Sa@nkara’s time been the one most generally accepted by Brahminic students of philosophy, it has never had any wide-reaching influence on the masses of India.  It is too little in sympathy with the wants of the human heart, which, after all, are not so very different in India from what they are elsewhere.  Comparatively few, even in India, are those who rejoice in the idea of a universal non-personal essence in which their own individuality is to be merged and lost for ever, who think it sweet ’to be wrecked on the ocean of the Infinite.’[31] The only forms of Vedantic philosophy which are—­and can at any time have been—­really popular, are those in which the Brahman of the Upanishads has somehow transformed itself into a being, between which and the devotee there can exist a personal relation, love and faith on the part of man, justice tempered by mercy on the part of the divinity.  The only religious books of widespread influence are such as the Ramayan of Tulsidas, which lay no stress on the distinction between an absolute Brahman inaccessible to all human wants and sympathies, and a shadowy Lord whose very conception depends on the illusory principle of Maya, but love to dwell on the delights of devotion to one all-wise and merciful ruler, who is able and willing to lend a gracious ear to the supplication of the worshipper.

* * * * *

The present translation of the Vedanta-sutras does not aim at rendering that sense which their author may have aimed at conveying, but strictly follows Sa@nkara’s interpretation.  The question as to how far the latter agrees with the views held by Badaraya/n/a has been discussed above, with the result that for the present it must, on the whole, be left an open one.  In any case it would not be feasible to combine a translation of Sa@nkara’s commentary with an independent version of the Sutras which it explains.  Similar considerations have determined the method followed in rendering the passages of the Upanishads referred to in the Sutras and discussed at length by Sa@nkara.  There also the views of the commentator have to be followed closely; otherwise much of the comment would appear devoid of meaning.  Hence, while of course following on the whole the critical translation published by Professor Max Mueller in the earlier volumes of this Series, I had, in a not inconsiderable number of cases, to modify it so as to render intelligible Sa@nkara’s explanations and reasonings.  I hope to find space in the introduction to the second volume of this translation for making some general remarks on the method to be followed in translating the Upanishads.

I regret that want of space has prevented me from extracting fuller notes from later scholiasts.  The notes given are based, most of them, on the tikas composed by Anandagiri and Govindananda (the former of which is unpublished as yet, so far as I know), and on the Bhamati.