Indian Antiquary Vol 53

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Stephen Meredyth Edwardes, Krishnaswami Aiyangar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 90

84
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(APRLE, 1924
to destroy our immediate belief in the truth of mere diversity, until it also has been transformed into immediate knowledge. The means of doing this is constant meditation (termed prasannkhyina, bhivana, dhyana, eto.)" upon it. It is only when one successfully carries out this meditation that one can realise the self. While B. like Sankara admits the aid of the scripture as osaontial for knowing the ultimate truth, he considers that that scriptural knowledge has to be supplemented by meditation. It is the result of such meditation that we have to understand from the Vidya of the Bocond samuccaya referred to above and not a mere intellectual apprehension of the truth of Aham brahma asmi or Tat tvam asi. If bhavana is thus necessary for securing moksa and if the need for it, which is a kriya, 1.e., something to be donc, is known only through the scripture, the two kandas of the Veda are drawn together more closely here than in Sankara's Advaita. As in the karma-kanda we find injunctions about sacrificial acts, so in the Upanw ads, we find, according to B. injunctions about meditative acts. Saukara makes a vital distinction between jñana and bhavand or updsana; and while he regards the latter as kriyd and admits' vidhi' in respect of it, he unoompromisingly denies that the former is either a kriya or requires a vidhi6o. A consequence, of this difference of view is that statements like Tat tvam asi which are of the first importance in Sankara's Advaita are useful in B.'s doctrine only as supplying the theme for meditation and statements like Atmanameva lokam-updsita$1 take procedence of them.
So far we have recounted the more important doctrines of B. as they can be gathered chiefly from the writings of Saukara and commentaries on them. There, however, remains an important point to be mentioned yet. Surêśvara in more than one place in his Vartika tries to explain B.'s view.point as in effect the same as Sankara's and represents B. as a vivarla-vadin instead of a parindma-valin62 Whatever of the latter view we find in B. is to be explained, according to Surêśvara, as only a provisional solution of the ultimate philoso. phical problem, exactly as it is the case in Sankara's Advaita. It seems strange that if B. did teach such a doctrine, Sankara should have subjected it to so severe and so frequent a criticism. Surêsvara is not unaware of this objection, and, raising it in his Vartika,answers it by saying that what Salikara intended to controvert was not B.'s view but rather his view as expounded by some of his followers. Generally speaking, however, Sankara's criticism appears to be directed against B. himself. However that may be, one point becomes clear from this, viz., that B. was long anterior to Sankara and Surêśvara; for B.'s teaching by then had been, in certain respecte, forgotten." Another fact of importance is that Surêsvara thought it worth his while to cito B. in his favour. Whatever B. might have taught, it is clear that his name carried weight with the Vedantins at the time, and the expounders of Vedanta found it useful to quote his authority in support of their own views. This attitude of regard on the part of Surêśvara bears out the relative antiquity of B. With the information available, it seems, we may also determine the superior limit of his date. In the very beginning of passage 10 of Br. Up.(1, iv), the word brahma occurs and Sankara in his commentary notioes two interpretations of this word, both of which he discards before giving his own explanation of it. Ananda-jpâna
O of. Ibid., p. 623, st. 948, p. 1837, st. 700 ft. See also Sankars on Br. Up. (p. 190). 0 See e.g., Sakara on Vedanta-eatrda, I, I, 4.
01 Br. Up., I, iv, 18. 2 See 6.9., Tild on Vartika, p. 668, st. 1184.
Is See Vartika p. 866, st. 1168. 04 In note 9 above, it was stated that B.'s commentary was in all probability known to Surlara and even to Ananda-jana. This need not clash with the present statement that B'a doctrine, in some of its details, was differently understood by different interpreters at the time. Witness variations of vior among the followers of Saukara regarding his teaching.