Indian Antiquary Vol 62

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 198

186
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ OCTOBER, 1933
This observation holds good of Sankara's commentaries on the nine major' upanisads and the Bhagavad-gîtâ also; in these commentaries, too, Sankara has quoted freely from the śruti texts, especially from the nine 'major' upanișads named above, and the Svetâśvatara and Kauşîtaki upaniṣads. He has not cited even one single passage from the Mândûkya.
The objection that the Mândûkya is a very short upanisad dealing only with the letter om and its mátrás, and that hence there was no occasion in which Sankara could, with propriety, quote passages from this upanisad, is not tenable. The savâsya Upanisad too is almost as short as the Mandukya; and yet Sankara has cited passages from it on scores of occasions. Similarly, though the Mandukya deals only with the letter om and its mâtrâs, there are occasions when citations from it would be quite apposite. Thus, for instance, in the his commentary on the Vaiśvânarâdhikarana (1. 2. 24 f.), Sankara has cited three passagesone from the Chandogya and two from the Ṛgveda-samhitâ, to illustrate his statement that the word vaiśvânara is used in the Veda in different senses. Now this word is used in the Mandukya (3), and there can be no doubt that a citation of this passage would be quite apposite in this connection. Similarly, there are passages in the Chândogya, Brhad-aranyaka and other major upanisads which treat of the letter om and with the jágrat, svapna and suşupti conditions, and in explaining which, citations from the Mândûkya would therefore be quite appropriate.
One should contrast with these Sankara's commentary on the Mandukya and note how he has cited from the Chândogya, Brhad-aranyaka and other major upaniṣads many passages parallel to those he is explaining.
The fact then that Sankara has not cited any passage from the Mândûkya in his other works or even mentioned the name Mândukya, shows quite plainly that he did not look upon the Mandukya as a śruti text.
(b) This is shown, further, by a comparison of Sankara's. introduction to his commentary on the Mandukya and GK with the introductions to his commentaries on the nine major upanisads. In the case of these upanisads, Sankara has, it will be seen, used the words śrutih, upanisad, mantra or brahmana15 and thus indicated that he looked upon these texts as śruti; but there is not one word found, either in the beginning or elsewhere, in his commentary on the Mândûkya and GK that would even remotely indicate that he looked upon it as a śruti text.
(c) On the other hand, it is very significant that Sankara has, in the latter, often cited śruti texts, not as mere parallel passages, but as authorities for the statements.made. Thus, for instance, when explaining the word ánanda-bhuk in Mandûkya 5, Sankara writes, eso'sya parama ananda iti śruteḥ; in explaining sarvesvaraḥ in 6, he writes prana-bandhanam hi somya mana iti śruteḥ; in explaining daksinaksi-mukhe vievo in GK. 2, he writes, indho ha vai namaisa yo'yam daksine'ksan purusa iti śrutch; in explaining sarvam janayati pranas cetomsûn purusaḥ pṛthak in GK 6, he writes, yathornanabhiḥ yatha'gner visphulingá ity-ádi-sruteḥ; in explaining ekátma-pratyaya-sáram in 7, he writes, álmetyevopásíta iti śruteḥ; and in explaining turyam tat sarva-dṛk sadá in GK. 12, he writes, na hi drastur dister viparilopo vidyata iti śruteḥ....nányad ato'sti drastṛ ity-ádi-érutch. 16 In all these instances, it will be noted, Sankara has cited the respective śruti passages as authorities on which are based the statements contained in the Mândûkya and GK. I. If he had regarded these as śruti, then these statements
18 Of these words, fruti is a generic name and is synonymous with Veda; mantra and brahmana denote the two subdivisions of the Veda (compare Apastamba-srauta-sutra, 24. 1. 31: mantra-brahmaṇayor vedandmadheyam), while the word upanigad is applied to some select portions of the Veda that deal, not with ritual but with the knowledge of Brahman. That Sankara understood by this word a part of the Veda, ia made plain by the discussion in his commentary on Mundaka 1.1.5.
15 The áruti pascages cited here by Sankara are, respectively, Brh. 4. 3. 32; Chân. 6. 8.2; Brh. 4.2.2; 1. 4. 10; 14 17 2.1.20 1.1.7 4.3.23 and 3.3. 11.