English
It was a commentary on Sankara’s Bhasya, and its full name was Sariraka-bhasya-prakatartha; and Anandajiiana (called also Janardana) wrote his Tattvaloka on the lines of Vedantic interpretation of this work. Mr Tripathi says in his introduction to the Tarka-samgraha that a copy of this work is available in Tekka Matha; but the present writer had the good fortune of going through it from a manuscript in the Adyar Library, and a short account of its philosophical views is given below in a separate section. In the Siddhanta-lesa of Appaya Diksita we DII 4 50 The Sankara School of Vedanta [cH. hear of a commentary on it called Prakatartha-vivarana. But, though Anandajiiana wrote his Tattvaloka on the lines of the Prakatartha, yet the general views of Anandajfiana were not the same as those of the author thereof; Anandajfiana’s position was very much like that of Sarvajfiatma Muni, and he did not admit many ajfidnas, nor did he admit any difference between maya and avidya. But the author of the Prakatartha,so far as canbe judged from references to him in the Siddhanta-lesa, gave a separate place to the antahkaranas of individual persons and thought that, just as the jivas could be cognizers through the reflection of pure intelligence in the antahkarana states, so Isvara is omniscient by knowing everything through maya modifications. The views of the author of the Prakatartha regarding the nature of vidhi have already been noted. But the way in which Anandajfiana refers to the Prakatartha in Mundaka, p. 32, and Kena, p. 23, shows that he was either the author of the Prakatartha or had written some commentary to it. But he could not have been the author of this work, since he refers to it as the model on which his Tattvaloka was written; so it seems very probable that he had written a commentary to it. But it is surprising that Anandajfiiana, who wrote commentaries on most of the important commentaries of Sankara, should also trouble himself to write another commentary on the Prakatartha, which is itself a commentary on Sankara’s commentary. It may be surmised, therefore, that he had some special reasons for respecting it, and it may have been the work of some eminent teacher of his or of someone in his parental line. However it may be, it is quite unlikely that the work should have been written later than the middle of the twelfth century}. It is probable that Gangapuri Bhattaraka also lived earlier than Anandabodha, as Citsukha points out. Gangapuri must then have lived either towards the latter part of the tenth century or the first half of the eleventh century. It is not improbable that he may have been a senior contemporary of Anandabodha. His work, Padartha-tattva-nirnaya, was commented on by Anandajfiana. Ac- cording to him both maya and Brahman are to be regarded as the cause of the world. All kinds of world-phenomena exist, and being may therefore be attributed to them; and being is the same what- ever may be the nature of things that exist. Brahman is thus the changeless cause in the world or the vivarta-karana; but all the ? See Tripathi’s introduction to the Tarka-samgraha . x1] Teachers and Pupils in Vedanta 51 changing contents or individual existents must also be regarded as products of the transformation of some substance, and in this sense mayd is to be regarded as the parinami-karana of the world. Thus the world has Brahman as its vivarta-karana and maya as its parinami-karana. The world manifests both aspects, the aspect of changeless being and that of changing materiality; so both maya and Brahman form the material cause of the world in two different ways (Brahma may4 catty ubhayopadanam ; sattva-jadya-riipobhaya- dharmanugaty-upapattis ca). Tarka-viveka and Siddhanta-viveka are the names of two chapters of this book, giving a summary of Vaisesika and Vedanta philosophy respectively. The view of Gangapuri in the Padartha-tattva-nirnaya just referred to seems to have been definitely rejected by Anandabodha in his Pramana- mala, p. 16. _ When Kularka had started the mahd-vidya syllogisms, and great Nyaya authors such as Jayanta and Udayana in the ninth and tenth centuries had been vigorously introducing logical methods in philo- sophy and were trying to define ail that is knowable, the Vedantic doctrine that all that is knowable is indefinable was probably losing its hold; and it is probable that works like Anandabodha’s Pramana-mala and Nyaya-dipavali in the eleventh century or in the early part of the twelfth century were weakly attempting to hold fast to the Vedantic position on logical grounds. It was Sriharsa who in the third quarter of the twelfth century for the first time attempted to refute the entire logical apparatus of the Naiyayikas. Sriharsa’s work was carried on in Citsukha’s Tattva-pradipika in the early part of the thirteenth century, by Anandajfiana in the latter part of the same century in his Tarka-samgraha and by Nrsimhasrama Muni in his Bheda-dhikkara in the sixteenth century. On the last-named a pupil, Narayanasrama, wrote his Bheda- dhikkara-satkriya, and this had a sub-commentary, called Bheda- dhikkara-satkriyojjvala. The beginnings of the dialectical argu- ments can be traced to Sankara and further back to the great Buddhist writers, Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Candrakirti, etc. Interest in these dialectical arguments was continuously kept up by com- mentaries written on these works all through the later centuries. The names of these commentators have been mentioned in the sections on Sriharsa, Citsukha and Anandajfiana. Moreover, the lines of Vedanta interpretation which started with Suregvara, Padmapada and Vacaspati were vigorously 4-2 52 The Sankara School of Vedanta [cH. continued in commentaries and in independent works through- out the later centuries. Thus in the middle of the thirteenth century Vacaspati’s Bhamati was commented on by Amalananda in his Kalpa-taru; and this Kalpa-taru was again commented on by Appaya Diksita in the latter part of the sixteenth century and the first quarter of the seventeenth century, and by Laksminrsimha in his Abhoga towards the end of the seventeenth century or the beginning of the eighteenth?. Padmapada’s Pafica-padika was commented on by Prakasatman in the thirteenth century in his Pafica-padika-vivarana, by Akhan- dananda in the fourteenth century in his Tattva-dipana, by Vidya- ranya in the same century in his Vivarana-prameya-samgraha, by Anandapirna and Nrsimha in the sixteenth century and by Rama Tirtha in the seventeenth century”. The line of Suresvara also continued in the summary of his great Varttika (called Vart- tika-sara) by Vidyaranya and its commentaries, and also in the commentaries on the Samksepa-sariraka from the sixteenth cen- tury onwards. Many independent works were also written by persons holding more or less the same kinds of views as Sarvaj- fiatma Muni’. The philosophy of drsti-srsti-vada Vedanta, which was probably started by Mandana, had doubtless some adherents too; but we do not meet with any notable writer on this line, except Prakasananda in the sixteenth century and his pupil Nana Diksita. The Vedanta-kaumudi is an important work which is 1 Allala Siri, son of Trivikramacarya, wrote a commentary on the Bhamati, called the Bhamaiti-tilaka. * Samyagbodhendra Samyamin, pupil of Girvanendra (A.D. 1450), wrote a summary of the main contents of the Pafica-padikd-vivarana in six chapters (var- naka), and this work is called by two names, Advaita-bhisana and Vivarana- prameya-samgraha. There are again two other commentaries on Prakagatman’s Pafica-padikd-vivarana: the Riyu-vivarana by Visnubhatta, son of Janardana Sarvajfia and pupil of Svamindrapirna, and the 7ikd-ratna by Anandapirna. The Riju-vivarana had again another commentary on it, called the Trayyanta- bhava-pradipika, by Ramananda, pupil of Bharati Tirtha. There are, however, two other commentaries on the Pajica-padikad called Pajica-padika-vyakhya (by an author whose name is not definitely known) and the Prabandha-parisodhini by Atmasvaritipa, pupil of Nrsimhasvartipa. Dharma- rayadhvarindra also wrote a commentary on Pajica-padikd, called the Pafica- padika-tikd. _ ® Apart from the two published commentaries on the Samksepa-sdariraka, there is another work called the Samksepa-sdrivaka-sambandhokti by Vedananda, pupil of Vedadhyaksa-bhagavat-ptjyapada, in which the author tries to show the mutual relation of the verses of it as yielding a consistent meaning. Nrsimha- Srama also wrote a commentary on the Samksepa-sariraka, called the Tattva- bodhinit. One Sarvajiiatma Bhagavat wrote a small Vedantic work, called Pafica- prakriya; but it is not probable that he is the same as Sarvajfiatma Muni. x1] Teachers and Pupils in Vedanta 53 referred to by Appaya Diksita in his Siddhanta-leéa. In this work the omniscience of Brahman consists in the fact that the pure con- sciousness as Brahman manifests all that exists either as actually transformed or as potentially transformed, as future, or as latently transformed, as the past in the maya; and it is the Paramegvara who manifests Himself as the underlying consciousness (saksin) in individual persons, manifesting the ajfana transformations in them, and also their potential ajfana in dreamless sleep. Many other important Vedanta views of an original character are expressed in this book. This work of Ramadvaya has been found by the present writer in the Govt. Oriental MSS. Library, Madras, and a separate section has been devoted to its philosophy. From references in it to followers of Madhva it may be assumed that the Vedanta- kaumudi was written probably in the fourteenth century.