History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.157

v7.c93.157

Vṛttikāra—There is great conflict of views about the person who the Vṛttikāra quoted several times by Śabara was. Pārthasārathi in Śāstradīpikā p 48 (first line) holds that he is Upavarṣa Vṛttikāra is cited with great respect by Śabara, but he also differs from him frequently The Prapañcahṛdaya (p. 39) attributes to Bodhāyana an extensive commentary called Kṛtakoṭi on both mīmāṁsās. It is remarkable that Bodhāyana is not mentioned by name by any early work on P. M. S. nor does Śaṅkara mention him though he twice mentions Upavarṣa. Rāmānujācārya in the opening words of his bhāṣya on Brahmasūtra refers to the extensive commentary of Bodhāyana on the Brahmasūtra. But he does not say that Bodhāyana commented on P. M. S. The present author is not even now prepared to hold that Vṛttikāra mentioned by Śabara so often is identical with Upavarṣa. Śabara cites at some length the different interpretation of PMS I. 1 3–5 by Vṛttikāra and in the midst of it mentions (on p 45) by name the view of Upavarṣa on 'what is śabda'. He appears to regard the two as different. The fact that the Tantravārtika (pp 602–3 on II. 3. 16) appears to identify Upavarṣa with Vṛttikāra is not conclusive. From Kumārila himself we know that several Vṛttis were written on PMS before as well as after Śabara. So even Upavarṣa may have been deemed to be Vṛttikāra by Kumārila (on II. 3. 16) and his views quoted, though the Vṛttikāra in other places in Śabara's bhāṣya may be different.