a p a r ity a ja d b h ed a n u k d re n am i t h y a n e k a r u p a v a b h a s i t a mpratipannam v i v r t t a m ivety u c y a t e / y a th d

r a j j u d r a v y a mviparyastadars andnd m acetandrupam a ja h at sa rp a ru p d nu -

kdrena sarparupam i ty u c y a te /

By m e a n so f i ts po ten t i a l i t yof ma n i f e s t i n g i tself a s m a n ifo ld ,th a t [re -

a l i ty m a n i f e s t s i tself a s if i t w e r e d iv ided a l t h o u g h it is th e u nd iv id ed ;

o r , it in t ima tes div is ion . T h e fo l lowing is m e a n t : W h e n a s ing le re a l ity is

u n d e r s t o o d to b ewha t h a s a p p ea re d ,w i t h o u t a b a n d o n i n gi ts ow n form ,as th e m a n i f o l d th in g s th a ta r e false, i t i ss a i d of th e en titytha t it has

appeared as if in a different form . Forexample, it is s a i d tha t , fo r th os e

w h o s e p e r c e p t i o n is dis tor ted a s u b s t a n c ero pe a ppea rs a s a snak e w ithth e s e e m i n gform o f th e s n a k e , w i t h o u t giv ing u p i ts in se n tien t fo rm .

Th u s w ha ti s meant b y v i v a r t a is tha t th e one a b s o l u t e r ea l i t y,w ith ou t tr a n sc e n d in g

i t s e s s e n c e , h e r eits o n e n e s s ,appears w i th th e resemblance o f th e div is ionw h ic h is

unreal because o f b e i n g su sce p tib le o fre la t iv iza t ion . Ta k i n g in to account th a t th e

s t r u c t u r e w h a ti s n o t x a ppe ars as if x o r w h a t i s w ith [w ith ou t]xa p p e a r sas if w ith ou t[w ith ] x )is r e c o g n i z e d with r e f e r e n c eto B r a h m a n , i t wi l l b e s u g g e s t e d th a t v iv a r tas i mp l y m e a n s t h a t s o m e t h i n g appears or occurs v a r t a t e ) in a diffe ren t vi- ) fo rm

from th e one in w h i c h th e orig ina l source s tays; th e a p p e a r i n gforms do not a ffec t th eor ig inal ta t tvdt a p r a c y u t a s y a ) , a s is su g g e s te d b yth e word iv a a s if) in V rs a b ha se x p a la n a tio n .1 8 S u c hb e i n g th e c a s e , th e meaning o f v iv a r tam i g h t b e fo rm u la te d

as follows: V i v a rt a m e a n s t h a t s o m e t h i n g a p p e a r sas if in a d i f f e r e n tform from itsor ig inalone. Then, wi t h i n th e scheme o f v iv a rta ,it is n a t u r a l th a t th ei den t i t yo f th e

appearances o f th e rea l i tywith tha t rea l i tys h o u ld ca l l fo r an in te rp re ta tio n su ita b le

fo r th a t sc h em e .

The fo l lowing tw o k a r k a s are th e ones w h i c h t a lk a b o u t th e re la tio n sh ip b e tw een

1 8 I t is i m p o r t a n t tha t th e no t ion o f v iva r t a is p a r a p h r a s e d with th e u s e o f th e word iv a in th esense o f u tp re ksa i m a g i n a ti o n ) .N o t e that B h a r trh a r i s ta te sin V P 3 . 3 . 8 6 c dt h a t n o b o d y can b ep r e v e n t e d from i m a g i n i n g to ta l ly n o n - e x i s t e n t th in g s (a v a stu sva p i n o tp r e k s a k a s y ac it p ra tib ad -h y a t e ) . S e e a l s o P a d d h a t i on Vrt t i a d V P \ . 2 4 - 2 6 : purusas tu svam u tprek sa m n ib an dh a nik rty av ik a lp a n a n a y a n ti .

total ly a g r e e with Houben [ 1 9 9 5 : 3 0 8 - 3 0 9 ]w h o proposes th e n ew t r an s la t io n o f v iv a rta te a s' b e h a v e s in v a r i o u s w a y s in o r d e r to show th a t v iv a r tafo r B h artrh ar i h a s a w id er sense th a n th a tin c l a s s i c a lA dv a id a V ed a n ta .


17/23

B h a r t r h a r i on th e N o n -d is t in ctio nbetween Real i ty a n d U n r e a l i t y O g a w a 2 1

th e r ea l i tyand i ts a p p e a r a n c e s ,in w h i c h B h a r t r h a ri s n o t i o n o f v iv ar taa s f or m ula te d

above i s c le a r ly s e e n .

V P 3 . 2 . 1 0 : t a t h d v i k d r a r u p d n d mtattve t y a n t a m asam bhavah /

t a d a t m e v a ca ta t t a t t v a m a t y a n t a m atadatm akam //

In th e sam e w ay it is u t t e r l y im po ss ib le th a tthe re b e th e form s of

th e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n in th e r ea l i t y. T h a t r ea l i t y w h i c h is ab so lu te ly n o ti d e n t i c a lwi th them appears as if i d en t i ca lw ith th e m .

Th e p o i n t m a d e h e r e is : T h e r ea l i t yw h i c h is n o t i d e n t i c a lwi th its a p p e a r in g fo rm s

( a t a d a t m a k a m ) a p p e a r s as if i t w e r e s o ( t ad a t mev a ) .1 9 B h a r t r h a r i , on th e o th e r h a n d ,s ta te s in V P 1 . 2 t ha t the re is n o s e p a r a t i o n be tween B r a h m a n and c a pa c itie s , th a t

i t a p p e a r s as t h o u g h d i s t i n c tfrom t h e s e capaci t i es a n d t h a t it a p p e a r s a s d is tin ctth ings b y v ir tue o fits s e v era l c a pa cit ie s .

V P 1 . 2 : e k a m eva y a d d m n d t a m b h in n a s a k tiv y a pd s ra y d t /

apr thak tve p i s a k t ib h y ahp r th a k tv e n e v a v a r ta te / /

B r ah m a n is memo r ized in th e Veda as one. t a p p e a r s as if d is tin c t f ro mcapaci t ies a l t h o u g h n o t dis t inc t ,b y v i r tue o f i ts s e ve ra l c a pa c i tie s .

A c c o r d i n gto t h i s kar ika, B ra h ma n w h i c h is n o t s e p a r a t e from capac i t i e s appears asi di s t inc t from them ( ap r thak tve p i p rth ak tv e ne v a .

T h e i m p o r t a n t po in ts ton o te h e reare tha t B r a h m a n is said to b e n o t id en tica l w ithi t s appearances and t h a t it is sa id to b e n o t s ep ara tefrom i ts capaci t ies . T h e s e s e e mto g o a g a i n s t th e p r i n c i p l ethat B r a h m a n i s b e y o n d d i f f e r ence and id e n t i ty . H o w ev e r ,w have to c o n s i d e r t ha t th is p r i n c i p l eis reflectedin B h a r t r h a ri s e x p l a n a t i o n o f th em nn r in w h i c h th e r ea l i t y a p p e a r s in th e se k a r i k a s . W it h special r e f e re n c e toB h a r t r h a ri s d esc riptio n o fit a s n o t b e i n g s e p a r a t e from i t s capac itie s , V rsab h a

f a c e s th e s a m e d i ff i cu l ty,g e t t i n go v e r it b y giv ing th e fo llo w in g in te rpre ta tio n :

P a d d h a t i on V P 1 . 2 : nanu sakt isu t a t t v a n y a t v a v y a t i k r a m a dkhya tah / ta t

k im u c y a t e a p r t h a k t v e p i i t i / a p r th a k tv a m na ekatvam a p i tu b h ed ap ra ti-

s e d h a h , p r t h a k t v e n e v a it i eka tvapra t i sedhah / tad ub h ay asam atikram a

d k h y d t a ity av iro d h a h /

1 9 A cc o rd in g toHe l a r a j a , th e e s s e n c e o f th e a d j unc t s is th e real i ty an d th e ad j u n c t s are neve r th ee s s e n c e o f th e r ea l i ty. T h e real i ty a p p e a r s as a d j u n c t s an d no t v i ce versa. H e l a r a j a on K P3.2.6:t a t t v a m a t m a h y upadhinam na tu tasydtm anah /


18/23

2 2 <


19/23

B h a r t r h a r i on th e N o n -d is t in ctio nbetween R e a l i t y and U n r e a l i t y O g a w a ) 2 3

th e n e g a t i o n o f the i r d i ffe ren ce from th e r ea l i t y.Then w h a t d o e s th e n e g a t i o n o f s u c h d i ffe rence m e a n ? C o n s i d e r th e fo l lo w in g V rtti:

Vr t t ion V P 1 . 2 : a p r t h a k t v e p is a k t i b h y ait i / n a k h a lu j d ti v y ak ti v y av a h a ra -

v a d anyah kasc ic c h a k t a y o brahmano v y a t i r e k i n y o v id y a n te /

a p r t h a k t v e p i s a k t i b h y a h ? :th e s a m e th ing a s w e sa y about th e u niv ers a l

and th e i nd iv idu l is t rue o f th is c a s e . T h a tis , i t is i n d eed never th e c a set ha t t h e r e are c a p a c i t i e s w h i c h are di fferen t from B r a h m a n and th a t th e y

ex i s t s e p a r a t e l y from it.

A s is c l ea r l ysh o wn b y th is Vrt t i ,w h a t th e n e g a t i o n o f th e d iffe re n ce o f th e a p p e a r-ances from th e real i ty m e a n s is t ha t they have no e x i s t e n c eor real i ty s e p a ra te f ro mi t a v y a t i r e k a )and not t h a t t hey are one w i th it e k a t v a ) . In th is c o n n e c t i o n it m us t

b e r eca l l ed h e r e t h a t B h a r t r h a r i d e sc r ibes th ea d ju n c t s in th e form o f c ap ac itie s

as i n d e f in a b le as ei ther ex is ten t o r non-existent. A c c o rd in g toV r s a b h a , w h en th ey

cannot b e d ete rm in eds e p a ra t e ly from th e r ea l i t y,i t i sn o t poss ib le to d e f in e th e mas e x i s t e n t . 2 3 T h e r e f o r e , from th e v i e w p o i n t o f v iv ar ta , a s s ta ted in V P 3 .2 .1 0 , th a t

t h o s e appearances have seeming e x i s t e n c e and have no e x i s t e n c es e p a r a t e from th e

r ea l i tym e a n s t h a t t h e y are n o t h i n g b u t th e c o n c e p tu a l i z e d with r e f e r e n c eto th e o n eu l t i m a t e rea l i tyB ra h ma n . Th u s w ca n find th e reason fo r B r a h m a n b e i n g a sole

r e f e r e n t o f a ll w o r d s in t ha t v a r i o u sc o n c e p tu a l i z a t i o n s t a k e p la c e po in t ing to B ra h - n which is itself b e y o n d c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n and v e r b a l i z a t i o n 2 4 bu t , by v ir tu e o f

i t s capaci t ies , p a r a d o x i c a l l y, e n t e r s th e s e m a n t i cf ie ld with its de l imi t edforms to b e

d e n o t e d b y words r a t h e r t h a n in th e s i m p l e i d en t i t y in th e s e n s e o f e k t v b e t we e n

th e rea l i tya n d i ts a d ju nc ts .

5 . C o n clu sio n

t i s n o t u n t i l B r a h m a n appears as th e phenomenal w o r l d v i v a r ta ) th t it fallsin to th e realm o f ve rba l iza t ion . T h e realm o f ve rba l iza t ion is th e phenom enal w orld

in w h i c h th ings c o n t r a d i c to ry to e a c h o t h e r a r e r e l a t iv i zed . T h e c a p a c itie s im p o se d

u pon Bra hm a n w h i c h are c o n tr a d ic to ry toon e another and y e t w h ic ha re com b ine d

2 3 P a d d h a t i on Vrt t i a d V P 1 A : ta tha sa ttv asa ttv ab hy am , ta dv ya tirek en an av ad ha ry am an atv ats a t t v e n d v d c y d h , bhinnakdryodaydnumlyamdnasaitvac c d s a t t v e n d v a c y d h/ T h u s it is plain th a t th e r e l a t i o n a l definit ion o f th e c a p a c i t y as t a t t v d n y a t v a n i r v a c a n i y a is c los e lyre la ted w ithits o nto lo g-ical def in i t ion as sattvdsat tvdnirvacanxya.

2 4 V P 3 . 2 . 8 a b : v i k a l p a r u p a m bhaja te t a t t v am e v a v ik a lp i ta m /


20/23


21/23

B h a r t r h a r i on th e N o n - d i s t i n c t i o n between Rea l i t y and U n r e a l i t y O g a w a 2 5

th e b e f o r e - m e n t i o n e d[ t h i n g srelat iveto e a c h o t h e r ], s u c h as sequence and

non-sequence.

F i r s t o f al l , H ela ra ja d e sc rib e sBrahman as b e i n g b e y o n d any c o n c e p tu a l iz a t io n s a n den d o wed with a ll capacities , fo l lowing Vr t t i on V P 1 . 1 . 2 5 B y v i r tue o f i ts c a p a c i-

t ies , Brahman appears asdifferent ia tedwi t h i ts a d j u n c t s . I t s appearances are ofth e nature o f ei ther e x i s t e n c e o r non-existence. In shor t , j u s t a s th e u l tim a te rea l-

ity m a n i f e s t s i tself a s differentiated and unif ied V P3 .7 .3 9cd : p rthak tvaik atva rupenat a t t v a m e v a p rak as a te ) , s i m i l a r l y,Brahman appears as e x i s t e n c e a nd n on -e x is te nc e,

th e c a t e g o r i e s under w h i c h a ll t h ings in the phenomenal w o r l d come Words r e fe r toB r a h m a n in i t s d e l i m i t e dform, in th e form o f e x is te n ceand non-e xistence (b ra hmab h a v d b h d v a r u p a t a y as a b d a h p ra t i p d d ay an t i ) . Moreover, it is s a i d t h a t th e no n -d u al

r e a l i t y a p p e a r s as sequence andnon- sequence (k ra m d k ra m d d iru p a ta y d a d v a y a s y a iv a

t a t t v a sy a p r a k a s a n a t ) . T h e sequence and non- sequenceor th e absence o f s e q ue n ce om unde r th e c ate go rie so f e x i s t e n c e and non-existence, re sp e c tiv e ly . T h e re fo re ,

t s o b v i o u s tha t h e t a k e s th e p h r a s e s a d a s a d d t m a k a not as a qua l i f i e r o f th e w o rd

a r t h a b u t as t ha t o f th e word bahurupa. What is of th e n a t u r e o f e x is te n c e a n d

non-existence is n o t B r a h m a n but th e phenomenal world. Suppose t h a t B ra hm an iso f th e n a t u r e o f e x i s t e n c e and n o n - e x i s t e n c e ;t h e n from th e v ie w p o in to f v iv a r ta , it

would fo l low tha t Brahman appears as i f i t w e r e d e v o i d o f th e nature o f e x is te n c e a n d

non-existence and hence t h a t th e phenomenal w o r l d is n o t o f th e nature o f e xis te nc e

and non-existence. This is a b s u r d . In v e r b a l u s a g e , w u se th e words w hic h d e n o tee x i s t e n c e and th e ones w h i c h d en o te n o n -e x is te nc e.2 6

2 5Vrt t i on V P 1 .1 : s arv a vik a lp a tt ta ta ttv a m bhedasamsargasamat ikramena sa ma vista m sa rva bhihsaktibhir. . . b r a h m e t i p ra tijn ay a te /

26Houben [ 1 9 9 5 : 3 1 5 - 3 1 6 ]o b s e r v e s : H e l a r a ja , t o o , in te rp re ts th e ex i s ten t a nd non -e xis te nt[sad asad\a s a r e f e r e n c e to b h a v a and abhava. T h e s e , however, h e d o e s not in terp ret as a p a i r o fd i c h o t o m o u s l y opposed n o t i o n s , b u t as a [ s i c ] a n asymmetric p a ir o fw h i c h one, b h a v a , remains as

ult imately t ru e . F o r , h ee xp l a i n s that th e t h i n g - m e a n t expressed in l a n g u a g e is ek a o n e b e c a u s ed i v i s i o n is denied t h r ough th e re ject ion o f n o n - e x i s t e n c e (V P I l ia : 1 8 0 . 1 6 - 1 7 a n d it is n ity a pe rmanent because t h e r e i s n o n o n -e x is te n ce ,an d because th e c a u s e - a n d - e f f e c t re la t ion i s d en ie d

V P I l ia : 1 8 0 . 1 7 - 1 8 . N o d o u b t H e l a r a j a in te rp re ts th e ex is ten t and n o n - e x i s t e n t (sa d -asad ) as p a ir o fd i c h o t o m o u s l y opposed n o t i o n s , as is c lear from h is commentary. T he main reason forHouben s m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g i s t h a t h e t a k e s th e c l a u s e s a d a s a d a t m a k a h as a qual i f ier o f the w o rd art/ ia/i ( T h in g -m e a n t , a c c o rd in gto h i m ) . What is o fth e n a t u r e o f th e exis ten t a nd n o n -e xis te n t s n o t Brahman b u t th e phenomenal w o r l d . For B rahm an cannot c o n t a i n any c on t r a d i c t i on in it .Even g r a n t e d that , as Houben bel ieves , H ela ra j a interprets b h a v a and a b h a v a as a n a sy mm etricpair thatc l a u s e sh o u ld qual i fy th e word b a f i u ru p a h . For, as is c l ea r from th e a rg u m e n ta t io n o nth e theme tha t a ll words r e f e r to Brahman, s u c h a n asymmetric pa i r is t a k e n in to c on sid era tio nin r e ga r d to th e s e m a n t i c f i e ld . S ee V P 3 . 1 . 3 2 . H ela ra j a is fu llyaware t h a t Brahman ha s a bs olu teoneness a nde x i s t e n c e , so tha t h e makes th e s t a t e m e n t s as q u o te d b y H ou b e n .


22/23


23/23

Non Distinction Between Realities in Bhatrihari

Documents

Transcript of Non Distinction Between Realities in Bhatrihari