Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 34 — The Vedanta-Sutras, Part I (Sankara/Thibaut, page scans)

on as to how far we have to accept 5ankara as a guide to the right understanding of the Sutras (Mr. A. Gough's Philosophy of the Upanishads) the view is maintained (pp. 239 ff.) that Sankara is the generally recognised expositor

[34] b

Xvili VEDANTA-St)TRAS.

of true Vedanta doctrine, that that doctrine was handed down by an unbroken series of teachers intervening between him and the Sutrakara, and that there existed from the beginning only one Vedanta doctrine, agreeing in all essential points with the doctrine known to us from vSankara's writings. Mr. Gough undertakes to prove this view, firstly, by a comparison of Ankara's system with the teaching of the Upanishads themselves ; and, secondly, by a comparison of the purport of the Sutras — as far as that can be made out independently of the commentaries — with the interpretations given of them by vSankara. To both these points we shall revert later on. Meanwhile, I only wish to remark concerning the former point that, even if we could show with certainty that all the Upanishads propound one and the same doctrine, there yet remains the undeniable fact of our being confronted by a considerable number of essentially differing theories, all of which claim to be founded on the Upanishads. And with regard to the latter point I have to say for the present that, as long as we have only vSarikara's bhashya before us, we are naturally inclined to find in the Sutras — which, taken by themselves, are for the greater part unintelligible — the meaning which vSankara ascribes to them ; while a reference to other bhashyas may not impossibly change our views at once. — Meanwhile, we will consider the question as to the unbroken uniformity of Vedantic tradition from another point of view, viz. by enquiring whether or not the Sutras themselves, and the 5ankara-bhashya, furnish any indications of there having existed already at an early time essentially different Vedantic systems or lines of Vedantic speculation.

Beginning with the Sutras, we find that they supply ample evidence to the effect that already at a very early time, viz. the period antecedent to the final composition of the Vedanta-sutras in their present shape, there had arisen among the chief doctors of the Vedanta differences of opinion, bearing not only upon minor points of doctrine, but affecting the most essential parts of the system. In addition to Badaraya/za himself, the reputed author of the

INTRODUCTION. XIX

Sutras, the latter quote opinions ascribed to the following
teachers : Atreya, A^marathya, Auafalomi, Karsh/za^ini,
Klrakrztsna, (Jaimini, Badari.

the most essential parts of the system. In addition to Badaraya/za himself, the reputed author of the

INTRODUCTION. XIX

Sutras, the latter quote opinions ascribed to the following teachers : Atreya, A^marathya, Auafalomi, Karsh/za^ini, Klrakrztsna, (Jaimini, Badari. Among the passages where diverging views of those teachers are recorded and contrasted three are of particular importance. Firstly, a passage in the fourth pada of the fourth adhyaya (Sutras 5-7), where the opinions of various teachers concerning the characteristics of the released soul are given, and where the important discrepancy is noted that, according to Au^ulomi, its only characteristic is thought (^aitanya), while Caimini maintains that it possesses a number of exalted qualities, and Badaraya/za declares himself in favour of a combination of those two views. — The second passage occurs in the third pada of the fourth adhyaya (Sutras 7-14), where Gaimini maintains that the soul of him who possesses the lower knowledge of Brahman goes after death to the highest Brahman, while Badari — whose opinion is endorsed by vSankara — teaches that it repairs to the lower Brahman only. — Finally, the third and most important passage is met with in the fourth pada of the first adhyaya (Sutras 20-23), where the question is discussed why in a certain passage of the Brz'hadara;zyaka Brahman is referred to in terms which are strictly applicable to the individual soul only. In connexion therewith the Sutras quote the views of three ancient teachers about the relation in which the individual soul stands to Brahman. According to A^marathya (if we accept the interpretation of his view given by *Sankara and Ankara's commentators) the soul stands to Brahman in the bhedabheda relation, i. e. it is neither absolutely different nor absolutely non-different from it, as sparks are from fire. Au^ulomi, on the other hand, teaches that the soul is altogether different from Brahman up to the time when obtaining final release it is merged in it ; and Klsakr/tsna finally upholds the doctrine that the soul is absolutely non-different from Brahman, which in some way or other presents itself as the individual soul.

That the ancient teachers, the ripest outcome of whose speculations and discussions is embodied in the Vedantasutras, disagreed among themselves on points of vital b2

XX VEDANTA-SUTRAS.

importance is sufficiently proved by the three passages quoted.

soul.

That the ancient teachers, the ripest outcome of whose speculations and discussions is embodied in the Vedantasutras, disagreed among themselves on points of vital b2

XX VEDANTA-SUTRAS.

importance is sufficiently proved by the three passages quoted. The one quoted last is specially significant as showing that recognised authorities — deemed worthy of being quoted in the Sutras — denied that doctrine on which the whole system of 5ankara hinges, viz. the doctrine of the absolute identity of the individual soul with Brahman.

Turning next to the 5ankara-bMshya itself, we there also meet with indications that the Vedintins were divided among themselves on important points of dogma. These indications are indeed not numerous : 5ankara does not on the whole impress one as an author particularly anxious to strengthen his own case by appeals to ancient authorities, a peculiarity of his which later writers of hostile tendencies have not failed to remark and criticise. But yet more than once Sankara also refers to the opinion of ' another/ viz., commentator of the Sutras, and in several places Sankara's commentators explain that the ' other ' meant is the VWttikâra (about whom more will be said shortly). Those references as a rule concern minor points of exegesis, and hence throw little or no light on important differences of dogma ; but there are two remarks of Ankara's at any rate which are of interest in this connexion. The one is made with reference to Sutras 7-14 of the third pada of the fourth adhyaya ; ' some/ he says there, ' declare those Sutras, which I look upon as setting forth the siddhanta view, to state merely the purvapaksha ; ' a difference of opinion which, as we have seen above, affects the important question as to the ultimate fate of those who have not reached the knowledge of the highest Brahman. — And under I, 3, 19 vSankara, after having explained at length that the individual soul as such cannot claim any reality, but is real only in so far as it is identical with Brahman, adds the following words, 'apare tu vadina^ paramarthikam eva ^aivaw rupam iti manyante asmadiyay ka. ke£it/ i.e. ' other theorisers again, and among them some of ours, are of opinion that the individual soul as such is real.' The term ' ours/ here made use of, can denote only the Aupanishadas or Vedantins, and it thus appears that .Sankara himself

INTRODUCTION.