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 ?