Shankara's Brahma Sutra Bhashya

[Giri]

On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, Sankar Jayanarayanan wrote:

> sure I wouldn't understand it). I am not the person to comment on how great
> a book the SBSB is,

        Then let someone like Madhusudhana sarasvati do it. He remarks
in prasthana-bheda that Brahma sutra is the most important of all
sastras, and all other scriptures are ancillary (sesa) to it.

In an another thread, Vidya remarks :

>Exactly. It does not mean that all of them are right, nor does it mean
>that nobody is right. Interpretation is not necessarily the actual or the
>intended meaning. One has to choose one interpretation of scripture over
>the others. In this choice, one is guided by one's own inclinations, and
>by one's guru.

        Vidya, thanks for responding. My point was no sentence in the
prasthana traya could support an advaitic position *exclusively* since
some others would interpret it differently to suit their philosophy.

        For example, Shankara and Ramanuja interpret the simple sentence
'Thou art That' in different ways. There are even changes in the actual
brahma sutra itself between different commentaries. For example, verse
3.3.3 is svaadhyaayasya tathaatvena in Shankara's while it starts as
svaadhyaayasya tathaatve in Bhaskara's (and Ramanuja), who lived only
50 years later than Shankara. Sometimes, there is no sutra itself. Like
2.2.38 of Shankara is not found in bhaskara or Ramanuja's commentary,
while the verse of 1.1.9 is not found in Shankara, but found in
Ramanuja's and Bhaskara's. There are nearly 50 extant commentaries on
brahma suutra.

        However, I agree with your comment on dvaita philosophers. For
exa,mple, V.S. Ghate in the book 'The vedanta, a study of BS with the
bhashyas of Shankara, Ramanuja, Nimbaraka, Madhva, and Vallabha.'
compares a few major suutras. He concludes that Madhva's commentary on
brahmasuutra is not only inadequate, but makes unreasonable and
distorted interpretations of statements, and often gives scriptural
citations of doubtful authority. But all these criticisms (and other
criticisms by other scholars) have not dampened the enthu. of dualists to
rever this commentary. As you point out, it is finally the decision and
inclination of the individual to choose.

Thanks

Giri