365bet娱乐

Chief Commentators in Chronological Order. 221 Summing up, we may now note, in chronological order, the names of the chief commentators [on the vedanta-sutras of badarayana] whose works have actually come down to us and whose systems are still studied with religious interest :Sl. Name No. 1 Sankara 2 Bhaskara 3 Ramanuja .. 4 Anandatirtha (Madhva) 5 Nimbarka 6 Srikantha 7 Sripati 8 Vallabha 9 Suka 10 Vijnanabhikshu 11 Baladeva Probable Date Description of System 788-820 A.D. Nirviseshadvaita circa 1000 A.D. Bhedabheda circa 1140 A.D. 1238 A.D. Visi shtadvaita Dvaita 1250 A.D. Dvaitadvaita 1270 A.D. Saiva Visishtadvaita circa 1400 A.D. Bhedabhedatmaka Visishtadvaita 1479-1544 A.D. Suddhadvaita circa 1550 A.D. Bhedavada .. circa 1600 A.D. Atma-Brahmaikya Bhedavada circa 1725 A.D. Achintyabhedabheda a As has been remarked above, there had been commentators on the Brahma-Sutras before Sankara, though Sankara does not mention by name those whom he actually refers to. If Ramanuja is any guide in the matter, it is possible that most, if not all, of these commentators, including Bodhayana and the rest of those mentioned in the Vedartha Sangraha, were Vaishnavas. This seems plausible inference, for Sankara quotes or refers to them mainly to record his dissent from them (see ante, page 115). There is thus some ground for the belief that the Brahma-Sutras were first commented upon by some Vaishnava writers who professed a form of modified monism. This shows that the Brahma-Sutras were originally regarded as an authoritative work of the dualists, though Badarayana himself was more a theist (Brahmavadin) rather than an absolutist (Advaitin) or a dualist (Dvaitin). This view 79 The alternative names for the work referred to below show its original Vaishnava character :- (1) Brahma-Sutrani: Trivikrama Panditacharya in his Vayu Stuti Rartham lokopakluptyai guna gana nilayah sutrayamasa -

is supported by the fact that we have no writer earlier than Gaudapada who propounded monistic theories as he did nor any commentator prior to Sankara, who interpreted the Brahma-Sutras from the strictly monistic standpoint as he did. Gaudapada himself does not refer to any other writer of the monistic school, nor even to Badarayana, while Sankara states in ending his commentary on Gaudapada's Karika, that the Advaita teaching was recovered from the Vedas by Gaudapada. It is remarkable that Sankara should attribute such recovery to Gaudapada and not to Badarayana. These facts seem to more than justify the suggestion of Mr. Das Gupta that "as the pure monism of the Upanishads was not worked out in a coherent manner for the formation of a monistic system, it was dealt with by people who had sympathies with some form of dualism which was already developing in the later days of the Upanishads as evidenced by the dualistic tendencies of such Upanishads as the Svetasvatara and the like. The epic Sankhya was also kritsnam yoso Vyasabhidhanah tamah maharahah Brahmasutrani kritva|| (2) Krishna-Sutrani: Anandatirtha in his Nyava Vivarana : Kritvabhashyanubhashyeham apedartha satpateh Krishnasya Sutraanuvyakhya sauyaya marutim chatu || (3) Hari-Sutrani: Sankarshanatirtha in his Jayatirtha Vijaya-Adishyamanya Harisutra bhashyam, etc. (4) Vyasa-Sutrani: Anandatirtha in his Brahmasutra Bhashya-Atha tatkrupaya Vyasasutrani chakara Badarayanah. (5) Urukrama-Sutra, where uru stands for Vishnu. (Cf. UrukramaGita, the name for the Bhagavad-Gita or Krishna-Gita) Anandatirtha in his Aitareya Bhashya-Paramasya Vishnoh mahatmyam varnitam Urukrama Sutreshu | Urukramasya sahibindu iththa Vishnopade parame madhva utsah || Rig Veda, I. 4. 8. (6) Vedanta-Sutrani : Narayana Panditacharya in Madhva Vijaya :-Vedanta sutrani 1 anta vittamo bhashyadasau sishya ganaya sumsadi || (7) Uttara mimam sa-Sutrani. (8) Vishnu-Sutrani: Anandatirtha in his GitaBhashya Vishnu mahatmaya lesaya vibhakasya cha kotidha Tasyapyanantadhatasya | Punasyapihyanantadha | naikamsya samamahatmya Sri Sesha Brahma Sankara itt varnitam Vishnu Sutreshu. (9) Bheda-Sutra: Anandatirtha in his Vishnutatva Nirnaya says:Vishnosarvotmatvantu Bheda Sutreskuvarnitam visheshena nantu kripaya Vedavyasena (10) Sariraka Mimamsa: Sankara and Ramanuja call it by this name. Jayatirtha in his Nyaya Sutra says:Imani sariraka mimamsa sutrani iti vadan vyakhyanan akurutam,

the result of this dualistic development" (Hist. of Ind. Philosophy, I. 422). Accordingly Mr. Das Gupta inclines to the view that the dualistic interpretations of the BrahmaSutras are probably more faithful to the sutras than the interpretations of Sankara. This view is not, as may at first be supposed, at variance with that of Dr. Thibaut who has remarked that while the interpretation of Sankara is nearer to the teaching of the Upanishads than to that of the Sutras of Badarayana, the system of Ramanuja is in some important points closely related to that of the Sutras (Vedanta Sutras with the Commentary of Sankaracharya, introduction, cxxvi). For Ramanuja's system is, in its fundamental aspects, but a development of the view of Bodhayana, perhaps, the earliest of the Vaishnavite commentators of the Ekantabhava School. It is his theory or rather teaching as embodied in his interpretation of the Brahma-Sutras that Ramanuja avowedly sought to restore for the benefit of the world. this view is founded in sound reasoning, as it seems to be, then Bodhayana should be accounted one of those Vaishnavas who may perhaps be identified with the followers of the Ekantabhava and who are represented as having professed that form of Vaishnavism which is enunciated in the Bhagavad-Gita. If the Gita was not actually a product of the Ekantika Vaishnavas, it was at least thoroughly representative of the views held by them. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Brahma-Sutras should be referred to in the Gita and spoken of as expounding, with the aid of cogent reasoning, the religion taught by it. (See Bhagavad-Gita, XIII, 5.) Th: view renders the reference in the Gita to the Brahma-Sutras a perfectly natural one and not a mere interpolation as has been sometimes suggested.80 The late If 80 A possible reference to the Brahma-Sutras may also be traced in Bhagavad-Gita, VII, 7, which may be thus rendered :-"There is naught whatsoever higher than I, O Dhananjaya. All this is woven in me as rows of pearl-like letters are in the Sutra." As regards the word protam appearing in this verse, Anandatirtha quotes the phrase otam protam patavat occurring in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, V. 8. 11, commentary on I. 3. 10, Aksharadhikarana. Where the

Mr. Telang assigned the Bhagavad-Gita to the third century B.C. On independent grounds Sir Ramakrishna Bhandarkar has come to the conclusion that the date of the BhagavadGita is not later than the beginning of the fourth century before the Christian era. (See Vaishnavism, Saivism, etc., 13.) Writing more recently Dr. Das Gupta has found himself unable to accept the view of Professor Jacobi, who suggesting that the references to Buddhism contained in the Brahma-Sutras are not with regard to the Vijnana-vada of Vasubandhu (400 A.D.) but with regard to the Sunya-vada, and this doubt makes the Brahma-Sutras, a post-Nagarjuna (100 A.D.) work. Dr. Das Gupta definitely controverts the contention that Sunya-vada was peculiar to Nagarjuna or had not been already a well-developed doctrine long before Nagarjuna. He holds with Dr. Satischandravidyabhushana that both the Yogachara, i.e., Vijnana-vada system and the system of Nagarjuna evolved from the Prajna paramita. 'Nagarjuna's merit," he says, " consisted in the dialectical form of his arguments in support of Sunya-vada; but so far as the essentials of the Sunya-vada are concerned, I believe that the Tathata philosophy of Asvaghosha (100 A.D.) and the philosophy of Prajnaparamita contained no less. There is no reason to suppose that the works of Nagarjuna were better known to the Hindu writers than the Mahayana Sutras. Even in such later times as that of Vachaspati Misra, we find him quoting a passage of the Salistambha Sutra to give an account of the Buddhist doctrine of prabitya samutpada. (See Vachaspati Misra's Bhamati on Sankara's Bhashya on Brahma-Sutra, II. ii.) We could interpret any reference to Sunya-vada as pointing " word Sutra is used by itself, it should be taken to indicate the Brahma-Sutra and not any other Sutra. (See Anandatirtha's commentary on Brihad. Up., VI. 1). Cf. also the following from the Vayu Stuti of Trivikrama Panditacharya :Astavyastam samastasrutigata madhamai ratnapugam yathandhhai | Rarthar lokopakluptyai gunagananilayah sutrayamasa kritsnam Yo'sau Vyasabhidhana stamahamaharahar bhaktitastvatprasadat Sadyo vidyopalabdhyai gurutama magurum devadevam namami

to Nagarjuna only if his special phraseology or dialectical methods were referred to in any way." Dr. Das Gupta accordingly holds that the reference in the Bhagavad-Gita to the Brahma-Sutras clearly points out a date prior to that of Nagarjuna. He suggests that "its date could safely be placed so far back as the first century B.C. or the last part of the second century B.C." He is thus inclined to place the Brahma-Sutras slightly earlier than the date of the Bhagavad-Gita. There is, so far as could be seen, no evidence that could be urged against this conclusion. There is thus reason to believe that the reference to the BrahmaSutras in the Bhagavad-Gita is a genuine one and that both these works belonged to one and the same class of religiophilosophic teachers who, though Vaishnavas, tended towards some form of modified monism. From a text-book of monistic Vaishnavas, the Brahma-Sutras soon became a text-book of other monists as well. The fundamental reason why it came to be recognized a work as important to Vaishnavas as to others was that its very aphoristic form gave scope for its interpretation in a manner acceptable to all who believed in the Vedas and the Upanishads, while, at the same time, professing allegiance to Vishnu or Siva as the case may be.