History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s50.17

v1.c6.s50.17

Bühler at first took the remark (on Manu XII. 19) about ‘Śārīraka’ as⁵⁷⁵ referring to Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya on the Vedāntasūtra, but later on changed his opinion (S B E vol. 25, p. CXXII) and held that it probably implies a reference to the Śārīraka sūtras. Bühler’s considered opinion does not seem to be right. The words ‘yatheha rājā ... apaiti’ are a summary of Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya on Vedāntasūtra II. 1. 34 and II. 3. 42. and I. 2. 11-12. On Manu II. 83 he refers to the Upaniṣad-bhāṣya⁵⁷⁶ on Chāndogya II. 23. 4 and says that that passage has been differently explained in the *bhāṣya*. Śaṅkara does explain that passage of the Chāndogya differently. But this is not all. In various other places Medhātithi seems to have in view the Śārīrakabhāṣya of Śaṅkara. For example, on I. 80 he has ⁵⁷⁷ before him Śaṅkara’s bhāṣya on the sūtra ‘lokavat tu līlākaivalyam’ (Vedāntasūtra II. 1. 33). He, however, seems to have favoured the position that the attainment of *mokṣa* is due⁵⁷⁸ not to mere correct knowledge but to the combination (*samuccaya*) of knowledge and karma (vide remarks on Manu VI. 32, 74-75, and XII. 87-90). This was probably due, as Kullūka remarks⁵⁷⁹ (on I. 3), to his being a profound student of Mīmāṁsā.