History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.64

v7.c93.64

In several cases where Bādarāyana is mentioned, the extant V. S makes certain additions and explanations. It has been shown above that Śaṅkarācārya, Bhāskara and Yāmuna ascribe the V S to Bādarāyana and that Vācaspati and others hold that Vyāsa Pārāśarya is the author of V. S. It is difficult to explain how Vedavyāsa came to be identified with Bādarāyana after the 9th century A. D. Some other relevant matters have also to be considered A verse about *kṣetra* and *kṣetrajña* in the Bhagavadgītā raises a problem. In Gītā¹⁹⁰⁵ 13. 4 it is said 'this real nature of kṣetra and kṣetrajña has been separately sung (i. e. propounded) in many ways by the sages in different vedic hymns (or metres) and by the words of the Brahmasūtra that are full of reasoning and that arrive at definite conclusions'. Here the Gītā expressly mentions Brahmasūtra. If one turns to the extant Brahmasūtra (or Vedāntasūtra), it is found that in many sūtras reliance is placed on smṛti, which is taken to mean the Gītā by all ācāryas. For example, on 'Smṛtiśca' (V. S. I 2 6) the only Smṛti passages cited by Śaṅkarācārya are Gītā 18. 61 and 13 2. Similarly, on 'api ca smaryate' (V S. I. 3 23) Śaṅkara cites only Gītā 15. 6 and 12; on 'api ca smaryate' (V S. II. 3. 45) the only Smṛti passage quoted by Śaṅkara is Gītā 15 7, on 'Smaranti ca' (V. S. IV. I. 10) only Gītā 6. 11 is quoted; on 'Yoginaḥ prati ca smaryate smārte caite' (V S. IV 2 21) Gītā 8 24-25 alone are set forth as the passages meant to be explained. Therefore, though the Bhagavad-gītā is not expressly named in the Brahmasūtra, the ācāryas are agreed that the Bhagavadgītā alone is relied upon and referred to in all the above-mentioned sūtras We have, therefore reached this position that the Gītā mentions the Brahmasūtra which must be held to be earlier than the Gītā, but as Gītā passages are declared to be at the basis of some of the Vedānta-sūtras, the Gītā must be earlier than the V. S. This is contradictory, Śaṅkarācārya,¹⁹⁰⁶ who saw the contradiction, therefore explained 'Brahmasūtrapadaiḥ' as passages (of Upaniṣads) that suggest (i. e. propound) doctrines about brahma (i. e. he interprets 'sūtra' as meaning 'sūcaka'). But this explanation is far-fetched and has not been accepted by other commentators. Therefore, other theories have to be put forward viz. that the author of both is the same or that the Mahābhārata and Gītā were receiving accretions from time to time and that when the final redaction of the Mahābhārata (including the Gītā) was made the verse about Brahmasūtra was inserted in the Gītā or that in the times of the Gītā there were several works called Brahmasūtra other than the extant one.