Limits of the Real

Limits of the real A hypertext critical edition and translation of Bhartṛhari’s Dravyasamuddeśa, with the commentary of Helārāja Charles Cheuk Him Li Queens’ College September 2018 This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Limits of the real A hypertext critical edition and translation of Bhartṛhari’s Dravyasamuddeśa, with the commentary of Helārāja Charles Cheuk Him Li Abstract This dissertation is divided into two parts. The first is a critical study of the Dravyasamuddeśa, a chapter from the Vākyapadīya of Bhartṛhari, a 5th-century Sanskrit philosopher of language. It also deals with the 10th-century commentary of Helārāja, which was highly influential in shaping the in- terpretation of the text by later authors. Although the Vākyapadīya is a treatise on Sanskrit grammar, and this particular chapter purports to deal with the grammatical category of dravya, in the Dravya- samuddeśa, Bhartṛhari is mostly concerned with establishing a non-dual theory of reality. Helārāja, five centuries later, defends this theory and attempts to re-interpret other schools of thought, namely Buddhism and Sāṃkhya, in its terms. The second part of the dissertation is a critical edition and annotated translation of the Dravyasamuddeśa and the commentary. It also describes the making of the edition – for this project, an open source software package was developed to automatically col- late diplomatic transcriptions of manuscript witnesses in order to generate an apparatus variorum. The resulting apparatus forms part of an interactive, online digital edition of the text, from which the printed edition is generated. 1 Preface This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the out- come of work done in collaboration except as specified in the text. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or is being concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution. I further state that no substantial part of my dissertation has already been submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution. It does not exceed the prescribed word limit for the Degree Committee of the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies. 2 Acknowledgements Thanks are owed to a number of people whom I met during my time at Cambridge, without whom this dissertation would not have been possible. My supervisor, Vincenzo Vergiani, read through many drafts of this dissertation and provided continuous comments. During the Sanskrit Manu- scripts Project, Daniele Cuneo and Camillo Formigatti initiated me into the study of interlinear spac- ing, akṣara counting, and marginal frame lines, and taught me the beauty and value of pedantry. Hugo David suffered through an early draft of the translation, and, surprisingly, still consents to being interrogated on questions of Indian philosophy. Margaret Cone read Pali with me for four years, which is a privilege that I deeply regret leaving behind. I would also like to thank the friends and colleagues who participated in various reading groups and seminars in Cambridge, among them Varun Khanna, Sibylle Koch, Prow Pangsrivongse, Alessandra Petrocchi, Aleix Ruis-Falqués, Shishir Saxena, Yiming Shen, Saran Suebsantiwongse, and Paolo Visi- galli. My two thesis examiners, Diwakar Acharya and Isabelle Ratié, were extremely generous with their time and attention, and provided many insightful comments and suggestions. The following institutions have been very kind to grant access to their manuscript collections: Adyar Library, the Asiatic Society, Kolkata, the Asiatic Society, Mumbai, the British Library, the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Chennai, the Rajasthan Oriental Research Institute, Alwar branch, Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Śrī Hemacandrācārya Jaina Jñāna Mandira, the University of Göttingen, the University of Kerala, and the University of Ox- ford. I am also indebted to Kei Kataoka for sharing a facsimile of a manuscript of the Ślokavārttika- kāśikā. This dissertation was funded by the Cambridge Trust as well as the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. 3 Contents I. Critical study 12 1. Bhartṛhari on dravya: the real as delimited by the unreal 13 1.1. The semantics of the term dravya ........................... 13 1.2. Patañjali on the jāti and dravya views on word-meaning . 16 1.3. Bhartṛhari’s treatment of jāti and dravya ....................... 19 1.4. Dravya in the Dravyasamuddeśa ............................ 21 2. Helārāja on dravya: an all-encompassing doctrine 27 2.1. On the Cārvākas .................................... 27 2.2. Ātmādvaita ....................................... 29 2.3. Sattādvaita: a brief history ............................... 31 2.4. Casting Sāṃkhya as Sattādvaita ............................ 43 2.5. Casting Buddhists as dravyavādins .......................... 49 3. Epilogue on dreams 53 II. Edition and translation 55 4. Methodology: Towards a hypertext critical edition 56 4.1. The dream of the total library ............................. 56 4.2. The method of collation ................................ 57 4.3. Diplomatic transcription and its limits ........................ 60 4.4. Expressing text-critical principles as algorithms ................... 61 4.5. Filtering XML tags ................................... 63 4.6. Output ......................................... 65 4.7. Afterword ........................................ 66 5. Prefatory material 68 5.1. Transcription and apparatus conventions ....................... 68 5.2. Using the online, hypertext edition .......................... 69 5.3. Witnesses ........................................ 71 4 Contents 5.4. Stemmatic analysis ................................... 83 5.5. Major differences from K. A. Subramania Iyer’s edition . 85 6. Critical edition 88 7. Annotated Translation 121 III. Appendices 144 8. Collation of Jātisamuddeśa 34, with Helārāja’s commentary 145 9. Digital resources 148 10.TEI XML file format 149 11.Filtering the transcriptions 151 IV. Bibliography 156 5 The Dravyasamuddeśa of Bhartṛhari ātmā vastu svabhāvaś ca śarīraṃ tattvam ity api | It is also called: ātman, vastu, svabhāva, śarīra, dravyam ity asya paryāyās tac ca nityam iti and tattva. These are synonyms of dravya, and it smṛtam || 1 || is traditionally taught that it is permanent. satyaṃ vastu tadākārair asatyair avadhāryate | The real entity is determined through its unreal asatyopādhibhiḥ śabdaiḥ satyam evābhidhī- forms; only the real is denoted by words, which yate || 2 || have unreal delimiters, adhruveṇa nimittena devadattagṛhaṃ yathā | just as Devadatta’s house is grasped by a tempo- gṛhītaṃ gṛhaśabdena śuddham evābhidhī- rary mark, but only the bare house is denoted by yate || 3 || the word “house”, suvarṇādi yathā yuktaṃ svair ākārair apāyibhiḥ | just as gold, etc., is endowed with its own, tran- rucakādyabhidhānānāṃ śuddham evaiti vācya- sient forms, but it is really the pure gold that is tām || 4 || expressed by denotations such as “ring”. ākāraiś ca vyavacchedāt sārvārthyam avaru- And the capacity of a word to mean everything dhyate | is restrained because the object is differentiated yathaiva cakṣurādīnāṃ sāmarthyaṃ nāḍikādi- by its forms, in the very same way that the capa- bhiḥ || 5 || bility of the eyes, etc. is restrained by a hollow stalk, etc. teṣv ākāreṣu yaḥ śabdas tathābhūteṣu vartate | The permanent substance is denoted even by a tattvātmakatvāt tenāpi nityam evābhidhī- word that expresses solely forms of such a kind, yate || 6 || since those forms are identical with the real. 6 Contents na tattvātattvayor bheda iti vṛddhebhya āga- There is no difference between the real and the maḥ | unreal, according to the tradition passed down atattvam iti manyante tattvam evāvicāri- from the elders. What others think is “the un- tam || 7 || real” is really the real which has not been prop- erly examined. vikalparūpaṃ bhajate tattvam evāvikalpitam | It is really the unconceptualized real which as- na cātra kālabhedo 'sti kālabhedaś ca sumes the form of conceptualization. And there gṛhyate || 8 || is no temporal difference in it, yet temporal difference is grasped, yathā viṣayadharmāṇāṃ jñāne 'tyantam asaṃ- just as the properties of the object of cognition bhavaḥ | absolutely do not belong to cognition itself, and, tadātmeva ca tat siddham atyantam atadātma- although seemingly identical, it is established kam || 9 || that they are absolutely non-identical, yathā vikārarūpāṇāṃ tattve 'tyantam asaṃbha- just as transformations of the real absolutely do vaḥ | not belong to the real, and, although seemingly tadātmeva ca tat tattvam atyantam atadātma- identical, the real is absolutely non-identical kam || 10 || with its transformations. satyam ākṛtisaṃhāre yad ante vyavatiṣṭhate | That reality which remains at the end, when all tan nityaṃ śabdavācyaṃ tac chabdāt tac ca na forms are destroyed, that is permanent, that is bhidyate || 11 || expressed by the word, and that is not different from the word. na tad asti na tan nāsti na tad ekaṃ na tat It does not exist nor does it not exist, it is not sin- pṛthak | gular, it is not separate, it is not connected nor na saṃsṛṣṭaṃ vibhaktaṃ na vikṛtaṃ na ca nā- divided, it is not transformed nor is it otherwise. nyathā || 12 || tan nāsti vidyate tac ca tad ekaṃ tat

Load more