Akhanda Vakya Sphota
Akhanda Vakya Sphota
December, 2008
Bhartrhari (circa Fifth century C.E.) was an Indian grammarian who developed
the one typically dealt with in linguistics, and it is furthermore a spiritual discipline
find a similar truth in the cosmogony, ontogeny and morphology implied in the
Heraclitean and Stoic (Ancient Greek) notion of Logos (the Word), later identified
ensuing from the Greek tradition. Bhartrhari’s system was also influential directly
1
Indeed, the Gospel of John identified Jesus with the incarnation of Logos, through which all
things are made, and even identified Logos with Theos, with God. This is the case in Advaita
traditions such as in Bhartrhari’s Sabdadvaita wherein the Word is ultimately Brahman,
Sabda-Brahman-- the Absolute as Word (see the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad 4.1.2).
2
The Saussurian sign is divided into the signifier and signified (subject and object), and the
third element is the sign itself. His Ph.D. dissertation was on the “Genitive Case in Sanskrit”.
Bhartrhari’s principal work is the Vakya-padiya, and it is divided into three
tattva) is called Sabda-Brahman (the Absolute as the Word, the Word is ultimate
reality), which Bhartrhari, in the first part of the Vakyapadiya (On Words and
Sentences, or On the Saying and the Word), says is beginningless and endless, and
of the grammarian to preserve the purity of the Vedas and prevent the corruption of
its language (Vakyapadiya 1.11). In this way, Bhartrhari’s linguistic analysis can be
seen as a spiritual discipline, but the term ‘philosophy’ fits better than ‘religion’.
The best label for what Bhartrhari does is science. The analysis of language has
logical, metaphysical etc.), and can mean an analysis into different fundamental
units (letter, word or sentence, respectively, varna, pada, and vakya), and spans
from the ultimate reality of Sabda-Brahman (Sabdadvaita) to the vaikhari, the gross
word (sthula sabda) which refers to the gross object (sthula artha). But the
Vaikhari (Manifest Speech). And these correspond to the analysis of the basic
syllable, the symbol of Brahman, and quite literally the fundament, AUM, wherein a
fourth element is hidden, the turiya (literally, “the fourth state”), which represents
(King pp.49). The fourth state could be said to correspond to the ground of
time, past, present and future (the fourth, again, being beyond the scope of time, in
this case, which we could call by Proust’s label ‘atemporal time’), and in Tantrika
(i.e. the region below the genitals). It is the region that the mysterious
3. Anahata Cakrais the special center in the region on the heart. It is the
4. Visuddha Cakrais the special center in the region of the throat. It is the
Philosophy, pp. 8)
“It is through the susumna nadi that the vital air (prana vayu) passes through
the cakras. It is the interior of the cerebro-special axis and extends from the basic
plexus (muladhara) to the sahasrara cakra(in the vertical region). It is most closely
associated with speech (vak). Thus sound that is uttered as a letter (varna) is the
visuddha cakra by the force of air till it assumes the stage of vaikhari or articulate
sound (varna).” (Hari Mohan Jha, pp. 9, from Purnananda Svami’s Satcakra
Nirupana)
These four stages can be traced back to the Rig Veda, where it is said:
“While the former three are hidden into the cave, the fourth is spoken by men.”
(Rig Veda, 1.164, 165) The principle of Vac is found already in the Rig Veda, where
it appears as the Goddess of Speech, identified as the creator. (Rig Veda, X. 71.7,
from King, pp.49) She, Vac, is responsible for the establishment of a rhythmic
describes the sacred syllable OM (AUM) ‘as the source of all scripture and the
“In Tantrika philosophy, the cosmic seed (vindu) originates from creative
Brahman which is the ultimate cause of the world by the name of sphota.”
universe, the medium of the cosmic energy dealt with in Yoga, the method of
Vedanta-vadas, and therefore shows how inclusive the system of Yoga is. Indeed,
paradigm of Bhartrhari, yoga is a method of purifying one’s speech in all its forms,
3
So asks King, pp. 49
Bhartrhari’s system, it is also the way to Sabda-Brahman, Sabdadvaita, for
not created (utpanna). “Similarly, when one says sabdah nasyati (the word
vanishes), what is meant is that the word disappears and not that it perishes.” (Jah,
Sphota (the permanent word-symbol, nitya sabda) derives from the root
such as that which develops by itself, or that which is revealed by letters, or that by
which a sense is revealed. [Madhavacarya and Acarya Konda Bhatta] In the first
sphotais not always used in this metaphysical sense. In the linguistic context, it is
which encompasses more than one meaning. I have given this definition of
4
Anthony Flew’s A Dictionary of Philosophy, Revised Second Edition, St. Martini’s,
New York, 1979
grammatical form from a dictionary of philosophy (A Dictionary of Philosophy)to add
that what we have been talking about, what has been developed in the
powerful notion that can be applied to other areas. I have chosen this topic to
the refined technology of our present day of programming and information, and in
this case to the syntax or grammar that we use. Just as Jah states in the
Introduction to his book, the vaikyakaranas have directly influenced, among others,
the Western analytic philosophers Russell, Moore, Wittgenstein, Ayer, Ryle, Wisdom,
Strawson and Austin, and I would like to add to this list Ferdinand de Saussure.
Indirectly, Derrida and Chomsky have been influenced, despite their lifework being
done just when the veil began to be lifted from its division of the East and the West
Source of knowledge
These three aspects are similar to the distinction between the seeing
(subject, grahaka), manifested (object, grahya) and the middle (grahana; the state
5
Isayeva, pp. 85
of seeing or perception, the distinction itself). Thus we have a possible source of
the Saussurian sign as the signifier (samjna, or vacya: objects or artha, meanings),
signified (samjnin, or vacaka: the power to ascribe meanings)and the sign itself. As
regards Derrida, there are a plethora of works from journals such as Philosophy East
and West, Harold G. Coward’s “”Speech Versus Writing” in Derrida and Bhartrhari”
sabda (word) and dhvani (sound) is compared to the Derridean notion of arche-
writing, that writing is prior to the spoken word, opposite Bhartrhari, but at times
similar to Bhartrhari in the inter-relationship between the inner and outer word.
Sphota:
“For Bhartrhari, the fundamental unit of meaning is the complete utterance. If one
holistic grasp of complete utterances and not individual words—a kind of gestalt….
This one object denoted by all words, Brahman, is the meaning (artha) as well
as the object, and as such, is the basis of an axiology. This implicit axiology I find is
similar to my axiology and theory of mathematical form. In my system, form is
injunctive rules) and syntax (rules and principles as in a subset of grammar) applies
to form (rupa), which ensues from the first distinction, difference itself, which is the
difference between the subject and the object, and in this case can be read as the
difference between Atman and Brahman. This originary difference is none other
than Para Atman, which I call pure subjectivity, Being, and pure self-reference. So I
am at odds with the Advaita tradition, it would seem, but only as much as the
metaphysics, which really isn’t all that different, not as different as the difference
between the Advaita and Dvaita traditions. The big difference here is that in
Bhartrhari’s system, Brahman is the cause of the universe and, perhaps by virtue of
the identity of Atman and Brahman, is every constituent of the universe, up to and
including the totality of the universe itself. But I make a distinction between the
what I would call ‘Artha-Brahman’, which is Nirguna Brahman, none other than the
Absolute Infinite, and absolutely distinct from Atman, indeed the distinction
this Infinity is not to be confounded with the radical oneness of Para Atman, for Para
Atman is the basic avidya upon which all appearances or forms are based! Of
the Sphota theory of meaning, which Bhartrhari has been influential for the
Buddhist Dignaga, but Dignaga rejects the Sphota theory of meaning in favor of
aphota, mutual exclusion of linguistic signs.
of time, described by King on page 49. He describes time as a thread or string (I’d
say a trace) (Vakyapadiya 3.9.15) which allows for movement and causal activity,
that it is space, but we are posited on the other side of it, as opposed to space, and
moreover, it is dimensionality, extension itself. So for instance, the first time is the
first dimension, the first extension of the first distinction, and when we (the process
of the subjective form) pass out of that frame of reference, we move into another
level, from which we can see, pardon the expression, the former frame as a form,
and it appears as a line or trace, which is a mere trace of the first distinction (the
universe is, from the ultimate perspective, an eternal ‘now’. Time is eternal and
undivided and the final goal of linguistic analysis for Bhartrhari is the apprehension
distinct from “the higher Brahman,” which the verse suggests ought to be sought.
Isayeva, in From Early Vedanta to Kashmir Shaivism, (pp.101) explains how this idea
On page 111, Isayeva reiterates this point: “Incidentally, the two states
tentatively defined here as “inner Self” (svamatra, literally, “solely Oneself”) and
“higher Brhaman” (paramatra, that is, “solely Another” or “solely the Higher one”),
roughly correspond to the two higher states in Gaudapada’s table: to that of the
“deep sleep” (susupti, sputa) and to that of the ineffable turiya (“the fourth one”).”
of course, in Bhartrhari and in Gaudapada, these two views are not contradictory
but complimentary.
am, and so open to change, however much the foundation is permanent. I still can’t
decide if I’m correct to the exclusion of other views, as I accept and appreciate
many aspects, often even different foundations, still trying to read other systems
into my own, avoiding radical relativism, while appreciating it, (not the
argumentative, critical, and violent moments of it), in my pursuit of the truth.
Thank you Bhartrhari and the other vaiyakaranas for being different, I appreciate it!
Bibliography
Flew, Anthony (1984). A Dictonary of Philosophy. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin
Isayeva, Natalia (1995). From Early Vedanta to Kashmir Shaivism. Albany: SUNY
Jha, Hari Mohan (1981). Trends of Linguistic Analysis in Indian Philosophy. Delhi:
Chaukhambha Orientalia