Part 19 - Suka and His Commentary

[Full title: Other Commentators and their Works (5) Suka]

Suka is still another commentator on the Brahma-Sutras of Badarayana. His work is known as the Suka-Bhashya. This work is known in print in the Telugu script, having been printed in 1892, at Bangalore. Copies of this edition are difficult to secure to-day and there is, so far as is known, no other edition of it. In the Avatarika to the Telugu edition, it is mentioned that the MS. copy from which it was printed was originally in the possession of one Mr. Venkatachalayya, a follower of the Bhagavatamatha, who was many years ago Amildar of Dodda Sira, in the present Tumkur District, Mysore State. Its existence having come to the knowledge of Sri Krishnananda Svami of the Smartha-matha-alias Bhagavata Sampradaya-matha -of Talakad, in the Mysore District, he requested Mr. Venkatachalayya to make a present of the MS. in his possession to the Bhagavata-matha, which he did. Sri Krishnananda Svami subsequently directed that a copy of the MS. should be made and from it, the Telugu edition was, it would seem, printed by order of the Svami. These facts are vouched for in a Srimukha granted by the Svami to Mr. Venkatachalayya, which is found printed in the introductory part of the Telugu edition. In this Srimukha it is also mentioned that Sukacharya was the first guru. (mula guru) of the Bhagavata-matha at Talakad and that its original image of Sri Venugopala Murti in it had been worshipped by him and that Sri Bhagavata, which is the essence of all Vedanta, has been its Siddhanta grantha from time out of memory. Also, that the Suka-Bhashya composed by the first guru Sukacharya, had been the Bhashya accepted by the matha and that the MS. containing it had been lost in a theft that had occurred at the matha in the time of Sri Krishnananda Svami, the first of that name and the predecessor of the

Svami of the same name who issued the Srimukha above referred to. Since then Sri Krishnananda Svami II had been on the look-out for a copy of the Bhashya, which at last he found in the possession of Mr. Venkatachalayya at Dodda Sira. The further statement is made in the Srimukha that Mr. Venkatachalayya's Telugu MS. was itself a copy of a grantha palm-leaf MS. found at Ten-Tirupati, a place in the Tinnevelly District of the Madras Presidency, where it was found in the possession of a follower of the Bhagavata-matha. The Srimukha is dated in the cyclic year Khara. responds to 1854 and 1914 A.D. Khara corThe question arises who is this Suka, or Bhagavadpadacharya Sukacharya as he is termed, after whom the Bhashya known as Suka-Bhashya goes and when approximately did he live and where. The materials for answering these questions are not ready. The Suka-Bhashya itself does not afford any definite clue as to the date of its composition. Nor are the legendary tales connected with the name of Suka of a character to enable us to infer anything certain about him or his date. That Suka is claimed as the founder of the Bhagavata-matha-also called Smartha-matha-at Talakad and that his Bhashya is taken to represent the views of that matha, we have seen above from the Srimukha referred to. Of this matha at Talakad and its Svamis, the following information has been brought together and published in the Mysore Gazetteer³ :- There is a Smartha matha of the Bhagavata-Sampradaya at Talakad presided over by a Sanyasi of the name of Balakrishnananda Svami. A village named Koppala, a few miles from Talakad, belongs to this matha; and from this circumstance the matha is sometimes called Koppala matha. The Svami is said to be descended in spiritual succession from Padmapadacharya, the immediate disciple of Sankaracharya, the three Svamis that came after Padmapadacharya being Vishnu Svami, Kshira Svami and Krishnananda Svami. In apostolic succession to the last, after a long interval came Abhinava Balakrishnananda Svami, whose disciple was Balakrishnananda Svami. The disciple 63 Mysore Gazetteer (1930 Edn.), V, 848-49.

The of the latter is the present Svami. The god worshipped in the matha is Gopalakrishna. The agent of the matha possesses a manuscript containing the Sthalapurana and certain quasi-historical matters relating to Vijayanagar, the Talakad chiefs and the Mysore kings. He has also two palm leaves containing copies of two inscriptions which register grants to the matha by Madhvamantri and by a Talakad chief named Chandrasekhara Wadiyar in Saka 819 and 916 respectively. The former inscription is printed as T.-Narsipur 47. There is an anicut or dam across the Cauvery near Talakad which is known the as Madhvamantri-Katte, Madhvamantri who built it being supposed to be Vidyaranya. manuscript referred to above contains a verse giving Saka 816 as the date of the construction of the dam by Madhvamantri, nearly 500 years before Vidyaranya's time. The Madhvamantri who built the dam is probably identical with the Madhvamantri of the Goa plates (see M. A. R. for 1909, para 91), who was a contemporary of Vidyaranya. With regard to the Talakad chiefs, the manuscript informs us that the first chief Somaraja Wadiyar, who received a few districts as an Umbali from Vidyadeva Raja of Anegondi, ruled from Saka 785 to 837. It was the second chief, Chandrasekhara Wadiyar, who is said to have ruled from Saka 838 to 915, 78 years, that made the grant to the matha in Saka 916. Other Talakad chiefs are stated to have reigned for 91, 86, 84, 76, 85 and 87 years each. These statements are enough, in the opinion of Rao Bahadur Narasimhachar, to show the valueless characters of the manuscripts. Though this is so, there is no need, in the present state of our knowledge, to reject the whole tradition relating to the matha as incredible. The succession given above is: Padmapadacharya; Vishnu Vishnu Svami; Krishna Svami; Krishnananda Svami; after a long time from this last came Abhinava Balakrishnananda Svami; his disciple was Balakrishnananda Svami; his disciple was Balakrishnananda Svami, the present presiding guru. The order of succession given in the Srimukha quoted above is nearly the same: Sukacharya; Govindabhagavadpadacharya; Sripadmapada. charya; Vishnusvami; Kshirasvami; Sri Krishnanandasvami I; Abhinava Balakrishnanandasvami; Sri Krishnanandasvami, who issued the Srimukha. Thus these two lists exactly tally except for the addition of the names of Sukacharya and Govindabhagavadpadacharya in the beginning, and they evidently embody a tradition that need not

be thrown away. It will be noticed that Suka is claimed in the Srimukha as the guru of Govindabhagavadpada, who was the guru of Sankaracharya and the disciple of Gaudapadacharya, the paramaguru of Sankaracharya and the author of the Karika on the Mandukyopanishad. It is also noteworthy that Sripadmapadacharya, to be identified with Padmapada, a disciple of Sankaracharya, is claimed as the successor of Govindabhagavadpada. Finally, it is equally worthy of note that Vishnusvami is claimed to be Padmapada's successor in both the lists. This Vishnusvami has to be identified with the founder of the Vishnu cult which exalted the Radha-Krishna worship and which in later times was absorbed by the sect associated with the name of Vallabhacharya. The teaching of Vishnusvami, as is well known, found full exposition in the Krishna Karnamrita, written by Lilasukha Bilvamangala, who hailed from what is now Travancore.04 This work had such an influence on Chaitanya that he is said to have based his own system of teaching on it. As a matter of fact, Vishnusvami differed little from Anandatirtha in his teaching and the fact that Chaitanya was indebted as much to Vishnusvami's as to Anandatirtha's teachings shows that their general drift was the same except for the special stress that Vishnusvami laid on the Radha-Krishna cult. To-day if Vishnusvami's cult has practically disappeared, it might be said to be due to its absorption by Vallabha in the north and Anandatirtha in the south. Suka also figures in a MS. giving the succession list of the Sankaracharya Mutt. This list starts with Siva as the first occupant, with Vishnu, Brahma, Vasistha, Sakti, Parasara and Vyasa following one after another in regular 64 A disciple of Padmapada was Krishna-Lila Sukha, the author of Srichinha Kavyam which narrates the story of Krishna. Durgaprasada-yati, a student of Krishna-Lila Sukha, wrote a commentary on the work. (See Madras T.C M., V, A.R. No. 4156.) According to Durgaprasada-yati, Padmapada lived at Kodandamangalam. 65 See Sringeri Guruparampara. Seshagiri Sastri, Report on Sanskrit and Tamil MSS., No. 2, p. 99,

succession. After Vyasa, came, it is said, Suka, who was, it is recorded, followed by Gaudapada, Govindabhagavadpada, Sankaracharya and his successors. In Govindanatha's Sankaracharya Charita, this order of succession is repeated and Suka occupies the identical position in the list set out in it.66 It will be seen that the Suka referred to here is the son of Badarayana, a person quite different from Suka, the author of the Bhashya. That Suka, the son of Vyasa, is not altogether a mythical personage is shown by the reference to him in Sankaracharya's Bhashya. In IV. 2. 14, Sankaracharya quotes a passage from the Mahabharata to show Suka obtained his release. 07 In the Suka-Bhashya all the colophons read alike and state that it was composed by "the other Suka" 67 who was the incarnation of the Bhagavat Badarayani Sukacharya, i.e., Suka, the son of Badarayana, the famous author of the Brahma-Sutras. This Suka should therefore be called rightly the second or the later Suka, who was regarded as the incarnation of the original Suka who appears in the Mutt lists referred to above. This Suka II describes himself as the incarnation of the original Suka, the son of Badarayana 68; as of the Srivatsa gotra; of unfaltering austerity; famous for every kind of knowledge; Paramahamsa; guru of gurus (paramaguru); one who has an ascertained knowledge (of Brahman); Srimadbhagavata raddhanta (i.e., one who has conclusively demonstrated the truth of the holy Bhagavata); and Bhagavatpadacharya (i.e., the occupier of the sanctified seat of office as head of Mutt). In one of the invocation stanzas (see stanza No. 4) he pays homage to Sri Gopalakrishna, the first and original guru of the Mutt, an avatar of Sri Krishna and his subsequent followers, Narayana and other Paramahamsas, and to his own immediate guru, he says he 66 Seshagiri Sastri, Report No. 2, p. 102. 16 67 He is spoken of as 'Aparavatara" in which Apara means another, second, additional, later, posterior, etc, 88 Srivatsakulatilaka,

undertakes the writing of the Bhashya on the BrahmaSutras."9 Suka quotes more than once a previous work of his called Sruti-gita-Bhashya. (See for example his BrahmaSutra Bhashya, II, 1. 10, Svapakshadoshachcha). The Sruti-gita forms part of the tenth canto of the Bhagavata Purana, which is perhaps its most popular canto. The present writer has in his possession a fragment of a MS. commentary on the Bhagavata in which the Sruti-gita is presented with a Sanskrit-Telugu commentary. The author's name is not mentioned in it. Whether this is the work of the Suka referred to in the Suka-Bhashya, it is impossible to say. But it recites at its commencement the following verse with which the Suka-Bhashya also begins:- tam vande paramacarya padukikrtamanmatham | sukasastragurum sitaramayam manujakrtim || Tam vande Paramacharyam padukikritamanmatham Sukasastragurum Sitharamaryam manujakritim || In ending this canto the MS. ends with the invocation Sri Sitaramabhyannamah, an invocation which marks the beginning and end of each adhyaya and each pada of the Suka Bhashya. These may be accidental resemblances, for the Suka-Bhashya is entirely in Sanskrit and it is probable that the Sruti-gita Bhashya referred to by Suka in his Bhashya was also composed by him entirely in Sanskrit. As has been shown above, Vallabha based his commentary on the Bhagavata and Anandatirtha also laid stress on the Bhagavata. An analysis of Suka's Bhashya shows that Suka's use of the Bhagavata is fairly wide. The largest number of citations, however, seem to be from the 10 th canto which, considering its importance, seems natural.70 09 TO The commentator Krishnacharya interprets "the other Paramahamsas" as referring to Brahma, Narada, Vyasa and Sukacharya. 70 The five adhyayas 29 to 30 in the Tenth Skandha of the Bhagavata are called Rasapanchadhyayi, because they deal with the Rasakrida of Sri Krishna. There is a commentary called Visuddharasadipika on this particular part, by Sri Misra Narayanapada. (Madras Tri. Cat. of MSS., V. I, C. R. No. 4996, pp. 6884-87.)

The 2 nd, 7 th, 11 th and 12 th are also referred to often. It may well be asked why this stress on the Bhagavata? Suka says in commenting on I. 2. 17, Sarvopanishad sarabhutam Srimadbhagavatam. We may compare this statement with what, in his Bhagavata Tatparya Nirnaya, I. i, Anandatirtha says:-Brahmasutra Mahabharata Gayatri veda sambandhascha ayamgranthah. Again, Anandatirtha observes in his Bhagavata Tatparya Nirnaya, III :-Sarvavedetihasanam saram saram samudritam satu samsravayamasa Maharajam Parikshitam : In Bhagavata you find the essence of the essence of the Vedanta. Such essence was related by Suka to Maharaja Parikshit. In commenting on III. 3. 1, Om sarvavedanta pratyayam, etc., Suka states that the Bhagavata is sarvavedantapratyaya. Again, commenting on III. 3. 6, Upasamhara, etc., Suka says that all Puranas point to bheda only. If so why select only Bhagavata? Because it is said that among the eighteen (Puranas), the foremost is the Bhagavata (Dasashtam Sri Bhagavata)". 66 In the Bhagavata school, of which Suka is the chief modern exponent, bheda is the cardinal doctrine and that doctrine is the fundamental basis of bhakti as enunciated in the Bhagavata. The second adhyaya of the Bhagavata epitomises the whole work. As the saying goes, dvitiye dvitiyo advitiyaha: The second verse in the second canto (of the Bhagavata) stands unrivalled :- kan kan sabdasya hi brahmana esa pamtha | yannamabhidhyayati dhiraparthaih || paribhraman tatra na vindate'rthan | mayamaye vasanaya sayanah || ( srimadbhagavate, 2 - 2-2 ) Sabdasya hi brahmana esha pantha Ennamabhidhyayati dhiraparthaih || Paribhraman tatra na vindaterthan | Mayamaye vasanaya sayanaha || Srimadbhagavata, II. 2. 2. This may be broadly translated thus :The prime meaning of the word Brahman points directly to Vishnu, according to the Sruti text Brahmasabdasya

Vishnavaveva (the meaning of Brahma is the all-pervad ing Vishnu); but the ignorant jiva roams about without knowing the exact manner of realizing him, because he himself is enveloped in the covering of Jivachchadika-maya, beyond which he is unable to see Brahman, being in want of (Brahma-) jnana. The suggestion here is that bheda is the doctrine taught in the Bhagavata and that without a realization of bheda, jnana (i.e., right knowledge) is impossible. Hence the attempt made by Suka at every step in his Bhashya to differentiate the jiva from Isa. That doctrine is as fundamental to his position as a Bhashyakara as to the Bhagavata itself on which his interpretation is based.71 At any Suka, the Brahma-Sutra commentator, should, in view of what has been stated above, be deemed a later person of the same name, who reckoned himself an avatar of the original Suka, the son of Vyasa. Neither from the particulars he gives of himself nor from the internal references contained in his Bhashya is it possible to fix his date with any degree of certainty. That he was posterior to Anandatirtha seems fairly inferable from the fact that he follows Anandatirtha in his comments. rate, it cannot be doubted that Suka, the Bhashyakara, was actually indebted to Anandatirtha's commentary. He quotes in I. 1. 1, while trying to explain what goes to make a Sutra, the verse quoted by Anandatirtha: Alpaksharam asandigdham saravadvisvatomukham dyancha sutram sutravido viduhu", etc., which is not cited by any other commentator. Like Anandatirtha, Suka allows that women, Sudras and those that are servants of Brahmanas (Sthri sudra Brahmabandhu) are entitled to hear the Bharata and other epic works (cf. Anandatirtha's " AstobhamanavaA more modern attempt to show that the Brahma-Sutras have their parallels in the Srimadbhagavata and that the latter is but a commentary on the former, is that of Pandit Haridas Vidyavagisa Bhagavatacharya's Brahma-Sutras in Bengali, with the BhagavataBhashya which has been translated into Bengali. This topic is further referred to below. 13

Bhashya, I. 1. 1 and Suka's Bhashya, I. 1. 1, pp. 43-45). Again, like Anandatirtha in I. 1. 1, Suka in his Bhashya says that Sri Narayana having been approached through prayers by Brahma, Rudra and others, declared that he would incarnate in the house of Parasara and be born as the son of Parasara and Satyavati, and destroy all the illinformed and ignorant-minded people and manifest himself in the person of Krishnadvaipayana (Badarayana) and exhibit to the world-through his works (Itihasas and Puranas) which would explain the gist of all the Vedas and Vedanta, and through his Brahma-Sutras, which would unmistakably declare the essence of the Vedas-that Krishna, who in his undivided form is Narayana, is the Brahman (Suka Bhashya, I. 1. 1, p. 35-36; cf. with Anandatirtha in I. 1. 1). Again, in discussing I. 1. 1, Suka in his Bhashya says that Brahmajijnasa should be undertaken only in order to know who is to be approached by upasana for realizing Moksha and out of whose grace such Moksha is obtainable as the result of upasana. Suka says that the deity of upasana, according to Badarayana, is no other than Sri Krishna, the undivided form of Sri Nara yana, who is extolled throughout the Srimadbhagavata (Suka's Bhashya, p. 246). This seems also an echo from Anandatirtha, who, in his Anuvyakhyana (I. 1. 1), quotes the last two Sutras of the Purva- Mimamsa (viz., Sa Vishnurahahi and Tam Brahmetyachakshate) which indicate that the Brahman who is to be meditated upon to realize Moksha-the Mahapurushartha-is Vishnu, who is the Brahman about whom we are to conduct the jijnasa mentioned in Uttara-Mimamsa, I. 1. 1. Suka's view-point is that jijnasa is only for "Mokshalabha", i.e., obtaining Moksha through knowledge obtained by jijnasa. This is the position of Anandatirtha, who under I. 1. 1 states that the attaining of Moksha through the grace of Parabrahma-Vishnu is the only objective aimed at by jijnasa. (Parasyabrahmano Vishnoh prasadaditi va bhavate, Brahma-Sutra, I. 1. 1; cf. Suka's Bhashya I. 1. 1: Mokshopayabhuta Bhagavadbhaktireva

etad sastrasya vishayah tadrisa bhaktidvara mokshalabhayeva prayojanam.) Suka, in I. 1. 2, says that some authorities enunciate that Brahman is Nirvisesha, and that expressions which describe Brahman as jagadjanmadikarana, etc., are to be understood as indicating no lakshana. It is not possible, he states, to establish a Parabrahman who is devoid of lakshana and at the same time capable of srishti, sthithi and laya, which are his chief characteristics. According to Suka, Badarayana's view is that Brahman should be recognized by the characteristics indicated in the Sutra Janmadyasya yathah, creation, protection and destruction, which are the chief characteristics by which Brahman should be understood. This is, he adds, the essence of all the Vedanta (Sarvavedanta saram). This view closely follows Anandatirtha's in I. 1. 2, where in declaring Brahmalakshana, he quotes from the Skanda Purana :-Srishti sthithi samhara niyamana jnanajnana bandha mokshayathah; utpaththi sthithi samhara niyati jnanamavrutihi; bandha mokshancha purushath yasmath sa Harirekaratiti Skande. This has to be compared with Suka's words: Utpaththi sthithi laya samanarthah pravesa niyamanadinam sthithirantharbhavanaprutha upadesah. This is to support his view that the chief lakshanas of Parabrahman are known through the lakshanas of creation, protection and destruction and He cannot therefore be without lakshanas. Parabrahman in the form of Sri Hari is the sole Lord to grant, out of His grace, Moksha. If Nirvisesha Brahman is postulated, the result of jijnasa would prove to be nothing; on the other hand, a contradictory result will be attained (viparita phalaneva drashtavyani)." In parts of his comments on I. 1. 2, Suka follows. the actual wording of Anandatirtha. Thus, the following is from Anandatirtha's comment as found in the Anuvyakhyana :-Janmadasyeti tenaitad vishnoreva svalakshanam, 72 This is the gloss of Krishnacharya, the commentator of Suka Bhashya, see Suka Bhashya, page 49.

This might be compared with the following from Suka's comments on the identical Sutra (I. 1. 2):-Jagadjanmadi karanatvam parabrahmano lakshanam bhavatiti praha janmadyasya iti. asyodbhavadi hetutvam sakshadeva svalakshanam. Again, Anandatirtha in his Anuvyakhyana, commenting on I. 1. 1, says in ascribing to Brahman paripurnaguna :Brahmasabdopi hi gunapurtimeva vadatyayam. This may be compared with Suka's words in I. 1. 2: Gunagana paripurnatvena saviseshatvameva hi param Brahmana upadisyate. Again, Anandatirtha in his Anuvyakhyana, in commenting on I. 1. 1, says, in describing Brahman as possessed of countless gunas :-Athonantagunam Brahma nirbheda mapi bhavyate. This may be compared with Suka's words in I. 1. 2 Aparimeyatvat bhutananta parama mangala guna gana paripurnatvena saviseshatva meva hi param Brahmana upadisyate. : Again, Anandatirtha quotes in support of his interpretation of Brahma-Sutra I. 1. 3, the following from the Skanda Purana : rgyajussamatharvasca bharatam pascaratrakam | mularamayanacaiva sastramityabhidhiyate || yaccanukulametasya tacca sastram prakirtitam | athonyo gramthavistaro naiva sastram kuvartma tat || Rigyajussamatharvascha Bharatam pancharatrakam Mularamayanamchaiva sastramithyabhidhiyate || Yachchanukulametasya tachcha sastram prakirtitam Athonyo granthavistaro naiva sastram kuvartma tat This might be compared with Suka's commentary on I.1.3, where he thus quotes the first half of the above two verses: rgyajussamatharvakhya bharatam pancaratrakam | yaccanukulametesam taca sastram prakirtitam || Rigyajussamatharvakhya Bharatam pancharatrakam Yachchanukulametesham tachcha sastram prakirtitam||7 73 Here etesham is wrongly put down for etasya, thus making the subject singular and the pronoun plural,

Suka quotes this as a well-known "Vachana" without pointing to the source from which it is taken. Anandatirtha quotes the Skanda Purana as his source. Suka next quotes the Sruti text, Yo brahmanam vidadhati purvam yovai vedamscha prahinoti tasmai iti, which is found quoted already by Anandatirtha in the opening part of his work Bhagavata Tatparya Nirnaya, where he proves that Vishnu imparted the knowledge of all the Sastras to Brahman in order to show that he formed the source of all knowledge-Sastrayonitvat. Similarly, what Anandatirtha says in I. 1. 2, Janmadasya yathah, abhigna sarvagna, etc., is repeated by Suka in his comments on I. 1. 6. Again, when commenting on II. 2. 44, Vipratishedhachcha, Suka quotes the following verses in support of his view without mentioning the source from which they are taken: tvam hi rudra mahabhaga mohasastrani karaya || atathyani vitathyani viparitani darsaya | prakasikurucatmanam aprakasamca mam kuru || ityadi . Tvam hi rudra mahabhaga mohasastrani karaya || Atathyani vitathyani viparitani darsaya Prakasi kuruchatmanam aprakasancha mam kurul ityadi, etc. This might be compared with the following from Anandatirtha's Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya, I. 48-49, where he says he quotes as from the Varaha Puranam the following:- tvamca rudra mahabaho mohasastrani karaya || atathyani vitathyani darsayasva mahabhuja | prakasam kuru catmanam aprakasaca mam kuru || Tvamcha rudra mahabaho mohasastrani karaya || Atathyani vitathyani darsayasva mahabhuja | Prakasam kuru cha atmanam aprakasam cha mam kuru || Though Suka gives the verses slightly differently, there can be no question that he has taken them from Anandatirtha. Next, in commenting on Sutra I. 1. 15, Taddhetu vyapadesachcha (identical with Anandatirtha's I. 1. 14), Suka

quotes the identical Sruti (Taittiriya) text referred to by Anandatirtha :dya-gla 6: gjogja, 1 yadesa akasa anando nasyat || - (tai 2- 7 ) • Kohyevanyath kah pranyath Yadesha akasa anando nasyath || -(Taitt. 2-7.) Then, in commenting on Sutra I. 1. 16, Mantravarnikamevacha giyate, Suka quotes likewise the same Sruti texts as Anandatirtha, Brahmavidapnoti param and Satyam jnanam anantam Brahma, practically copying Anandatirtha's commentary ipsissima verba. Further, in commenting on I. 1. 18 (corresponding to Anandatirtha's Bhashya I. 1. 17. Bhedavyapadesachcha), Suka gives the Sruti text quoted by Anandatirtha: Adrisye Anatme Anirukte Anilayane abhayam pratishtam vindate aththaso abhayam gato bhavati. Likewise, in his comments on I. 1. 20, Asminnasyacha tadyogam sasti (Anandatirtha's Bhashya, I. 1. 17), Suka quotes the Brihat Samhita text, Sironarayana paksho dakshina savya evacha etc., which occurs in Anandatirtha's comments on Brahma-Sutra I. 1. 15, Mantravarnikamevacha giyate. It should be noted that this quotation occurs in the same Adhikarana in both the commentaries -i.e., Anandamayadhikaranam. In Suka, this quotation practically ends his comments on I. 1. 20 and with it he ends Anandamayadhikarana. Suka argues that if Brahman has avayavas, then he cannot be described as one not possessing avayavas, gunas, akara, etc. Again, in his comments on Brahma-Sutra I. 1. 26, Chchandobhidhanan netichet nathatha chetorpana nigadathathahi darsanam, corresponding to Anandatirtha's comments on Brahma-Sutra I. 1. 25, Suka quotes the same Sruti text Chetorpanartham vinigadyate. Similarly, the Purushasukta text quoted by Anandatirtha under BrahmaSutra I. 1. 26, Bhutadipada vyapadesopapaththe schaivam, is enlarged by Suka who quotes in full the same text

under his comments on Brahma-Sutra I. 1. 28, Upadesa bhedannetichennobhayasminnapya virodhat. In I. 2. 19, Antharyam adhidaivadhilokadhishu taddharmavya padesat, Suka follows Ramanuja in adding lokadhi (where lokadhi is omitted by Anandatirtha), but follows Anandatirtha's interpretation, quoting the same Sruti text, though he quotes it at greater length. (See Anandatirtha's Brahma-Sutra Bhashya I. 2. 18.) Similarly, Suka's I. 2. 20 follows Anandatirtha's I. 2. 19.74 Again, Suka's comment on Brahma-Sutra I. 1. 21, Anthastaddharmopadesath, is but a reflection of the comment of Anandatirtha on I. 1. 20, the corresponding Sutra and on I. 1. 21 Bheda vyapadesachcha in the same adhikarana Antas tatvadhikarana of Anandatirtha and Antaradhikarana of Suka. Though Suka adopts bheda throughout, he is careful to avoid anything approaching Anandatirtha's theory of taratamya bheda as among jivas. Anandatirtha holds to pancha bheda, which are fundamental to his system. Suka, however, accepts only jivesa bheda and jiva prakriti bheda. We may now sum up and note the points in which Suka and Anandatirtha agree and those in which they appear to differ. First, as to the points on which they agree:- (1) Sastrasya nityatvam [i.e., Sabda (Veda) is eternal]. (2) Jagatjanmadikaranam Narayana eva (i.e., Vishnu is the cause, etc. of the world). (3) Ata sastrayonitvam tasyoktam, i.e., Vishnu can be understood only through the proofs manifested in the Sastra. (4) Tatascha Parabrahmano Narayanasya nikhila jagatjanmadikaranatva rupa lakshanam siddham (i.e., Parabrahma Narayana is the sole possessor of the characteristic 74 But Suka reads I. 2. 20 thus: Na cha Smartha matha dharmabhi lapaschariraschya. Anandatirtha and Sankara, however, take schariraschya with the next Sutra. In this Suka agrees with Ramanuja and Srikantha. But Srikara agrees with Sankara and Anandatirtha'

of jagatjanmadikaranatva, i.e., creation, protection and destruction. This is the established fact throughout the Sutras). Next, as to the points on which Suka and Anandatirtha differ, we may note the following - 1. In his interpretation of I. 1. 11, Gati samanyat, Suka says that those who practise Bhakti in the nine forms. mentioned in the Bhagavata are on a level. This is a departure from Anandatirtha, who holds that there is taratamya among the nine different kinds of faithful devotees. They are not put by Anandatirtha on an equal footing as is done by Suka. Suka holds that these are all equal in Moksha-tasmadanyatamapi navanama pi bhaktinam moksharupaphalasya samanatvat. Anandatirtha holds: Mokshaye laye taratamyam devanamapi drishyate (see Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya, I). Suka repeats the equality of all bhaktas of whatever nature, among the nine different kinds, in Moksha, in I. 1. 12:-Tasmat sravanadinam taratamyam nastiti siddham. We ought to compare this with what Anandatirtha says in his Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya (I. 51.):-Nirdoshatvam tara. tamyam muktanamapi chochyate, in which both faultlessness and gradation among Muktas is clearly postulated. 2. Suka holds there is bheda as between Jiva and Isvara; but not as between jivas themselves. Anandatirtha holds that there is difference between jivas as well. Suka, in commenting on I. 1. 18, Bhedavyapadesachcha, stresses the remark that there being many Sutras referring to Bheda, such as Bhedavyapadesachcha (I. 1. 18); Bhedavyapadesachchannyaha (I. 1. 22); Bhedaayupadesachcha (I. 3. 4); Bhedasrutervailakshanyachcha (II. 4. 17); Bhedannetiche-nnaikasyamapi (III. 3. 2); adhikantu bhedanirdesat (II. 1. 22), etc. in the BrahmaSutras, critics, not properly understanding their bheda import, exercise their verbal ingenuity for interpreting them from the abheda point of view, through their ardent love of mere contradiction. Suka hints that even in the Sutrakara's time there was observable this tendency towards

abheda and consequently to do away with that tendency, the Sutrakara specifically introduced into the BrahmaSutras this species of Sutras establishing the Bheda view-point. Suka, in commenting on I. 2. 14, says that the Jiva is a Sakha of Isa and not his equal. The Bhagavata, according to him, is devoted to the demonstration of the difference between Jiva and Paramatman in their respective svarupa (I. 2. 17). Jiva is jiva; and Paramatman is Paramatma; both will not and do not undergo any transformation in any kind of manifestation (I. 2. 18). Both Suka and Anandatirtha think that there is bheda in svarupa between Jiva and Paramatman, a point in which they fundamentally differ from Sankara, who holds that both are one in manifestation and svarupa; only in manifestation it is vyavahara. Again, commenting on III. 3. 19, Samana evancha bhedachcha, Suka says that bheda does not extend to the different avataras. All avataras are samana in svarupa like gold and jewels made out of gold (kanaka and makuta), though they seem different as between themselves. This is in accordance with the view of Anandatirtha. Commenting on III. 3. 25, Vedhadyartha bhedat, Suka says that Jiva can approximate (in guna) as far as Parabrahman. Tatra jiva lakshanam sarva Vedhadhikam Parabrahmani nochyate. Adh denotes that Jiva can get to Brahman. But why does not the Jiva become part of Parabrahman? Because only deha sarupya is possible and Brahman becomes, through mantras, Vasa. The term Vedha has been used and not Brahman. This is to show that assimilation with Brahman is not possible. Commenting on III. 4. 39, Athasthvithara iyayo lingachcha, Suka comments that, to those who are imbued with Bhakti and Yoga and who deserve the best, there shall be sama darsana. Commenting on III. 4. 40, Tadbhuta, etc., Suka says that this Sutra suggests the grant of samatva to those who approach the Brahman with humility. "To those who show themselves as humble servants of mine (Sri Haridasa bhavabhyah), I give them my own rupa (tadrupabhavam) as declared in the Sruti." Bheda, between

jiva and Isa thus seems the fundamental basis of Suka's Bhashya. In keeping with this view of the dependence of the jiva on the Isa is the doctrine of Moksha propounded by Suka. Commenting on IV. 4. 17 Jagadvyapara varjam, Suka asks Does the mumukshu attain all the eight qualities of Paramatma, such as Jagadvyapara, etc., after attaining realization (mukti)? The answer is Jagadvyapara varjam. He attains Brahmatva-excluding the eight qualities. He He gets is a paratantra, subordinate to Paramatma. moksha because of the grace of the Almighty (Bhagavat prasada labdhasya mokshasya pratyagatmana sannihitatvamasti). This lack of jagadvyapara shows the mumukshu's paralantratva. Commenting on IV. 4. 21, Suka winds up by saying that the mumukshu enjoys bliss in association with (sakam) Parabrahman. This is the objective of the desire of the jiva. Suka, however, finds some difficulty in holding strictly to his view that there is no bheda as between jivas. At one point, he appears to evade the issue. Thus, though he quotes, while commenting on I. 3. 43 Sushuptyutkrantyor bhedena, texts from the Bhagavata indicating bheda between jivas, he does not identify himself with them. He simply passes them by, saying that there is bheda between jivas and Isvara. In places like this, jiva paraspara bheda seems to be tacitly denied by him. He appears to quote these texts only to establish bheda between jiva and Isvara. According to him, none but Parabrahman can be the Lord of the Universe. However, Suka, in commenting on III. 2. 40 Purvantu Badarayano hetu vyapadesath, states that Narayana grants phala to jivas in keeping with the merit of their past actions (Narayanat tattat jivanam tattat purvanu gunyena phalam bhavatiti nischetavyam). This would seem to indicate that taratamya as between jivas would seem to be recognized by Suka, though he does not enlarge on the topic. This is a rare statement; usually he propounds bheda

as only between jiva and Brahman, but does not enlarge on differences between jiva and jiva. 75 In commenting on I. 1. 13 Anandamayobhyasat, Suka closely follows the reasoning adopted by Jayatirtha in his Nyaya Sudha, when explaining charama sabda in I. 1. 25 Jyotishcharanabhidhanat. In his comments on the latter, Jayatirtha raises the issue whether charama sabda is applicable to Parabrahman or to the Jiva and answers by saying that it is applicable only to the former. In dealing with the identical point when commenting on I. 1. 13, Suka sets down the same view and concludes by saying that in this Sutra (I. 1. 13 ) it is Paramatman only that is primarily contemplated and that there is not even a distant suggestion that there is abheda between Jiva and Isvara (tasmat iha sariratvasya Paramatmanyeva paryavasanat na jivesvara abheda prasakti gandhopi iti nischɩyate). Suka's interpretation of I. 1. 13, Anandamayabhyasal, bears also evident traces of adoption of the phraseology used by Jayatirtha in his Nyayasudha on the same Sutra. Suka opens his argument thus: " 88 << sarvavedantasare purusavidho'nvayo'tra caramo'nnamayadisu || " iti atratya carama sabdasya anandamayaparataya taittariyake sruyate || sru || tasmadva etasmadvijnanamayat anyontara atmanandamaya " | iti sarvavedantasaramnata carama sabdaparyayabhutenatratyananda- mayasabdena kim paramatmevopadisyate ? ahosvitparasmadatmano'nyajivah iti viciki- tsayamuttaratra tasyaisa eva sarariatme " ti sarirasabdena jivasyabhidhanatsa evatrokta caramasabdaparyaya bhutanandamaya sabdabhidheyah || iti krtva yacaramassatvamiti asminnarthe paryavasanat jivesvarabhedasca siddha ityevam prapte pratibrumah || paramatmaivehanandamayobhavitu- marhati kasmat ? abhyasat || paramatmani khalvanando'bhyasyate | abhyaso nama avrttih tatha hi anandamayam paramatmanam prastutyaiva sruyate || rasovai sah || rasamyevayam labdhva anandi bhavati || iti atrarasasabdenanandamayo paramatmaivocyate || .... 75 Charama Sabda has to be differentiated from Charamasloka, which has a large literature associated with it in Sri-Vaishnava philosophy. See Charamasloka tatparyadipika, see Madras Catalogue of Sht. MSS. IV, i. C. page 3665 (b); R. No. 3665 (b), etc. In the Rahasyatraya of Sri Vedantacharya, we have a treatise on the three great principles of Sri-Vaishnava religion: Ashtakshara, Dvaya and Charamasloka, see for a commentary on it, Madras Tri. Cat. of MSS. V, 1. Skt. C. p. 6718, R. No. 4714.

tasmat paramatmanyeva bahukrta anando'bhyasyate || tasmatsa evedyanandamaya sabde navagamyate || na tu jivah || Compare this with Jayatirtha's comments in his Nyayasudha on the same Sutra :- gunavacinastvanandadayah te gunini brahmani vartitum narhatiti anyatra prasiddhah || guni- guninorabhedasttra hi kundaladhikarana eva saksatsutrakrta vaksate || taittariyake sa va esa puruso' narasamaya ityadina'nnamaya pranamaya manomaya vijnanamayanandamayah pathyate || tatra samsayah || kimetenamayadayah paramatmaiva uta tadanyah kasciditi | sarvatra brahmasabdasravanattasya ca vista esavanyatra prayogat | kim tavatprapte || anya evannamayadisabdartha iti || kutah annamayadi sabda hi vikaravacinah || Thus, Suka concedes: (1) Jivesa bheda, i.e., that jiva and Isa are different; (2) Jagat satyatvam; Sastrasya nityatvam; (3) Jiva can attain to the sarupya of Paramatman; (4) Equality in svarupa as between avataras (III. 3. 19); and (5) Both hold that Parabrahman is Nirguna in so far as he is held to be absolutely free from satva, rajas and tamo gunas; but he is held to be full of anandadi sadgunas in regard to which he is described as gunapurna. does not agree with Anandatirtha in assigning taratamyabheda among jivas. Suka, however, holds with Anandatirtha that Paramatman is one, in all his multifarious forms; there being no bheda between his avataras. But Suka From what has been set out above, it will be conceded that Suka came long after Anandatirtha. How long after, it is not possible to state definitely. But seeing that the position assumed by Suka, though basically identical with that of Anandatirtha, is still one somewhat at variance from his, it might be suggested that it is an attempt at producing a Bhashya on the Brahma-Sutras to suit the special position of the Bhagavata school represeated by him. The tradition of this school was evidently one of bheda but not probably bheda of the logical type propounded by Anandatirtha and propagandized with zeal by his school. The Smartha or the Bhagavata matha of Talkad claimed Suka's Bhashya as its own possibly for two reasons: (a) to provide a Bhashya for itself and its adherents, which seemed a necessity seeing that other leading maths had their own; and (6) to suggest that though

it followed the bheda theory in its interpretation, it differed in certain respects from the theory as worked out by Anandatirtha. These differences, though they do not go to the root of the matter, are possibly thought of to be material enough to justify the claim of a separate school. It is possible too that it adheres to quite an ancient tradition. However this may be, these considerations would suggest a date for Suka, the Bhashyakara, far removed from Anandatirtha. While Suka follows closely the latter's Bhashya and as might be expected holds fast to his cardinal doctrine of bheda, he agrees to differ from him in certain other phases of his doctrine. Considerable time should have elapsed between the two for Suka to attempt at popularising such a radical departure from the bheda view propounded by Anandatirtha. Probably we may not be far wrong if we premised that a couple of centuries divides the one from the other. If Anandatirtha belongs to the 13 th century A.D., Suka may, perhaps, be set down to at least the 16 th century. His criticism of the Advaita position would induce one to shift him to the next century even. In it, he envisages a fully developed Advaita attitude. Suka's language is also quite modern; he quotes sparingly from the Srutis, except where he takes from Anandatirtha and the Telugu part of his Srutigita is almost conversational in character. This apart, the type of bhakti-utter dependence on God in a spirit of humility-would also seem to signify a late date. Judging from the criticisms he offers on the Advaita School of his time, which is referred to by him at different points of his Bhashya, Suka's work should, if anything, be advanced by perhaps another century. Thus Suka, in fact, holds up devotion to Vishnu of a somewhat extreme type as the ideal to be aimed at by those desirous of moksha. While commenting on I. 2. 5 Sabda visheshat, he says that in order to realize moksha, Bhagavan Narayana alone should be resorted to as the sole bestower of moksha to those who meditate on him (Amnayo visheshitaha Paramatmanonyatra mumukshupasyatva mapahasati,

tasmadbhagavannarayana eva mumukshupasyatvena pratipattavyaha). He approvingly quotes in this connection, in support of his position, Bhagavata, IX. 9. 21, Avismitam paripurna kamam, etc. Quite in keeping with this standpoint is his summing up of the import of the first five adhikaranas of the first Adhyaya. Of these five adhikaranas, Suka says:-Parama Purusha Bhagavan Narayana alone is the one to be meditated upon and discussed, in order to realize moksha, as he is the sole Lord of creation, protection and destruction as declared throughout the Vedanta. In commenting on I. 4. 3, Tadadhinatvattadarthavat, Suka writes thus referring to the Advaita position:-Tava mate Brahma vyatirikta vastvabhavat; yadyakasmadbhedam parikalpya sastrani pravarteran tada tesham bhranta pralapa vishesho vyarthayasascha prasajyate tasmadasthyaiva tayorbhedaha. This shows that Suka belongs to the post-Sankara period. Commenting on II. 1. 7, Asaditichennapratishedha matratvat, Suka says-Those that argue that visva is mithya are rejected here. Adhyasa in Brahman is what is not supported by the Veda. It is against Sruti texts: Yatova imani bhutani, etc. Jagat is therefore satya. Otherwise, Sruti texts will be rendered mutually contradictory. Brahma satyatva will end in Brahma mithyatva. Both adhyasa and Brahman will become satya. Thus the adhyasa theory will end in no satisfactory solution (anavasta). This will be the result of predicating that visva is mithya. Therefore jagat is satya and nitya. Hence it is stated in the Bhagavata :Satyavratam satyaparam trisatyam satyasya yonim nihitancha satye satyasya satyamiti (Canto X). Again, commenting on II. 1. 8, Apitan, etc., Suka adds if jagat is mithya, then moksha which we aim at is also rendered mithya. All the Sastras are thus rendered asamanjasa. It would be folly to predicate mithyatva; for it is destructive of all bhakti. Thus all meditation will be rendered futile. In II. 1. 9, Natudrushtantabhavat, Suka next observes that when meditation goes, moksha will become impossible. The Kita becomes Bhramara by meditation and the

fear of Bhramara. Similarly the jiva, by meditation on Brahman, can attain Sarupya-the rupa that it meditates on. According to the opposite theory (asanmata) if everything is unreal, then the example of Bhramara and Kita would be unreal. The final result of sarupya, i.e., Brahmatva, would be thus rendered unreal, so that the doctrine itself becomes untrue (asamanjasa). Commenting on II. 1. 10, Svapaksha doshachcha, Suka says:-Your own view-point is false. If sarira is asatya, then jiva and Isvara being one and both within bondage, there will be no such thing as father, teacher, son, disciple, etc., thereby resulting in mahadosha. Therefore, such a view-point is extremely faulty. This is made clear in our Srutigita Bhashya. Next commenting on II. 1. 11, Tarka pratishtanadapi, Suka says that those who leave the Vedas and base their argument on mere logic, find it impossible to establish their doctrine. Vaiseshikas base themselves on logic but hold that there is bheda between jiva and Isvara. Others basing on logic, go a different way and try to establish a doctrine which cannot carry conviction (i.e., that visva is mithya). Commenting on II. 1. 12, Anyadhanu meyamitiche devamapyanirmoksha prasangaha, Suka says that if jagat is mithya, sarira is denied. If sarira is denied, then the sarira-less atman postulated by the doctrine presumes he is already Brahman and as such has attained moksha. Hence moksha-sadhana for him is needless (asat). Commenting on II. 1. 13, Yetenasishtaparigraha apivyakhyataha, Suka says that the doctrine of the nirisvara Sankhyas is also contradicted here. Suka follows the reading of Ramanuja in II. 1. 18 Asadvyapadesanne, etc.-which Sutra is split into two by Anandatirtha and Suka. But in interpreting the Sutra, Suka quotes the very Sruti text cited by Anandatirtha-nasadasinno sadasiththadanim. The strong criticism that is offered by Suka 76 This work has been quoted more than once by Suka in his Bhashya. See text above in regard to Suka's Bhashya on it. Srutigita is a part of Canto X of Bhagavata, in which jagat satyatva is established.

of the Advaita position and the rest of his criticism of that standpoint as briefly indicated above would seem to indicate that he probably wrote long after the Advaita position had become fully established. The cumulative effect of all available evidence-historical and philosophical -would seem to suggest that he belonged to the 16 th, if not indeed, to the 17 th century. no more. Though he follows Anandatirtha in upholding the bheda doctrine, Suka differs from him largely in his readings of the text of the Brahma-Sutra, thus showing that he only adopts as much as is necessary for his purposes and Thus unlike Anandatirtha, but like Ramanuja, Nimbarka and Srikara, he retains the Sutra I. 1. 9, Pratignavirodhat. Ramanuja interprets the pratigna here referred to as the statement made in the Chchandogya text (VI. 1):-Through the knowledge of one thing all things are to be known. Nimbarka follows him in this interpretation as well and both use it to reject the Purvapakshin's argument that sat is the Pradhana. If the Pradhana were the cause, says Ramanuja, the aggregate of sentient beings could not be known through it, for sentient beings are not the effect of a non-sentient principle, and there would thus arise a contradiction. Nimbarka's comment is not only brief-just a line-but also merely turns into aphoristic form what Ramanuja had said before him. Quoting the same text as Ramanuja, he remarks that to suggest that the cause is a non-sentient being cannot prove acceptable. (Kincha ekavidya na tu sarvavidya na pratigna virodhadapi na achetana karanadaha sadhuh). Suka, with whom Brahma Tarka occupies a place wholly subordinate to Bhakti, does not refer to Pradhana in this connection except for the evolution from the Bhagavata of the text Yanmayaya gahanaya (Bhagavata, IV. 7. 30) in his comment on BrahmaSutra, I. 1. 6, Gaunaschennatma sabdat. On this text, he adds the remark that though Prakriti looks as the more prominent thing, Paramatman is the cause. (Tataschayamabhigna sabdah prakritemukhya eva bhavati,

tena cha paramatmaiva gamyate tasmajjagatkaranatva rupasya paramatma lakshanasya na kachitkshatih). Later, when he comments on I. 1. 9, Pratigna virodhat, Suka omits all mention of Prakriti and proceeds :-Unless one meditates according to the Sastras, there is no realization. of Moksha to him. Why? Pratigna virodhat, i.e., it is opposed to the declared sayings (of the Upanishads). If at all any one can realize Moksha, then, he could do so only in accordance with the texts: No one that does not duly meditate on Me with all his heart and soul, he cannot realize Me, through My grace, through knowledge and through the grace of My Lakshmi (Bhagavata, X. 72. 11); No one that does not duly become a suppliant of Mine will be eligible for realizing Me (Bhagavata X. 51. 43); "Know it for certain, O Kaunteya, no faithful servant (bhakta) of Mine will come to ruin (Bhagavad-Gitu, IX. 31.). Thus these pratignas (avowed statements) of Parabrahman will be contradicted. Therefore, in this way, should one with faith in him meditate upon and worship the immeasurably powerful Almighty. Such is the interpretation put-from the Bhakti point of view-by Suka on this Sutra. " Suka treats the Pasupatyadhikarana and Uth pathyadhikarana as one single adhikarana and calls it Pasupathyadhikarana. In this he differs from the other commentators. Sankara thus arranges these sets of sutras :II. 2. 33-36. Ekasminnasambhavadhikaranam in which the systems of Sugata and Vivasana (i.e., Buddhist and Jaina) systems are rejected. (Naikasminnasambhavat; Evancha atma karthsnyam; Nacha paryayadapyavirodho vikaradibhyah; Antyavasthiteschobhayannityatvadaviseshah.) II. 2. 37-14. Patyadhikaranam. Patyurasamanjasyat ; Sambandhanupapaththescha ; Adhishthananupapaththescha; Karanavachchennabhogadibhyah; Antavattvamasarvagnatava. The Pasupati and Nirguna doctrines are rejected. 14 F

II. 2. 42-45. Utpatyasambhavadhikaranam. Utpatyasambhavat; Nachakartuh karanam; Vijnanadibhave va tadapratishedhah; Vipratishedhachcha. Bhagavata doctrine is rejected. Ramanuja's arrangement is as follows:II. 2. 31-34. Ekasminnasambhavadhikaranam. Evancha, etc. Naikasmin, etc. • • II. 2. 31. II. 2. 32. II. 2. 33. • • II. 2. 34. Nachaparya, etc. Antyavasththe, etc. Sugata and Jaina doctrines are rejected. II. 2. 35-38. Pasupatyadhikaranam. Patyura, etc. Adhisthana, etc. Karana, etc. Antavattva, etc. .. II. 2. 35. II. 2. 36. .. II. 2. 37. II. 2. 38. Ramanuja omits the Sutra Sambandhanu papaththescha. This adhikaranam, in his view, rejects the Pasupata doctrine. II. 2. 39-42. Utpatyasambhavadhikaranam. Utpatyasambhavat .. II. 2. 39. Nachakartuh karanam • II. 2. 40. II. 2. 41. II. 2. 42. Vijnanadi, etc. Vipratishedhachcha Badarayana establishes, according to Ramanuja, the Bhagavata doctrine in this adhikaranam. Anandatirtha adopts the following arrangement :- II. 2. 33-36. Naikasmin adhikaranam. Naikasmin, etc. Evancha, etc. Nacha, etc. II. 2. 33. .. II. 2. 34. .. II. 2. 35. Antyavasthiteschobhayanityatvadaviseshah, etc. II. 2. 36. The Syadvada mata (i.e., Jaina system) is rejected.

II. 2. 37-41. Patyuradhikaranam. Patyurasam, etc. Sambandha, etc. .. II. 2. 37. Adhistha, etc. Karana, etc. II. 2. 38. .. II. 2. 39. • . II. 2. 40. II. 2. 41. Antavattva, etc. The Pasupata system is rejected. II. 2. 42-45. Utpatyadhikaranam. Utpatya, etc. Nacha, etc. Vigna, etc. Viprati, etc. II. 2. 42. II. 2. 43. II. 2. 44. .. II. 2. 45. 211 The Sakti doctrine is rejected. Nimbarka has the following arrangement :II. 2. 33-36. Naikasmin, etc. Antyavasthi, etc. II. 2. 33. II. 2. 36. The Jaina doctrine is rejected by Badarayana in these four sutras. II. 2. 37-41. Patyur, etc. to Antavattva, etc. The Pasupata system is rejected. II. 2. 42-46. Utpatti, etc. to Vipratishedha, etc. The Sakti doctrine is rejected. Nimbarka follows Anandatirtha, his commentary being nothing more than the noting down of the conclusions. arrived at by Anandatirtha, the argumentative portion being almost entirely omitted. This is one of the Adhikaranas which unmistakably shows that Nimbarka came after Anandatirtha and not vice versa. Vallabha styles sutras 33-36 as the Naikasminnasambhavadityadhikaranam and includes the following sutras under it :-

Naikasminnasambhavat Evancha, etc. Nachaparya, etc. Antyavasthi, etc. II. 2. 33. • • II. 2. 34. II. 2. 35. II. 2. 36. According to Vallabha, Badarayana in these sutras rejects the Vivasana, i.e., Jaina, doctrine. II. 2. 37-41. Patyurasamanjasyadhikaranam. Patyurasamanjasyat Samban, etc. .. II. 2. 37. • II. 2. 38. Adhishthana, etc. • • II. 2. 39. II. 2. 40. II. 2. 41. Karana, etc. Antavattva, etc. According to him, Badarayana rejects in these sutras Anisvara Tarkikavada, i.e., the system that postulates that there is no creating Lord. Uttpaththisambhavadhikaranam. II. 2. 42-45. Utpattisambhavat Nachakartuh, etc. Vijnanadi, etc. Vipratis hedhachcha • .. II. 2. 42. II. 2. 43. • II. 2. 44. .. II. 2. 45. Badarayana here rejects, according to him, some parts of the Bhagavata system. Vallabha simply states the conclusions of Sankara in a few sentences, often using Sankara's words and phrases. Suka exhibits these identical sutras thus : II. 2. 32-35. Ekasminnasambhavadhikaranam. Naikasminsambhavat; Evanchatmakarthsnyam; Nachaparyayadapyavirodhovikaradibhyah; bhaya nityatvadaviseshah. AnthyavasthiteschoAccording to him, the Jaina system is rejected in these sutras. II. 2. 36-44. Pasupathyadhikaranam. Pathyurasamanjasyat; Sambandhanupapaththeh; "Adhishthananupapathescha"; Karanavachennabhogadibhyah; Anthavathvamasarvagnathava; Utpatyasambhavat; Nachakarthuhkaranam; Vijnanadibhavevatadapratishedhah; Vipratishedhachcha.

The Pasupata system is, according to him, rejected in these sutras. Suka thus is unique in his division of the sutras; in place of three he has only two adhikaranas. The first of these he styles Ekasminsambhavadhikaranam, following Sankara and Ramanuja; the second he calls Pasupatyadhikaranam, in which he combines the sutras which go to form the Patyadhikaranam and Utpalyasambhavadhikaranam of Sankara and Pasupatyadhikaranam and Utpathyadhikaranam of Ramanuja. As will be seen, Pasupatyadhikaranam is the name given by Suka to the two sets of adhikaranams combined by him. In regard to the subject-matter, in the Ekasminsambhavadhikaranam, Suka agrees with the rest of the commentators in suggesting that in them Badarayana rejects the Jaina system. In the next adhikaranam, Suka does not agree with Sankara and Ramanuja in the view that there is any reference in the sutras comprising it to the Bhagavata system. He treats the whole as one adhikaranam and applies it to the Pasupati system. In this he partly agrees with Anandatirtha and Nimbarka, who suggest that there is no reference to the Bhagavata system in these sutras. Anandatirtha divides the sutras forming it into two adhikaranams and styles them Patyuradhikaranam (II. 2. 37 to 41) and Utpatyadhikaranam (II. 2. 42-45) in which the Pasupata and Sakti systems are respectively rejected by him. Suka, it will be seen, is unwilling to divide these sutras into two adhikaranams and to treat the second set of these sutras as applicable to the Sakti doctrine. He suggests that all these sutras form only one adhikaranam and that they all refer exclusively to the Pasupata system which, according to him, is rejected by Badarayana. Why he does this will be apparent when it is stated that Suka belongs to the Bhagavata school and is loath to admit there is any discussion of that doctrine with a view to its rejection in these sutras. One other remarkable feature of Suka's commentary in this part of his work is that he does not quote any slokas from the Bhagavata to

support his position from II. 2. 32 to II. 2. 42. In commenting on II. 2. 44, Vijnanadibhaveva tadapratishedhah, he quotes three slokas from the Bhagavata (IV. 2. 28; IV. 2. 29 and IV. 2. 30), in which it is stated that those who follow Siva are Pashandas; that they are opposed to the Vaishnava faith; that they adhere to customs not in keeping with accepted sanctions (nashta saucha); that they are bigoted; that they wear jata, bhasma and asthi; that they assume the Sivadiksha; and that they worship deities opposed to the devatas, find fault with Brahmanas, and that thus they derive the title Pashandas, etc. These quotations are intended to support Suka's position deduced from this sutra (II. 2. 43) that those who are possessed of wisdom derived from guana vijnana vairagyadi gunas should reject a system like that of the Pasupatas which makes fun of the Vedas, the Brahmanas, the Yagnapurusha, etc. Apart from these three quotations from the Bhagavata to buttress his position against the Pasupatas, the only other sloka quoted by Suka from that work occurs. in the next sutra (II. 2. 44) Vipratishedhachcha. This sloka (IX. 9. 30) is quoted to support the position that the Pasupata system should be discarded. The sloka Tatheti ragnabhihitam sarvaloka hitassivah dadharavahito Gangam pada puta jalam hareh || suggests the adoration of Siva in an entirely different aspect. (Let it be so; and so saying God Siva, who is the bestower of happiness on the whole world, at once took on his head the waters. of the Ganges in order to be free from all pollution as its waters poured forth from the sacred feet of Hari).77 He is represented as the friend of all kinds of people Sarvajana hitachintaka), of those who follow the Puranas and Upanishads and those who are opposed to them. Siva is thus associated with both. This position is supported further by Suka by a text, whose source is not disclosed 77 The reference is to the story of Siva purging himself of all sin acquired by his connection with those not friendly to Vishnu. By his act of receiving Ganga on his head, he became " sinless".

by Suka himself but which is actually found quoted by Anandatirtha in his Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya as taken by him from the Varaha Purana. tvam hi rudra mahabhaga mohasastrani karaya || atathyani vitathyani viparitani darsaya | prakasam kuru catmanamaprakasam ca mam kuru || Tvam hi Rudra mahabhaga mohasastrani karaya || Atathyani vitathyani viparitani darsaya Prakasam kuru chatmanam aprakasam cha mam kuru \\ etc. (Oh illustrious Rudra! bring to light false doctrines exhibiting untruths, falsehoods and contrary teachings. Extol your own greatness; and keep me hidden from my antagonists.) This was, Suka says, given as a command to Siva by Vishnu in order to hide himself from coming into contact with people possessing the tamasa quality and to inculcate the doctrine (of the Pasupata system) in the world that Pasupati is the sole lord of the Universe to those who disbelieved in the greatness of Narayana. Since Pasupati is thus kind to all, Siva is described to be sarvalokahita. Thus, while Suka differs from Anandatirtha in his grouping of the sutras, he agrees with him in securing the Bhagavata position, by suggesting that there is no reference to it in the sutras. His adoption of the quotation from the Varaha Purana shows that he is, as customary with him, following Anandatirtha in his interpretation, wherever possible, of the sutras. Incidentally, the particular slokas quoted by him from the Bhagavata show that he is quite a late commentator. There is evidence to believe that Suka, the commentator, was an author who came subsequent to Vijayadhwaja, the author of Padyaratnavali, the leading Madhva commentary on the Bhagavata. Suka incorporates in his commentaries on the Brahma-Sutras, the identical slokas from the Bhagavata which Vijayadhwaja has linked the sutras with in explaining the slokas. To put the matter in another way, while Vijayadhwaja has quoted certain

sutras from the Brahma-Sutras in explaining a particular sloka in the Bhagavata, Suka has, in his turn, taken the self-same slokas to explain the sutras when writing his commentary on the Brahma-Sutras. In a word, the key to Suka's interpretation of the Brahma-Sutras is to be found in Vijayadhwajiya. Vijayadhwaja was an ascetic guru of the Pejawar math, one of the eight maths of Udipi, founded by Anandatirtha. He probably lived about the sixteenth century. Suka, who follows his methodology, must be ascribed to a date posterior to him-say by about a century or so. Suka treats I. 4. 1, Anumanika mapyekeshamitichenna sarira rupakavinyastha grihiteh darsayaticha as two sutras dividing it thus:-(1) Anu....grihiteh and (2) Darsayaticha. All the other commentators-Sankara, Bhaskara, Ramanuja, Anandatirtha, Nimbarka, Vallabha, Vijnanabhikshu and Srikara-combine these two sutras into one. Suka makes the first part the purvapaksha and in the second part establishes the Siddhanta, finally fixing that there is bheda between jiva and Isvara. In developing the argument, he follows Anandatirtha. In treating the first part as helping to set down the purvapaksha argument, he adopts Sankara's position, while in fixing the Siddhanta, he follows Anandatirtha. Suka, in fact, follows Anandatirtha in his pada, though he does not explain ka in rupaka in the first part of this sutra. Ka is, as aptly pointed out by Anandatirtha, quoting Panini, evidence of inferiority-inferiority of the jiva to Isvara. The jiva is not rupa but rupaka of Isvara, i.e., inferior to Isvara. Following Ramanuja, Suka, again, treats II. 1. 11 and I. 1. 12 as two different sutras, whereas Anandatirtha and Sankara read them together as one sutra, though there is a slight difference in the reading of the latter. Such variations, however, are common among commentators on the BrahmaSutras, as will be seen from the tables of comparison given in an Appendix to this volume (see Appendices). As this matter is considered at some length below, it is unnecessary to pursue it further here. The point to note is that

though Suka agrees with Anandatirtha generally, there are occasions on which he differs from him as from the rest of his predecessors. A few other sutras in the commentaries in which Suka follows Anandatirtha either in his interpretation or in requoting the Sruti texts quoted by him may be simply noted :-I. 1. 1, Athatho brahmajijnasa; I. 1. 5, Gaunaschennatma savdat; I. 1. 15, Taddhetu vyapadesachcha; I. 1. 18, Bheda vyapadesachcha; I. 1. 20, Asmin nasyacha tadyogamsasti; I. 1. 29, Pranastathanu gamat; I. 1. 31, Sastradrushstyatupadesa vamadevavat; I. 2. 19, Antaryamyadhidaivadhilokadishu taddharmavyapadesat; I. 2. 20, Nacha smartha mataddharmabhilapachcharirascha; I. 4. 1, Anumanik mapyekeshamitichenna sarira rupaka vinyastha grihiteh darshayati cha; I. 4. 7, Trayanamevachaiva mu panyasah prasnascha ; etc. Suka Bhashya Tika. A few words may be added about the writer of the Tika on the Bhashya of Suka. The name of the writer of the Tika on this Bhashya is Krishnacharya (see Suka Bhashya, p. 232). He belonged to the family of one Ramakrishnacharya (anvayasambhuta). He was of the Gargya gotra. His name appears as Krishnamacharya on p. 1 of the Suka Bhashya, but this seems a mistake for Krishnacharya. He calls his work Sarvavedantasara Mimamsa Bhashya Chandrika, in which only the more difficult passages or contexts are explained by him. The date of Krishnacharya is not known. Among the verses forming the Mangalasloka of his commentary are two (4 and 5), which seem to be but echoes of two slokas of Jayatirtha's Mangalasloka in his Tatvaprakasika, a commentary on Anandatirtha's Brahma-Sutra Bhashya. The following are the slokas of Suka :- etadbhasyanvayacchuddhayanmameyam girasatyapi | apyavilamhirathyambho gangasangadvisuddhayati ||4|| yesam svantambhavettantam mahanirvrtiviksane | tatkrtetantu samksipya kriyate bhasyacandrika ||5||

With these, compare the two following slokas taken from Jayatirtha's work (Tatvaprakasika I. Mangalacharana slokas). atha tatkrpaya brahmasutrabhasyam yathamati | vyakurve srimadanandatirtharyamukhanihsrtam || 6 || gangasana nairmalyam rathyadbhirlabhyate yatha | vaco visuddhi siddhayartham sangamyante gurorgirah ||7|| The following similarities between the two sets of slokas may be noted :- (1) The words used by Jayatirtha are reproduced, for example, rathyambho and gangasangad visuddhyati in Suka appear in Jayatirtha as rathyadbhih and gangasangena nairmalyam. (2) The governing idea in both is the same. Krishnacharya's slokas seem to be an adaptation of Jayatirtha's and not vice versa. As we know Jayatirtha lived in the 14 th century, it has to be inferred that Krishnacharya came after Jayatirtha. How long after, it is not possible to determine. As Suka himself is a late commentator on the BrahmaSutras, his commentator should have come some time after him. In any case, he cannot be much older than the 17 th century A.D.