Hindu writers than the _Mahayana sutras_.
Even in such later times as that of Vacaspati Mis'ra, we find
him quoting a passage of the _S'alistambha sutra_ to give an account
of the Buddhist doctrine of pratityasamutpada [Footnote ref 3].
We could interpret any reference to S'unyavada as pointing to
Nagarjuna only if his special phraseology or dialectical methods
were referred to in any way. On the other hand, the reference in
the _Bhagavadgita_ to the _Brahma-sutras_ clearly points out a date
prior to that of Nagarjuna; though we may be slow to believe such
an early date as has been assigned to the _Bhagavadgita_ by Telang,
yet I suppose that its date could safely be placed so far back
as the first half of the first century B.C. or the last part
of the second century B.C. The _Brahma-sutras_ could thus be
placed slightly earlier than the date of the _Bhagavadgita_.

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: "Brahmasutrapadais'caiva hetumadbhirvinis'cita@h"
_Bhagavadgita_. The proofs in support of the view that the
_Bhagavadgita_ is a Vai@s@nava work will be discussed in the 2nd
volume of the present work in the section on _Bhagavadgita_ and
its philosophy.]

[Footnote 2: _Indian Antiquary_, 1915.]

[Footnote 3: See Vacaspati Mis'ra's _Bhamati_ on S'a@nkara's bhasya on
_Brahma-sutra_, II. ii.]

422

I do not know of any evidence that would come in conflict with
this supposition. The fact that we do not know of any Hindu
writer who held such monistic views as Gau@dapada or S'a@nkara,
and who interpreted the _Brahma-sutras_ in accordance with those
monistic ideas, when combined with the fact that the dualists
had been writing commentaries on the _Brahma-sutras_, goes to
show that the _Brahma-sutras_ were originally regarded as an
authoritative work of the dualists. This also explains the fact that
the _Bhagavadgita_, the canonical work of the Ekanti Vai@s@navas,
should refer to it. I do not know of any Hindu writer previous
to Gau@dapada who attempted to give an exposition of the
monistic doctrine (apart from the Upani@sads), either by writing
a commentary as did S'a@nkara, or by writing an independent
work as did Gau@dapada. I am inclined to think therefore that
as the pure monism of the Upani@sads was not worked out in a
coherent manner for the formation of a monistic system, it
was dealt with by people who had sympathies with some form
of dualism which was already develo