The commentary here selected for translation, together with Badaraya;za's Sutras 5 (to which we shall henceforth confine our attention to the exclusion of Gaimini's Purva Mima;^sa-sutras), is the one composed by the celebrated theologian Sankara or, as he is commonly called, Sankara- >£arya. There are obvious reasons for this selection. In the first place, the .Sankara-bhashya represents the so- called orthodox side of Brahmanical theology which strictly upholds the Brahman or highest Self of the Upanishads as something different from, and in fact immensely superior to, the divine beings such as Vishnu or Siva, which, for many centuries, have been the chief objects of popular worship in India. In the second place, the doctrine advocated by Sankara is, from a purely philosophical point of view and apart from all theological considerations, the most im- portant and interesting one which has arisen on Indian soil ; neither those forms of the Vedanta which diverge from the view represented by Sankara nor any of the non-Vedantic systems can be compared with the so-called orthodox Vedanta in boldness, depth, and subtlety of speculation. In the third place, Sankara's bhashya is, as far as we know, the oldest of the extant commentaries, and relative antiquity is at any rate one of the circumstances which have to be
1 The Sutras in which the £7zanakaWa of the Veda is systematised go by- various names, being called either Vedanta-sutras, or Uttara Mimawsa-sutras, or Brahma-sutras, or .Sariraka Mimawsa-sutras.
Introduction. Xv
taken into account, although, it must be admitted, too much weight may easily be attached to it. The .Sankara-briashya further is the authority most generally deferred to in India as to the right understanding of the Vedanta-sutras, and ever since 5ankara's time the majority of the best thinkers of India have been men belonging to his school. If in addition to all this we take into consideration the intrinsic merits of wSankara's work which, as a piece of philo- sophical argumentation and theological apologetics, un- doubtedly occupies a high rank, the preference here given to it will be easily understood.
But to the European — or, generally, modern — translator of the Vedanta-sutras with wSankara's commentary another question will of course suggest itself at once, viz. whether or not wSankara's explanations faithfully render the intended meaning of the author of the Sutras. To the Indian PaWit of Ankara's school this question has become an indifferent one, or, to state the case more accurately, he objects to its being raised, as he looks on wSankara's authority as standing above doubt and dispute. When pressed to make good his position he will, moreover, most probably not enter into any detailed comparison of wSankara's com- ments with the text of Badar^ya^a's Sutras, but will rather endeavour to show on speculative grounds that wSankara's philosophical view is the only true one, whence it of course follows that it accurately represents the meaning of Bada- raya/za, who himself must necessarily be assumed to have taught the true doctrine. But on the modern investigator, who neither can consider himself bound by the authority of a name however great, nor is likely to look to any Indian system of thought for the satisfaction of his speculative wants, it is clearly incumbent not to acquiesce from the out- set in the interpretations given of the Vedanta-sutras — and the Upanishads — by wSankara and his school, but to submit them, as far as that can be done, to a critical investigation.
This is a task which would have to be undertaken even if wSankara's views as to the true meaning of the Sutras and Upanishads had never been called into doubt on Indian soil, although in that case it could perhaps hardly be entered
Xvi VEDANTA-stiTRAS.
upon with much hope of success ; but it becomes much more urgent, and at the same time more feasible, when we meet in India itself with systems claiming to be Vedantic and based on interpretations of the Sutras and Upanishads more or less differing from those of 6ankara. The claims of those systems to be in the possession of the right under- standing of the fundamental authorities of the Vedanta must at any rate be examined, even if we should finally be compelled to reject them.
It appears that already at a very early period the Vedanta-sutras had come to be looked upon as an authori- tative work, not to be neglected by any who wished to affiliate their own doctrines to the Veda. At present, at any rate, there are very few Hindu sects not interested in showing that their distinctive tenets are countenanced by Badarayazza's teaching. Owing to this the commentaries on the Sutras have in the course of time become very numerous, and it is at present impossible to give a full and accurate enumeration even of those actually existing, much less of those referred to and quoted. Mr. Fitz-Edward Hall, in his Bibliographical Index, mentions fourteen com- mentaries, copies of which had been inspected by himself. Some among these (as, for instance, Ramanu^a's Vedanta- sara, No. XXXV) are indeed not commentaries in the strict sense of the word, but rather systematic expositions of the doctrine supposed to be propounded in the Sutras; but, on the other hand, there are in existence several true commen- taries which had not been accessible to Fitz-Edward Hall. It would hardly be practical — and certainly not feasible in this place — to submit all the existing bMshyas to a critical enquiry at once. All we can do here is to single out one or a few of the more important ones, and to compare their interpretations with those given by 5ankara, and with the text of the Sutras themselves.
The bhashya, which in this connexion is the first to press itself upon our attention, is the one composed by the famous Vaish^ava theologian and philosopher Ramanu^-a, who is supposed to have lived in the twelfth century. The Rama- nu^a or, as it is often called, the Sri-bh­a appears to be
Introduction. Xv11
the oldest commentary extant next to .Sankara's. It is further to be noted that the sect of the Rdmanu^-as occupies a pre-eminent position among the Vaish^ava sects which themselves, in their totality, may claim to be considered the most important among all Hindu sects. The intrinsic value of the 6ri- bhashya moreover is — as every student ac- quainted with it will be ready to acknowledge — a very high one ; it strikes one throughout as a very solid performance due to a writer of extensive learning and great power of argu- mentation, and in its polemic parts, directed chiefly against the school of Sankara, it not unfrequently deserves to be called brilliant even. And in addition to all this it shows evident traces of being not the mere outcome of Ramanu^a's individual views, but of resting on an old and weighty tradition.
This latter point is clearly of the greatest importance. If it could be demonstrated or even rendered probable only that the oldest bhashya which we possess, i.e. the vSan- kara-bhashya, represents an uninterrupted and uniform tradition bridging over the interval between Badaraya^a, the reputed author of the Sutras, and Sankara ; and if, on the other hand, it could be shown that the more modern bhcishyas are not supported by old tradition, but are nothing more than bold attempts of clever sectarians to force an old work of generally recognised authority into the service of their individual tenets ; there would certainly be no reason for us to raise the question whether the later bhashyas can help us in making out the true meaning of the Sutras. All we should have to do in that case would be to accept Sankara's interpretations as they stand, or at the utmost to attempt to make out, if at all possible, by a careful comparison of Ankara's bhashya with the text of the Sutras, whether the former in all cases faithfully repre- sents the purport of the latter.
In the most recent book of note which at all enters into the question 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
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 essen- tial 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 interpre- tations 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 essen- tially 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 them- selves, 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. Among the passages where diverging views of those teachers are recorded and con- trasted 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 know- ledge 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 con- nexion 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 alto- gether different from Brahman up to the time when ob- taining 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 Vedanta-
sutras, disagreed among themselves on points of vital
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.