A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1, Surendranath Dasgupta [ebook reader with android os .txt] 📗

is called jñâna [Footnote ref 2]. Here Kumârila distinguishes knowledge as movement from knowledge as objective consciousness. Knowledge as movement was beyond sense perception and could only be inferred.

The idealistic tendency of Vijñânavâda Buddhism, Sâ@mkhya, and Mîmâ@msâ was manifest in its attempt at establishing the unique character of knowledge as being that with which alone we are in touch. But Vijñânavâda denied the external world, and thereby did violence to the testimony of knowledge. Sâ@mkhya admitted the external world but created a gulf between the content of knowledge and pure intelligence; Prabhâkara ignored this difference, and was satisfied with the introspective assertion that knowledge was such a unique thing that it revealed with itself, the knower and the known, Kumârila however admitted a transcendent element of movement as being the cause of our objective consciousness, but regarded this as being separate from self. But the question remained unsolved as to why, in spite of the unique character of knowledge, knowledge could relate itself to the world of objects, how far the world of external objects or of knowledge could be regarded as absolutely true. Hitherto judgments were only relative, either referring to one's being prompted to the objective world, to the faithfulness of the representation of objects, the suitability of fulfilling our requirements, or to verification by later

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See Nyâyaratnamâla, svata@h-prâmâ@nya-nir@naya.]

[Footnote 2: See Nyâyamañjari on Pramâ@na, S'lokavârttika on
Pratyak@sa, and Gâgâ Bha@t@ta's Bha@t@tâcintama@ni on Pratyak@sa.]

418

uncontradicted experience. But no enquiry was made whether any absolute judgments about the ultimate truth of knowledge and matter could be made at all. That which appeared was regarded as the real. But the question was not asked, whether there was anything which could be regarded as absolute truth, the basis of all appearance, and the unchangeable, reality. This philosophical enquiry had the most wonderful charm for the Hindu mind.

Vedânta Literature.

It is difficult to ascertain the time when the Brahma-sûtras were written, but since they contain a refutation of almost all the other Indian systems, even of the S'ûnyavâda Buddhism (of course according to S'a@nkara's interpretation), they cannot have been written very early. I think it may not be far from the truth in supposing that they were written some time in the second century B.C. About the period 780 A.D. Gau@dapâda revived the monistic teaching of the Upani@sads by his commentary on the Mâ@n@dûkya Upani@sad in verse called Mâ@n@dûkyakârikâ. His disciple Govinda was the teacher of S'a@nkara (788—820 A.D.). S'a@nkara's commentary on the Brahma-sûtras is the root from which sprang forth a host of commentaries and studies on Vedântism of great originality, vigour, and philosophic insight. Thus Ânandagiri, a disciple of S'a@nkara, wrote a commentary called Nyâyanir@naya, and Govindânanda wrote another commentary named Ratna-prabhâ. Vâcaspati Mis'ra, who flourished about 841 A.D., wrote another commentary on it called the Bhâmati. Amalânanda (1247—1260 A.D.) wrote his Kalpataru on it, and Apyayadik@sita (1550 A.D.) son of Ra@ngarâjadhvarîndra of Kâñcî wrote his Kalpataruparimala on the Kalpataru. Another disciple of S'a@nkara, Padmapâda, also called Sanandana, wrote a commentary on it known as Pañcapâdikâ. From the manner in which the book is begun one would expect that it was to be a running commentary on the whole of S'a@nkara's bhâsya, but it ends abruptly at the end of the fourth sûtra. Mâdhava (1350), in his S'a@nkaravijaya, recites an interesting story about it. He says that Sures'vara received S'a@nkara's permission to write a vârttika on the bhâsya. But other pupils objected to S'a@nkara that since Sures'vara was formerly a great Mîmâ@msist (Ma@n@dana Misra was called Sures'vara after his conversion to Vedântism) he was not competent to write

419

a good vârttika on the bhâ@sya. Sures'vara, disappointed, wrote a treatise called Nai@skarmyasiddhi. Padmapâda wrote a @tîkâ but this was burnt in his uncle's house. S'a@nkara, who had once seen it, recited it from memory and Padmapâda wrote it down. Prakâs'âtman (1200) wrote a commentary on Padmapâda's Pañcapâdikâ known as _Pañcapâdikâvivara@na. _Akha@n@dânanda wrote his Tattvadîpana, and the famous N@rsi@mhâs'rama Muni (1500) wrote his Vivara@nabhâvaprakâs'ikâ on it. Amalânanda and Vidyasâgara also wrote commentaries on Pañcapâdikâ, named Pañcapâdikâdarpa@na and Pañcapâdikâ@tîkâ respectively, but the Pañcapâdikâvivara@na had by far the greatest reputation. Vidyâra@nya who is generally identified by some with Mâdhava (1350) wrote his famous work Vivara@naprameyasa@mgraha [Footnote ref 1], elaborating the ideas of Pañcapâdikâvivara@na; Vidyâra@nya wrote also another excellent work named Jîvanmuktiviveka on the Vedânta doctrine of emancipation. Sures'vara's (800 A.D.) excellent work Nai@skarmyasiddhi is probably the earliest independent treatise on S'a@nkara's philosophy as expressed in his bhâ@sya. It has been commented upon by Jñânottama Mis'ra. Vidyâra@nya also wrote another work of great merit known as Pañcadas'î, which is a very popular and illuminating treatise in verse on Vedânta. Another important work written in verse on the main teachings of S'a@nkara's bhâ@sya is Sa@mk@sepas'arîraka, written by Sarvajñâtma Muni (900 A.D.). This has also been commented upon by Râmatîrtha. S'rîhar@sa (1190 A.D.) wrote his Kha@n@danakha@n@dakhâdya, the most celebrated work on the Vedânta dialectic. Citsukha, who probably flourished shortly after S'rîhar@sa, wrote a commentary on it, and also wrote an independent work on Vedânta dialectic known as Tattvadîpikâ which has also a commentary called Nayanaprasâdinî written by Pratyagrûpa. S'a@nkara Mis'ra and Raghunâtha also wrote commentaries on Kha@n@danakha@n@dakhâdya. A work on Vedânta epistemology and the principal topics of Vedânta of great originality and merit known as Vedântaparibhâ@sâ was written by Dharmarâjâdhvarîndra (about 155OA.D.). His son Râmak@r@snâdhvarin wrote his S'ikhâma@ni on it and Amaradâsa his Ma@niprabhâ. The Vedântaparibhâ@sâ with these two commentaries forms an excellent exposition of some of the fundamental principles of Vedânta. Another work of supreme importance

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See Narasi@mhâcârya's article in the Indian Antiquary, 1916.]

420

(though probably the last great work on Vedânta) is the Advaitasiddhi of Madhusûdana Sarasvatî who followed Dharmarâjâdhvarîndra. This has three commentaries known as Gau@dabrahmânandî, Vi@t@thales'opadhyâyî and Siddhivyâkhyâ. Sadânanda Vyâsa wrote also a summary of it known as Advaitasiddhisiddhântasâra. Sadânanda wrote also an excellent elementary work named Vedântasâra which has also two commentaries Subodhinî and Vidvanmanorañjinî. The Advaitabrahmasiddhi of Sadânanda Yati though much inferior to Advaitasiddhi is important, as it touches on many points of Vedânta interest which are not dealt with in other Vedânta works. The Nyâyamakaranda of Ânandabodha Bha@t@târakâcâryya treats of the doctrines of illusion very well, as also some other important points of Vedânta interest. Vedântasiddhântamuktâvalî of Prakâs'ânanda discusses many of the subtle points regarding the nature of ajñâna and its relations to cit, the doctrine of d@r@stis@r@stivâda, etc., with great clearness. _Siddhântales'a by Apyayadîk@sita is very important as a summary of the divergent views of different writers on many points of interest. Vedântatattvadîpikâ and Siddhântatattva are also good as well as deep in their general summary of the Vedânta system. Bhedadhikkâra of Nrsi@mhâs'rama Muni also is to be regarded as an important work on the Vedânta dialectic.

The above is only a list of some of the most important Vedânta works on which the present chapter has been based.

Vedânta in Gau@dapâda.

It is useless I think to attempt to bring out the meaning of the Vedânta thought as contained in the Brahma-sûtras without making any reference to the commentary of S'a@nkara or any other commentator. There is reason to believe that the Brahma-sûtras were first commented upon by some Vai@s@nava writers who held some form of modified dualism [Footnote ref 1]. There have been more than a half dozen Vai@s@nava commentators of the Brahma-sûtras who not only differed from S'a@nkara's interpretation, but also differed largely amongst themselves in accordance with the different degrees of stress they laid on the different aspects of their dualistic creeds. Every one of them claimed that his interpretation was the only one that was faithful to the sûtras and to

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: This point will be dealt with in the 2nd volume, when I shall deal with the systems expounded by the Vai@s@nava commentators of the Brahma-sûtras.]

421

the Upani@sads. Should I attempt to give an interpretation myself and claim that to be the right one, it would be only just one additional view. But however that may be, I am myself inclined to believe that the dualistic interpretations of the Brahma-sûtras were probably more faithful to the sûtras than the interpretations of S'añkara.

The S'rîmadbhagavadgîtâ, which itself was a work of the Ekânti (singularistic) Vai@s@navas, mentions the Brahma-sûtras as having the same purport as its own, giving cogent reasons [Footnote ref 1]. Professor Jacobi in discussing the date of the philosophical sûtras of the Hindus has shown that the references to Buddhism found in the Brahma-sûtras are not with regard to the Vijñâna-vada of Vasubandhu, but with regard to the S'ûnyavâda, but he regards the composition of the Brahma-sûtras to be later than Nâgârjuna. I agree with the late Dr S.C. Vidyâbhû@shana in holding that both the Yogâcâra system and the system of Nâgârjuna evolved from the Prajñâpâramitâ [Footnote ref 2]. Nâgârjuna's merit consisted in the dialectical form of his arguments in support of S'unyavâda; but so far as the essentials of S'unyavâda are concerned I believe that the Tathatâ philosophy of As'vagho@sa and the philosophy of the Prajñâpâramitâ contained no less. There is no reason to suppose that the works of Nâgârjuna were better known to the Hindu writers than the Mahâyâna sûtras. Even in such later times as that of Vâcaspati Mis'ra, we find him quoting a passage of the S'âlistambha sûtra to give an account of the Buddhist doctrine of pratîtyasamutpâda [Footnote ref 3]. We could interpret any reference to S'ûnyavâda as pointing to Nâgârjuna only if his special phraseology or dialectical methods were referred to in any way. On the other hand, the reference in the Bhagavadgîtâ to the Brahma-sûtras clearly points out a date prior to that of Nâgârjuna; though we may be slow to believe such an early date as has been assigned to the Bhagavadgîtâ by Telang, yet I suppose that its date could safely be placed so far back as the first half of the first century B.C. or the last part of the second century B.C. The Brahma-sûtras could thus be placed slightly earlier than the date of the Bhagavadgîtâ.

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: "Brahmasûtrapadais'caiva hetumadbhirvinis'cita@h" Bhagavadgîtâ. The proofs in support of the view that the Bhagavadgîtâ is a Vai@s@nava work will be discussed in the 2nd volume of the present work in the section on Bhagavadgîtâ and its philosophy.]

[Footnote 2: Indian Antiquary, 1915.]

[Footnote 3: See Vâcaspati Mis'ra's Bhâmatî on S'a@nkara's bhâsya on Brahma-sûtra, II. ii.]

422

I do not know of any evidence that would come in conflict with this supposition. The fact that we do not know of any Hindu writer who held such monistic views as Gau@dapâda or S'a@nkara, and who interpreted the Brahma-sûtras in accordance with those monistic ideas, when combined with the fact that the dualists had been writing commentaries on the Brahma-sûtras, goes to show that the Brahma-sûtras were originally regarded as an authoritative work of the dualists. This also explains the fact that the Bhagavadgîtâ, the canonical work of the Ekânti Vai@s@navas, should refer to it. I do not know of any Hindu writer previous to Gau@dapâda who attempted to give an exposition of the monistic doctrine (apart from the Upani@sads), either by writing a commentary as did S'a@nkara, or by writing an independent work as did Gau@dapâda. I am inclined to think therefore that as the pure monism of the Upani@sads 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 Upani@sads, as evidenced by the dualistic tendencies of such Upani@sads as the S'vetâs'vatara, and the like. The epic S'a@mkhya was also the result of this dualistic development.

It seems that Bâdarâya@na, the writer of the Brahma-sûtras, was probably more a theist, than an absolutist like his commentator S'a@nkara. Gau@dapâda seems to be the most important man, after the Upani@sad sages, who revived the monistic tendencies of the Upani@sads in a bold and clear form and tried to formulate them in a systematic manner. It seems very significant that no other kârikâs on the Upani@sads were interpreted, except the Mân@dûkyakârikâ by Gau@dapâda, who did not himself make any reference to any other writer of the monistic school, not even Bâdarâya@na. S'a@nkara himself makes the confession that the absolutist (advaita) creed was recovered from the Vedas by Gau@dapâda. Thus at the conclusion of his commentary on Gau@dapâda's kârikâ, he says that "he adores by falling at the feet of that great guru (teacher) the adored of his adored, who on finding all the people sinking in the ocean made dreadful by the crocodiles of rebirth, out of kindness for all people, by churning the great ocean of the Veda by his great churning rod of wisdom recovered what lay deep in the heart of the Veda, and is hardly attainable even by the immortal

423

gods [Footnote ref l]." It seems particularly significant that S'a@nkara should credit Gau@dapâda and not Bâdarâya@na with recovering the Upani@sad creed. Gau@dapâda was the teacher of Govinda, the teacher of S'a@nkara; but he was probably living when S'a@nkara was a student, for S'a@nkara says that he was directly influenced by his great wisdom, and also speaks of the learning,