Page:A History of Indian Philosophy Vol 1.djvu/436

 4 20 The Saizkara School of Vedanta [CH. (though probably the last great work on Vedanta) is the Advaitasiddhi of Madhusiidana Sarasvati who followed Dharma- rajadhvarlndra. This has three commentaries known as Gautfa- brahmii1Zalzdi, Vi!!halesopadhyiiJ'i and S iddhivyiikhyii. Sadananda Vyasa wrote also a summary of it known as Advaitasiddhisid- dhalltasara. Sadananda wrote also an excellent elementary work named Vedantasara which has also two commentaries Subodhilli and Vidvall11lanoraiijiJli. TheA dvaitabrahmasiddhi of Sadananda Yati though much inferior to Advaitasiddhi is important, as it touches on many points of Vedanta interest which are not dealt with in other Vedanta works. The Nyayamakarallda of Ananda- bodha BhaHarakacaryya treats of the doctrines of illusion very well, as also some other important points of Vedanta interest. Vediilltasiddhiinta11luktavali of Prakasananda discusses many of the subtle points regarding the nature of ajfiana and its relations to cit, the doctrine of d.r!isr!ivada, etc., with great clearness. Siddhiilltalesa by Apyayadlkita is very important as a summary of the divergent views of different writers on many points of interest. Vcdiilltatattvadipikii and Siddhantatattva are also good as well as deep in their general summary of the Vedanta system. Bhedadhikkiira of N fsiIphasrama Muni also is to be regarded as an important work on the Vedanta dialectic. The above is only a list of some of the most important Ve- danta works on which the present chapter has been based. Vedanta in GauQapada. I t is useless I think to attempt to bring out the meaning of the Vedanta thought as contained in the Bralz11la-szttras without making any reference to the commentary of Sankara or any other commentator. There is reason to believe that the Brahma- sfdras were first commented upon by some Vai!?l)ava writers who held some form of modified dualism I. There have been more than a half dozen Vai!?l)ava commentators of the Brahma-sittras who not only differed from Sankara's interpretation, but also differed largely amongst themselves in accordance with the different degrees of stress they laid on the different aspects of their dualistic creeds. Everyone of them claimed that his inter- pretation was the only one that was faithful to the siitras and to 1 This point will be dealt with in the 2nd volume, when I shall deal with the !'ystems expounded by the VaiQava commentators of the Brahma-siil1-as.