[Advaita-l] Linguistics and philosophy

Jaldhar H. Vyas via Advaita-l advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Tue Jun 24 00:53:29 CDT 2014

On Sat, 7 Jun 2014, Sunil Bhattacharjya via Advaita-l wrote:

> Raja Bhartrhari is known to be the great scholar who wrote the
> Vakyapadiya as a treatise on the Sphotavada and he is the acknowledged
> authority on the grammar of philosophy and he is also believed by many
> to be the author of a Vartika on the Sankhyakarika, the authoritative
> text on the Sankhya philosophy. Such being the possibility, has any
> scholar come to know of any studies carried out so far, which throw
> light on the great Monist Raja Bhartrhari's appying the principles of
> Sphotavada in his Vartika of the Sankhyakarika ?

On Sun, 8 Jun 2014, Sunil Bhattacharjya via Advaita-l wrote:

> It is the belief of some (including me as well)
> that Raja Bhartrihari, who wrote the Vakyapadiya, the treatise on the
> Sphotavada, is also  the writer of the Yuktidipika, which also
> indicates that its author is a raja (king). It is known that Raja
> Bhartrihari gave up the throne in his prime of his youth to became an
> ascetic and his brother Vikramaditya succeeded him. Vacaspati Mishra
> includes two verses from the text of the Yuktidipika in  his
> Tattvakaumudi, the commentary on the Sankhyakarika,  and he calls
> that text as the Raja-Vartika. Thus, in short, the Vakyapadiya and
> the Yuktidipika could have been written by the same person,

The problem is that yuktidipika itself quotes Bhartrhari.  While it is not 
unknown for an author to refer to his other works why would he do it in 
the third person.  And anyway the context in which Bhartrhari is quoted 
has nothing to do with the the three rajavarttika shlokas.  Also there is 
the fact that the yuktidipika does not meet the dictionary definition of a 
varttika.  This is not a clincher because sometimes near-synonms are used 
lightly in Sanskrit.  However it claims in its introduction that the 
samkhyakarikAs are a comprehensive statement of samkhyashastra not merely 
a prakarana making YD a bhashya.  And it does meet the definition of a 
bhashya.  Some scholars have suggested that perhaps the rAjavarttikA in 
whole or part is embedded within the YD in the way that Katyayanas 
varttikA on vyAkaraNa is embedded within the mahAbhAshya but this is 
conjecture and also doesn't establish any link with Bhartrahari.

Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list