three ancient teachers about the relation
in which the individual soul stands to Brahman. According to
A/s/marathya (if we accept the interpretation of his view given by
/S/a@nkara and /S/a@nkara's commentators) the soul stands to Brahman in
the bhedabheda relation, i.e. it is neither absolutely different nor
absolutely non-different from it, as sparks are from fire. Audulomi, on
the other hand, teaches that the soul is altogether different from
Brahman up to the time when obtaining final release it is merged in it,
and Ka/s/ak/ri/tsna finally upholds the doctrine that the soul is
absolutely non-different from Brahman; which, in, some way or other
presents itself as the individual soul.

That the ancient teachers, the ripest outcome of whose speculations and
discussions is embodied in the Vedanta-sutras, disagreed among
themselves on points of vital importance is sufficiently proved by the
three passages quoted. The one quoted last is specially significant as
showing that recognised authorities--deemed worthy of being quoted in
the Sutras--denied that doctrine on which the whole system of /S/a@nkara
hinges, viz. the doctrine of the absolute identity of the individual
soul with Brahman.

Turning next to the /S/a@nkara-bhashya itself, we there also meet with
indications that the Vedantins were divided among themselves on
important points of dogma. These indications are indeed not numerous:
/S/a@nkara, does not on the whole impress one as an author particularly
anxious to strengthen his own case by appeals to ancient authorities, a
peculiarity of his which later writers of hostile tendencies have not
failed to remark and criticise. But yet more than once /S/a@nkara also
refers to the opinion of 'another,' viz., commentator of the Sutras, and
in several places /S/a@nkara's commentators explain that the 'other'
meant is the V/ri/ttikara (about whom more will be said shortly). Those
references as a rule concern minor points of exegesis, and hence throw
little or no light on important differences of dogma; but there are two
remarks of /S/a@nkara's at any rate which are of interest in this
connexion. The one is made with reference to Sutras 7-14 of the third
pada of the fourth adhyaya; 'some,' he says there, 'declare those
Sutras, which I look upon as setting forth the siddhanta view, to state
merely the purvapaksha;' a difference of opinion which, as we have seen
above, affects the important question as to the ultimate fate