S’a@nkara carried on the work of his teacher Gaudapada and by writing commentaries on the ten Upani@sads and the Brahma-sutras tried to prove, that the absolutist creed was the one which was intended to be preached in the Upani@sads and the Brahma-sutras [Footnote:  1].  Throughout his commentary on the Brahma-sutras, there is ample evidence that he was contending against some other rival interpretations of a dualistic tendency which held that the Upani@sads partly favoured the Sa@mkhya cosmology

_______________________________________________________

_____________

[Footnote 1:  The main works of S’a@nkara are his commentaries (bha@sya) on the ten Upani@sads (Is’a, Kena, Katha, Pras’na, Mu@ndaka, Ma@n@dukya, Aitareya, Taittiriya, B@rhadara@nyaka, and Chandogya), and on the Brahma-sutra.]

433

of the existence of prak@rti.  That these were actual textual interpretations of the Brahma-sutras is proved by the fact that S’a@nkara in some places tries to show that these textual constructions were faulty [Footnote ref 1].  In one place he says that others (referring according to Vacaspati to the Mima@msa) and some of us (referring probably to those who interpreted the sutras and the Upani@sads from the Vedanta point of view) think that the soul is permanent.  It is to refute all those who were opposed to the right doctrine of perceiving everything as the unity of the self (atmaikatva) that this S’ariraka commentary of mine is being attempted [Footnote ref 2].  Ramanuja, in the introductory portion of his bha@sya on the Brahma-sutra, says that the views of Bodhayana who wrote an elaborate commentary on the Brahma-sutra were summarized by previous teachers, and that he was following this Bodhayana bha@sya in writing his commentary.  In the Vedarthasa@mgraha of Ramanuja mention is made of Bodhayana, Tanka, Guhadeva, Kapardin, Bharuci as Vedantic authorities, and Dravi@dacaryya is referred to as the “bha@syakara” commentator.  In Chandogya III. x. 4, where the Upani@sad cosmology appeared to be different from the Vi@s@nupurana cosmology, S’a@nkara refers to an explanation offered on the point by one whom he calls “acaryya” (atrokta@h pariharah acaryyaih) and Anandagiri says that “acaryya” there refers to Dravi@dacaryya.  This Dravi@dacaryya is known to us from Ramanuja’s statement as being a commentator of the dualistic school, and we have evidence here that he had written a commentary on the Chandogya Upani@sad.

A study of the extant commentaries on the Brahma-sutras of Badaraya@na by the adherents of different schools of thought leaves us convinced that these sutras were regarded by all as condensations of the teachings of the Upani@sads.  The differences of opinion were with regard to the meaning of these sutras and the Upani@sad texts to which references were made by them in each particular case.  The Brahma-sutra is divided into four adhyayas or books, and each of these is divided into four chapters or padas.  Each of these contains a number of topics of discussion (adhikara@na) which are composed of a number of sutras, which raise the point at issue, the points that lead to doubt and uncertainty, and the considerations that should lead one to favour