Page:The Advaita philosophy of Śaṅkara.pdf/4

98 In the Sﬁtras themselves we ﬁnd the name Badarayana mentioned at least seven times; and the Bhashyakara puts in several opinions in the name of a Vyasa or Vedavyasa; frequently in his Bhashya. The name Krishna Dvaipayana also occurs many times, but the Bhashyakara always refers to the author as Acharya. All these references prove that Vyasa, the author of the Sﬁtras, is none other than the Badarayana of the Bhagavata. The fact that he has mentioned his own name in his Sﬁtras, need not puzzle us, after our knowledge of the practice of old writers, in such works as the Apastamba-Grihya-Sﬁtras, of putting in their favourite, but comparatively new opinions in their own name, at places where similar popular opinions form the subject of dispute. Even Sankara’s distinguishing the author as Acharya is not sufﬁcient to disprove this fact after the positive manner in which he declares this Acharya to be none other than Badarayana, in at least two places.5 We are thus able to say with conﬁdence that the Slitras belong to none other than Bedarayana Vyasa, and that, therefore, the arguments advanced in some quarters against this view are not sufﬁciently conclusive.

Before trying to analyse what Sankara teaches, we must understand his position as a religious teacher. The Vedic religion was essentially a. religion of ceremonial — a Karmakdzzda, conﬁning itself to the philosophy of rewards and punishments commensurate to one’s Karman, which if good would lead to Heaven. But several philosophers had already begun to meditate upon the nature of the summum bonum, and the way of attaining to it. To this spirit of inquiry may be traced the origin of the celebrated Daréanas. We, however, do not ﬁnd any clear denunciation of the Vedic ritual in any one of them,“ but in the Upam’shads, which plainly declare all hap—

1 r. 3. 26; L 3. 33; m. 2. 41; m. 4.1;m. 4. 8; m. 4. 9;xv.3. 15 etc.

2 x1. 3. 29; 1. 3. 33; n. 1. 12;:1. 3. 47; m. l. 14 etc.

3 xxx. 3. 29; m. 3. 32.

‘ x1. 4. 12; n. 4. 20; m. 3.1;m. 3. 24 etc.

5 Comm. IV. 4. 7; N. 4. 21.

5 This is only a general statement, for the Vedanta — one of the Dav-5am: — plainly advocates the doctrine here attributed to the Upanishads.