*On Bhartrhari's Notion of 'Power' (sakti)*
HIDEYO OGAWA scholar from Hiroshima university Japan
KR: Many outsiders researched and wrote a lot about us; but we do not
contribute anything. And we do not care to say I do ack. We are trained to
have two tongues and be a political concept of life yet regret we ae are
not enshrined. A Japanese on BirthrHari of whom so far I had been exposing
without enough responses in volumes. Pl go through if you have time. KR
IRS 301023
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The” Vakyapadiya” (Etymology and Grammar written by BirthrHari) begins
with a description of Brahman in karikas 1-4.
Bhartrhari immediately introduces the theme of multiplicity and unity:
Brahman is enunciated in the Veda as one, in that there is no separation
between it and its powers (Sakti); it appears as though distinct from these
powers; and it appears as distinct things by virtue of its several powers.
*ekarri eva yad iimniitarri bhinnafaktivyapiisrayiit/*
*aprthaktve 'pi faktibhyaf;, frrthaktveneva vartate// *VP 1.2
"Brahman is enunciated in the Veda as one. It appears as if distinct from
powers although not distinct, by virtue of its severai powers."
As shown in this karika, power plays a critical role in Bhartrhari's
*vivarta *theory. Besides, not only from a viewpoint of Bhartrhari's
metaphysics but also from that of his linguistic theory, we may point out
that the notion of power plays an essential part in his abstraction theory
( *apoddhiira), *a theory basic to his philosophy of grammar, since the
theory presupposes a linguistic item's causal link with its meaning. I do
not think however that the question of how Bhartrhari conceives of a power
has been made sufficiently clear. Thus I intend this paper to be a closer
investigation of Bhartrhari' s notion of power.
The term S*akti *is one of the most widely used terms in Indian
philosophy but at the same time one of the most difficult ones to define.
In this respect also, Bhartrhari's arguments relating to powers in the
Vakyapadiya will provide a good clue to the concept of power.
*1. Definition *of power
In the Sadhanasamuddesa of the Vakyapadiya Bhartrhari defines a
*sadhana *('means')
as follows:
*yad yada yadanugrahi tat tada tatra sadhanam/ *VP 3.7.12cd
"When a certain thing *x *grants a favor ( *anugrahin) *to another thing *y,
*the thing *x *is a *sadhana *for the thing *y.,,*
This definition of a *sadhana *finds a different expression by Helaraja:
*yad yatropakaroti tat tatra sadhanam/ *Prakafa on VP 3.7.12
"When a certain thing *x *renders service ( *upakaroti) *to a certain thing *y;
*the thing *x *is a *sadhana *for the thing *y. *,,
The *sadhana *Bhartrhari is speaking of in this karika is what brings an
action *(kriya) *to accomplishment. Naturally, Bhartrhari means a power by
the term *sadhana *here, as is shown in his opening karika of the
Sadhana-samuddesa.
2 Obviously, a power is called *sadhana *in the *kriya-karaka *context
precisely because the given definition of *sadhana *applies to the power. *Nr
*a matter of fact, Helaraja clearly understands that the given definition
of *sadhana *amounts to that of a power. He states as follows:
*paropakari paratantrarp, sarvarp, *faktila~ar;am *anupatati/Prakafa *on VP
3.7.12
2VP 3.7.l: *sviisraye samavetr'iniirri tadvad eviisraylmtare/
kriyiii:iiim *abhini~patau
*siimarthyarp,*
*siidhanarp, vidul;,// *
( ''lt is what [Par:iinlyas from Patanjali onwards] call *siidhana *that is
a power *(siimarthya) *for bringing to accomplishment the act which abides
in the same locus as the power itself or the one which in the very same
manner abides in a locus different from the one in which the power does.'')
According to Bhartrhari, what plays a contributing role in an act is the
power *(siimarthya), *which is teated as *siidhana *in correlation to an
act as what is to be brought to accomplishment *(siidhya) . *Prakafa on VP
3.7.l : *kriyiinirvrttau dravyasya faktil} siidhanam, siidhyate 'nayii
kriyeti*
*bhiiryakiiraprabhrtayo vidul}/ *As is suggested by Bhartfhari' s use of
the word *vidul} *'they consider, call' ( *vid, *3rd pl. pfct.), moreover,
this view is firmly rooted in the Par:iinian tradition. Helaraja
comments: *bhiiryakiiraprabhrtayo
vidul}. *Bhartrhari developed the view of a *siidhana *as a quality *(gui:ia)
*into its view as a power, simply following Patanjali who, in answering the
question of what a *siidhana *is, had proposed the alternatives of a
substance ( *dravya) *or a quality and had
given preference to a quality.
In the Prakasa passage cited above, Helaraja glosses the term *siimarthya *with
the term S*akti. *There is no question that Bhartrhari uses the terms *fakti
*and *siimarthya *synonymo.usly when he
speaks of a notion such as 'power', 'capacity', and the like .
*On Bhartrhari 's Notion of' Power' (Sakti) *
''Whatever renders service to others and is something dependent fits the
definition of power.'· ~ Thus we may reasonably arrive at Bhartrhari's
definition of power.
The definition is as follows: When a certain thing *x *renders service to
another thing *y, *the thing *x *is a power for the thing *y.*
2. dharma and nimittabhava
Of course, ~t is hard to say that we can acquire a clear understanding of
power from this definition alone. In order to deepen our understanding, it
is essential to consider the following karikas, which immediately follow
the karika that has given the definition of *siidhana *(VP 3.7.12). They
give short but superb characterization of the power.
*svafabdair abhidhiine tu sa dharmo niibhidhzyate/*
*vibhaktyiidibhir eviisiiv upakiiraf:i pratzyate// *VP 3. 7 .13
"When denoted by its own word, however, that property *(sa dharmaf:i) *is
not denoted by it. The function of rendering service [to an action] 1s
understood precisely from items such as a nominal ending."
*nimittabhiivo bhiiviiniim upakiiriirtham iifrital:i/*
*natir iivarjanety evarri siddaf:i siidhanam *i~yate/ VP 3. 7 .14
"On the basis of its purpose of serving others, *nimittabhava *belongs to
en ti ties.
The *nimittabhava *is something referred to by terms such as *nati
*'inclination',
a*varjana *'leaning'. When actually present *(siddha) *[in the entities],
it is accepted as *sadhana *[i.e., a means]."
§2.1. DHARMA
Let us first consider karika 13. There are three points to be noted
here. The first, which is the most important, is that Bhartrhari refers to
*sadhana, *a power, by the phrase *sa dharmas:i *'that property'. This
clearly shows that the power is a property ( *dharma) *which calls for a
locus to abide in *(dharmin) *.4 And this is also suggested by Bhartrhari,
who has described a 'In his Prakafa on VP 3.6.1 (see fn. 11) also Helaraja
mentions features ofa power as follows:
*tathii hi *paropadhirupi~i *foktayo digiidyiil}, piiratant1yaf!! ca
*faktilak~ar.iam
*iti kriyiipi*
*dravyaparatantrii faktir iti *vyapadiryate/vaise~kanaye *ca dik dravyarri
nopapadyate, kiiryt"inurneyatvena*
*padiirthopakiirakarupasya foktitvasya nyiiyyatviit/*
* He *says that things such as *dis *'direction' are in essence adjuncts
delimiting others *(paropadhi), *that being dependent *(piiratantrya) *is a
characteristic of a power, so that an action, being dependent on a
substance, is a power, and that power is something to be inferred
*(kiiryiinurneya)
*and consists in rendering senrice to things
*(padiirthopakiiraka). *On the characteristic of being dependent, see
section 4.
~ Helaraja comments: *sa dharmal}, kriyiirri prati *se~abhaval}! Judging
from the fact that, in introducing the karika in question, he states *sii
ca svakiiryaparatantriivasthr/ .*.. . 'and that is the state
of being dependent on its own result', we may take the gloss as meaning
'the property of being subordinate to an action' (Se~abhiva= se~atva). This
interpretation is possible because, as shall be
seen later, when a certain thing senres another, the former is said to be
subordinate to the power as abiding in a locus *(svasraye, afrayantare) *in
the first karika of the Sadhanasamuddesa. To use Bhartrhari's terminology
in VP 3.7.11 which equates Vaise~ika categories with powers he has in mind,
a locus of the property in question is spoken of as *faktirnat *'that which
has a power' .5 We have to say that it is quite natural that Bhartrhari,
following Patafijali who identifies *siidhana *with a quality *(gu?Ja), *should
consider a *siidhana *to be a property.
The second is that Bhartrhari says that power, being a property, cannot
but be denoted by an item other than that of its own. Things such as a
power and a relation *(sarribandha) *are spoken of as *asvafabda.6 *This
shall be explained later in connection with Bhartrhari 's characterization
of power as *upakarin *or what renders service.
The third is that he remarks that one understands the function of
rendering service to an action *(asav upakaral; *'that service') from an
item like a nominal ending. The power has been defined as what serves
something. It is natural, therefore, that when one understands something as
serving a certain thing, one should understand the function of rendering
service involved there.
(CONTD IN NEXT 301023 KR IRS)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZorCOEPgmnrHPaTj2km8VkWSNboi2iPzk%2B8Om--mnWgBuQ%40mail.gmail.com.
