History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.121

v7.c93.121

¹⁹³⁵ Śabara expressly mentions (Bhagavān) Upavarṣa (on I. 1. 5) as to what is 'śabda', while Rāmānuja says (note 1886 above) that Bodhāyana composed a bhāṣya on both P. M S and V. S. There are controversies about Vṛttikāra, Upavarṣa and Bodhāyana Vide M. M. Prof. Kuppuswami in Pro. of 3rd All India O. Con pp. 465–468 and Pandit V. A. Ramaswami in I. H. Q. vol. X. pp 431–433 for identity of Vṛttikāra and Upavarṣa, while Dr. S K. Iyengar in 'Maṇimekalai in its historic setting' p 189 and the present author in JBBRAS for 1921 pp. 83-98 at p. 84, hold that Vṛttikāra and Upavarṣa are different M M. Kuppuswami Sastry (in Pro. of 3rd O Conference pp. 465-468) holds Bodhāyana and Upavarṣa identical. Śaṅkarācārya twice names Upavarṣa with great respect (as bhagavān) on VS I. 3 28 and III 3 53, but he nowhere mentions Bodhāyana to whose extensive commentary Rāmānuja refers at the beginning of his bhāṣya on VS. Vide J. I H Madras, vol VII. pp. 107-115 on Bodhāyana and Upavarṣa and V A. Ramaswami Sastry's Intro to the Tattvabindu pp. 14-18 (1936) Vide I II. Q vol. X pp. 431-452 on 'Vṛttikāras of Pūrvamīmāṁsāsūtra '