The idealistic tendency of Vijnanavada Buddhism, Sa@mkhya, and Mima@msa was manifest in its attempt at establishing the unique character of knowledge as being that with which alone we are in touch.  But Vijnanavada denied the external world, and thereby did violence to the testimony of knowledge.  Sa@mkhya admitted the external world but created a gulf between the content of knowledge and pure intelligence; Prabhakara 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, Kumarila 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 Nyayaratnamala, svata@h-prama@nya-nir@naya.]

[Footnote 2:  See Nyayamanjari on Prama@na, S’lokavarttika on Pratyak@sa, and Gaga Bha@t@ta’s Bha@t@tacintama@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.

Vedanta Literature.

It is difficult to ascertain the time when the Brahma-sutras were written, but since they contain a refutation of almost all the other Indian systems, even of the S’unyavada 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@dapada revived the monistic teaching of the Upani@sads by his commentary on the Ma@n@dukya Upani@sad in verse called Ma@n@dukyakarika.  His disciple Govinda was the teacher of S’a@nkara (788—­820 A.D.).  S’a@nkara’s commentary on the Brahma-sutras is the root from which sprang forth a host of commentaries and studies on Vedantism of great originality, vigour, and philosophic insight.  Thus Anandagiri, a disciple of S’a@nkara, wrote a commentary called Nyayanir@naya, and Govindananda