The commentary here selected for translation, together with Badaraya/n/a’s Sutras (to which we shall henceforth confine our attention to the exclusion of Jaimini’s Purva Mima/m/sa-sutras), is the one composed by the celebrated theologian Sa@nkara or, as he is commonly called, Sa@nkara/k/arya.  There are obvious reasons for this selection.  In the first place, the Sa@nkara-bhashya represents the so-called orthodox side of Brahminical 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 Vish/n/u or Siva, which, for many centuries, have been the chief objects of popular worship in India.  In the second place, the doctrine advocated by Sa@nkara is, from a purely philosophical point of view and apart from all theological considerations, the most important and interesting one which has arisen on Indian soil; neither those forms of the Vedanta which diverge from the view represented by Sa@nkara 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, Sa@nkara’s bhaashya 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 taken into account, although, it must be admitted, too much weight may easily be attached to it.  The Sa@nkara-bhashya further is the authority most generally deferred to in India as to the right understanding of the Vedanta-sutras, and ever since Sa@nkara’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 Sa@nkara’s work which, as a piece of philosophical argumentation and theological apologetics, undoubtedly 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 Sa@nkara’s commentary another question will of course suggest itself at once, viz. whether or not Sa@nkara’s explanations faithfully render the intended meaning of the author of the Sutras.  To the Indian Pandit of Sa@nkara’s school this question has become an indifferent one, or, to state the case more accurately, he objects to it being raised, as he looks on Sa@nkara’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 Sa@nkara’s comments with the text of Badaraya/n/a’s Sutras, but will rather endeavour to show on speculative grounds that Sa@nkara’s philosophical view is the only true one, whence it of course follows that it accurately represents the meaning of Badaraya/n/a, who himself must necessarily be assured to have taught