History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.55

v7.c93.55

There are in VS nine sūtras in which Bādarāyaṇa is named viz. in VS I 3. 26 and 33 (Bādarāyaṇa being twice named in the same *adhikaraṇa* as opposed to Jaimini), III. 2. 41, III. 4. 1, III. 4. 8, III. 4. 19, IV. 3. 15, IV. 4. 7, IV. 4. 12. It may be noted that in all these cases (except in IV 3. 15) the views ascribed to Bādarāyaṇa are opposed to those of Jaimini or are slightly different (only VS IV. 4. 7 and IV. 4. 12). Prof. Nilakanta Sastri thinks that all the views mentioned as Bādarāyaṇa's are the views of the author of the VS who employs the third person for himself as ancient authors do (I. A. vol. 50 at p. 169). This does not afford a satisfactory explanation of the question why it was necessary to invoke Bādarāyaṇa's name in nine cases only for buttressing up the position of the author of the VS (that has 555 sūtras). If the author of the VS and Bādarāyaṇa named nine times are identical, the name of Bādarāyaṇa should ordinarily appear towards the end of the *adhikaraṇa* and not in the middle. Two examples may be cited here to illustrate how VS deals with references to Bādarāyaṇa. In III. 2 38-41 (which is one *adhikaraṇa*) the *siddhānta* view is first stated with reasons in III. 2. 38-39, then Jaimini's view is cited (III. 4. 40) and then Bādarāyaṇa is mentioned as agreeing with the view first put forth 'pūrvam tu Bādarāyaṇo hetuvyapadeśāt), the difference being that the *siddhānta* is based upon 'upapatti' while Bādarāyaṇa relies upon 'hetuvyapadeśa' (in *śruti* and *smṛti*). This shows that different reasons were assigned by the author of VS and by Bādarāyaṇa for the same proposition. VS. III. 4. 18-20 form one *adhikaraṇa* about *sannyāsa*. Jaimini starts the pūrvapakṣa that the Chān Up. (II. 23. 1 'trayo dharmaskandhāḥ') only makes a passing reference to the āśramas, there is no vidhi (injunction) in that text and there is no exposition also. Then Bādarāyaṇa's view is cited 'anustheyam Bādarāyaṇaḥ sāmyaśruteḥ' i e. *sannyāsa* should be resorted to just as one resorts to the householder's stage. Then comes the view of the author of the VS that there is a vidhi of *sannyāsa* in that text. If Bādarāyaṇa and the author of VS be held identical, why was it necessary to add the sūtra 'vidhirvā dhāraṇavat' (VS. III. 4. 20) after stating Bādarāyaṇa's view? It would be also noticed that the reasons given in the two sūtras differ. In VS IV. 4. 10-14 first the views of Bādari and Jaimini on Chān. Up. VIII 2. 1, 5 are set out, then Bādarāyaṇa's view is set forth (in IV 4. 12) and then two more sūtras are added by the author of VS Therefore, these illustrations show that, though the final conclusion of Bādarāyaṇa and the author of VS is the same, the language and the reasons are different, and that Bādarāyaṇa named in the VS was a predecessor of the author of the extant VS that had composed a work on Vedānta, whom the author of the VS strengthens with reasons of his own.