ajAti vAda

with a consistent theory of language and meaning, and rigorous requirements of
consistency and non-contradiction. Analogies did play an important part in the logical
analysis, but the spirit of the times called for more intellectual speculation and
rationalization. This was the prime motivation for bAdarAyaNa's brahmasUtras, which
attempted to harmonize the many teachings of the upanishads into one consistent system.
The brahmasUtras are therefore called the nyAya-prasthAna (not to be confused with the
independent philosophical system of the nyAya).
The gauDapAdIya kArikAs and Sankara's bhAshyas follow in the same spirit. In
establishing the main tenets of advaita vedAnta, Sankara drew upon mImAm.sA theories
of perception and language, and sAm.khya notions of the transformations of prakRti. He
also gave a place for yogic practice in his system, and used nyAya methods of inferential
reasoning wherever appropriate. This was coupled with a critique of the logical
shortcomings of these systems and rejecting those tenets which were not in accordance
with the thought of the upanishads. Thus, for example, he accepted mImAm.sA rules of
exegesis, but pointed out that their applicability was limited largely to the karmakANDa,
the upanishads requiring different methods of interpretation. Similarly, he
denied an independent existence to the sAm.khyan prakRti, and in his analysis of the
relation of the universe to brahman, made the equivalent mAyA completely dependent
upon the reality of brahman. maNDAna miSra, Sankara's contemporary, also developed
powerful arguments that denied ultimate reality to difference. Between Sankara and
maNDana, advaita vedAnta became the most important school of vedAnta, and indeed
of all Indian philosophical thought. However, after this time, the followers of rival
schools started re-evaluating their positions, modifying their views and began posing
new objections to advaita. The later teachers in the advaita tradition lived and worked in
such a milieu.
Among the works of Sankara's immediate disciples (8th century CE), toTaka's
SrutisArasamuddhAraNa did not attract sub-commentaries from later authors, while no
texts attributed to hastAmalaka were widely known. sureSvara's upanishad-bhAshyavArttikAs
and the naishkarmayasiddhi, and padmapAda's pancapAdikA influenced the
course of post-Sankaran advaita vedAnta significantly. Soon after their time, vAcaspati
miSra (9th century CE), wrote his bhAmatI commentary on Sankara's brahmasUtra
bhAshya, and prakASAtman (10th century CE) wrote a vivaraNa to the pancapAdikA.
Later authors sometimes wrote independent treatises of their own, but more often chose
an earlier text to comment upon, thus building up sets of commentaries and subcommentaries,
which make the philosophical views of the sub-schools clearer. These
authors may be classified under four heads for the sake of convenience -
• those who closely followed sureSvara's line of thought (e.g. sarvajnAtman,
madhusUdana sarasvatI),
• those who followed the pancapAdikA and prAkASAtman's vivaraNa commentary
thereon (the vivaraNa school),
• those who followed vAcaspati's line (the bhAmatI sub-school), and
• those who made independent critiques of difference and thus established nonduality
(e.g. SrIharsha and citsukha).