________________
XVII] Rāmānuja
107 ever, never refers to Rrahmanandin by name. Since the passage quoted in the Samkṣepa-śārīraka by Sarvajñātma muni agrees with that quoted by Rāmānuja in his Vedārtha-samgraha, it is certain that the Vākya-kāra referred to by Sarvajñātma muni and Rāmānuja, and the Dramiðācārya referred to by Sarvajñātma, Rāmānuja and Anandagiri are one and the same person. It seems, therefore, that the Vākya-kāra's style of writing, as well as that of his commentator Dramidācārya, was such that, while the monists thought that it supported their view, the Srīvaisnavas also thought that it favoured them. From Sarvajñātma muni's statement we understand that the Vākya-kāra was also called Atreya, and that he devoted a large part of his work in propounding the bhedābheda view. Upavarşa is also referred to by Sankara as a reputed exponent of the Mīmāmsā philosophy and the Brahma-sūtra; and as having been the author of one tantra on Mīmāmsā and another on the Brahmasūtral. Our conclusion, therefore, is that we have one Vākya-kāra who wrote a commentary on the Chāndogya Upanişad, and that he had a commentator who wrote in a clear and simple style and who was known as Dramidācārya, though he wrote in Sanskrit and not in Tamil. If we believe in Rāmatīrtha's identification, we may also believe that his name was Brahmanandin. But, whoever he may be, he was a very revered person in the old circle, as the epithet “bhagavān" has been applied to him by Sarvajñātma muni. Regarding Upavarşa we may say that he also was a very revered person, since Sankara applies the epithet "bhagavat” to him, and quotes him as an ancient authority in his support. He seems to have flourished sometime before Sabara Svāmin, the great Mīmāmsā commentator 2 Anandagiri and Verkațanātha, in the fourteenth century, identify Upavarşa with the Vrtti-kāra, and Venkațanātha further identifies
1 ata eva ca bhagavato' pavarsena prathame tantre ātmā-stitvā-bhidhānaprasaktau śārtrake vyaksyāma ity uddhāraḥ krtaḥ. Sankara's bhāsya on Brahmasūtra, III. 3. 53
Govindānanda, in his Ratna-prabhā, identifies Upavarşa with the Vytti-kāra. Anandagiri also agrees with this identification. In the Brahma-sūtra-bhāsya, I. 1. 19 and 1. 2. 23, Sankara refutes views which are referred to as being those of the Vrtti-kāra. What can be gathered of the Vrtti-kāra's views from the last two passages, which have been regarded by the commentator Govindānanda as referring to the Vrtti-kāra, is that the world is a transformation of God. But we can never be certain that these views refuted by Sankara were really held by the Vrtti-kāra, as we have no other authority on the point except Govindānanda, a man of the thirteenth or fourteenth century.
Savara, in his bhāsya on the Mimāmsă-sūtra, 1. 1. 5, refers to Upavarşa with the epithet " bhagavān” on the subject of sphota.
