Puruṣavāda: A Pre-Śaṣkara Monistic Philosophy as Critiqued by Mallavādin Sthaneshwar Timalsina Journal of Indian Philosophy ISSN 0022-1791 Volume 45 Number 5 J Indian Philos (2017) 45:939-959 DOI 10.1007/s10781-017-9329-z 1 23 Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Science+Business Media B.V.. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”. 1 23 Author's personal copy J Indian Philos (2017) 45:939–959 DOI 10.1007/s10781-017-9329-z Puruṣavāda: A Pre-Śaṅkara Monistic Philosophy as Critiqued by Mallavādin Sthaneshwar Timalsina1 Published online: 2 September 2017 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017 Abstract The Advaita literature prior to the time of Gaudapāda and Śaṅkara is ˙ scarce. Relying on the citations of proponents and their opponents, the picture we glean of this early monism differs in many aspects from that of Śaṅkara. While Bhavya’s criticism of this monistic thought has received scholarly attention, the chapter Purusavāda in Dvādaśāranayacakra (DNC) has rarely been studied. ˙ Broadly, this conversation will help ground classical Advaita in light of the contemporary discourse on naturalism. In particular, this examination will help contextualize the early Advaita that lacks clear imprint of Mahayana Buddhism. The doctrine of Purusa, central to this paper, sidelines the role of avidyā or ignorance, ˙ and provides a realistic picture of the world. I have relied on the commentary Vṛtti upon the Vākyapadīya as has been substantially cited in DNC in order to advance the arguments. As a consequence, the examination on Purusa also paves the path for ˙ advancing arguments on linguistic monism. Keywords Bhartrhari · Advaita · Bhavya · Mallavādin · Purusavāda · ˙ ˙ Vedānta · Naturalism & Sthaneshwar Timalsina timalsin@mail.sdsu.edu 1 San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA 123 Author's personal copy 940 S. Timalsina Introduction Except for what is found in some Indological research, the era of the Upanisadic ˙ philosophy prior to the time of Śaṅkara (circa 700 CE) is mostly absent.1 We learn of differing positions from fragments found in citations, mostly in polemical writings that criticize their predecessors, demonstrating that the Upanisadic tradition was vibrant and ˙ nuanced, with multiple commentaries and independent treatises extant Even when we simply rely on the available fragments and the citations of Śaṅkara and Mandana, we can ˙˙ glean that the early monistic thinking was diverse. After the emergence and popularity of Śaṅkara’s school, these early schools lost their prominence, not only because Śaṅkara’s school was institutionalized, but also because the dualist philosophers primarily focused on Śaṅkara’s writings while criticizing the monistic trend of Upanisadic philosophy. ˙ Although the Upanisadic thinking of this period may never be fully ascertained, citations ˙ and critiques of some of these concepts that are available in the texts of rival philosophers from that early time give a glimpse of these otherwise extinguished philosophical schools. The Dvādaśāranayacakra (DNC) of Mallavādin,2 a Jain philosopher (550 CE),3 is one such source that identifies and argues with numerous contemporaneous positions. Although the analysis of a rival school of thought based on an opponent’s critique can be somewhat misleading or insufficient at the very least, this analysis will provide some understanding of what is otherwise an obscure doctrine. The scope of this essay is the ‘doctrine of person’ (puruṣavāda), as criticized by Mallavādin. While the philosophy presented here is a Vedic philosophy, it cannot be identified with any existing schools. In particular, this monistic philosophy is not identical to the Advaita of Śaṅkara, although one can identify it as proto-Advaita. Remarkably this philosophy is closer to Bhartrhari’s philosophy of language. The issue, however, is not the ˙ scope of language. Apparently, Bhartrhari’s philosophy, in particular the philosophy found ˙ in the Vṛtti upon the Vākyapadīya (VPvr), relied on a philosophical framework that aligns ˙ with what we identify as the doctrine of Purusa as presented by Mallavādin. I have also ˙ utilized the commentary upon DNC to fully examine the scope of the doctrine of Purusa, as ˙ this monistic model has a potential to engage in the contemporary discourse on naturalism. Early Tendencies Mallavādin initiates the discussion upon the single self with citation of a Vedic stanza, ‘this all is the very puruṣa’ (Rg X. 90. 2), that explicitly identifies the world with the ˙ cosmic being. His criticism of this philosophy is remarkable for two reasons: (1) it helps us unravel one of the lost strands of Vedic thinking, and (2) it helps us ground 1 For the study of early Advaita, see Schrader (1902), Sastri 1924, Kane 1930, Lacombe (1937), Hacker (1953), and Nakamura (1983, pp. 369–390). For treatment on Bhavya’s presentation of Vedānta, one of the earliest references to comment on Advaita, see Qvarnström 1989. Hacker keenly relates the issue of being with the Upanisadic discourse where being here is ‘materia prima,’ (Halbfass 1995, pp. 187–210). ˙ 2 I have relied on Muni Jambuvijaya’s edition (1966, 1976, and 1988) of the Dvādaśāranayacakra (DNC) for this study. For other editions and the problems therein, read Wezler (1981, pp. 359–408). 3 The actual date of Mallavādin is hard to determine, and scholars have broadly located him between the 5th and 7th Centuries. For discussion on the date of Mallavādin, see Potter (2003, pp. 201–203). 123 Author's personal copy Purusavāda: A Pre-Śaṅkara Monistic Philosophy… ˙ 941 monism in an historical context. Although Bhavya uses the term Vedāntadarśana to refer to the Upanisadic philosophy, Mallavādin prefers Purusavāda as a title.4 If we ˙ ˙ compare different designations for the Upanisadic philosophy, Purusavāda appears a ˙ ˙ preferred terminology in the early periods, before the time of Śaṅkara.5 This historical contextualization helps us ground the early philosophical thinking in classical Sanskrit literature, as epitomized in a trialogue among the Hindus, Buddhists, and the Jains. When describing causality, Upanisadic philosophy can be divided in two groups: ˙ one that relies on some agency, such as that of avidyā or ignorance, to mediate creation with the underlying principle, the Brahman, the Purusa, or the Ātman, and ˙ the other that follows a direct approach, maintaining that cause and effect are not diametrically different and the world is a mere manifestation of the Brahman. The concept of the Brahman manifesting in the form of the world becomes relevant for contemporary philosophical discourse, as the highest principle, that which manifests, is also identified as consciousness, or in some occasions as the mind. This stream of thought discredits the dichotomy between matter and consciousness as well as mind and the body. The reduction of all manifestation to consciousness in the above passage is explicit with the term ‘consciousness’ (vinnu) that is used to describe this puruṣa. This conversation is also historiographically noteworthy, as the centrality of Purusa in this conversation does not make this thinking identical to ˙ Sāṅkhya, as the Sāṅkhyan way of thinking stresses the plurality of Purusas.6 This ˙ study is also significant for the method of philosophical debate in classical India. Mallavādin does not rely on the existing texts such as Brahmasūtra in his criticism but instead cites some Upanisadic and Vedic passages, in addition to VP and VPvr. ˙ ˙ The Doctrine of Puruṣa The central element that distinguishes the Purusavāda addressed by Mallavādin ˙ from the Advaita of Śaṅkara is the model of causation. Following Mallavādin: puruṣo hi jñātā jñānamayatvāt | tanmayañ cedaṃ sarvaṃ tadekatvāt sarvaikatvāc ca bhavatīti bhāvaḥ | DNC, 175: 1-2. Puruṣa indeed is the agent of knowledge, as it is comprised of knowledge. And this whole world is comprised of puruṣa {tat}, because it is identical. 4 Although Mallavādin does not identify the doctrine under discussion as Advaita, Simhasūri, the commentator on DNC, does make this identification, with the application of terms such as˙ advaita or advaitavāda. See Nakamura (1983, p. 283). 5 This observation rests on both Buddhist and Jain sources. From the Jain side, for example, Ṣaṭkhaṇḍāgama (1.1.2, gā 76, vol. 1, pp. 112.2–112.3) mentions the doctrine of puruṣa: terāsiyaṃ niyadivādaṃ, viṇṇānavādaṃ saddavādaṃ pahaṇavādaṃ davvavādaṃ purisavādam. . . Sūyagaḍaṅga critiques the position of puruṣa with a presentation that echoes the Hymns of Purusa ((Rg X. 90): “All ˙ in˙ this world has existence stems from puruṣa, and the cause (kāraṇa) of all is that Īśvara. Everything puruṣa as its origin as well as its end. By puruṣa they are made; from puruṣa they are born; by puruṣa they are manifested. All belong to puruṣa and exist on puruṣa.” Sūyagaḍaṅga 2.1.25. Cited in Nakamura (1983, pp. 269–270). From the Buddhist side, Śāntaraksita, for instance, examines the Vedic doctrine of puruṣa and the Upanisadic doctrine of the self (ātman) in˙ two separate sections (Shastri 1981, pp. 96–101, 156–159). These are ˙clear examples, and not the only ones. 6 For treatment on Ekajīva or the concept of single jīva, see Timalsina (2009, pp. 34–49). 123 Author's personal copy 942 S. Timalsina Since all is one [in essence], what comes into being is spoken of as bhāva. The manifest entity (bhāva) is as such due to [the very agent] becoming as such.7 Classical theories of causality exploited the example of milk and yoghurt to demonstrate continuity between cause and effect. The passage cited from DNC above grounds causality with this very example, further confirming our reading. This example deviates from those generally used in the Advaita of Śaṅkara: a rope and a snake, or a shell and a piece of silver. Mallavādin expands upon this argument by saying that there is a subject (jña) at the end of the chain of causes, as milk is the product of a cow, a living entity. Just as in the case of a wheel spinning even after the potter stops his effort, following this argument, there is actually a conscious subject in the foundation of all the events.8 Following the doctrine of puruṣa as presented by Mallavādin, unconscious entities are the sleeping state (suptāvasthā) of the conscious being.9 Although this doctrine adopts the Sāṅkhyan concept of origination in describing elements such as earth and water as transformation of the subtle elements such as smell and taste,10 Mallavādin adds the conscious self in the chain of causation, acknowledging it to be the foundational cause that sequentially transforms into other elements. Further deviating from the Sāṅkhyan model of causation, this doctrine accepts that the puruṣa, although assuming manifoldness, is not divided in its essence and is therefore singular in nature. Mallavādin presents this causation as follows: rūpādipravibhaktam apravibhaktasvatattvaṃ yat tad bhavati tad eva tattvaṃ | tat kiṃ? nanu jñānasvatattva ātmeti rūpādibhir eva nirūpitaṃ tat, tad hi rūpaṇaṃ rūpaṃ jñā-nam eva vibhaktāvibhaktaṃ grahaṇam eva, na tu rūpyate tat tena tasmin vetyādi rūpaṃ rasāder guṇagaṇād dravyād vā vibhaktasyānavasthānād rūpasya puruṣa-bhinnaputratvādivat | DNC, 177: 1-5. That whose self-essence is not divided [even when] divided into [the elements such as] form etc. is what comes into being and that is [what constitutes] being 7 This interpretation of bhāva follows Patañjali: kartṛsādhanaḥ | bhavatīti bhāva iti | (The Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali I.3.1). For discussion on bhāva, see Ogawa (2005, 67–101, pp. 222–245). The interpretation of bhāva is one of the central points for both Mallavādin and Simhasūri. The following passage is ˙ noteworthy to present Simhasūri’s exegetical prowess upon the concept of bhāva: ˙ bhavatīti bhāvo bhūprakṛtiḥ kartrarthaḥ | prakṛtipratyayau pratyayārthaṃ saha brūtaḥ (Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali III.1.67) iti vacanāt | bhāve ghaño vihitatvād bhūyata iti bhāvaḥ | na bhavati iti kartrartha iti cet tatrāpi yena bhūyate samānena samāno bhavatīti bhāvo ṇaprakaraṇe bhuvaś copasaṅkhyānam iti vā kartā sāmānyam ity evaṃ vyavasthite ’rthe sarvatantrasiddhāntena vyākaraṇena tatra viśeṣamātravāde deśakāla-bhede parasparavivi-ktadravyadeśakālabhāvabhinne bhavane ’bhede ca dravyāditayā bhavanamātre sāmānyavāde nānābhāve ca sāmānyaviśeṣayor bhedābhedanānātāsu yathāsaṅkhyaṃ bauddhasāṅkhya-vaiśeṣikamatāsu doṣān na bhāvaḥ | bhavitur abhāvāt tatprakṛtyarthakartur abhāvāt | itiśabdasya hetvarthatāt pañcamīm aprayujya bhavitur abhāva ity uktam prāguktanyāyena bhavitur abhāvāt | bhavatīti bhāvo ghaṭādir iti vyākaraṇadṛṣṭena niruktyarthena samarthito vidhinā vivicyate ca sādṛśyāsādṛśyābhyām | Nyāyāgamānusāriṇī, DNC, 173: 22–174: 8. 8 nanu kṣīrarasādi dadhyādeḥ kartṛ, na ca tajjñam, na, tatpravṛttiśeṣatvād gopravṛttiśeṣa-kṣīradadhitvavad jñaśeṣatvād vā cakrabhrāntivat | DNC, 175: 4–5. 9 DNC, 176: 1–2. 10 Sound (śabda), touch (sparśa), form (rūpa), taste (rasa), and smell (gandha) are the five elements identified as ‘tanmātrās’ that give rise to the five gross elements: sky, air, fire, water, and earth. This Sāṅkhyan cosmology is also adopted by the Advaitins of Śaṅkara’s school. 123 Author's personal copy Purusavāda: A Pre-Śaṅkara Monistic Philosophy… ˙ 943 that.11 What is that? That the self is of the character of form etc. is determined by the very form etc. Rūpa (form) is as such due to the act of determination [based on the root √rūpa], and it is mere cognition, or mere grasping as divided or not divided. However, rūpa (form) is not as such [following other etymologies] like ‘that which is determined,’ or ‘that by means of which something is determined,’ or ‘that wherein something is determined.’ This is because form is not located in isolation of a group of properties such as taste or of substance, like his son distinct from a person. The etymological connection of rūpa in the discourse of causality in the above passage is noteworthy also in light of the classical Advaita application of the term. In contrast to the terms saguṇa (possessing qualities) and nirguṇa (free from qualities), early Advaita literature describe the Brahman as ‘endowed with form’ (rūpavat) and ‘devoid of form’ (arūpavat).12 When providing a new etymology of the term rūpa, Mallavādin presents that rūpa is due to ‘assuming form’ (rūpaṇam) and not because of ‘something that is ascertained through form’ (rūpyate tat tena tasmin veti).13 Following this understanding, the very puruṣa identical to consciousness is perceived in seeing, tasted in tasting, or touched in touching. Rejecting the contradiction that the puruṣa when grasped as form cannot be grasped as taste, Simhasūri elaborates in Nyāyāgamānusāriṇī that this entity is of the ˙ manifold nature.14 Rejecting the concept that the highest principle, puruṣa, is one and distinct from form etc., Mallavādin argues that something that is not endowed with form etc. is not perceived.15 Mallavādin adds another element to this discussion with the argument found in subsequent Advaita, that consciousness in itself is not distinguished even when confirmed through the sense of sight or hearing or touch, as it is one in the sense of consciousness. This concept of puruṣa rejects the distinction between the entities of perception (grāhya) and the subject of perception (grāhaka). The argument given here is that either of these cannot be confirmed in the absence of the other. This argument is used to confirm that the world rests upon the self of the character of consciousness.16 The puruṣa as described by Mallavādin is omniscient and every composite is made of puruṣa.17 Following the previous arguments, since the material world is the sleeping state of consciousness, and the states of subject and object arise simultaneously, all entities are immediately revealed to puruṣa. The commentator Simhasūri identifies this as the doctrine that accepts diversity as merely vivartta, ˙ 11 Here again, I am simply reading Nyāyāgamānusāriṇī in explaining the term ‘tattva’: kiṃ punas tasya svatattvam? tasya bhāvas tattvam, svārthiko bhāvapratyayaḥ DNC 177: 10. 12 See Modi (1956–1957, pp. 23–36). 13 DNC, 177: 4. 14 tasya tattvasyānekātmakatvābhyupagamāt | Nyāyāgamānusāriṇī, DNC, 177: 27. 15 na rūpādibhyo bhinnam idam ekaṃ dravyaṃ eveti, rūpādivyatiriktādarśanāt | DNC, 178:1–2. 16 sa eva tu vyatirekasyānupapatter jñānasvatattvātmaiva grāhyo grāhakaś caiṣitavyaḥ, vyatirekasyānupapatteḥ, abhimatātmapratipattivat | DNC, 178:3–5. 17 evaṃ ca sārvajñam ayatnena labdhaṃ puruṣātmakatvāt sarvasya | DNC, 179:1. 123 Author's personal copy 944 S. Timalsina with consciousness being a singular cause.18 This understanding follows another argument wherein the puruṣa unaware of itself does not exist.19 Mallavādin further elaborates on this concept, explaining that the self is of the character of consciousness and speech (śabda) is the expression of the self.20 In this context, Mallavādin demonstrates the all-pervasiveness of puruṣa through the example of a grain of rice, which, although is one entity in the form of rice, is also earth, water, and so forth, as it is comprised of these elements as well.21 This follows the position that every entity is comprised of all and that all is merely the manifestation of one entity of the character of consciousness.22 Four States of Puruṣa One additional term, ātman, is etymologically crucial in order to ground the monistic doctrine as presented by Mallavādin. Based on the root √ata, the term ātman is understood here as a dynamic entity.23 Simhasūri derives three different ˙ meanings of this term: (1) that which constantly moves, (2) that which constantly cognizes, and (3) that which constantly transforms.24 In this depiction, the term puruṣa is generic in the sense that it describes the self that eternally transforms. This transformation of the self is explained both in the subjective terms of shifting from one state of consciousness to the other, as in waking, dreaming, or deep sleep states, and in the cosmic sense of the self transforming into material world. The monism of Purusa presented by Mallavādin is primarily based on the analysis of the states of ˙ consciousness. While this understanding of the states of consciousness is also crucial to the philosophy of Gaudapāda, Mallavādin’s presentation differs in many ˙ regards.25 Gaudapāda, for instance, relies primarily on the Māṇḍūkyopaniṣad for his ˙ elaboration on the states of consciousness. He does not engage the guṇa theory for describing the states of consciousness, as does Mallavādin. Moreover, the states such as dream or deep sleep are not essential to the nature of the self. On the contrary, these are the states that one needs to overcome in order to attained the fourth liberating state. Following Mallavādin’s depiction of the states of the self, in three states except for the transcendent (turīya), the subject may possess multiple internal conditions 18 jñānātmakaikakāraṇavivarttamātrabhedavāda. Nyāyāgamānusāriṇi, DNC 179: 12. 19 na hi puruṣaḥ kaścid ātmānaṃ na vetti | Nyāyāgamānusāriṇi, DNC 179: 13. 20 . . . jñānātmakatvād ātmanas tadvijṛmbhitavikalpatvāc ca śabdasya. . . | DNC, 180: 7. 21 DNC, 185:3–4. 22 DNC, 187. 23 ātmā iti na vastusvarūpaparyāyavācino ’tra grahaṇam, kiṃ tarhi? atati satataṃ gacchati tānstān avasthāvi-śeṣān svarūpāparityāgeneti ātmā, sa eva sāmānyaṃ caitanyalakṣaṇam | evaṃ tarhi viśeṣābhāve kasya sāmānyaṃ? iti sāmānyābhāvaprasaṅgaḥ, sa mā bhūd iti viśeṣā vaktavyāḥ| ucyate – sāmānyaṃ puri śayanāt puruṣaḥ, viśeṣās tu tasyaivāvasthāvato ’vasthā jāgratsuptasuṣuptaturīyākhyāḥ | tāsāṃ svāvasthānāṃ puruṣaḥ sāmānyam iti| Nyāyāgamānusāriṇī, DNC, 172: 27–173: 8. 24 satatam atati gacchati jānīte pariṇamatīti cātmā | Nyāyāgamānusāriṇī, DNC 190: 15. 25 For the studies on the states of consciousness in the philosophy of Gaudapāda, see Fort (1980, 1985), ˙ Darling (1987, pp. 105–117) and Sharma (2001). 123 Author's personal copy Purusavāda: A Pre-Śaṅkara Monistic Philosophy… ˙ 945 such as dream-infused waking state (svapna-jāgrat) or waking-infused dream (jāgrat-svapna)26 Simhasūri further adds that even the fourth state can be of various ˙ internal divisions due to its own inherent power.27 Three states are described in terms of pleasure, pain, delusion, and purity, and are aligned with the qualities of sattva, rajas, and tamas, whereas the turīya state remains free from these qualities. This fourth state is further explained as ‘pure consciousness’ (śuddhaṃ caitanyam) that illumines all other states.28 Simhasūri describes this state as ‘indistinguishable ˙ in all [the other states]’ (sarvatrāvibhāgā).29 Accordingly, this fourth state grounds the other three and is manifest in them. Although all of these states belong to the self, only the fourth is described in terms of the supreme self (paramātman), ‘the essential nature of the self’ (ātmasvatattvam), ‘liberated’ (vimukta), and ‘omniscient’ (sarvajña).30 This state is considered to be free from limitations and delusion and is free from the condition of sleep. The apparent contradiction in this position is that the self is not conscious of any objects during the state of deep sleep (suṣupti). To identify the self as having the character of consciousness, therefore, is not congruent with the sleeping state. The Advaita of Śaṅkara resolves this contradiction with the acceptance of māyā/avidyā, where the self does not ‘really’ transform into those states but only appears as such due to ignorance. Mallavādin presents the doctrine of Purusa along the lines that just ˙ as someone going to be appointed as a king can be addressed as ‘king’, so also is the case with the self in the sleeping state, because the self has the potential of consciousness to be revealed in the fourth state. The two different stages of the self, one active and the other the consequence or extension of the first, in particular the waking and deep sleep states of the self, are identified here as karaṇātman and kāryātman.31 The monism presented by Mallavādin proposes that the self in all states is consciousness (jñāna) itself in differing degrees. This position also confirms that erroneous cognition and doubt are also the very conditions of consciousness. Following the first argument, although the supreme self (paramātman) is of the character of pure consciousness and is all-pervasive, it falls into sleep (nidrā), and the term karaṇātman refers to the self that is half-awake, like someone in the process of waking from a deep slumber. This doctrine of puruṣa considers even the sense organs to be the manifestation (vivarta) of consciousness. Three states of waking, dreaming, and sleeping are likewise identified with consciousness itself. Also, the condition of doubt is considered to belong to the karaṇātman, as it is aligned with the half-sleeping state.32 Accordingly, the dynamic states of the self, 26 DNC, 182: 1–5, and Simhasūri’s commentary thereon. ˙ athavā sāpi svarūpasāmarthyāt sarvātmanaivānekadhā viparivartate | Nyāyāgamānusāriṇī, DNC 182-11-12. 27 28 Nyāyāgamānusāriṇī, DNC, 182: 17. 29 These are just a few of the terms used in DNC, and the Nyāyāgamānusāriṇī, DNC, 182:21. 30 These are just a few of the terms used in DNC, and the Nyāyāgamānusāriṇī commentary. DNC, 182: 3–5 and Nyāyāgamānusāriṇi thereon. 31 DNC, 183–185. 32 DNC, 185. 123 Author's personal copy 946 S. Timalsina including the degrees in which consciousness manifests, are not a fabrication of avidyā or ignorance, but rather are based on the central Sāṅkhyan tendencies of guṇas. This model of Advaita appears to adopt a radical form of monism that finds no contradiction between a single entity capable of assuming multiple forms and also consciousness as not having its real nature revealed in all modifications. The World as the Transformation of Consciousness While summarizing the doctrine of Purusa, Mallavādin presents a concept that ˙ consciousness encapsulates both veridical knowledge and erroneous cognition alike. Following this argument, even the conditions of uncertainty (anadhyavasāya) or that of being unconscious (acetana), are the very states of consciousness.33 The argument that cognition and error are essentially the conditions of consciousness is utilized to consolidate the position that the effects of consciousness, earth etc., are essentially consciousness itself. The elements lacking consciousness, such as earth or water, are compared to the sleeping state of consciousness where the function of consciousness, such as cognition, is not found. Along these lines, just as consciousness is existent although lacking its proper functioning in drunken or drugged conditions, so also are the states of earth etc. suffused with consciousness, even though consciousness is not found in its manifest form.34 Following Mallavādin, this doctrine of Purusa rests on the following argument to ˙ establish that the very consciousness transforms into matter: yo ’sau puruṣas tad eva tat, tenātmatvena pariṇamitatvāt taddravyatvād bhūmyabādi-brīhitvavat tatkāryatvāt paṭatantuvat, tena vinābhūtatvāt tadvyatirekeṇābhāvāt taddeśatvāc ca ghaṭasvatattvapratyagrāditvavat | DNC, 185:3 – 186:1. That what is called puruṣa is itself [the entities like earth, identified with the term] ‘that.’ Just because it is the self, [or etymologically the dynamic entity,] it has transformed [into the manifold entities]. Because it is the consolidation [of the fluid form], like the transformation of earth, water, etc. into rice, [it has attained materiality]. [Entities are] the effects of puruṣa {tat} like a [piece of] cloth is [a product] of threads. It is because [entities] do not come into being in isolation of puruṣa {tena} and do not exist in isolation of puruṣa {tat}. It is also because [entities] are the aspects of puruṣa {tat}, just like being brand new is the very aspect of a pot. This passage establishes the relationship between consciousness and matter as cause and effect, with matter being the transformation and modification of consciousness. 33 tathā suptāvasthāpi jñānam eva saṃśayādi īṣatsuptatāvastunas tathātattvāt | tathā viparyayo ’pi jñānam eva tathātathātattvāt cetanātmā suptatvād dravyapuruṣavat | tathānadhyavasāyo ’pi viśiṣṭasvāpo jñānam eva, cetanātmakatvāj jāgaritavat | DNC, 183–184. 34 yathā caitat tathānadhyavasāyaṃ api dravyendriyapṛthivyādi kāryātmā jñānam eva, suṣuptāvasthātma-katvāt hālāhalānuviddhamadirāpānāpāditanidrāprasuṣuptavad athavānadhyavasāyavat | DNC, 185: 1–3. 123 Author's personal copy Purusavāda: A Pre-Śaṅkara Monistic Philosophy… ˙ 947 This relationship, however, is kept open to interpretation, as different arguments relate consciousness and matter on different grounds. Central to Mallavādin’s depiction of puruṣa is that the self, due to it being self-conscious, transforms itself without any external agency and attains states such as deep sleep, or becomes endowed with passion.35 Simhasūri gives an additional example of self-oscillation ˙ as in a hammock in order to describe consciousness transforming itself into material 36 forms. In all accounts, there is no suggestion that this doctrine of Purusa ˙ disregards transformation or supports the agency of avidyā, as is found in the Advaita of Śaṅkara. One explicit problem in this position is that there will be no distinction between matter and consciousness, and bondage and liberation. With an example of chicken and egg, Mallavādin depicts that there actually is no flaw even in accepting matter or form as the essential nature, since there is no real distinction. This position establishes identity between the conscious and unconscious, accepting four states of consciousness including deep sleep.37 In response to the question, why is the knower described as transformed into matter, rather than matter being transformed into the knower, the response as presented by Mallavādin is that the act of transformation (bhavana) is possible only of the conscious subject, and something unconscious cannot be an agent of transformation.38 If causality is interpreted along the lines that there is a real distinction between cause and effect, as Naiyāyikas would explain this relation, there is no real causation in the doctrine of Purusa. What ˙ is exactly happening, in the chain of cause and effect, following the Purusavāda, is a ˙ mere change (viparivarta), just like soil in the form of a pot or a piece of pot or dust or atoms (DNC 187: 1–2). At this level, the arguments regarding causation, that matter transforms into sentient beings or that consciousness is the base element for all manifestations, become mere linguistic difference. After all, no real evolution or transformation has occurred, nor has any new entity has come into being. In short, this is an argument against emergentism. By interpreting Vijñānavāda along the lines of the transformation of vijñāna or consciousness, Mallavādin finds this doctrine congruent with the doctrine of Purusa. ˙ In this depiction, the Vijñānavāda position holds that there is distinction (bheda) in terms of space and time in, for instance, a pot having different colors or a pot in different modes of its existence, although ultimately all that exists is only vijñāna.39 This position is said to be parallel to the doctrine of puruṣa.40 One comment upon this position is that if difference is maintained in form, taste, and so forth, they cannot be identical with vijñāna, and if they are not identical to vijñāna, difference 35 DNC, 186: 2. 36 DNC, 186: 18. 37 DNC, 187: 3–5. 38 DNC, 187: 5–6. 39 DNC, 188: 7. 40 . . . tathāsmadupavarṇanavad evābhihitaṃ bhavati | DNC, 189: 1. 123 Author's personal copy 948 S. Timalsina cannot be maintained, and this will not confirm the existence of vijñāna only.41 The Purusavāda argument against the doctrine of emptiness (śūnyavāda) is generic: ˙ establishment of emptiness depends upon the means of cognition, and the very act of confirmation or negation is not possible without consciousness. Mallavādin cites a passage from the Puruṣasūkta (DNC 189: 4–5), ‘puruṣa is all that is here,’ as a conclusion of this doctrine. There is also a problem in this doctrine regarding liberation. Since a single entity cannot be both an instrumental and material cause, how can the self emanate and absorb itself, and how can it undergo bondage and liberation? A finger, for instance, cannot touch itself, nor does a sword cut itself. The response the Purusavādins ˙ provide, as has been presented by Mallavādin, is that difference in causation is 42 established through the difference in powers. Mallavādin cites an example of a spider weaving a net or silkworm producing silk emanating from its very own body.43 Mallavādin also cites an Upanisadic passage in this context that explains the ˙ manifestation of the world as the sparks coming off of a firebrand.44 Mallavādin cites another Upanisadic passage (Īśa. 5) to confirm that the ātman is both changing ˙ and changeless. This monistic worldview expands its scope by including what Mallavādin identifies as the doctrine of Niyati. For instance: yathā loka ity ekatva eva parvatādyākārāvagraho yathā jñānam ekatve ’py anekabodhyākāraṃ bhavati anyathā jñānātmalābhābhāvāt tathā niyamātmakatvāt sā vrīhir ity akasmin vastuny ekā anekā cāṅkurādi bhavati | DNC, 197:2-4. Just as the cognition of aspects such as [this is] mountain [is possible] in a single entity [otherwise known as] the world or just as consciousness is singular but manifests in distinctive forms of consciousness, or otherwise [even a mode of consciousness] would not count for an instance of consciousness. Since [consciousness] has the character of being conditioned as such, [the conditioning factor] is one in a single entity such as rice, and is manifold in the [entities] such as sprouts. The Doctrine of Puruṣa in Light of Early Advaita Two Buddhist sources, the Vedāntatattvaviniścaya (VTV) chapter of the Madhyamakahṛdaya (MH) of Bhavya (500–570 CE), and the Tattvasaṅgraha (TS) of Śāntaraksita (725–785 CE) criticize the Upanisadic philosophy that is identical to ˙ ˙ the Puruṣa doctrine under consideration. We will briefly address the pertinent issues 41 rūpādiparasparaviviktatve tu tadvijñānānvayābhāvād rūparasādibhedaparikalpanābhāvas tadaṃśakalpanābhāvo nirupākhyatvakalpanābhāva iti vijñānamātratā na bhavati | Nyāyāgamānusāriṇī, DNC, 189: 8–10. 42 śaktibhedāt kārakabhedopapatteḥ | Nyāyāgamānusāriṇī, DNC, 190: 27. 43 DNC, 191: 1. 44 Muṇḍaka 2.1.1s. 123 Author's personal copy Purusavāda: A Pre-Śaṅkara Monistic Philosophy… ˙ 949 found in Bhavya’s presentation in order to contextualize the monistic philosophy identified by Mallavādin as the doctrine of Purusa.45 ˙ VTV uses the terms puruṣa, ātman, and īśvara as synonymous, and whenever causation of the world is discussed, this is assigned to the self, using one of these terms.46 The world, in this depiction, is an extension of the puruṣa, similar to the net a spider spins out of its body (VTV 5). There is a minor shift in terminology, as VTV prefers the term ātman.47 Bhavya identifies this as the doctrine of a single self (ekātmavāda VTV 44) and there is no categorical difference with the Purusavāda ˙ under consideration. Congruent with Mallavādin’s depiction, Bhavya also presents the self as ‘devoid of form’ (arūpin VTV 53). Both Bhavya and Mallavādin are silent about the role of avidyā in describing causality.48 There are also minor differences. Instead of the term Purusavāda, Bhavya identifies this philosophy as ˙ Vedāntavāda. The discussion with regard to multiple selves at the empirical level found in VTV 10–13 is absent in DNC. Absent from DNC, the Vedāntavāda criticized by Bhavya focuses on seeing the self (paśyan VTV 2, 3; paśyataḥ VTV 8; taddṛṣṭau VTV 22), and the practitioner is identified as a yogin (VTV 15). Bhavya finds it problematic to identify the self as substance (dravya) (VTV 59-60), a concept found primarily in the Vaiśesika system. Some of the key arguments ˙ regarding the singularity of the self—that pain and pleasure felt by one should be felt by another, and the system of bondage and liberation is not tenable—are missing in DNC, although they are found in VTV 62-64. The terminology such as aja and ajāti found in MH parallels the language of Gaudapāda (Nakamura 1983, ˙ pp. 200–201), whereas this is absent from the discussion on the doctrine of puruṣa found in DNC. Several aspects of the puruṣa doctrine found in Puruṣaparīkṣā of Śāntaraksita ˙ align with the doctrine of puruṣa discussed in DNC. When explaining the role of puruṣa, Śāntaraksita uses the same example of a spider and its web. Puruṣa, in this ˙ depiction, is endowed with the powers of creation (Nakamura 1983, p. 233). Kamalaśı̄la identifies the followers of this Vedic doctrine as ‘puruṣavādin’ (Nakamura 1983, p. 239). The terminology used to describe causation is ‘pariṇāma,’ and even when the term pratibhāsa is applied, no distinction is made between pariṇāma and pratibhāsa, which is not the case with the scholastic Advaita of Śaṅkara.49 One significant difference, however, is that Śāntaraksita treats the ˙ doctrine of puruṣa and that accepted by the followers of the Upaniṣads as two separate doctrines. He addresses these two concepts in two different sections, examining the doctrine of puruṣa in section six and treating the doctrine of the Upaniṣads in the seventh section of his Tattvasaṅgraha. Some of the key arguments found in the doctrine of Purusa as presented by Mallavādin are absent in ˙ 45 While I have utilized both Nakamura (1983, pp. 182–220) and Qvarnström (1989) in this discussion, the citations follow Qvarnström (1989), if not mentioned otherwise. 46 VTV 3, 5, 19, 38–39, 61. 47 VTV 1, 2, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19, 24–27, 30, 39–41, 44, 49–54, 56, 59–63, 69, 71, 72, 81, 89, 95, 98, 100. 48 See Nakamura (1983, p. 211). 49 For instance: pradhānapariṇāmena samaṃ ca brahmadarśanam | Tattvasaṇgraha, Śabdabrahmaparīkṣā, verse 152ab. 123 Author's personal copy 950 S. Timalsina Śāntaraksita’s description. For instance, the latter does not assign the concept to the ˙ doctrine that the world is the sleeping state of consciousness, or that there actually is no difference between the world and consciousness, or that consciousness is considered as the cause of the world due only to its possible agency, or also that the self is endowed with four states with internal variations in three states. Before entering into the next section on comparative textual analysis, I would like to summarize the salient features of the monistic philosophy found in DNC and the Nyāyāgamānusāriṇī commentary thereon. The most important aspects to be highlighted in this depiction are the relationship between cause and effect and the relationship between parts and the whole. Along these lines, DNC argues that, following the doctrine of Purusa, diversity is supposed in a single entity similar to ˙ different parts assumed in a single pot, such as the neck or the front part or so on (DNC 173: 1). Accordingly, diversity is imposed in a single entity similar to the colors of a chameleon and the chameleon itself (Nyāyāgamānusāriṇī in DNC 173: 13–14). Noteworthy here is that the change of colors of a chameleon is not erroneously perceived like the bundle of hair or two moons due to defect in the sight. Rather than explaining diversity in terms of superimposition (adhyāsa) of the properties, DNC presents diversity as a transformation of a singular entity, similar to the milk turning into yoghurt or sugarcane juice turning into sugar (DNC, 175: 4). In contrast with an erroneous projection of properties, the concept of transformation of the primal essence into manifold entities is explained in DNC in terms of the base elements assuming the forms of atoms and becoming the earth etc. (DNC, 176: 3– 4). The question of what constitutes something as one entity and not the other arises with the text depicting an entity that is at the same time rice and also the earth (DNC, 181: 4). The very earth, water, etc. transform into rice (DNC, 185: 3–4). This position brings to crisis the concept of subjectivity, as the text also argues that the aspects of one person, such as when he moves his limbs, do not constitute difference in the person (Nyāyāgamānusāriṇi in DNC, 184: 18–20). The Puruṣavāda, as presented by Mallavādin and elaborated by Simhasūri in his commentary, ˙ dismantles the binary of mind and matter in the starkest terms. Following this depiction, consciousness itself becomes materialized and this process is comparable to a subject shifting from the waking state of consciousness to the state of deep sleep (DNC, 185: 1–2). Creation and diversity in this paradigm are similar to that of threads assembling into a piece of cloth (DNC, 185: 4). One further example in the commentary depicts the relationship between matter and mind as similar to that of being drunk or one swinging in a cradle with one’s own effort (Nyāyāgamānusāriṇī, DNC 186: 17–18). There is no change in essence but only in the form and what we call creation, or a manifestation of new entity, accordingly, is similar to the clay turning into pot, a piece of pot, dust, and atoms (DNC 187: 1–2). What this leads us to, following the commentary, is that the relation of consciousness and matter is similar to that of chicken and egg (Nyāyāgamānusāriṇī, DNC 187: 15–16). Mallavādin exploits the example from the Muṇḍaka (I.1.7) in explaining this relationship when he presents that the manifestation of a singular entity is comparable to a spider spreading its net or a silkworm spinning silk (DNC, 191: 1). Again, along the lines of Mundaka (II.1.1), Mallavādin explains the manifestation of ˙˙ plurality in the doctrine of Purusa as similar to the sparks coming out of a firebrand ˙ 123 Author's personal copy Purusavāda: A Pre-Śaṅkara Monistic Philosophy… ˙ 951 (DNC 191: 1–2). In this depiction, what constitutes creation is just a change in names for the same essence, just as the same earth is called by different names such as mountain, etc., the same consciousness becomes manifold (DNC 197: 2–3). This ultimately leads to the position that the properties that are manifest in the effect are inherent in the cause. The commentary explains this with the example that the shape of a tree and its leaves etc. or the colors of flowers and fruits etc., or tastes such as bitter or sour or sweet are as they are supposed to be, determined in the seed (Nyāyāgamānusārinī, DNC 201: 9–13). These are just a few of the examples found in DNC and Nyāyāgamānusārinī commentary to describe the relationship of cause and effect in the paradigm of Purusavāda. All these confirm a monistic worldview, maintaining identity between ˙ cause and effect, attributing diversity to the inherent tendencies of the basic element, attributed as the cause. Puruṣavāda of the DNC in Light of the Vākyapadīya Vṛtti We can glean from the above discussion that, although there are some differences in the doctrine of puruṣa as presented by Mallavādin, Bhavya, and Śāntaraksita, this ˙ can be identified as Vedic monism or proto-Advaita which predates the scholastic Advaita of Śaṅkara. Variations might have come through different sources that they used, or the particular points that they summarized. Since diverse sources present monistic thought, and since all are lacking some key aspects of Śaṅkara’s Advaita, we can conclude that this reading of Vedic philosophy prevailed in the early days of classical Advaita. Unfortunately, none of the commentators assign this philosophy to a particular thinker. With regard to the concepts of Brahman as the supreme self (paramātman) and its identification with vijñāna, it appears that the doctrine of puruṣa most closely aligns with the philosophy of Bhartrprapañca. This philosopher ˙ who predates Śaṅkara also appears to hold that both the non-differentiated aspect of Brahman and plurality do not pose any contradiction in Brahman, and both aspects are absolutely real.50 However, the similarities found in the extant fragmentary literature are not sufficient to identify this monistic doctrine with a single philosopher. At this juncture, I would like to introduce a text, the Vrtti commentary upon the ˙ Vākyapadīya (VPvr). The Vākyapadīya of Bhartrhari is a text on the philosophy of ˙ ˙ language, and the first section, the Brahmakāṇḍa, provides a metaphysical foundation of linguistic monism. This, however, is not a text on the doctrine of Purusa. When we compare some passages found in DNC that present the doctrine of ˙ Purusa, they are very close to the VPvr, leaving one speculating that either ˙ ˙ Mallavādin is relying on VPvr when synthesizing the doctrine of Purusa, or that ˙ ˙ both texts closely represent the same source when presenting their positions.51 Textual comparison shows that DNC is familiar with VPvr itself, and the similarity ˙ in passages could not be a mere coincidence due to the reliance on the same source. 50 See Nakamura (2004, pp. 136–137). 51 Regarding the authorship of the Vākyapadīya-Vṛtti, see Houben (1999, pp. 167–197). 123 Author's personal copy 952 S. Timalsina Mallavādin cites four verses at the end of the discussion on various forms of absolutism and these verses are also cited in VPvr.52 That Diṅnāga, Kamalaśı̄la, and ˙ Utpala also cite these verses confirms their popularity. Nārāyanakantha (10–11th ˙ ˙˙ century) cites these verses and attributes them to Bhartrhari.53 The VPvr was known ˙ ˙ to Kashmiri philosophers such as Abhinavagupta as having been authored by 54 Bhartrhari. Pind, based on these and other citations, argues that the VPvr is of the ˙ ˙ authorship of Bhartrhari himself.55 I am inclined to argue that Mallavādin borrowed ˙ verses from the VPvr rather than from their original source. Mallavādin sometimes ˙ blends the text VPvr with the citations found there. For instance, his citation from ˙ Īśa 5 duplicates that found in VPvr, and is presented with only a slight modification ˙ of the passage found in VPvr.56 ˙ The language Mallavādin uses in describing the limitlessness of being (bhāva) is almost identical: VPvr: na cāsyordhvam adhas tiryag vā mūrtaparivartapratyaṅgānām kvacid ˙ avacchedo ’bhyupagamyate | VPvr verse 1. Biardeau 1964, 24: 11-13. ˙ DNC: na cāsyordhvādhastiryagdiksu mūrtivivarttapratyaṅgānām ekatvābhi˙ matabheda-vat kvacid avacchedo vidyate | DNC, 239:1-2.57 The first sentence of the VPvr synthesizes the concept of Brahman as the word ˙ principle (śabda-tattva), propounding that although Brahman is free from distinctions and is beyond all conceptualization, it attains manifoldness through its own powers. Mallavādin’s presentation of the doctrine of Puruṣa parallels this, explaining that the subtle elements such as form, taste, and smell attain the gross forms such as earth, water, and so forth, in the same way as the supreme cause, the self, attains the conditions of form and so forth. The similar phrase in these citations, mūrtatvaprakramān paraṃāṇūn adhyāsya in DNC (176.4) and mūrtivibhāgabhāvanā in VPvr (Biardeau 1964, p. 24.7), describe the same unfolding of forms. The ˙ self in Mallavādin’s depiction is ‘not having its essence differentiated’ (apravibhakta-svatattva) that resonates of the word principle described in VPvr in the same ˙ passage as ‘free from distinctions’ (apravibhāga). Both use the same phrase, ‘free from distinctions while attaining distinctions’ (vibhaktāvibhakta) to describe the absolute, whether it is understood in terms of either word or puruṣa.58 Even the terminology in these presentations appears comparable, as the supreme reality is ‘apravibhāga’ for the author of the VPvr whereas it is ‘nirvibhāga’ for Mallavādin. ˙ 52 yathā viśuddham ākāśam. . . meghasaṃplavān || Cited in DNC, 241: 4–11. These are from the verses found cited in VPvr. See Biardeau (1964, 26: 19–28: 2). The order of the verses is changed in Mallavādin’s citation.˙ For discussion on these verses, see Unebe (2000). 53 tathā cāha tatra bhavān bhartṛhariḥ. Commentary on Mṛgendratantra, p. 65. 54 Īśvarapratyabhijñāvimarśinī, II: 38. This is identified in Iyer (1992, p. 22). 55 Pind (2003, pp. 257–270). 56 Compare: . . . vṛttam avṛtañ ca bahudhānakaṃ cetanācetanādiprabhedarūpam | anvāha ca — tadejati. . DNC 192–2; and . . . vivṛttāvivṛttam bahudhānakaṃ caitanyam ityāhuḥ | tadejati. . . VPvr on verse 8. See ˙ Biardeau (1964, 38: 20–21). 57 58 Jambūvijaya was first to identify the passage of DNC in VPvr in his footnote 3, DNC, p. 239. ˙ VPvr. See Biardeau (1964, p. 24: 10), DNC, 177. ˙ 123 Author's personal copy Purusavāda: A Pre-Śaṅkara Monistic Philosophy… ˙ 953 The focus on the oneness of consciousness (caitanya) in DNC parallels the oneness of Brahman as the word principle discussed in VPvr.59 ˙ Although using different terminology, both DNC and VPvr present that ˙ consciousness, singular in its nature, attains the forms of the objects of cognition: VPvr: na hi jñeyagato vṛkṣādyākārāvagraho jñānasyaikatvena viruddhyate | ˙ in VP, verse 2. Biardeau 1964, 28: 18-19. DNC: jñānam ekatve ’py anekabodhyākāraṃ bhavati | DNC 197:2-3. Mallavādin stresses in various contexts that the concept of the singularity of consciousness, identified with the term jñāna, is not challenged even when found in different cognitive forms. Mallavādin declares that consciousness is singular even when found in various states such as waking and dreaming. He also identifies that consciousness remains unchanged in its essential nature even when found in erroneous cognition, non-cognition, and so forth. Arguably, these concepts are found in seminal form in the text, VPvr. The following passages can be compared to ˙ demonstrate that this concept of the singularity of awareness (jñāna) is similar to both texts under consideration: eko ’yam śaktibhedena bhāvātmā pravibhajyate | buddhivṛttyanukāreṇa bahudhā jñānavādibhiḥ || A passage cited in VPvr, verse 26. ˙ DNC: . . . arthasya ca tathātathātattvāj jñānam eva hy arthaḥ | DNC, 183:2-3. On the basis of the difference in the meaning of vivarta and pariṇāma in classical Indian philosophy, one can argue that the philosophical framework of Bhartrhari ˙ and the puruṣa doctrine presented by Mallavādin are different. This argument, however, is inconclusive, as Bhartrhari appears to have made no distinction between ˙ the terminology of pariṇāma and vivarta, and has used these terms interchange60 ably. The presentation of the pariṇāma of one entity into many found in these two texts is comparable: VPvr: . . . sarvaprabodharūpaḥ sarvaprabhedarūpaś caikasya citikriyātattva˙ syāyaṃ pariṇāma. . . in VP, verse 128. Biardeau 1964, 162: 20-21 DNC: . . . yo ’sau puruṣas tad eva tat, tenātmatvena pariṇamitatvāt | DNC, 185:3. The example of pariṇāma given in DNC in this sequence is that of earth, water, etc. transforming into rice.61 This example is also found in VPvr, with the additional ˙ 59 Compare: . . . rūpādipravibhaktam apravikhaktasvatattvam DNC, 177: 1–2 with vibhaktāvibhaktasyaikasya brahmaṇaḥ. . . VPvr. See Biardeau (1964, p. 24: 10). ˙ 60 This issue has been discussed in Iyer (1992, pp. 129–134l). Bhartrhari most likely did not make a ˙ verse in VP utilizes the term vi distinction between the terms vivarta and pariṇāma. For example, the first +vṛt, in order to describe the process of the singular word principle to be manifold whereas he utilizes the term pariṇāma in verse 120. For discussion on vivarta, see Hacker (1953) and Houben (1995, pp. 301– 310). For the philosophy of Bhartrhari, see also Nakamura (2004, pp. 393–668). ˙ 61 DNC, 185: 3–186: 1. 123 Author's personal copy 954 S. Timalsina example of the earth transforming into a tree.62 These are distinctively different from the traditional examples of transformation such as gold constituting various forms of jewelry, clay in the form of pots, or thread in the form of cloth. The example of earth transforming to rice and plants is indeed unique to these two texts. The key issue here is that of consciousness transforming into matter, and the early examples of gold or clay do not explain this concept. On the other hand, in the example of earth and plant, there is a visible transformation of matter to a living form. The main objection to this position concerns the origin of the elements that bind the self, such as passion or delusion. Both these texts cite the position that the self itself is free from the defiling factors such as passion.63 Bhartrhari is generally credited for the application of the term vivarta to describe ˙ the process through which the singular entity—be it of the character of speech or of pure consciousness—attains plurality. In describing Purusa monism, Mallavādin ˙ uses viparivarta (DNC 187: 2), a term that can be read both along the lines of vivarta or parivarta = pariṇāma. Congruent with the above description of causation, the notion of difference in the sense of cause and effect while having no substantial difference, can be the interpretation of vivarta. Even based on select examples addressed above, one can argue that Mallavādin’s exegetical methods are deeply grounded on linguistic analysis, in particular, etymological interpretation. He explicitly identifies that distinction exists only in the naming, whether it is linguistic monism or the monism of consciousness or that of metaphysical time. It makes sense to argue therefore that Mallavādin relies on Bhartrhari’s linguistic philosophy and expands upon the same texts also to address ˙ Purusa monism. This fact also supports the argument made by Pind that, due to the ˙ closeness of the time frame of Mallavādin and Bhartrhari, the text VPvr may have ˙ ˙ been of the authorship of Bhartrhari himself. Whether or not one accepts this ˙ conclusion regarding authorship, as far as reading the doctrine of Purusa goes, it ˙ could very well be true. It is reasonable that the VPvr relies on a philosophical text, ˙ or perhaps even Bhartrhari himself is relying on some metaphysical texts for ˙ advancing linguistic monism. We cannot decisively prove who the author of such a text could have been, or what was the extent of the philosophy established there. It is reasonable, however, to argue that Mallavādin had other sources in addition to VPvr when synthesizing the doctrine of puruṣa. The first supporting argument is ˙ that Mallavādin identifies the doctrine under consideration as Purusavāda, whereas ˙ there is no citation in VPvr that identifies the concept by this name. More ˙ importantly, several components of the doctrine of Purusa addressed in DNC are ˙ absent in VPvr. For instance, the concept of the states (avasthā) of puruṣa with three ˙ states having internal variations, is not found in VPvr. The application of the term ˙ puruṣa in DNC is in a cosmic and metaphysical sense and is used in the singular, whereas this term as applied in VPvr is in the sense of a linguistic person. ˙ 62 VPvr in verse 128. See Biardeau (1964, 164: 2–7). ˙ Compare: VPvr: sarvo hi vikāra ātmamātreti keṣāñcid darśanam | in the verse 128. See Biardeau (1964, 162: 17). ˙ caitanyād ātmā pṛthivyādisuṣuptāvasthāyā viparyayeṇa vṛtto rāgādyupayukta upayoDNC: gasvātantryeṇa baddhvātmanātmānam asvatantrīkaroti | DNC, 186: 2–3. 63 123 Author's personal copy Purusavāda: A Pre-Śaṅkara Monistic Philosophy… ˙ 955 While there is no textual citation to confirm that Mallavādin was aware of the Brahmasūtra, various concepts found in the puruṣa section of DNC are comparatively closer to this text than to the subsequent commentarial traditions. There are instances where the highest principle is identified in BS as ātman (BS 1.1.6; 2.3.15). BS is consistent in the position that Brahman itself is the cause of the world.64 Creation, following BS, is carried out by the absolute with Brahman’s powers, since it is considered to be omnipotent (sarvaśakti) (BS 2.1.30). This causation of the world from Brahman appears closer to the concept subsequently identified as pariṇāma, or the transformation of one entity to another (BS 1.4.26). This fact leads to the affirmation that there is an actual existence of an effect in the cause (satkārya) (BS 2.1.7). BS is explicit in identifying cause and effect, utilizing the term ‘not other’ (ananya) (BS 2.1.14). In agreement with Mallavādin’s presentation that conceptual distinctions are made due to linguistic constructions, with the same substance found in different shapes identified with different names, BS confirms that any distinction is due to ‘comprehension by word’ (vācārambhaṇa) (BS 2.1.14). These similarities, however, are not sufficient to identify the doctrine of puruṣa found in DNC with the philosophy of Bādarāyana found in BS, because other ˙ prominent elements found in these two presentations are not identical. First of all, contrary to Mallavādin’s identification of the doctrine as Purusavāda, BS does not ˙ mention puruṣa.65 Furthermore, the description of causation found in the puruṣa section of DNC is closer to the Sāṅkhya notion of causality, with tanmātrās mediating the manifestation of gross elements. While addressing the emergence of sky and so forth from consciousness, BS does not discuss the subtle elements identified as tanmātrās (BS 2.3.1–12). There is no reference to something that mediates the supreme Brahman and the world, such as Īśvara, in the depiction of the doctrine of puruṣa found in DNC, and the application of the term parameśvara is used to identify the very puruṣa. The concept of a governing principle (antaryāmin) can be found in BS 1.2.18. The puruṣa addressed in DNC is identified with consciousness that is addressed with various synonymous terms. The Brahman in BS, while identified as consciousness (BS1.1.5; 1.1.9; 1.1.10; 3.2.16), is also identified as ‘being’ (sat) (BS 2.3.9), and ‘bliss’ (ānanda) (BS 3.2.11, 13),66 while these additional aspects are not mentioned in the depiction of puruṣa in DNC. The quest for the source of the philosophy criticized by Mallavādin leads again to the VPvr. While commenting upon VP 1.120 [128], VPvr presents some ˙ ˙ philosophical positions that are mostly lacking in the subsequent scholastic development of Advaita: sarvo hi vikāra ātmamātreti keṣāñcid darśanam | sa tu pratipuruṣam antaḥ sanniviṣto bāhya iva pratyavabhāsate | rūḍhatvāc ca vyavahāramātram idam antar bahir iti | na hy etad ekatve ’mūrtattve vā saṃbhavati | apareṣāṃ sarvaprabodharūpaḥ sarvaprabhedarūpaś caikasya citikriyātattvasyāyaṃ pariṇāma ityādi svamātrāvādināṃ darśanam | caitanyaṃ bhūtayonis 64 For discussion on the philosophy of BS, see Nakamura (1983, pp. 469–532). 65 Nakamura has identified this disparity between the philosophy of BS and the comments of absolutism found in Buddhist and Jain sources as the doctrine of Purusa. See, Nakamura (1983, p. 491). ˙ 66 For discussion, see Nakamura (1983, pp. 484–486). 123 Author's personal copy 956 S. Timalsina tilakṣodarasavat pravibhajyata ity eke | anye tv āhuḥ | tad yathā mahato ’gner visphuliṅgāḥ sūkṣmād vāyor abhraghanāś candrakāntād vibhāginyas toyadhārāḥ pṛtivyā vā sālādayo nyagrodhadhānādibhyo vā sāvarohaprasavā nyagrodhā ity evamādi paramātrāvādināṃ darśanam | svaparamātrāvādināṃ darśanaṃ vidyābhāṣyebhyaḥ pratipattavyam | Some have the view that all the transformation is the ‘part’ (mātrā) of the self. The self {sa} appears as if external, while being situated within each person. Also because it is conventional, this [division of] inner and external [self] is merely a usage. This [convention] is not possible if there is [just] one or [if it is] formless. According to the others who follow the view of svamātrā, this [world] is the transformation of the single essence of the nature of the act of awareness that is of the form of all cognitions and of the form of all differences. Some say that consciousness is the origin of all entities (bhūta) that become distinguished like [the difference between] the oil and pulp of sesame. Others say: just as are the sparks from a big fire, thick cloud from the invisible air, the distinguishing streams of water from the ‘moon-light-gems’ (candrakānta), [trees] such as sāla from earth, [or] fig tree with roots from the seeds of fig, so also [is creation]; this is the view of those adopting the view of paramātrā. The view of those following svamātrā and paramātrā should be understood from the Vidyābhāṣya. This description comes very close to the one given in Mallavādin’s discussion on puruṣa. This citation suffices to argue that the seminal form of the concepts of nondualism, dualism, and the concept of identity-in-difference were known to the author of VPvr. Also significant is the view of those adopting paramātrā that plants ˙ are the transformation of earth etc. This is the concept shared by those adopting the doctrine of puruṣa following the depiction given by Mallavādin. It is possible that the term Vidyābhāṣya in the above citation referred to some text now lost.67 If this thesis is true, this could very well be one of the primary texts for the doctrine of Purusa. ˙ Conclusion This discussion brings to light the doctrine of puruṣa synthesized by Mallavādin that depicts one of the earliest strands of monistic thought emerging from the Upanisadic ˙ tradition. As discussed in this essay, this model of Advaita differs from the mainstream philosophy established by Śankara. The identification of this doctrine as ˙ Purusavāda by Mallavādin and as Advaitavāda by the commentator Simhasūri also ˙ ˙ indicates a shift in naming this doctrine within that timeframe. From its earliest fragmentary sources to the texts of Mallavādin and Samantabhadra, this doctrine has been criticized by its opponents, suggesting its very popularity. Based on parallel citations and discussion of similar thought that can be found in VPvr, it is also ˙ 67 This possibility has been raised by Biardeau (1964). 123 Author's personal copy Purusavāda: A Pre-Śaṅkara Monistic Philosophy… ˙ 957 reasonable to argue that this doctrine provides a framework for other philosophical works, such as that of Bhartrhari in classical times. ˙ The doctrine of puruṣa addressed by Mallavādin presents the world comprised of insentient matter as just another condition of consciousness itself. In this monistic worldview, there is no radical distinction between consciousness and matter. This position, however, does not arise from negation of the material world but rather through confirming the phenomenal as one of the conditions of consciousness of the singular nature. This model of Advaita tallies with the studies of Walter Slaje, who, in his lengthy analysis of the example of water and salt found in the Upanisads, ˙ comes to the conclusion that: Salt was conceived as being indeed substantially the same as water, albeit in a particular crystallized state of water, similar to, e.g., ice or hailstones as frozen states of water. Therefore, a mere change of states (‘manifestation’) of one and the same identical substrate is alluded to: given particular preconditions such as the influence of heat, the original liquid manifestation of water changes into crystalline form, i.e., takes the shape of salt. . . If the original ‘substrate’ thus remains an unchanging one, the primordial ‘substance’ ātman must be seen as a material, self-transforming cause (upādānanimitta-kāraṇa) in the emanation process of the world. Taking the particular terminology (mahadbhūta, bhūta [pl.]) in use there also into appropriate consideration, a strand of thought may reveal itself from which—in a process of bifurcation—the monism (pariṇāma/ bhedābheda) of the Brahmasūtra as well as the dualism of the Sāṅkhya system may each have originally developed.68 Congruent to the philosophy presented by Mallavādin that in many respects resembles the one presented by Bhavya and Śāntaraksita, Slaje concludes his ˙ analysis of the Upanisadic passage by saying that “Through additional sequences ˙ the elemental entities (bhūtas), being themselves direct transformational products of the Principal Entity, would—in their bodily combination as an individual— eventually transform into—or ‘produce’—consciousness.”69 This concurs with the analysis of the elemental entities identified as bhūta. Arguably, this model of Advaita was transformed with the philosophy of Gaudapāda with his focus on māyā ˙ for describing plurality and the cause-and-effect relation, and Śaṅkara with his focus on terminology of māyā while also incorporating avidyā to describe the same process. Change, process, manifold manifestation, in the paradigm of Purusa, are ˙ intrinsic to the absolute entity. On the other hand, Śaṅkara maintains that it is due to illusion or due to ignorance that the changeless Brahman appears as if changing. While both models confirm absolute monism, their approaches to the commonsense world differ significantly. 68 Walter Slaje (2001, pp. 25–57). Citations in the text from page 42, lines 31–38. 69 See Slaje (2002, 206: 35–38). 123 Author's personal copy 958 S. Timalsina References Biardeau, M. (1964). Vākyapadīya Brahmakāṇḍa: Avec la Vṛtti de Harivṛṣabha. Paris: Ēditions E. De Boccard. Brahmasūtra. Brahmasūtra with the Bhāsya of Śaṅkara. With the commentaries Bhāmatı̄, Kalpataru and ˙ Parimala (Vols. 1–2). In K. Joshi (Ed.). Delhi: Parimal Publications, 1981. Darling, G. J. (1987). An evaluation of the Vedāntic critique of Buddhism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Dvādaśāranayacakra. The Dvādasaraṃ Nayacakram of Ācārya Śrī Mallavādi Kṣamāśramaṇa. With the commentary Nyayāgamānusārini of Śrı̄ Simhasūri Gani Vādi Ksamāśramana. (Ed.) with Critical ˙ ˙ Notes by Muni Jambūvijayajı̄. ˙Pt. I (1-4 Aras). Bhāvnagar 1966 ˙(Śrı̄ Ātmānand Jain Granthamālā No. 92). Fort, A. (1980). The concept of Susupta in Advaita vedanta. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 61(1/4), 221–228. ˙ Fort, A. (1985). Dreaming in Advaita vedanta. Philosophy East and West, 35(4), 377–386. Hacker, P. (1953). Vivarta: Studien zur Geschichte der illusionistischen Kosmologie und Erkenntnistheorie der Inder. Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Hacker, P. (1995). Being and spirit in vedanta. See Halbfass, Wilhelm, 1995, 187–210. Halbfass, W. (1995). Philology and confrontation: Paul Hacker on traditional and modern vedanta. New York: State University of New York Press. Houben, J. E. M. (1995). The Sambandha-Samuddesa (chapter on relation) and Bhartṛhari’s philosophy of language. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. Houben, J. E. M. (1999). On Syntactic and stylistic evidence regarding the authorship of the Vākyapadı̄ya-Vrtti (Bhartrhari’s Vākyapadı̄ya and the Ancient Vrtti 3)”. Wiener Zeitschrift für die ˙ für indische Philosophie, 43, 167–197. ˙ Kunde südasiens˙ und Archiv Iyer, K. A. S. (1966). Vākyapadīya of Bhartṛhari. With the Vṛtti and the Paddhati of Vṛṣabhadeva. Pune: Deccan College. Iyer, K. A. S. (1992). Bhartṛhari: A study of the Vākyapadīya in the light of the ancient commentaries. Pune: Deccan College. Jacobi, H.G. (1884–1885). Jaina Sūtras. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kane, P. V. (1930). Vedanta commentators before Śaṅkarācārya. In Proceedings and Transactions of the fifth Indian Oriental Conference, II, pp. 937–953. Lahore: University of Punjab. Lacombe, O. (1937). L’Absolu selon le Védânta: Les notions de Brahman et d’Atman dans les systèmes de Çankara et Râmânoudja. Paris: P. Geuthner. Mahābhāṣya. The Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali. With the commentaries Pradı̄pa and Uddyota. (Vols. 1–6). In S. Bhargava (Ed.). Delhi: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratisthan, 1987. Modi, P. M. (1956–1957). Bādarāyana and Śaṅkara: A fresh study. The Journal of the Ganganatha Jha ˙ 1–4, pp. 23–36. Research Institute, Vol. XIV, parts Mṛgendratantra. With the Commentary of Nārāyanakantha. In K. Shastri (Ed.) Madhusūdana. Bombay: ˙ ˙˙ Nirnaya Sagara Press, 1930. Nakamura, H. (1983). A History of early vedanta philosophy (part one). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Nakamura, H. (2004). A history of early vedanta philosophy (part two). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Ogawa, H. (2005). Process and language: A study of the Mahābhāṣya ad A I.3.1 Bhūvādayo Dhātavaḥ. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Pind, O. H. (2003). Did Dignāga and Mallavādin know the old Vākyapadīyavṛtti attributed to Bhartrhari? ˙ Journal of Indian Philosophy, 31, 257–270. Potter, K. (2003). The encyclopedia of Indian philosophies: Buddhist philosophy from 350 to 600 (Vol. 9). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Qvarnström, O. (1989). Hindu philosophy in Buddhist perspective: The Vedāntatattva-viniścaya chapter of Bhavya’s Madhyamakahṛdayakārikā. Lund: Plus Ultra. Sastri, K. S. (1924). Bodhāyana and Dramidācārya: Two old Vedāntins presupposed by Rāmānuja. ˙ Proceedings of the All Indian Oriental Conference, 3, 465–473. Satkhandāgama, Six Volume Canon. By Puspadanta and Bhūtabali. With Dhavalā commentary by ˙ Ed. Ashok Kumar Jain. Roorkee: Pandit Phool Chandra Ācārya Śrı̄ Vı̄rasena. Trans. Nand Lal Jain. Shastri Foundation; Varanasi: Sri Ganesh Varni Digambar Jain Sansthan, 2004. Schrader, O. (1902). Über den Stand der indischen philosophie zur zeit Mahāvīras und Buddhas. Strassburg: K.J. Trübner. Vākyapadīya. see Iyer 1966. 123 Author's personal copy Purusavāda: A Pre-Śaṅkara Monistic Philosophy… ˙ 959 Madhyamakahṛdaya. See Nakamura 1983, pp. 184–206. Sharma, R. K. (2001). Dreamless sleep and some related philosophical issues. Philosophy East and West, 51(2), 210–231. Slaje, W. (2001). Water and salt (I): Yājñavaklya’s Saindhava Dṛṣṭānta (BĀU II 4.12). Indo-Iranian Journal, 44, 25–57. Slaje, W. (2002). Water and salt (III): An analysis and new translation of the Yājñāvalkya-Maitreyı̄ Dialogue. Indo-Iranian Journal, 45, 205–220. Timalsina, S. (2009). Consciousness in Indian philosophy: The Advaita doctrine of awareness only. New York: Routledge. Unebe, T. (2000). “Jñānaśrı̄bhadra’s Interpretation of Bhartrhari as Found in the “Laṅkāvatāravrtti” ˙ ˙ (PHAGS PA LANGKAR GSHEGS PA’I ’GERLA PA). Journal of Indian Philosophy., 28(4), 329– 360. Wezler, A. (1981). “Studien zum Dvādaśāranayacakra des Śvetāṃbara Mallavādin: der Sarvasarvātmakatvavāda”, Studien zum Jainismus und Buddhismus. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. 123