History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.153

v7.c93.153

Some remarks in the learned Introduction of Prof. Kunhan Raja to the edition of Umbeka's Com. on the Ślokavārtika invite criticism. Prof. Raja (on p. XLIX) states that his attempt has been only to raise doubts and to attempt at weighing the evidence for and against various theories. The present writer has no serious objection to this. But he thinks that Prof Raja has gone wrong in his interpretation of words like 'anupāsitaguravaś-codayanti' (p 33) and 'anupāsitaguruprajñā-vilasitam-iti'¹⁹⁵¹ grantha-jñāna-mānino manyante' (p 30). He starts (XLII) by saying "whether it meant (i e. 'anupāsitaguru' meant) one by whom the teacher was not respected or a teacher who was not respected (by his disciples)' and then proceeds 'but the expression 'upāsītagurutām' (appearing in the commentary on the 2nd verse of the Ślokavārtika) settles the point. It must mean 'one by whom the teacher was not respected'. 'Upāsīta-guru' literally means 'one who waited on the guru i. e. listened to the explanations of his teacher and made them his own' 'Honoured' is at most a secondary meaning of 'upāsīta'. Upa-ās literally means 'sit near, wait upon' I fail to see how it settles the point. The word 'upāsīta-gurutām' (when introducing the 2nd intro. verse of the Ślokavārtika) is applied by Umbeka to Kumārila himself in relation to the Ślokavārtika verse 'abhivandya gurūnādau' It means 'the characteristic or quality of one who has served his teacher i e who has carefully listened to what the guru expounded and understood it.' The expression 'anupāsītaguru' (which, according to Prof Raja, always refers to Prabhākara) frequently (*vide* also pp. 14, 52, 75, 291, 441) used by Umbeka means 'he or those who have not waited upon the guru and listened to his words carefully and therefore have failed to grasp the correct meaning of the passages'. The inference suggested by these words of derision is that the objector (either Prabhākara or some one else) has not understood the doctrine taught by Kumārila to him and the present author is disposed to hold that the frequent emphasis on the word 'guru' in 'anupāsītaguru' is a veiled reference to Prabhākara-guru (as Śālikanātha puts his name in his Prakaraṇa-pañcikā 'Prabhākara-guror-dṛṣṭyā), who was Kumārila's pupil but deviated from his guru's doctrines and wrote against them and Umbeka attacks and derides him for this. Supposing that Prabhākara had once been a pupil of Kumārila and later on propounded views that very much diverged from Kumārila's, it is natural if Umbeka took up the cudgels on behalf of Kumārila and attacked Prabhākara as one who had forsaken his Guru's views, had not digested them properly and had written a work (not now available but well-known to Umbeka) severely attacking Kumārila. Prof. Raja (Intro pp. XLIII and XLIV) throws out the suggestion that on p 14 and p 291 Umbeka possibly suggests that Prabhākara preceded Kumārila There is nothing of the kind. Umbeka holds that Prabhākara had not grasped his master's doctrines and tries to show what the real doctrine misunderstood by Prabhākara was