________________
108 The Višistā-dvaita School
[CH. him in a conjectural manner with Bodhāyana. Even if Upavarsa was the Vrtti-kāra, it is doubtful whether he was Bodhāyana. On this point we have only the conjectural statement of Venkatanātha referred to above. Sankara, in his commentary on the Brahmasūtra, 1. 3. 28, refers again to Upavarsa in support of his refutation of the sphoța theoryl. But this point is also indecisive, since neither Sankara nor the Śrīvaisnavas admit the sphoța theory. There seems, however, to he little evidence. We are therefore not in a position to say anything about Upavassa, the Vịtti-kāra and Bodhāyana ? If the testimony of the Prapannāmsta is to be trusted, Bodhāyana's l'rtti on the Brahma-sūtra must have been a very elaborate work, and Dramidācārya's work on the Brahma-sūtra must have been a very brief one. This was the reason why Rāmānuja attempted to write a commentary which should be neither too brief nor too elaborate
Now we have in MS. a small work called Brahma-sūtrarhasamgraha by Sathakopa, and we do not know whether this is the Dramida commentary referred to in the Prapannāmsta. Yāmuna, in his Siddhi-traya, refers to a bhāsya-kāra and qualifies him as "parimita-gambhira-bhāşinā," which signifies that it was a brief treatise pregnant with deep sense. He further says that this bhāsva was elaborated by Srīvatsānka-Miśra. The views of these two writers were probably consonant with the views of the Śrīvaisnava school. But Yamuna mentions the name of Tanka, Bhartr-prapanca, Bhartsmitra, Bhartěhari, Brahmadatta, Sankara and Bhāskara. An account of Bhartsprapanca's interpretation of the Brahma-sūtra has been given in the second volume of the present work. An account of Bhāskara's view has been given in the present volume. Nothing is definitely known about the interpretations of Tanka, Bhartrmitra, Bharthari and Brahmadatta, except that they were against the views of the Srivaisnavas.
Rāmānuja, in his bhāşya on the Brahma-sūtra, says that Bodhāyana wrote a very elaborate work on the Brahma-sūtra and that
tarnā eta tu sabdāh iti bhagavān upacarşah. Sankara's commentary on the Brahma-sutra, 1. 3. 28.
Deussen's remark that the entire discussion of sphota is derived froin C pavarşa is quite unfounded. According to Kathi-sarit-sāgura Upavarşa was the teacher of Panini.
2 Savara, also, in his commentary on the 5th sūtra of the Vimums-sütra, I. 1. 5, refers to a Vrtti-kūra, a Mimāmsā writer prior to Savara. The fact that in the bhāsya on the same sutra Savara refers to bhagavān Upavarşa by name makes it very probable that the l'atti-kāra and Upavarşa were not the same person.
