A History of Indian Philosophy v4.c38.s2.12

v4.c38.s2.12

² The *Nyāya-sudhā* points out that Śaṅkara's commentary is based on an untenable hypothesis that two kinds of Brahman are referred to in the Upaniṣads, Brahman as under the cover of *avidyā*, and as pure Brahman. Of the Upaniṣad passages (those which refer to the former), some are said to be for purposes of worship and consequent material advantage (*upāsanāni abhyudayārthāni*), some for attaining gradually the progressive stages towards liberation (*krama-mukty-arthāni*), etc. Jayatīrtha says that this theory is wholly wrong, since it is quite unwarrantable to hold that Brahman is of two kinds (*brahmaṇo dvairūpyasya aprāmāṇikatvāt*); for all the Vedānta texts refer to Nārāyaṇa, the repository of all qualities, but some describe him as being endowed with omniscience, omnipotence, all-controlling power, beauty, etc., some with the negative qualities of being devoid of sin, sorrow, ordinary elemental bodies (*prākṛta-bhāntikara-vigraha-rahitatva*), and others describe Him as unspeakable and beyond speech and thought (to show His deep and mysterious character); others again leave out all the qualities and describe Him as the one, and yet others as the soul of all (*sarvātmake*); but these are all but different descriptions of the supreme person Viṣṇu (*parama-puruṣa*), and do not in any way refer to two different kinds of Brahman. It is only through a misconception (that Brahman has only a unitary nature) that these have been so interpreted by Śaṅkara, who had no previous teachers who knew the Vedas to guide him (*tato vyākula-buddhayo guru-sampradāya-vikalā aśruta-veda-vyākhyātāraḥ sarvatrāpi veda-rūpatām anusandadānā vedaṃ chindanti*). *Nyāya-sudhā*, p. 124.