Authorship and Date of Brahma Sutra

Brahma Sutra is a work of interpretation of the Upanishad. Though it does not mention by name, yet all the commentators of importance have agreed that the work cited Bhagavadgita as an authority in support of its interpretation. So, the work is definite subsequent to the Upanishads and the Bhagavadgita, which itself was based on the Upanishads. Competent critics see in Panini’s Sutra IV. ii. 129 read with the Vartika thereon a positive indication that Aranyaka literature, the source of the Upanishads in general was not in existence by then, i.e., C. 380 B. C. The Bhagavad gita in its extent form seems to be definitely later than the Samkhyan thought and the Patanjala Yoga Sutra the latter of which it seems to have in mind at least at two places (VI. 200 b & 35 cd) and as such must be dated not earlier than about the beginning of the Christian era. Now the Brahrna Sutra itself refutes in the main Samkhya which appears to have by then acquired the status of a Smriti (II. i. 1) but was not known either to Panini or even to Patanjali (C. 150 B. C.). It refutes the Buddhist schools including Vijnanavada which is evidently development upon the Sautrantika which itself is a correction of Vaibhashika. Vaibhashika is the school based on the authority! Vibhasha the commentary composed on the authority of Vibhasha the Buddhist canon at the council of Kanishka under the guidance of Vasumitra (C. 100 A. D.). And, therefore, naturally none of the four schools is mentioned in Vasumitra’s book on the eighteen sects for the simple reason that they did not as yet come into existence by then. That, being so, the Brahma Sutra cannot be dated prior to, at the least, III century A. D. and it can be quite later in fact.

Sankara, the earliest available commentator on the work, refers to the author as Sutrakara in T. i. 2 Avatarika and on I. iii. 9 and as Acharya on IV. iii. 14 and in IV. iv. 22 Avatarika. Of course, at the last place the name Badarayana also appears along with Acharya but I feel it to be an interpolation for reasons to be stated below. Sankara nowhere refers to him as Vyasa or Vedavyasa while he calls the author of the Bhagavadgita Vedavyasa (Introduction to Bg.), the author of Anugita as Vyasa (on Brihadaranyaka Upanishad I. 4. 10) and the author of Nachiketapakhyana also Vyasa (on B. S. III. i. 14)–all from the Mahabharata, and cites Vyasa as an authority in support of the views of Brahm Sutra thereby definitely indicating that Vyasa not the author of Brahma Sutra. On this aspect Dr. Radhakrishnan says, (I. P. II. Ch. VII, ii. f. n. at P. 433 of 1948 Repnnt) “Wherever Sankara quotes Vyasa, he does so without implying that Vyasa is the author of the Sutra (II. i. 12; III. 3. 47). There are many references to the Bg. and the Santiparva of the M. B. in the B. S., if we accept the testimony of the commentators, which cannot be easily understood if the author of the Sutra and the writer of the M. B. were one.” The earliest writer to call the author of the Brahma Sutra, Vedavyasa was Vachaspati Misra (see Intr. St. 5 of his Bhamati); but he calls the Yoga-Sutra-Bhashyakara also Vedavyasa (see Intr. to his Tatva Vaisaradi) which indicates his unhistoric perspective, if he meant Parasarya or Satyavateya.

Now as to the question whether Badarayana was the author of Brahma Sutra the following facts may be carefully noticed. The work itself quotes Badarayana at several places along with other authorities and at one place in a very significant manner. III. iv. I ff. constitutes one topic where the Su. I gives the view of Badarayana that the Purushartha results from Jnana alone as the Scriptures say so and the Su. 2 gives the counter view of Jaimini that the statements to that effect found in the Scriptures are only Arthavada and that Karma is not to be given up. Sus. 3 to 7 give the reasons for the counter view and Su. 8 is the verdict of the Sutrakara in favour of the view of Badarayana. It runs Adhikopadesat tu Badarayanasya sevam tad datsanat. It is a clear judgment and as such it will be unreasonable to think that one of the opponents is the judge himself. Sankara also indicates this distinction of the Sutrakara from Badarayana by the wording he employs in explaining the concerned Sutras. He presents Su. 1 and 2 as Badarayana Acharayo Manyate and Jaiminir Acharyo Manyate and says on Su. 8 Evam prapte pratividhatte (i.e., Sutrakara) iti yau matam Bhagavato Badarayanasya tat tatha eva tishtati na seshatva prabhritibhir hetvabhasaih chalayitum sakyate. See also Sankara’s wording in explaining III. ii. 38, 40 and 41: Tatra tavad pratipadyate (i.e., Sutrakara, 38). Jaiminis tu Acharyo Manyate, 40, and Badarayanas tu: Acharyah Manyate, 41. If this indication of Sankara is correct, Badarayana (Acharyah) found in his Intr. To the last Su. IV. iv. 22, must be a later interpolation by some copyist who must have been under the impression probably that Badarayana was the author of the work on the basis of popular-tradition current in his day.

Apart from this internal evidence of the work itself and the corroboration of the earliest available commentator thereon, there is another significant piece of evidence in favour of the view that Badarayana was not the author of the Brahma Sutra. The work in I. iii. 34. ff. a section usually called Apasudradhikarana, strenuously opposes the right of Sudras to get initiation into Brahmavidya on the basis of a somewhat strained interpretation of the scriptural texts. In that section nowhere the name of Badarayana was mentioned. Now turning to the Mimamsa Sutra we find Badarayana was presented there in VI. i. 8. as advocating the position that the competence for performing sacrifices lies in all human beings as a genus while Atreya rejects it in the case of the Sudras, VI. i. 26 and this militates against Badarayana being the author of Brahma Sutra whose definite view goes counter to the specific stand of Badarayana, especially when this view of the Brahma Sutra was not presented as of Badarayana. This seems to be decisive in establishing that Badarayana was not the author of Brahma Sutra

If the popular notion has been that Vyasa was the author, which was the basis evidently of Vachaspati’s assertion, we need not equate him with Parasarya or Satyavateya as another Vyasa is definitely known to us who was the author of a Bhashya on Patanjala Yoga Sutra and who could have easily been the author of Brahma Sutra also. As a matter of fact Vachaspati calls him as well as the Sutrakara. Vedavyasa thereby indicating their identity though this Vyasa could not be Parasarya or Satyavateya and to that extent his view if he viewed so or the misunderstanding of his readers if that be the case is unhistorical and erroneous. This aspect of the identity of these two authors has, of course, got to be further investigated into through a careful and comparative study of the two works as a research problem and its truth or falsity established. As the Bhashyakara Vyasa quoted Varshaganya, who is said to be the guru of Vindhyavasin (Isvara krishna) and assigned to the 5th century A. D. by Paramartha he must also be dated in the 5th century A. D. and if his identity with the Sutrakara is to be accepted, Brahma Sutra must also be assigned to that date which will agree well with the position of Sankhya and Buddhist Vijnanavada by then and which is not in conflict with any positive evidence except orthodox tradition which always tries to boost up the importance of a work or an author by vain claims of exaggerated antiquity put forward without any proof and with dogmatic assertion.