[Footnote 2:  Indian Antiquary, 1915.]

[Footnote 3:  See Vacaspati Mis’ra’s Bhamati on S’a@nkara’s bhasya on Brahma-sutra, II. ii.]

422

I do not know of any evidence that would come in conflict with this supposition.  The fact that we do not know of any Hindu writer who held such monistic views as Gau@dapada or S’a@nkara, and who interpreted the Brahma-sutras in accordance with those monistic ideas, when combined with the fact that the dualists had been writing commentaries on the Brahma-sutras, goes to show that the Brahma-sutras were originally regarded as an authoritative work of the dualists.  This also explains the fact that the Bhagavadgita, the canonical work of the Ekanti Vai@s@navas, should refer to it.  I do not know of any Hindu writer previous to Gau@dapada who attempted to give an exposition of the monistic doctrine (apart from the Upani@sads), either by writing a commentary as did S’a@nkara, or by writing an independent work as did Gau@dapada.  I am inclined to think therefore that as the pure monism of the Upani@sads was not worked out in a coherent manner for the formation of a monistic system, it was dealt with by people who had sympathies with some form of dualism which was already developing in the later days of the Upani@sads, as evidenced by the dualistic tendencies of such Upani@sads as the S’vetas’vatara, and the like.  The epic S’a@mkhya was also the result of this dualistic development.

It seems that Badaraya@na, the writer of the Brahma-sutras, was probably more a theist, than an absolutist like his commentator S’a@nkara.  Gau@dapada seems to be the most important man, after the Upani@sad sages, who revived the monistic tendencies of the Upani@sads in a bold and clear form and tried to formulate them in a systematic manner.  It seems very significant that no other karikas on the Upani@sads were interpreted, except the Man@dukyakarika by Gau@dapada, who did not himself make any reference to any other writer of the monistic school, not even Badaraya@na.  S’a@nkara himself makes the confession that the absolutist (advaita) creed was recovered from the Vedas by Gau@dapada.  Thus at the conclusion of his commentary on Gau@dapada’s karika, he says that “he adores by falling at the feet of that great guru (teacher) the adored of his adored, who on finding all the people sinking in the ocean made dreadful by the crocodiles of rebirth, out of kindness for all people, by churning the great ocean of the Veda by his great churning rod of wisdom recovered what lay deep in the heart of the Veda, and is hardly attainable even by the immortal

423