History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.45

v7.c93.45

The problem of the author of the VS is rather complicated. Bhāskara (like Śaṅkara) holds that Bādarāyaṇa is the author of VS, since he begins his commentary on VS with an obeisance to Bādarāyaṇa who sent forth (into the world) the Brahmasūtra that brings about the cessation of the bondage of birth. The Pañcapādikā of Padmapāda (a disciple of Śaṅkarācārya) performs (in the 2nd Introductory verse) an obeisance to Bādarāyaṇa.¹⁸⁹⁴ Rāmānuja, on the other hand, makes confusing statements. In the 2nd verse of his introduction to the Śrībhāṣya¹⁸⁹⁵ on VS he calls upon all good men to drink the nectar-like words of Pārāśarya, but in his bhāṣya on VS II. 2. 42 he holds that Bādarāyaṇa was the author of the Mahābhārata, wherein the Pāñcarātra-śāstra is expounded at great length (in Śāntiparva chap. 334-339 = cr. ed. 321 ff.) as also of the VS¹⁸⁹⁶. But Yāmunācārya, the preceptor of the teacher of Rāmānuja, ascribes the VS to Bādarāyaṇa. In spite of Śaṅkarācārya, Vācaspati-miśra, author of the famous Bhāmatī on¹⁸⁹⁷ Śaṅkarācārya's bhāṣya on VS, makes an obeisance to Vedavyāsa, the author of Brahmasūtra The Parāśara-mādhavīya is in two minds, in vol I part I pp. 52, 97, vol. II. part 2 pp. 3 and 275 Bādarāyaṇa is said to be the author of the VS, but in a few other places VS is spoken of as Vyāsasūtra (vol. I. part 1, pp. 56, 113). The above conflict of testimony gives rise to the important question whether Bādarāyaṇa, the supposed author of the Vedāntasūtras, is identical with Vedavyāsa or is different from him Śaṅkarācārya's bhāṣya points to the conclusion that in his opinion at least they are different.¹⁸⁹⁸ For example, on V. S. I. 3. 29 he quotes a verse of Vedavyāsa in support of the proposition of the VS that the Veda is eternal. On VS II. 3. 47, in support of the proposition that, though the individual soul is an aṁśa of the Supreme Self, the latter is not at all affected by the suffering of the individual soul, Śaṅkara quotes two verses as smṛti from the Mahābhārata. This makes it clear that, if the author of the VS was identical with Vedavyāsa, the author of the Mahābhārata, Śaṅkarācārya would not have cited the latter as an independent smṛti source supporting the former or would at least have used some such language as 'this very author has said elsewhere that' &c. The same reasoning would apply to Śaṅkarācārya's comments. If that great ācārya was of the opinion that the author of the VS was the same as that of the Mahābhārata and the Gītā he would not have cited passages from the Epic and the Gītā as Smṛtis supporting the reasoning of the VS.