_______________________________________________________

____________

[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-sutras.]

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-sutras were probably more faithful to the sutras than the interpretations of S’ankara.

The S’rimadbhagavadgita, which itself was a work of the Ekanti (singularistic) Vai@s@navas, mentions the Brahma-sutras as having the same purport as its own, giving cogent reasons [Footnote ref 1].  Professor Jacobi in discussing the date of the philosophical sutras of the Hindus has shown that the references to Buddhism found in the Brahma-sutras are not with regard to the Vijnana-vada of Vasubandhu, but with regard to the S’unyavada, but he regards the composition of the Brahma-sutras to be later than Nagarjuna.  I agree with the late Dr S.C.  Vidyabhu@shana in holding that both the Yogacara system and the system of Nagarjuna evolved from the Prajnaparamita [Footnote ref 2].  Nagarjuna’s merit consisted in the dialectical form of his arguments in support of S’unyavada; but so far as the essentials of S’unyavada are concerned I believe that the Tathata philosophy of As’vagho@sa and the philosophy of the Prajnaparamita contained no less.  There is no reason to suppose that the works of Nagarjuna were better known to the Hindu writers than the Mahayana sutras.  Even in such later times as that of Vacaspati Mis’ra, we find him quoting a passage of the S’alistambha sutra to give an account of the Buddhist doctrine of pratityasamutpada [Footnote ref 3].  We could interpret any reference to S’unyavada as pointing to Nagarjuna only if his special phraseology or dialectical methods were referred to in any way.  On the other hand, the reference in the Bhagavadgita to the Brahma-sutras clearly points out a date prior to that of Nagarjuna; though we may be slow to believe such an early date as has been assigned to the Bhagavadgita 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-sutras could thus be placed slightly earlier than the date of the Bhagavadgita.

_______________________________________________________

_____________

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