the exponent of the Visishtadvaita philosophy - ebooks - ISKCON ...

CU XXII. KUllESA AND bodhAyana-vritti. 141
made foi* aach woi ks. They were found, and on a perusal it -nas
found that R:\m3,auja's exposition was correct. Elbm&nuja and
Kurfi^a took this opportunity of Studying the Bodh&yana-Vritti
Letter, as the Pandits -would not allow the work to be taken
away by him. ESmanuja was anxious to secure the work, but
objections to his taking the book away were insurmountable.
He felt grieved, but Kur&Sa assured him that he had retained
the cardinal pa-ssages in his memory, and could reproduce the
saoie whenever wanted. This allayed Il£im3,nuia's anxiety ; and
he allowed the V'l'itti, though very reluctantly, to be restored to
the Library, at the King's request, as the latter knew his Pandits
would otherwise give trouble and would not hesitate even to
kill Ram3,nuja.' And yet the Pandits resented all this, as their
prestige suffered bo much ; but being powerless to openly harm
RamEbnuja, as the king was already on his side, they entered
into a dark conspiracy to kill KS,m3,auja by black magic.
This
' The following extracts from Max
Muller's Theos'ophy or Psychological
Religion are interestin;!; :— to tlio student
of philosophy " **Eam§,iiTi3a
does not represent himself as stating
a new theory of the Ved^uta,
bnt he appeals to BodhS,yana, the
anthor of a Vritti or explanation of
the Bhrania-sutras, as his authority,
nay he refers to previous commentaries
or Yyitti-k2ir3,s on Bodh^yana
as likewise supporting his
opinions. It has been supposed
that one of these, Dramida, the
author of a Dramida^bl»3,8hya or a
Commentary on Botiteyana, ia the
same as the DrS.vida whose Bhashya
on the CbhS.ndogya-XJpanishad
is several times referred to
by Sankara in his commentary on
that TJpanishad, and whose opinions
on the Tedanta-Siitrds are sometimes
supported by Saukara (See
Thibant S.B.E. XXXIV, p. xxii)"
[P. lOO.j
•'»#» We have thirdly the commentaries
of Sankara, Bodh&yana,
K4mS.nnia and many others. These
commentaries, however, are not
mere commentaries in oar sense of
the word, thyy arc really philosophical
treatises, each defending an
independent view of the Sfitras,
and indirectly of the Upanishads."
[P. 101.]
" * * I hare generally followed
the guidance of Sankara, as
be seems to me to carry the Vedanta
doctrine to the highest
point, bnt I feel bound to say that
Professor Thibaut has proved that
ES-m^niija is on many points the
more faithful interpreter of the
Ved^uta. Sutras. * * * * Nor was
Bamanuja a mere dissentient from
^ankara. He claimed for his interpretation
of the VedSinta the
anthority of philosophers more
aucient even than Sankara, and, of
course, the authority of the Ved^nta-Sutras
themselves, if only
rightly understood. E5.mS,nnja's
followers do not posses now, so far
as I know, manuscripts of any of
these more ancient commentaries,
but there is no reason to donbt that
Bodhayana and other philosophers
to whom Bam^nuja appeals were
real characters and in their time
influential teachers of the Vedanta."
[P. 313.].