On Sankara's date -2 (was Mimamsa, Vedanta etc.)

[Vishal Agarwal]

Dr. Palaniappan wrote:
This inscription is presumably the ANiyUr inscription, no. 76 of 1932.
VA: Yes.

Dr. Palaniappan: I am quoting the seventh one, as described by
Sivasubramaniam.
"(7) He should further be able to comment properly upon vimsical Athyaayam
Miimaamsa saastra i.e. to expand elaborately the Miimaamsa saastra in all
its twenty chapters."
It is not clear what the inscription says and what the scholar interprets.
VA responds: This is not an interpretation. See for instance S. Krishnaswami
Ayyangar in Woolner Com. Volume (Lahore)on this inscription. For the unity
of the two Mimamsas, consider the words "Krtsnashastra..." of Brahmasutra
Bhashya 3.3.53 of Sri Sankaracharya which clarify that Vedanta and Purva
Mimamsa formed he 'complete' shastra. The fact that Bhagvatpada excluded the
Purva Mimamsa as a prerequiste for the study of Vedanta itself drew a chorus
of protests from his opponents who quoted the Vrttikara (See the BS Bhashyas
of Bhaskara, Ramanuja)  to prove the 'Shastraikya' of Purva and Uttara
Mimamsas. To make long matters short, the Vedantasutras themselves refer to
the PM sutras with words 'taduktam' etc., showing that the BS presuppose the
PM. See also the discussion on this subject in Pancapadika of
Padmapadacharya for Pre-Samkara opinions. Nevertheless, the two portions of
Mimamsa had diverged to some extent before Bhagvatpada himself and had
different streams of commentators too. On the BS, some pre-Samkara
scholiasts are Brahmandin, Dramidacharya (who saluted Jaimini along with
Vyasa in the Mangalasloka of his Bhaskya--quoted in Srutaprakasika);
Brahmadatta and so on. Then, there were commentators on various Upanishads
(Bharatrprapanca, Brahmanadin, Dramida, Guhadeva, Bhavatrata etc.). See also
the usage of 'Brahmamimamsa' for BS in late works like the Prabhavali of
Sambhubhatta and the Prasthanabheda of Madhusudana Sarasvati. Only Mimamsa
is mentioned in Shadadarsha-samucchaya as well (Vedanta is not mentioned
separately).
____________
Dr. Palaniappan:As for Vidyasankar's observation,  "Although there have been
many gRhastha authors in then tradition, the study of vedAnta is intimately
associated with saMnyAsa", the Kasakkudi plates  provide an interesting
detail. These plates were issued in the 28th year of Nandivarman II who
ruled from 731-796 AD......
VA: Not only the Grhasasthas, but also the Vanaprashtins. For instance, Manu
advocates that the Vanaprasthis should study the Vedas "Sakalpa, sarahasyam"
_____________________
Dr. Palaniappan: How firm are the dates of vAcaspati mizra and bhAskara?
VA responds: We are very certain about the date of Vacaspati Misra because
colophons of his works give the year in which he wrote one of his work.
Besides, citations from his works appear in the works of other Nyaya etc.
scholars who are dated in the early half of 10th Cent. As an independent
testimony, consider the fact that Vacaspati remembers his Guru Trilochana in
the Mangala verses of Bhamati. This Trilochana, an eminent Naiyyayika, has
been dated sometime after 725 C.E. (around 800-825 C.E.) on the testimony of
Buddhist and Jaina texts by
Esther Solomon; Sanskrit and World Culture, SCHR.OR 18, S. 560-566, Berlin
1986.
The article also establishes the traditional relationship between Vacaspati
and Trilochana.

Bhaskara is refuted by Vacaspati in Bhamati. Besides some flimsy
contradictory opinions by B. N. K. Sharma, Bhaskaracharya is considered a
comtemporary of Bhagvatpada Samkara. Dr. V. Raghavan has written articles
comparing the BG Bhashya of Bhaskara to show how Bhaskara has paraphrased
Samkara's BG Bhashya while refuting the same (Although Bhaskara refers to
and refutes other 'Mayavadins' also. Besides, in his Srutaprakasika, Sri
Sudarsana Bhatta refers to Pre-Samkara Mahyavadins as "Jarat-mayavadins".
The views of this category are similar to those of Brahmadatta cited
elsewhere). The close chronology of Bhaskara and Sankara is very clear from
the Chhandogya Upanishad Bhashya of Bhaskara (fragments cited profusely in
Narottama Puri's Tippana) where Bhaskara alleges that Bhagvatpada 'stole'
some words from others in his Bhashya. Narottama Puri responds that it IS
Bhaskara who is the thief because he has copied passage after passage from
Bhagvatpada's commentary. (Narottama Puri's Tippana formed the basis of
Anadagiri's Tika on Chhandogya Bhashya, which is very clear when the two
works are read). The Tippana has been published from Mt. Abu.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com