Is Bhartrhari an Advaitin? (4)

This metaphysical conception of Sabda Brahman is held with a consistent significance even among the prolific writers of Advaita Vedanta until very recent times, like Upanisad Brahmendra, Narayana Bhatta et al., who flourished during the colonial period (late quarters of 18^th CE) commented on all 108 Upanisad-s. Amrtabindu Upanisad, for instance, uses the homology of Pranava – OM (verse 7) along with the Sabda-s and svara-s deals with the concept of Sabdabrahman as found in the Maitri Upanisad [VI.4]. Amrtabindu Upanisad, which belongs to Atharvana Upaniñad, teaches the concept of Çabda Brahman in mantra 16 where it says the immutable Sound Brahman is Supreme (SabdAksaram param Brahma).

Brahman is the syllable of the OM-Sound;

When it fades off, what remains, [16.a]

...         ...         ...         ...         ...

Two sciences are necessary,

The Word-Brahman and the Uppermost;

One who is versed in the Word-Brahman,

Attains to the highest Brahman too. [17.a-b]

And when this Brahman transfigurates, it is called the (apara) Çabda Brahman. In the gloss, the term ‘ksine’ is interpreted as ‘sAvayave sabdAkSare kSIne’, implying the partite world; the dissolution of which occurs upon the AkSara Brahman as the substratum.  Upanisad Brahmendra comments on these lines to say that, ‘the attributeless Brahman, which is the immutable Sound Brahman is Para (Nirviçeña Brahma = Çabdaksaraà paraà ‘OM’) and the same is known to be the ‘qualified’ Brahman, as connoted by the unitary syllable – the Pranava (Sabda Brahman = Savisesa Brahman). These two-fold aspects are taught as ‘dve vidye’ in the Upaniñad [v.17] and Upaniñad Brahmendra, insists the Advaitic position on the essential unity of the two aspects of same Brahman, savisesa and nirvisesa (Sabda Brahma param Brahma yat brahma dvividam – Saguna-Nirguna Brahma yatatmyam). Sabda-aksara Brahman which is Nirvisesa, as Upaniñad Brahmendra opines, is the substratum for the dissolution of all phonemes  (Sabda-aksara vilayadhikaranam) and that it is beyond all epistemic positivities and the corresponding counter positivities (nispratiyogika-svamatra). Narayana Bhatta, on the other hand remarks that the Supreme Sabda Brahman is the Consciousness (param brahma caitanyamca).  He interprets the term ‘svara’ [v. 7a] in a literal sense, as he considers it as the voice of preceptor or the Pranava (gurupadesena pranavena va) but clearly gives scope to regard the term ‘svara’ as savisesa Sabda Brahman in consideration with his remark on the term ‘asvara’ as he calls it the transcendental to all Sounds (Sabdatitam) while Upanisad Brahmendra agrees to this point to place ‘asvara’ in absolute distinction from all 16 fold cosmogonic evolutionary principles including the life breath (pranadi ... sodasakala vailaksanyam asvaram) , which eventually explains the transcendence with respect to spatio-temporal adjuncts within the experiential grounds and the ‘svara’ to denote the OM-kara connoting the Savisesa Isvara. To sum up, Upanisad Brahmendra, glosses the term Sabda as the supreme Ontic-Being which he regards as Advaita’s Para Brahman and Narayana Bhatta explicitly equates the sabda tattva to the Consciousness in clear Advaitic accent. Now considering the overall exegetical position of the notion of Sabda Brahman as a ontological concept in the metaphysical scheme of Advaita Vedanta and particularly placing it in the context of these two recent interpretations in the light of Bhartrhari’s doctrinal position is seen problematic in Harold Coward’s opinion who in the wake of above stated view quickly confronts the Advaitic interpretations to be incompatible to Bharthari’s ontology. Here we touch upon our first issue on the first question on the ontological identity of the two systems. 

Further in the mantra – 15 of the Amrtabindu speaks about the concept of mäyä, its functional role in relation with the soteriological oneness of the Self.

sabamdamsyavrto naiva tamasa yati puskare |

bhinne tasi caikatvamekamevanupasyati ||

‘He who is concealed by the Sound-maya, is trapped by delusion, never sees the sun; separated from the darkness, he sees the oneness alone’

As an epistemological term, Sabda-maya, in Upaniñad Brahmendra’s gloss, is the means for the world of words and meanings ‘Sabda-artha-prapanca-hetubhuta Sabdamaya’. Connoting the conventional Advaita stand point on the functionality of Nescience, Upanisad Brahmendra glosses the term ‘avrta’ =  by that the beings are shrouded by darkness / delusion, like the concealed person who does not see the light of highest purity in one’s own Self. And with the light different from the darkness, with the Self-Knowledge distinct from the darkness of one’s own ignorance, and in the loss of its impressions, the oneness of immediate supreme consciousness is perceived. But in the presence of the Sound-maya, like the one who is concealed with darkness, he never accomplishes the immediacy of the unity of Brahman-atman in all beings. What is the causal relation between maya and the world? How is the notion of maya related to time of Bhartrhari? These positions bring us to our last two issues mentioned above [supra. §.4. case ii & iii].

Is Bhartrhari an Advaitin? (3)

The legitimacy of the scholastic debate in the contemporary period, in my opinion, may largely be based upon the context in which the genesis of Advaita Vedänta has conceived the metaphysical position of the grammarians through reading Sankara and the post-Sankara traditions in its textual situatedness. It is indeed pivotal to trace back the conceptual genesis of the doctrine of eternal verbum as conceived in the ‘tradition-texts’ of the Advaita school of thought. As early as in 400 CE, Gauòapada, in his Agamaprakaranya portion of Karika on Mandukya Upanisad – one of the early Upaniñad-s, explains the significance of Pranava or OM-kara. Pranava, as Gaudapada insists, is the sound which directly connotes Brahman itself identical with the Self.  Praëava is inclusive of all sounds and the OM-kara Sabda is the substratum of all existence. Gaudapada sketches the components of OM with four matra-s A, U, M and the assimilative syllable OM. The fourth syllable which is Pranava itself is spoken as the amatra – soundless anusvara known as Bindu. [§§ 174-175, T.M.P.Mahadevan; 1960]. Sankara in his commentary to the Karika, mentions that this Pranava that is the name of all names and the formless form, is known in two aspects, Para and apara, unmanifested and manifested form of same Reality. Mandana Misra, a post-Sankara Advaitin, in his Brahma Siddhi [Brahma Kanda]  refers to Chandogya Sruti [II.xxiii.3] to insist  that OM is all comprehensive principle and all pervasive is the underlining principle of all realities. Vacaspati Misra [9^th CE], the founder of Bhamati school of Advaita Vedanta, in his Tattvasamiksa, a commentary on Brahma Siddhi, endorses the concept of Pranava – the Sabda Brahman as the absolute ontological reality; as accepted by Sankapani’s Vyakhya, Citsukha’s Abhiprayaprakasika, änandapürëamuni’s Bhavasuddhi  in the Advaita tradition [§.2, N.S.Ananthakrishna Sastri;  1964].

14^th Century Advaitin, Vidyaranya revitalizes the doctrine of Pranava and its triadic meta-cosmic ontology of Sonic reality in his Dipika upon Nrsimha Uttara Tapini. Explicating the Advaitic stand on the triadic Sonic reality he contends that the impartite Sound is conceived in four fragments like vaikhari, madhyama, pasyanti and para. A-kara, U-kara, Ma-kara together forms Pranava; likewise vaikhari, madhyama, pasyanti forms the para which is OM-kara. Also that A-kara etc., corresponds to fourfold, bija, bindu, nada and sakti respectively. A-kara, one that is perceived directly, is the gross form of OM-kara which is Virat. Vaikhari is the gross state of sound and hence it is directly perceived and is functional aspect of sound ie., the Kriya sakti. Before the gross form manifestation, it is associated with mind, which is presided by the Icca sakti – the madhyamä indicating Hiranyagarbha who presides over the mind and its states. Madhyamä is the middle space between vaikhariand pasyanti like the U between A and Ma-karas. The pasyanti that is manifested by the Ma-kara is presided by the power of knowledge ie., the Jnana Sakti [§.76. Nrsimha Uttara Tapini Dipika; Anandasrama Press, Varanasi; 1929].

Is Bhartrhari an Advaitin? (2)

In the scholastic debates, the concept of the ontological Sabda Brahman along with epistemic notion of mAyA-avidyA and kAla has received much attention during the post-modern development of Indological studies in India especially during the years 1959-1990. Problematizing the dilemma on the doctrinal identity, Gaurinath Sastri, in his introduction to his work ‘The philosophy of Word and Meaning’, writes “It is interesting point to discuss whether the grammarian like the Vedäntist declares that the Supreme Reality in his system is of the nature of bliss. It has been very cogently established by the Vedäntist dialecticians that a spiritual entity must partake the nature of bliss; otherwise, its spiritual character cannot be advocated. We must admit that there is no definite statement in the writings of Bhartåhari that would unmistakably warrant the conclusion that he is conscious of the logical necessity of admitting the identity of consciousness with bliss” [§.8, Gaurinath Sastri; 1959]. Sastri leaves us with a sceptic mood over the problem of identity which apparently speaks for the significance of the debate that has sparked in the scholastic world in our contemporary period. By not warranting any definitive conclusion from Bhartåhari’s position, Sastri clearly takes no particular stand on the doctrinal identity between Vedanta and the school of grammar over the concept of Sabda Brahman and its ontological status. A decade later, in 1964, Dr Biardeau maintained that Bhartåhari advocated reality to the phenomenal world and further argued that postulating the objective and subjective aspects of the ontic-reality to Bhartåhari was a logical necessity. The fortiori of the metaphysical avidyA in Bhartåhari’s view, according to Biardeau, forms the pivots of Vedantic thought. In the same year, Prof Subramania Iyer, came out with his research on ‘Bhartåhari – a study’ in the light of the commentaries of Vrtti (an auto-commentary on VAkyapadiya), Helaraja’s Sabdaprabha, Vakyakanda Tika (or Vakyapradipa) [10^th CE] and Punyaraja’s tIka on the Trikandi. In assessing the metaphysical background in his work, Prof Iyer writes,

“there were two interpretations of Çabdädvaita of Bhartåhari. One can understand how there mutually exclusive interpretations arose. The use of the words pariNAma and vivarta as more or less synonymous in the same stanza [Väk I.112 (120)] in the description of the emergence of the phenomenal world from the Word-Principle would naturally prompt some readers to think of the system as a kind of pariNAma vAda while the occurrence of the word avidyA and the characterization of the phenomenal world as asatya would lead some others to understand it as vivarta vAda. The history of the interpretation of Vakyapadiya immediately after Bhartåhari is shrouded in mystery” [§135; 1964]

In 1990, Harold Coward in the introduction to the work ‘The Philosophy of Grammarians’, after a brief analysis of the metaphysical terms of mAyA – avidyA of Sankara and the functional aspect of the term KAla of Bhartåhari, claims that “It is probably open to question whether the term avidyA meant for Bhartåhari as it came to be defined by Sankara some centuries later. Modern commentators sometimes incorrectly apply concepts they have learned from Advaita Vedanta when interpreting the Vakyapadiya. Notions such as “superimposition” (adhyAsa), if seen through Advaita eyes, are probably misleading and unhelpful in understanding Bhartåhari” [§.40; 1990]. Harold Coward takes a strong position here to insist that the Bhartåhari’s implication on the functional character of kAla is completely divorced from Sankara’s Advaita notion of mAyA – avidyA. These scholars have thus attempted to appropriate and redress variedly smaller portions of larger puzzle on the issue of identity by embracing the text, coaxing the contextual meaning of the ‘text’,  leaving behind reflections for us to explore. The aim of this paper is to hermeneutically recycle address the aforementioned debate, which is essentially concerned to explore the following issues. vide.,

i)                    Is Bhartrhari’s characterization of ontic-Being – the Sabda Brahman identical with the Vedäntin’s doctrine of Being?

ii)                  How is the epistemic notion of avidyA of Advaitins problematized with that of kAla in Bhartåhari’s opinion within these traditions?

iii)                Can Bhartrhari’s isomorphic usage of crucial terms like vivarta and pariNAma be hermeneutically resolved in the light of historical consciousness in doctrinal genesis of Advaita ?

Is Bhartrhari an Advaitin? (1)

There is a contemporary critical debate among the scholars on doctrinal similarities between Advaita and the philosophy of Grammarians – the çabdädvaita. The central concern of this debate collaborates to contemplate upon the certainty of ontological position of the eternal verbum – shabda Brahman in relation with the concept of mAyA of Advaita and the concept of kAla in grammarians view. And also about the theory of causality – on what is the grammarian’s position on the evolutionary process is – transfiguration (vivarta) or transformation (pariNAma). The topic on the theory of causality has a long history that has triggered many scholars of Indology in the past defending multi dimensional positions with intense polemics and dialectics. The debate on these questions not only surfaces highly isomorphic doctrinal patterns but are hermeneutically pivotal in mapping the philosophical orientation of the grammarians. This paper will primarily map such an identity for the grammarians assimilating contemporary scholarship over the issue.

The doctrine of Eternal Verbum is prominent feature in Indian Philosophy. The linguistic theology was systemized by various schools of Indian thought – authors seeking to justify the eternal existence of the Veda and .. to establish that çabda – the sound is eternal’ [§.3] ‘Speech, plays a vital part; of speculations about the cosmogonic or magic power of certain forms of the Word (eternal verbum), which is eternal’ [§.1. Andre Padaux; 1990]. Guy L. Beck [1995] views that the ‘parameters of Väk as a principle gradually developed in the Vedic literature – BrahmaNa-s’ (p.28).  ‘Language / Speech is Brahman’ [Rg Veda 1.1644.35 / Br Up. IV.i.2; also evident from the Taitiriya Brahmaëa [II.viii.8] ‘catvAri vAkparimitA padAni tAni vidurbrAhmaNA te manISiNaH guhA trINi nihitA nengayanti turIyaà väco manüñyä vädanti’. Supreme Being is systematically extolled and equated with the Sabda Brahman / Näda Brahman in the Upaniñads. The triadic feature of Pranava is insisted in the Maitri Upaniñad ‘OM is the Sound form of the ätman’ [6.5]. ‘UdgIta is Pranava’ [VI.5]; ‘the syllable (OM) is Supreme’ (Praëava sa udgita ... etad ekAkSaraà param).  Chändogya says, ‘OM is UdgIta and is Supreme’ – ‘Just as all leaves are permeated by the stalk so does OM that permeates all speech’ [I.i.1 / II.23.3]. ‘The extra Vedic NAda-Brahman as Sound Brahman – gradually supersedes as çabda Brahman and becomes the most consistent cosmological and psychological characterization of sacred sound in the Hindu tradition [§.48, Guy. L. Beck; 1995] ‘Nisshabdaà tat param Brahma’ – ‘the Supreme Being is Soundless’ [Nädabindu 48] ‘BijAkAaram paraM bindu nAdam’ ‘the eternal seed is supreme – the indivisible Sound’ [Dhyanabindu I.2 ].

Speech (vAk) as the material casue:

Any modification is accompanied by the form of its material cause. The modification of pot apparently means modification of clay, which is the material cause of the pot. Here, what is modified is non-different from its cause. Such as this universe is known cognizd by speech. Universe is a conglomeration of different objects. All objects are revealed by speech alone. Object's real content is its name and form. All names and forms have Speech as their source. Objects are dependent of speech. Without speech the object cannot be cognized at all. Therefore, by the rule of co-presence and co-absence (anvaya-vyatireka) we arrive that objectivity can never be independent of the speech and that speech is independent of the object. In the scriptural passage 'satyam, jnAnaM, anantaM brahma' - it is to be known that satyam = existence, jnAnaM = sound / knowledge and anantam = bliss. 


Cognition arises in the proximity between the seer and the seen, The seer is the one who attempts to know or cognize. Seen the object of cognition or knowledge. Seer is nothing but the mind associated with the pure consciousness or the praNava, which is sabda brahman. Association of the mind (antahkaraNa), which is reflexive consciousness with the object produces the cognition of 'I' in relation with the object that is cognized. The object is revealed by its name and form and is transmitted to the mind by speech. The image of the object's name and form appears to the 'I' cognition of the mind. The entire process of knowledge production is nothing but the vibration of the sound and it takes place in the sphere of mind. Mind constantly reverberated on the assimilated cognitions, which are nothing but the vibrations of objective-images. 'I' cognition propogates on the reflexive sounds in the form of thoughts. Thoughts are there attetuations of reflexive-propogated sounds. 


The pulsation devoid of thought-borne attenuations is called the 'aham' phenomena. All attenuations are appearances of the pure pulsation of aham. When the object is encountered by the mind, what is modified is not the sound-consciousness itself but the sound-attetuated in the mind. The attenuation in the mind is called avabhasa. Gaudapada calls this mano-spandita. Mandana articulates that Samkhyan proposal that when the pulsation of aham encounters the object, which is product of prakrti (primordial nature), then the unintelligent and unluminous phenomena receives a pulse of vibration in the proximity of aham. The association of prakrti with aham cooperated the production of an act of knowledge by causing reverberations on both external object and the reflexive-propogation of mind. However, what is to be noted is that the difference between the seer (dRk) and the seen (dRsya) is not real but apparent. Just as one sees oneself in the mirror, what is cognized in the mirror is the object. The objective reflection is 'actually' non-different from the seer. In other words the cognizer and the cognized are not different at all. The cognition of the non-duality that signifies the non-difference of cognition and the cognized, according to Mandana, is actually the transcendental reality, which is beyond the subject and the object itself. 


In the tarka-khanda of Brahma-Siddhi, Mandana Misra articulates that the loci of all cognition resides in the conjunction and it transcends what is conjoined. The thing when conjoined is not distinct from its form when unconjoined. In a meta-level, during all wordly perceptions the objectivity is translated to its corresponding  speech forms and during the process of constructive-cognitions (vikalpa pratyaya) speech alone appears to be articulated in the form of knowledge. The speech as the essence of all objectivities. The object that is cognized is reflected in the propogated waves of sound consciousness of the mind and is pulsated in relation to the 'I', which is ultimately the absolute cognition in-itself. Mandana gives an analogy 'just as moons in the waves of the water are of the moon only' (candramasA iva jalatarangacandramasaA iti)

Sound-Consciousness (1)

pratyag-dRSTi 

The pratyag-dRSTi is the pure-consciousness, which is also called samvit. The samvit-caitanya is non-different from vAk or sound. It is known as sabda-brahman. World is the trans-figuration (vivarta) of Sabda. The vak-sukta of the Veda declares : Sabda as the ultimate reality; 'I (vAk) move as Rudra-s and Vasu-s' (Rgveda Samhita: 19-125-1). The sound of speech caused the entire universe. Chandogya Upanisad  (6.4.2), states 'it is verily the vAk the source of all modifications of name and form'. The ultimate vAk is praNava, the OM. OM is everything, remarks Sankara in the mANDUkya kArikA bhASya, Every object of this world expressed by name is not distinct from name and since name is not distinct from OM, all this is nothing but OM. 

Amrtabindupanisad teaches the concept of Sabda Brahman in mantra 16 where it says the immutable Sound Brahman is Supreme (Sabdaksaram param Brahma). Upanisad Brahmendra comments on these terms to say ‘the attributeless Brahman is the immutable Sound Brahman which is para (Nirvisesa Brahma = Sabdaksaram param ‘OM’) and the same is known to be the ‘qualified’ Brahman, which is Pranava (Sabda Brahman = Savisesa Brahman). These two-fold aspects are taught as ‘dve vidya’ in the Upanisad [v.17] and Upanisad Brahmendra, insists the Advaitic position on the essential unity of the two aspects of same Brahman, savisesa and nirvisesa (Sabda Brahma param Brahma yat brahma dvividam – Saguna-Nirguna Brahma yAtatmyam). Sabda-aksara Brahman which is Nirvisesa, as Upanisad Brahmendra views, is the substratum for dissolution of all phonemes  (sabda-aksara vilayadhikaranam) and that it is beyond all epistemic positivities and the counter positivities (niSpratiyogika-svamAtra). 

Narayana Bhatta [16th C.E],remarks that the Supreme Sabda Brahman is the Consciousness (param brahma caitanyanca).  He interprets the term ‘svara’ [v. 7a] in a literal sense, as he considers it as the voice of preceptor or the Pranava (gurupadesena praNavena vA) but clearly gives scope to regard the term ‘svara’ as savisesha Sabda Brahman in consideration with his remark on the term ‘asvara’ as he calls it the transcendental to all Sounds (sabdAtItam) while Upanisad Brahmendra agrees to this point to place ‘asvara’ in absolute distinction from all 16 fold cosmogonic evolutionary principles including the life breath (pranadi ... shodaSakala vailakSaNyam asvaram), which eventually explains the transcendence with respect to spatio-temporal adjuncts within the experiential grounds and the ‘svara’ to denote the OM-kara connoting the NirguNa as well as saguNa Isvara.

Mandana Misra, the celebrated author of Brahma-Siddhi, mentions that the OM or the Sabda Brahman is all-comprehensive, the Self of all. Mandana contends that the ultimate sound-consciousness is transcendental and it is pure existence beyond all relegations of particularities (vyakti-s) and generalities (jAti-s). All forms of knowledge is non-different from the ultimate Sound-consciousness. The knowledge 'This is pot' in which the association of 'this-ness of pot' denotes the real existence of the pot and that the pot knowledge is none other than sound-consciousness itself. In other words, the object consciousness is said to be the nature of sound-consciousness (sabda-rUpatvaM) just as a pot which is always seen in association with clay is said to be of the nature of the clay and nothing else. Hence all forms of knowledge-awareness is invariably associated with sound-consciousness, which is OM. The relation of identity (tAdAtmya sambanda) between the object and the sound-consciousness reveals the knowledge or the awareness of the existence of an object. The absence of tAdAtmya sambanda the obscures the objectivity of the object. While the relation of identity is the means (upAya)  to reveal the knowledge of the object, the sound-consciousness (OM) is the actual content of all forms of knowledge.