English
such as to support the view that the parinama view was intro- duced only to prepare the reader’s mind for the vivarta view, which was ultimately definitely approved as the true view; but it has been shown that the content of almost all the sétras of 11. i. consistently support the parindma view, and that even the sétra I. i. 14 cannot be explained as holding the vivarta view of causation as the right one, since the other sitras of the same section have been explained by Sankara himself on the parinama view; and, if the content be taken into consideration, this sitra also has to be explained on the parinama view of bhedabheda type. Teachers and Pupils in Vedanta. The central emphasis of Sankara’s philosophy of the Upanisads and the Brahma-sitra is on Brahman, the self-revealed identity of pure consciousness, bliss and being, which does not await the performance of any of the obligatory Vedic duties for its realiza- tion. A right realization of such Upanisad texts as ‘‘ That art thou,” instilled by the right teacher, is by itself sufficient to dispel all the false illusions of world-appearance. This, however, was directly against the Mimamsa view of the obligatoriness of certain duties, and Sankara and his followers had to fight hard on this point with the Mimamsakas. Different Mimamsa writers empha- sized in different ways the necessity of the association of duties with Brahma-wisdom; and a brief reference to some of these has been made in the section on Suregvara. Another question arose re- garding the nature of the obligation of listening to the unity texts (e.g. ‘‘that art thou’’) of the Vedanta; and later Vedanta writers have understood it differently. Thus the author of the Prakatartha, who probably flourished in the twelfth century, holds that it is only by virtue of the mandate of the Upanisads (such as ‘‘thou shouldst listen to these texts, understand the meaning and medi- tate’’) that one learns for the first time that one ought to listen to the Vedanta texts—a view which is technically called aparva- vidht. Others, however, think that people might themselves engage in reading all kinds of texts in their attempts to attain salvation and that they might go on the wrong track; and it is just to draw them on to the right path, viz. that of listening to the unity texts of the Upanisads, that the Upanisads direct men to listen to the unity texts—this view is technically called niyama-vidhi. XI] Teachers and Pupils in Vedanta 47 The followers of Sarvajiiatma Muni, however, maintain that there can in no sense be a duty in regard to the attainment of wisdom of Brahma-knowledge, and the force of the duty lies in enjoining the holding of discussions for the clarification of one’s understanding; and the meaning of the obligatory sentence ‘‘thou shouldst listen to”’ means that one should hold proper discussions for the clarifi- cation of his intellect. Other followers of Suregvara, however, think that the force of the obligation lies in directing the student of Vedanta steadily to realize the truth of the Vedanta texts without any interruption ; and this view is technically called parisamkhya-vidhi. Vacaspati Misra and his followers, however, think that no obliga- tion of duties is implied in these commands; they are simply put in the form of commands in order to show the great importance of listening to Vedanta texts and holding discussions on them, as a means of advancement in the Vedantic course of progress. But the central philosophical problem of the Vedanta is the conception of Brahman—the nature of its causality, its relation with mayaé and the phenomenal world of world-appearance, and with individual persons. Sankara’s own writings do not always manifest the same uniform and clear answer; and many passages in different parts of his work show tendencies which could be more or less diversely interpreted, though of course the general scheme was always more or less well-defined. Appaya Diksita notes in the beginning of his Siddhanta-lesa that the ancients were more concerned with the fundamental problem of the identity of the self and the Brahman, and neglected to explain clearly the order of phenomenal appearance; and that therefore many divergent views have sprung up on the subject. Thus shortly after Sankara’s death we have four important teachers, Suresvara and his pupil Sarvajiiatma Muni, Padmapada and Vacaspati Miéra, who represent three distinct tendencies in the monistic interpre- tation of the Vedanta. Suregvara and his pupil Sarvajiatma Muni held that maya was only an instrument (dvara), through which the one Brahman appeared as many, and had its real nature hidden from the gaze of its individual appearances as individual persons. In this view maya was hardly recognized as a substance, though it was regarded as positive; and it was held that maya had, both for its object and its support, the Brahman. It is the pure Brahman that is the real cause underlying all appearances, and the maya only hangs on it like a veil of illusion which makes this one thing 48 The Sankara School of Vedanta (cH. appear as many unreal appearances. It is easy to see that this view ignores altogether the importance of giving philosophical explanations of phenomenal appearance, and is only concerned to emphasize the reality of Brahman as the only truth. Vacaspati’s view gives a little more substantiality to ma@ya in the sense that he holds that ma@ya is coexistent with Brahman, as an accessory through the operation of which the creation of world-appearance is possible; maya hides the Brahman as its object, but it rests on individual persons, who are again dependent on maya, and maya on them, in a beginningless cycle. The world-appearance is not mere subjective ideas or sensations, but it has an objective existence, though the nature of its existence is inexplicable and inde- scribable; and at the time of dissolution of the world (or pralaya) its constitutive stuff, psychical and physical, will remain hidden in avidya, to be revived again at the time of the next world- appearance, otherwise called creation. But the third view, namely that of Padmap4ada, gives ma@yd a little more substantiality, re- garding it as the stuff which contains the double activity or power of cognitive activity and vibratory activity, one determining the psychical process and the other the physical process, and regarding Brahman in association with maya, with these two powers as Isvara, as the root cause of the world. But the roots of a very thoroughgoing subjective idealism also may be traced even in the writings of Sankara himself. Thus in the Brhadaranyaka-bhasya he says that, leaving aside theories of limitation (avaccheda) or reflec- tion (pratibimba), it may be pointed out that, as the son of Kunti is the same as Radheya, so it is the Brahman that appears as individual persons through beginningless avidya; the individual persons so formed again delusively create the world-appearance through their own avidyda. It will be pointed out in a later section that Mandana also elaborated the same tendency shortly after Sankara in the ninth century. Thus in the same century we have four distinct lines of Vedantic development, which began to expand through the later centuries in the writers that followed one or the other of these schools; and some additional tendencies also developed. The tenth century seems to have been very barren in the field of the Vedanta, and, excepting probably Jianottama Migra, who wrote a commentary on Suregvara’s Varttika, no writer of great reputation is known to us to have lived in this period. In other fields of philosophical development also this century was more or x1] Teachers and Pupils in Vedanta 49 less barren, and, excepting Udayana and Sridhara in Nyaya- Vaisesika, Utpala in Astronomy and Abhinavagupta in Saivism, probably no other persons of great reputation can be mentioned. There were, however, a few Buddhistic writers of repute in this period, such as Candragomin (junior) of Rajshahi, the author of Nyaya-loka-siddhi, Prajiakara Gupta of Vikramagila, author of Pramana-vartikalankara and Sahopalambha-niscaya, Acarya Jetari of Rajshahi, the author of Hetu-tattvopadesa, Dharma-dharmi- viniscaya and Bdalavatara-tarka, Jina, the author of Pramana- vartikalankara-tika, Ratnakirti, the author of the Apoha-siddhi, Ksana-bhanga-siddhi and Sthira-siddhi-disana, and Ratna Vajra, the author of the Yukti-prayoga. The eleventh century also does not seem to have been very fruitful for Vedanta philosophy. The only author of great reputation seems to have been Anandabodha Bhattarakacarya, who appears to have lived probably in the latter half of the eleventh century and the first half of the twelfth century. The mahavidya syllogisms of Kularka Pandita, however, probably began from some time in the eleventh century, and these were often referred to for refutation by Vedantic writers till the fourteenth century, as will be pointed out in a later section. . But it is certain that quite a large number of Vedantic writers must have worked on the Vedanta before Anandabodha, although we cannot properly trace them now. Anandabodha says in his Nyaya-makaranda that his work was a compilation (samgraha) from a large number of Vedantic monographs (nibandha-puspanjalt). Citsukha in his com- mentary on the Nyaya-makaranda points out (p.346) that Ananda- bodha was refuting a view of the author of the Brahma-prakasika. According to Govindananda’s statement in his Ratna-prabha, p- 311, Amalananda of the thirteenth century refuted a view of the author of the Prakatartha. The author of the Prakatartha may thus be believed to have lived either in the eleventh or in the twelfth century.