hashya before us, we are naturally inclined to find
in the Sutras--which, taken by themselves, are for the greater part
unintelligible--the meaning which /S/a@nkara ascribes to them; while a
reference to other bhashyas may not impossibly change our views at
once.--Meanwhile, we will consider the question as to the unbroken
uniformity of Vedantic tradition from another point or view, viz. by
enquiring whether or not the Sutras themselves, and the
/S/a@nkara-bhashya, furnish any indications of there having existed
already at an early time essentially different Vedantic systems or lines
of Vedantic speculation.

Beginning with the Sutras, we find that they supply ample evidence to
the effect that already at a very early time, viz. the period antecedent
to the final composition of the Vedanta-sutras in their present shape,
there had arisen among the chief doctors of the Vedanta differences of
opinion, bearing not only upon minor points of doctrine, but affecting
the most essential parts of the system. In addition to Badaraya/n/a
himself, the reputed author of the Sutras, the latter quote opinions
ascribed to the following teachers: Atreya, A/s/marathya, Au/d/ulomi,
Karsh/n/agini, Ka/s/ak/ri/tsna, Jaimini, Badari. Among the passages
where diverging views of those teachers are recorded and contrasted
three are of particular importance. Firstly, a passage in the fourth
pada of the fourth adhyaya (Sutras 5-7), where the opinions of various
teachers concerning the characteristics of the released soul are given,
and where the important discrepancy is noted that, according to
Au/d/ulomi, its only characteristic is thought (/k/aitanya), while
Jaimini maintains that it possesses a number of exalted qualities, and
Badaraya/n/a declares himself in favour of a combination of those two
views.--The second passage occurs in the third pada of the fourth
adhyaya (Sutras 7-14), where Jaimini maintains that the soul of him who
possesses the lower knowledge of Brahman goes after death to the highest
Brahman, while Badari--whose opinion is endorsed by /S/a@nkara--teaches
that it repairs to the lower Brahman only--Finally, the third and most
important passage is met with in the fourth pada of the first adhyaya
(Sutras 20-22), where the question is discussed why in a certain passage
of the Brhadara/n/yaka Brahman is referred to in terms which are
strictly applicable to the individual soul only. In connexion therewith
the Sutras quote the views of