of the greatest importance. If it could be
demonstrated or even rendered probable only that the oldest bhashya
which we possess, i.e. the /S/a@nkara-bhashya, represents an
uninterrupted and uniform tradition bridging over the interval between
Badaraya/n/a, the reputed author of the Sutras, and /S/a@nkara; and if,
on the other hand, it could be shown that the more modern bhashyas are
not supported by old tradition, but are nothing more than bold attempts
of clever sectarians to force an old work of generally recognised
authority into the service of their individual tenets; there would
certainly be no reason for us to raise the question whether the later
bhashyas can help us in making out the true meaning of the Sutras. All
we should have to do in that case would be to accept /S/a@nkara's
interpretations as they stand, or at the utmost to attempt to make out,
if at all possible, by a careful comparison of /S/a@nkara's bhashya with
the text of the Sutras, whether the former in all cases faithfully
represents the purport of the latter.
In the most recent book of note which at all enters into the question as
to how far we have to accept /S/a@nkara as a guide to the right
understanding of the Sutras (Mr. A. Gough's Philosophy of the
Upanishads) the view is maintained (pp. 239 ff.) that /S/a@nkara is the
generally recognised expositor of true Vedanta doctrine, that that
doctrine was handed down by an unbroken series of teachers intervening
between him and the Sutrakara, and that there existed from the beginning
only one Vedanta doctrine, agreeing in all essential points with the
doctrine known to us from /S/a@nkara's writings. Mr. Gough undertakes to
prove this view, firstly, by a comparison of /S/a@nkara's system with
the teaching of the Upanishads themselves; and, secondly, by a
comparison of the purport of the Sutras--as far as that can be made out
independently of the commentaries--with the interpretations given of
them by /S/a@nkara. To both these points we shall revert later on.
Meanwhile, I only wish to remark concerning the former point that, even
if we could show with certainty that all the Upanishads propound one and
the same doctrine, there yet remains the undeniable fact of our being
confronted by a considerable number of essentially differing theories,
all of which claim to be founded on the Upanishads. And with regard to
the latter point I have to say for the present that, as long as we have
only /S/a@nkara's b
|