I do not know of any evidence that would come in conflict with this supposition. The fact that we do not know of any Hindu writer who held such monistic views as Gauḍapāda or Śankara, and who interpreted the Brahma-sūtras in accordance with those monistic ideas, when combined with the fact that the dualists had been writing commentaries on the Brahma-sūtras, goes to show that the Brahma-sutras were originally regarded as an authoritative work of the dualists. This also explains the fact that the Bhagavadgitā, the canonical work of the Ekānti Vaiṣṇavas, should refer to it. I do not know of any Hindu writer previous to Gauḍapāda who attempted to give an exposition of the monistic doctrine (apart from the Upanisads), either by writing a commentary as did Sankara, or by writing an independent work as did Gauḍapāda. I am inclined to think therefore that as the pure monism of the Upaniṣads was not worked out in a coherent manner for the formation of a monistic system, it was dealt with by people who had sympathies with some form of dualism which was already developing in the later days of the Upanisads, as evidenced by the dualistic tendencies of such Upanisads as the Śvetāśvatara, and the like. The epic Samkhya was also the result of this dualistic development.

It seems that Bādarāyaṇa, the writer of the Brahma-sūtras, was probably more a theist, than an absolutist like his commentator Sankara. Gauḍapāda seems to be the most important man, after the Upanisad sages, who revived the monistic tendencies of the Upaniṣads in a bold and clear form and tried to formulate them in a systematic manner. It seems very significant that no other kārikās on the Upaniṣads were interpreted, except the Māṇḍūkyakārikā by Gauḍapāda, who did not himself make any reference to any other writer of the monistic school, not even Bādarāyaṇa. Sankara himself makes the confession that the absolutist (advaita) creed was recovered from the Vedas by Gauḍapāda. Thus at the conclusion of his commentary on Gauḍapāda's kārikā, he says that "he adores by falling at the feet of that great guru (teacher) the adored of his adored, who on finding all the people sinking in the ocean made dreadful by the crocodiles of rebirth, out of kindness for all people, by churning the great ocean of the Veda by his great churning rod of wisdom recovered what lay deep in the heart of the Veda, and is hardly attainable even by the immortal

gods'." It seems particularly significant that Sankara should credit Gauḍapāda and not Bādarāyaṇa with recovering the Upanisad creed. Gauḍapāda was the teacher of Govinda, the teacher of Śankara; but he was probably living when Śankara was a student, for Śankara says that he was directly influenced by his great wisdom, and also speaks of the learning, self-control and modesty of the other pupils of Gauḍapāda. There is some dispute about the date of Sankara, but accepting the date proposed by Bhandarkar, Pathak and Deussen, we may consider it to be 788 A.D., and suppose that in order to be able to teach Šankara, Gauḍapāda must have been living till at least 800 A.D.

Gauḍapāda thus flourished after all the great Buddhist teachers Aśvaghosa, Nāgārjuna, Asanga and Vasubandhu; and I believe that there is sufficient evidence in his kārikās for thinking that he was possibly himself a Buddhist, and considered that the teachings of the Upanisads tallied with those of Buddha. Thus at the beginning of the fourth chapter of his kārikās he says that he adores that great man (dvipadām varam) who by knowledge as wide as the sky realized (sambuddha) that all appearances (dharma) were like the vacuous sky (gaganopamam1). He then goes on to say that he adores him who has dictated (desita) that the touch of untouch (asparśayoga-probably referring to Nirvāṇa) was the good that produced happiness to all beings, and that he was neither in disagreement with this doctrine nor found any contradiction in it (avivādaḥ aviruddhaśca). Some disputants hold that coming into being is of existents, whereas others quarrelling with them hold that being (jāta) is of nonexistents (abhūtasya); there are others who quarrel with them and say that neither the existents nor non-existents are liable to being and there is one non-coming-into-being (advayamajātim). He agrees with those who hold that there is no coming into being. In IV. 19 of his kārikā he again says that the Buddhas have shown that there was no coming into being in any way (sarvatha Buddhairajātiḥ paridīpitaḥ).

1 Śankara's bhāṣya on Gauḍapāda's kārikā, Ānandāśrama edition, p. 214. 2 Anandāśrama edition of Sankara's bhāṣya on Gauḍapāda's kārikā, p. 21.

3 Telang wishes to put Sankara's date somewhere in the 8th century, and Venkatesvara would have him in 805 A.D.-897 A.D., as he did not believe that Sankara could have lived only for 32 years. J. R. A. S. 1916.

4

• Compare Lańkāvatāra, p. 29, Katham ca gaganopamam.

5 Gauḍapāda's kārikā, IV. 2, 4.

Again, in IV. 42 he says that it was for those realists (vastuvādi), who since they found things and could deal with them and were afraid of non-being, that the Buddhas had spoken of origination (jāti). In IV. 90 he refers to agrayāna which we know to be a name of Mahāyāna. Again, in IV. 98 and 99 he says that all appearances are pure and vacuous by nature. These the Buddhas, the emancipated one (mukta) and the leaders know first. It was not said by the Buddha that all appearances (dharma) were knowledge. He then closes the kārikās with an adoration which in all probability also refers to the Buddha'.

Gauḍapada's work is divided into four chapters: (1) Āgama (scripture), (2) Vaitathya (unreality), (3) Advaita (unity), (4) Alātaśānti (the extinction of the burning coal). The first chapter is more in the way of explaining the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad by virtue of which the entire work is known as Māṇḍūkyakārikā. The second, third, and fourth chapters are the constructive parts of Gauḍapada's work, not particularly connected with the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad.

In the first chapter Gauḍapāda begins with the three apparent manifestations of the self: (1) as the experiencer of the external world while we are awake (viśva or vaiśvānara ātmā), (2) as the experiencer in the dream state (taijasa ātmā), (3) as the experiencer in deep sleep (suşupti), called the prajña when there is no determinate knowledge, but pure consciousness and pure bliss (ānanda). He who knows these three as one is never attached to his experiences. Gauḍapāda then enumerates some theories of creation: some think that the world has proceeded as a creation from the prāṇa (vital activity), others consider creation as an expansion (vibhuti) of that cause from which it has proceeded; others imagine that creation is like dream (svapna) and magic (māyā); others, that creation proceeds simply by the will of the Lord; others that it proceeds from time; others that it is for the enjoyment of the Lord (bhogārtham) or for his play only (kriḍārtham), for such is the nature (svabhāva) of the Lord, that he creates, but he cannot have any longing, as all his desires are in a state of fulfilment.

1 Gauḍapada's kārikā, IV. 100. In my translation I have not followed Śankara, for he has I think tried his level best to explain away even the most obvious references to Buddha and Buddhism in Gauḍapāda's kārikā. I have, therefore, drawn my meaning directly as Gauḍapāda's kārikās seemed to indicate. I have followed the same principle in giving the short exposition of Gauḍapāda's philosophy below.

Gauḍapāda does not indicate his preference one way or the other, but describes the fourth state of the self as unseen (adṛṣṭa), unrelationable (avyavahāryam), ungraspable (agrāhyam), indefinable (alakṣaṇa), unthinkable (acintyam), unspeakable (avyapadesya), the essence as oneness with the self (ekātmapratyayasara), as the extinction of the appearance ( prapañcopaśama), the quiescent (santam), the good (śivam), the one (advaita)'. The world-appearance (prapañca) would have ceased if it had existed, but all this duality is mere māyā (magic or illusion), the one is the ultimately real (paramārthataḥ). In the second chapter Gauḍapāda says that what is meant by calling the world a dream is that all existence is unreal. That which neither exists in the beginning nor in the end cannot be said to exist in the present. Being like unreal it appears as real. The appearance has a beginning and an end and is therefore false. In dreams things are imagined internally, and in the experience that we have when we are awake things are imagined as if existing outside, but both of them are but illusory creations of the self. What is perceived in the mind is perceived as existing at the moment of perception only; external objects are supposed to have two moments of existence (namely before they are perceived, and when they begin to be perceived), but this is all mere imagination. That which is unmanifested in the mind and that which appears as distinct and manifest outside are all imaginary productions in association with the sense faculties. There is first the imagination of a perceiver or soul (jiva) and then along with it the imaginary creations of diverse inner states and the external world. Just as in darkness the rope is imagined to be a snake, so the self is also imagined by its own illusion in diverse forms. There is neither any production nor any destruction (na nirodho, na cotpattiḥ), there is no one who is enchained, no one who is striving, no one who wants to be released. Imagination finds itself realized in the non-existent existents and also in the sense

1 Compare in Nāgārjuna's first kārikā the idea of prapañcopaśamam sivam. Anirodhamanutpădamanucchedamaśāśvatam anekārthamanānārthamanāgamamanirgamam yaḥ pratilyasamutpādam prapañcopaśamam śivam deśayāmāsa sambuddhastam vande vadatāmvaram. Compare also Nāgārjuna's Chapter on Nirvāṇaparīkṣā, Pūrvopalambhopaśamaḥ prapañcopaśamaḥ śivaḥ na kvacit kasyacit kaścit dharmmo buddhenadesitaḥ. So far as I know the Buddhists were the first to use the words prapañcopaśaman sivam.

2 Compare Nāgārjuna's kārikā, "anirodhamanutpādam" in Mādhyamikavṛtti, B. T. S., p. 3.

of unity; all imagination either as the many or the one (advaya) is false; it is only the oneness (advayata) that is good. There is no many, nor are things different or non-different (na nänedam ..na prthag naprthak)1. The sages who have transcended attachment, fear, and anger and have gone beyond the depths of the Vedas have perceived it as the imaginationless cessation of all appearance (nirvikalpaḥ prapañcopasamaḥ), the one?.

In the third chapter Gauḍapāda says that truth is like the void (ākāśa) which is falsely conceived as taking part in birth and death, coming and going and as existing in all bodies; but howsoever it be conceived, it is all the while not different from ākāśa. All things that appear as compounded are but dreams (svapna) and māyā (magic). Duality is a distinction imposed upon the one (advaita) by māyā. The truth is immortal, it cannot therefore by its own nature suffer change. It has no birth. All birth and death, all this manifold is but the result of an imposition of māyā upon it. One mind appears as many in the dream, so also in the waking state one appears as many, but when the mind activity of the Togins (sages) is stopped arises this fearless state, the extinction of all sorrow, final cessation. Thinking everything to be misery (duḥkham sarvam anusmṛtya) one should stop all desires and enjoyments, and thinking that nothing has any birth he should not see any production at all. He should awaken the mind (citta) into its final dissolution (laya) and pacify it when distracted; he should not move it towards diverse objects when it stops. He should not taste any pleasure (sukham) and by wisdom remain unattached, by strong effort making it motionless and still. When he neither passes into dissolution nor into distraction; when there is no sign, no appearance that is the perfect Brahman. When there is no object of knowledge to come into being, the unproduced is then called the omniscent (sarvajña).

In the fourth chapter, called the Alātaśānti, Gauḍapāda further 1 Compare Madhyamikakārikā, B. T. S., p. 3, anekārtham anānārtham, etc. 2 Compare Lankāvatārasūtra, p. 78, Advayāsamsāraparinirvāṇavatsarvadharmāḥ tasmāt tarhi mahāmate Śunyatānut pādādvayaniḥsvabhāvalakṣaṇe yogaḥ karaniyaḥ; also 8, 46, Yaduta svacittaviṣayavikalpadṛṣṭyānavabodhanāt vijñānānām svacittadṛśyamātrānavatāreṇa mahāmate vālapṛthagjanāḥ bhāvābhāvasvabhāvaparamārthadṛṣṭidvayavādino bhavanti.

3 Compare Nagarjuna's kārikā, B. T. S., p. 196, Ākāśam śaśaśṛṁgañca bandhyāyāḥ putra eva ca asantaścābhivyajyante tathābhāvena kalpanā, with Gauḍapada's kārikā, 111. 28, Asato māyayā janma tatvato naiva jāyate bandhyāputro na tattvena māyāya vāpi jāyate.