The Bhikṣuṇī Maṇimēkhalai

142 - Other Views on the Philosophical Systems
The analogy brought in by the learned professor can hardly be
accepted as holding good in this case. His position is:–
quoted by Śabarasvāmin ad. I, 1,5 the Śūnyavāda is discussed and
refuted. It is true that in the Maṇimēkhalai there is no explicit
reference to the Vēdānta philosophy. However the same remark
applies also to the Nyāyavārttika, for Uddyotakāra altogether ignores
the Vēdānta though at his time it was almost certainly a separate
system of philosophy. The same attitude towards Vēdāntism taken up
by Uddyotakāra and Śāttaṉār rather speaks in favour of the
assumption that both authors were not far removed in time from each
other.’
Uddyotakāra is a commentator pure and simple on the Nyāya. It is
open to him not to mention the Vēdānta as a system, unless he saw
particular reason for doing so, or the actual text that he commented
on necessitated a reference. Śāttaṉār stands on a different footing. He
lays himself out to discuss what he regarded as heretical systems and
then to expound the system of Buddhism that commended itself to
him. The difference is vital and of considerable force. It would be
therefore difficult to believe that Uddyotakāra and Śāttaṉār were
near enough in point of time because of the omission in the works of
both of them of any reference to Vēdānta as a system.
Coming to the exposition of Buddhism in Book XXX of the
Maṇimēkhalai, the professor’s criticism is as follows:–
‘The translation of chapter XXX of the Maṇimēkhalai is very
welcome, though it is rather disappointing being a mere meagre
account of Buddhism. I wonder who Śāttaṉār’s authority was in this