Part 13 - Commentators on Brahma-Sutras mentioned by Ramanuja

In the opening part of the Sri-Bhashya, Ramanuja makes it plain that it is based on Bodhayana's Vritti. Referring to Bodhayana, he says:-Bhagavad Bodhayanakritam vistirnam Brahma-Sutra vrittim purvacharya sutraksharani vyakhyasamchikshipustanmatanusarena syante (I. 1). This statement may be taken to record the fact that Ramanuja's commentary is written in accordance with the abridgments made by former teachers of Bodhayana's lengthy gloss (vritti). There was evidently more than one such "abridgment" of Bodhayana available for use by him in his time. By whom these had been composed, it is not clear. Ramanuja refers at the same time to a Dramida-Bhashya (I. 1. 1 and below). That the author of the Vritti and the author of Dramida-Bhashya are different seems also evident from his work, for he refers to both in almost consecutive sentences and the context shows. that they are being referred to by him as absolutely different authorities, one supporting the view of the other. He also refers to a Vakyakara, whose identity is not easily established. (Four times in I. 1. 1 and again in I. 3. 14.) 9

The Vakyakara appears to be quoted as supporting the Sutrakara in certain places. We know the latter is none other than Badarayana but the identity of the Vakyakara is not so easily made out. He cannot obviously be the same as the Vrittikara, as the latter is quoted by the latter term. Some light is thrown on this point by the Prapanchahridaya, which has been issued in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series (No. XLV). From its contents, this work has to be assigned to a date posterior to Sankara who, though not mentioned by name, is probably meant to be referred to under the respected title of Bhagavat pada. As its name indicates, this work is a sort of encyclopadia. Among other things, it mentions, besides the Brakma-Sutras, a vritti on it by Bodhayana, called Krilakoti, and an abridgment of the latter by Upavarsha. It is not a little curious that this work, while it mentions Bhaskara's Bhashya, which belongs, as we have seen above, to the 12 th century, makes no reference to either Ramanuja or to Srikantha. This apart, it is a question. if Upavarsha, the author of the abridgment of Bodhayana, is referred to by Ramanuja as Vakyakara. It is possible that one of the "abridgments" of Bodhayana available to Ramanuja in his time was that of Upavarsha, who, however, is not mentioned by him in his Bhashya, though, as we have remarked above, he is twice mentioned by Sankara in his Bhashya. There is no means of knowing what other "abridgments " of Bodhayana, Ramanuja had before him when he wrote his Bhashya. In one place, Ramanuja refers to the Bhashyakara (I. 1. 1). Who this is, it is difficult to say, though Dr. Thibaut identifies him with Dramidacharya, the author of the Dramida-Bhashya. Similarly the Vakyakara, mentioned above, is identified by Dr. Thibaut with Tanka, who, as referred to below, is mentioned by Ramanuja in his Vedarthasangraha. is not possible to say if these identifications are correct. As Ramanuja actually quotes from the Bodhayanavritti, Ramanuja must be held to have had either the text of Bodhayana himself before him, or to be merely quoting him from the "abridgments " available to him. There is some It

ground for the belief that Ramanuja did know Bodhayana first hand, for tradition states that he had to journey as far as Kashmir to secure the text of Bodhayana. Hence possibly the direct references to the Vrittikara, meaning the author of the Vritti, i.e, Bodhayana himself, in other parts of his work (I. 1. 10; I. 2. 2; I. 3. 7; and I. 3. 32) as distinguished from the Vakyakara, in the several places quoted.21 As has been mentioned above, Ramanuja refers to a Dramidacharya (II. 2. 3) and quotes from him. He is doubtless "the author of the Dramida-Bhashya", who is twice referred to by him in his Bhashya (I. 1. 1 and II. 1. 14). Ramanuja also quotes Bhaskara, the commentator on the Brahma-Sutras (II. i. 15) and Yadavaprakasa (Ibid.). The latter may be identified with the person of the same name, who, according to tradition, was his own teacher. The latter should accordingly be taken to have composed a commentary on the Brahma-Sutras, which, in some respects, was from a point of view different from that of Ramanuja. Those mentioned by Ramanuja's Commentators. In his Vedarthasangraha, described as his first work, Ramanuja mentions not only Bodhayana, but also Tanka, Dramida, Guhadeva, Kapardin and Bharuchi. 22 Of these, quotations from Bodhayana and Dramida appear in the Sri-Bhashya but not from the others. Commentators on Ramanuja's Bhashya, however, state that they base their works not only on Bodhayana's Vritti but also on Tanka and the other authorities mentioned by Ramanuja. Thus, 21 The difference between Vrittikara and Vakyakara may be noted here. Vrittikara literally means the writer of a gloss or a critical commentary, while Vakyakara signifies one who explains the meaning of a sentence. To carry on a dispute about the meaning of a sentence is to engage in a Vakyartha, which, in its derivative sense, means a disputation. Accordingly Vrittikara would indicate a critical commentator, while Vakyakara would suggest a person who merely explains the writings of another person. 22 Quoted twice by Ramanuja in his Sri-Bhashya, I. 1. 1.

Ranga-Ramanuja in his Mulabhava-prakasika, a commentary on the Sri-Bhashya (see preliminary verses), states that his work is based on Bodhayana's Vritti, in an abridged form, and on the teachings of Tanka, Dramida and others. He also says that he presents Bodhayana's work for modern students with a view to show where he differs from Sankara. Sundararaja-desika, author of BrahmaSutrabhashya Vyakhya, a commentary on the Sri-Bhashya, likewise states that his work is based on Tanka, Dravida, Guhadeva and Bodhayana (see introductory part). A similar statement is made by the author of the Brahmasutra-bhashya Sangraha Vivaranam, which is a short exposition of the Sri-Bhashya (see opening verses). Srinivasadasa, author of Yatindramatadipika, a work embodying the main principles of Ramanuja's system, makes a similar acknowledgment and mentions amongst his chief authorities Bodhayana, Guhadeva, Bharuchi, Brahmanandi, Dramidacharya, Sriparankusanatha, Yamuna, Yatisvara, etc. (see introductory verses). Finally, Srinivasadikshita, in his Virodhavaruthini-pramathini, states that he follows the Bodhayana Vritti (see opening verses). It is possible that all these later writers are only repeating the names of these different authorities from Ramanuja's Vedarthasangraha, for some at least of them belong to quite modern times, when they cannot have had direct access to them. (See for these different writers Madras D.C. of Skt. MSS. X, pp. 3737, 3748, 3749, 3758, 3759, 3773 and 3787.) While we know that Bodhayana was the author of a vritti on the Brahma-Sutras and Dramida was the author of a Bhashya on the same work, we do not know if the rest of those mentioned above were writers of similar vrittis or Phishyas on that work. From the mention made of them in connection with the Brahma-Sutras, it has to be presumed that they were commentators of one kind or another on it. Since they are approvingly referred to by Vaishnava writers, it might be suggested that they wrote from the Vaishnava standpoint. It is worth while, at this point, to note what Ramanuja states as to how he came to write his

Sri-Bhashya. At the commencement of his work he remarks that Badarayana's work, which, he says, "was brought up from the middle of the milk-ocean of the Upanishads," had been "well guarded by the teachers of old " but whose meaning had been "obscured by the mutual conflict of manifold opinions." Hence, he undertook the composition of a new Bhashya, about which he expresses the hope: "May intelligent men daily enjoy that (the nectar of the teaching of Vyasa) as it is now presented to them in my words." These pious wishes of Ramanuja show that during a long period anterior to himself-indeed long anterior to Sankara-there had come into existence a plethora of commentators on the Brahma-Sutras, who had, by their interpretations, obscured the real meaning of the Sutras. His own commentary was intended to restore Badarayana's meaning, in the light of Bodhayana's Vritti. None of those mentioned by Ramanuja and his commentators has survived, except that of Bhaskara of which MS. copies have come down to us. (See Madras D.C. Skt. MSS. XX, Nos. 4687 and 4688.)