Indian Antiquary Vol 62

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

Page 199

OCTOBER, 1933)
THE MANDUKYOPANIŞAD AND GAUDAPADA
187
themselves would have been authoritative, and there would have been no necessity to establish that they are based on sruti texts and are therefore to be accepted.
In the introductory portion of his commentary, when speaking of the prayojana (aim), Sankara writes: advaita-bhavah prayojanam dvaita-prapañcasydvidya -kytatvád vidyaya tadupalamah sydd iti brahma-vidyd-prakdéandyasydrambhaḥ kriyate" yatra hi dvaitam iva bhavati," " yatra ványad iva syat tatrányo'nyat pasyed anyo 'nyad vijaniydi," "yatra tv asya sarvam dimaivdbhdt tat kena kam pasyet kena kam vijaniyad" ity-ddi-Arutibhyo 'ayarthasya siddhih. He says in this passage (1) that the end desired is advaita : (2) that dvaita (dualism) is the result of avidyd or wrong knowledge and disappears in the light of vidyd: (3) that the work in question treats of this vidyd ; and (4) that, hence, when wrong knowledge and its result dvaita disappear, advaita will be perceived as said in the fruti passages yatra hi....and other similar ones. The fruti passages cited here by Sankara are Brh. Up. 2. 4. 14 (or 4. 5. 15); 4. 3. 31 and 4. 5. 15 : and the word advaita oocurs in the continuation of 4. 3. 31 (.e., in 4. 3. 32).11
Now, the same thing is said in Mândikya 12 also; and the fact that Sankara has not referred to it in this connection shows that he did not look upon it as śruti. If he had regard. ed it as bruti, he would surely have mentioned it here and not had recourse to the Bph. Up. for an appropriate fruti passage.
Similarly, in the next paragraph but one, Sankara asks himself the question, How does the understanding of the syllable om lead one to a knowledge of the dtman ? 'and answers :
It is so said in om ity etat etad alambanam, etad vai Satyakdma, om ity atmånam yuñjita, om iti Brahma, om-kara evedam sarvam and other similar sruti texts.'18 The same thing is said in Mandákya 1 : om ity etad akwaram idam sarvam....also; and the faot that Sankara did not inolude it among those cited shows that he did not regard it as fruti.
(d) In the course of his commentary on the Brahma-stras, Sankara has had oocasion to cite a karika from the Agamaprakarana (Vs. 16 : anádi-mayayd supto yadd jivah prabu. dhyate ajam anidram asvapnam advaitam budhyate tada) when explaining 2. 1. 9. He does not say there that it is fruti, but introduces it with the words atroktam vedántartha-sampra. daya-vidbhir dcdryaih, and thus distinctly says that the verse in question was written by : human author. Compare his commentary on 1. 4. 14, where he cites GK. III. 15 (mrl-lohavisphulingddyaih....), introducing it with the words tatha ca sampradaya-vido vadanti. A comparison of the two introductory sentences shows that Sankara made no distinction between the kårikås in the first and third prakaraņas, but looked on both as the work of a human author. 19
II. The considerations set forth above thus make it plain beyond possibility of doubt that Sankara regarded the Mandukya and the 815 karikas as the work of the samo human author. But, it may be objected here, Sankara, after all, is but one of the many
11 4.3.31-2 rend as follows: yatra od 'nyad iva sydt tatrdnyo 'nya padyed anyonyaj jighred anyo 'nyad rassayed anyo 'ngad vaded anyo 'nyao chrnuydd anyo nyan manotidnyo 'ngat opred anyonyad vijainfydd salila eko draspd 'dvaito bhavaiy epa brahma-lokah samrdf..... And it is this word advaita that has been repeated by Saakars in the sentence advaita-bhdual prayojanam cited above and later on in the sentence advaitam iti fruti-kr to vidno na wyde that ooours in his commentary on GK. I. 3.
18 The passages cited here are, respectively, Katha 2.15-17; Prana 5.2; Mahan Ar yana 24.1; Taitt. Up. 1.8.1, and Ohân. 2.23.4.
1. The words atraite flokd bhavanti ocour four times in the Agama-prakarapa when introducing the karikh : and Sankara in his commentary too uses the same word (Aoka) when referring to them. Soo Pp. 25-1, 26-2, and 32-1 (the figures refer to the pages and line of the commentary in the sooond AnandAsrama adition af 1800), and compare also his observation pranddi-slobandys pratyakay paddedha-vydáchydna. ...on P. 88 in connection with somo k Arikla in GK. II. In the commentaries on the nine major upanipad, bow. over, Raikara usually paraphragon Maka by the word mantro; and the fact that he has not done so even ongo in his commentary on the Agame-prakarans is it seems to mo, further proof that he did not look upon either the Mandokya or tho karikas contained in that prakarana as trwi.