1 14 MARCUS SCHMUCKER

NyM [(Anandabodha:) Nyiiyamakaranda] Nyiiyamakaranda by Shree Ananda

Bodha Bhaffiirakiichiirya. With the Commentary by Citsukh Muni, Pra­
mii�iamiilii and Nyiiyadfpiivall, I-IV. Ed. by Svaml Balarama Udaseen
Mandalika. (Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, 38, 62, 87, 117.) Benares
1907.
PrP
[(Salikanatha:) Prakarm:iapaiicikii] Prakarm:za Paiicikii of Siilikaniitha
with Nyiisiddhi of Jaipuri Niiriiym:za Bhaff. Ed. by A. Subrahmanya
Sastri. (Hindu University Darsana Series, 4.) Benares 1961. Yajiiavalkya-brahma�as and the Early l\1ima1psa

Studies wALTER SLAJE

BIARDEAU, Madeleine 1969. la philosophie de
Ma'J4�na Miir a. Vue a partir
de la Brahmasiddhi. (Publications
de !'Ecole Frarn;aise d'Extreme­
Orient, 76). Paris: Ecole Franc;aise d'Ex
treme-Orient.
HALBFASS, Wilhelm 1975. Con
ceptualisations of 'being' in Classical I
WZKS 19: 183-198. Vaise�ika.

1976. Substanz (dravya) im Vaise�ika.

WZKS 20: 141-166.
� �sa
--

-- 1992. On Being and What Ther Comparative investigations into the Purva- a d Uttara-Mlma
e ls. Classical Vaise�ika and the Histo
Indian Ontology. Albany: State Universit ry of tend in most cases to focus predomi.nantly on differences of mamly
y of New York Press.
LIPNER, Julius 1986. The Face
of Truth. A Study ofMeaning and Meta
physics in
a doctrinal nature by sharply contrasting them. The present pap r, �
the Vediintic Theology of Riimiinuja.
Albany: State University of New however, will - in its introductory part - rather b� concerned with
York Press.
some features that have received less attention . They belong to the
SCHMITHAl:JSEN, Lambert 1963. Vorstellungsfreie und
nehmung bei Salikanatha. WZKSO 7:
vorstellende Wahr­ sphere of social and ideological aspects and are n a sense m re
� ?
I 04-115. .
THRASHER, Allen Wright 1993 related to everyday life than to philosophical doctrmes. After bne ­ :
. The Advaita Vediinta of Brahma-Siddh .
Motilal Banarsidass. i. Delhi:
· ly outlining some of such features in their intra- and mter-systemte
�
,

VETTER, Tilmann 1964. Erke contexts they will form the background for the argument t be
nntnisprobleme bei Dharmakfrti. (VK
Wien: Osterreichische Akademie der SKSO, I.) ._
Wissenschaften. made in the subsequent part, dealing with the s9-called YaJna­
valkya-bruhmanas and their relationship to the early development
of the Piirva- Mlmarrisa . Although my observations are of a more
general nature, it is hoped that they will contri�ut � to a future con­
.
spectus of connecting and dissociating pecuhanties, as the case
may be, of both the Mlmaiµsas.
 Yiljnavalkya-brilhmar:ws and the Early MfmilYJlSil 117
116 WALTER SLAJE

1. Introduction: The Vedic dharma in its bifurcation and the

the first householders. The dharma of inacti vity 9r renunciation,
purposes of the Karma- and JftanakaI]«Jas
characterised by knowledge and dispassion, was taught to Sanaka
and his three brothers, who thereupon became the first celibates.4
1.1. Sankara
We may consider both of them true archetypes of the lifelong
According to the Bhagavadgztiibhii�ya of Sankara (the second half householder (grhastha) and the lifelong renouncer (safJlnyiisin)
of the 7th century?)1 the Vedic dharma, characterised by (ritual) respectively. Marlci, who as a Prajapati begot offspring and never
activity (pravrtti) as well as by its opposite, ritual i nactivity or re­ became a renouncer, archetypically represents the sacrificing
nunciation (nivrtti), also supports the world in exactly such a two­ householder. The renouncer-type, on the other hand, as represented
fold way. Sankara and some of his followers2 provide a mythical by Sanaka, is the lifelong celibate. He never became a householder
account for this claim: Vi�9 u Naraya9a created Manci,3 the first of and never procreated offspring.5 I t is clear that Sankara's bifurca­
the Prajapatis, and Sanaka, for making the world continue. To tion of the Vedic dharma mirrors the Karma- and Jfianaka9<;[as.
Marlci and the other Prajapatis he taught the Vedic dharma of I n his opinion, the dharma of the Karmaka9<;[a causes bondage6 and
(sacrificial and social) activity. Through procreation they became can at best bring about abhyudaya (a divine position in heaven).7
The Jfianaka9<;[a alone was capable of effecting final release
1 Vetter (1969: 15) opts for the second half of the 7th century. In like manner

also Thrasher (1993: 127), who accords with Vetter and demonstrates in detail from transmigration (niJ:iireyasa).8 Although the karmamiirga of a
(pp. 112-121) that Sankara must indeed have been referred to by Mai:i<;Iana in his householder is thus assigned limited importance in terms of final
Brahmasiddhi. Mai:i<;Iana's literary activity has been fixed by Thrasher (1993: release, it nevertheless contributes to the purification of the organ
1 27) as between 660 and 720 by the following reasons: Mandana knew Dharma­
klrti (600-660) and the latter's older contemporaries K��arila (Steinkellner (/capacity) of discrimination (sattvasuddhi)9 and by way of this
1997: 642) and Prabhakara. Prabhakara displays knowledge of the doctrine ad­
hered to by Kumarila and should therefore be dated in the the first half of the
7th century (Yoshimizu 1997: 49). Sankara, too, knew Dharmaklrti and Kumarila 4 See BhGBh (Introduction), p. I, 7-10: . . . marfcyiidfn agre sr�!Vii prajiipatfn,

(Mesquita 1994: 458, n. 33). Mai:i<;Iana, who refers to Sankara (Vetter 1979: 11, pravrttilak�m:ia1!1 dharmw!l griihayiim iisa vedoktam. tato 'nyii1[1s ca sanakasa­
n. 2), is quoted himself by Sur�svara, Sankara's direct disciple. So he seem� to nandaniidfn utpiidya, nivrttila�a!IaYJl dharmaf!l jiiiinavairilgyala�a1JW. n griiha­
have been a contemporary of Sankara. Umbeka, who demonstrably was active yiim iisa. dvividho hi vedokto dharmaf:z pravrttila�a1JO nivrtti/ak�a7Jas ca jagata(1
between 760 and 790, wrote a commentary on Mandana's Bhiivaniiviveka re­ sthitikiira7Jam.
porting already a number of variant readings which ��st be accorded some �ime 5 For details cf. Mani 1975: 682.

(at least half a century) for their gradual development. Thrasher consequently 6 Cf. BhGBh (p. 270, 2 t) ad BhG 18.30: pravrtti(l . . . bandhahetuf:z karma­
.
arrives at ca. 720 for a later limit of Mandana. This is in accordance with the fact miirga!1 sitstravihitavi�aya(1, . . . niV[ltir mo�ahetu(z Saf!lnyiJ.samiirgaf:z.
that Mai:i<;I�na is also quoted by Kar9ak�gomin (750-810) (Vetter 1979: 1 1 t). rtho 'pi ya!z pravrttilak�a!w
7 BhGBh (Introduction), p. 2, 12 f: abhyudayii
Therefore Sankara, who, as trustworthy (Thrasher 1993: 113 t) traditional belief
dharmo . . . sa deviidisthiinapriiptihetur .. .
has it, died comparatively young, could indeed have ended his life around or be­
8 BhGBh (Introduction), p. 2, 4 ff: .. . parw!l nif:zireyasaf!l sahetukasya saf!l-
�ore 70 0 AD. Sure�vara quotes Maii: <;Iana. So also does Bhaskara, active perhaps
_
1mmed1ately after Sankara (Riiping 1 977: 18; cf. also Stephan 2002: 19 f), who
siirasyiityantoparamalak�a!zam. tac ca sarvakarmasw. nnyiisapiirvakiid iitma­
jiiiinani�fhiiriipiid dharmiid bhavati. It is interesting to compare Parthasarathi's
was himself refuted by Vimuktatman, whom Schmucker (200 I : 21 f, n. 4) as­
similar opinion on the difference between abhyudaya and ni(l§reyasa: adr�!af!l ca
signs to approximately the first half of. the I 0th century. It is in the sense of
phalaf!l . . . dvividham abhyudayariipal!l nif:zireyasariipaf!l ca, 'sarviin kiimiin
merely a worki�g hypothesis tha! I adapt the established relative chronology to
iipnoti' (ChU 7.10.2) 'so '§nute sarviin kiimiin' (TaittU 2.1.1) ityiidy abhyuduya­
an a?solute dating as follows: Sankara (670-700) <- Mm:i<;Iana (660-720) ,_
Suresvara (680-740) <- Bhaskara (between 720 and the 10th century) <- Vi­ phalam. 'na sa punar iivartate' ( ChU 8.15.1) ityiidi nif:zireyasaphalam iti
vivekaf:z (SD 131.15 ft). Cf. also Mesquita 1994: 452 (n. 7), 460 ff.
-

muktatman (between 740 and the first half of the I 0th century).
-
2 9 BhGBh (Introduction), p. 2, 12 ff: . . ya!z pravrttila�a1JO dharmo ... sa . . .
See, e.g., Atmasukha, VC, p. 2, 7 ff. .

f§variirpa7Jabuddhyiinu�fhfyamiinaf:z sattva§uddhaye bhavati . . .

3 For mythological details of his domestic life cf. Mani 1975: 487.
118 WALTER SLAJE
Yajnavalkya-brii.hma't}as and the Early Mfmii.f!Zsii. 119
prepares for eventually entering the state of a knowledge-based Therefore, in Kumarila and S ankara we mee� with opposite
renouncer. 10 The celibate renouncer would thus take advantage of opinions clearly distinguishing between the two kandas and claim­
the primacy of liberation over the householder.
ing a different purpose for each of them. For Kumarila the Jfiana­
ka9c:la was auxiliary to the Karmaka9c:la in that it reinforces the
1.2. Kumarila given certainty of the existence of one's own self. S an kara, on the
Kumarila (the first half of the 7th century), on his part - whose other hand, belittled the Karmaka9c:la by assigning it a mere prepar­
Slokavarttika was referred to by Sankara1 1 - held a slightly dif­ atory value for, and thus subordinating it to, the Jfianakanda. All
ferent opinion on the respective purposes of the Karma- and the this is, however, not really new and would in no way come as a
Jfianakanda' and on the way in which they would exercise a bene­ surprise to an I ndologist.
ficial effe� t on final release (mok�a).12 To his mind as laid down in
the Slokavarttika, the study of the Upani�ads (vedanta) would have 2. Social aspects
rendered the natural certainty about the existence of a self, as
2.1. The two Mfmaf!Zsii.s in the context of grhastha- and
tacitly presupposed by Vedic injunctions,1 3 a firm conviction (dnlha
saf!Znyasa-a§ramas
ni§caya) but nothing more: 1 4 dr<f,hatvam etadvi§_ayaJ:i prabodha/:z15
I t is perhaps worthwhile to dwell on the probable impact the re­
-

prayati vedantani�evm:zena (SY, atmav. 148cd}.

spective ka7J¢as must have exercised on the chosen order of life
(airama) of their dedicated followers, since· we may assume an in­
10 BhGBh (Introducti�n), p. 2, 1 2- 1 6 : .. . ya!z pravrttilak�ar:w dharmo ... sa ·:· trinsic relationship between these two kal}f/,as and two particular
sattvasuddhaye bhavati . . I suddhasattvasya ca ji'iiinani�fhiiyogyatiipriipt1-
airamas. For one thing, there is indeed good reason to assign the
.

dviire1:1a ji'iiinotpattihetutvena ca ni(isreyasahetutvam api pratipadyate. Cf. also

Stephan 2002: 54 ff, 94. Piirva-M!maryisakas to the householder's order (grhastha-asrama),
1
1 Mesquita 1 994: 458, n. 33. since as followers of the K armakai:ic:la they ·were sacrificing
1 2 For details regarding the development of Kumarila's ideas abo t mok�f! and
� (karmins). The Uttara-M!maryisakas in contrast belonged to the
related topics, from a purely ritual path (karmamiirga) as expounded m the S/oka­
viirttika, to the karmaji'iiinasamuccaya-path in the Tantraviir�tika (pp. 459, 463) order of renouncers (saf!Znyasa-asrama). As followers of the Jfiana­
and the Brhafffkii (pp. 465 ff), cf. Mesquita 1 994 and the articles o'. John Taber ka9c:la their emphasis was on gnosis alone (jnanins), and they re­
and Kiyotaka Yoshimizu in the present volume. On the chronolog1cal order of jected performing sacrifices. F rom such a background an aged1 6
the Slokaviirttika and the Brhafffkii (in this sequence), see Kataoka 2003: 65.
1 3 So already Sabara, cf. Mesquita 1 994: 453, n. 1 3. ��mar�la: "An injunct!on M!maryisaka could hardly have felt compelled to eventually take to
depends on a self, because otherwise [the use of the mJun�t1on would be] ·�­ an entirely opposite, the renouncer's mode of life. I t would have
proper. This [dependence] being the case (loc. a�s.), the ex1stence [of a self] is rendered all their arguments in favour of life-long extended sac­
. .
made manifest. Therefore the [briihma�-quotat1ons under consideration] here
, rificial duties a r:elative value, ·and their ka7J<Ja a preparatory
justify [what] is referred to by these [injunctions] as a subj ect matter " (S�,
. . �
atmav. 1 4 1 : anyathiinupapattes ca vidhiniitmany ape�1te I a,st1tvadyotanud etair position only, exactly as claimed by S ankara. For in this case they
arthiiksiptasamarthanam II). See also NR (p. 5 1 3 , 4 f) on SV 1 4 1 : na kevalam all would have ended their lives in a Saryinyasin's state1 7• This,
upani�'advacaniid eviitmiistitvam, agnihotriidividhayo 'pi hi nitym!l bhoktiiram
antare!1iin11papadyamiiniis tam arthiid dyotayanty eva. however, would hardly stand to reason. Why?
14 Cf. Mesquita 1 994: 453; NR (p. 5 1 5, 6 f) on SV 1 48 : diin/.�;:iirthib� is tu

vediintavihitesv eva §ravanamanananididhyiisaniidi�u yatitavyam 111. Cf. P31rtha­ 15 0vi�aya(i prabodha!z with SD (p. 1 31
, 9) against 0vi�ayas ca bodhatz of the
sarathi elsewhere: .. . drr,ih'avivekapratipiidakiiniim upani�adviikyiiniim . . . (SD, p. edition.
16
1 3 1 , 7) See Olivelle 1 993: 1 3 1 ff.
 WALTER SLAJE
Yiijiiavalkya-briihmm:zas and the Early Mfmiimsii 121
120
S ahara even went so far as to insinua·� to long-time celibates that
22 Piirva- and Uttara-Mzmii'!l-sakas as life-long sacrificers
they "lived as Vedic students for forty-eight years in order to hide
or renouncers
their impotence," on which Olivelle remarked that this must "surely
The· mere prospect of turning away one day from the regular
have been intended as a j ab below the belt at ascetic celibates of his
fulfilment of Karmakai:ic;la obligations they as gj-hasthas had previ­
time."20
ously been affiliated to would certainly have . eased tensions and
Thus, the celibate renouncers became the scorn of many a
rather caused a decrease in the zeal with which Mlmarrisakas con­
staunch Mlmarrisaka personality such as Jaimini, Sahara and Ku­
tinuously and explicitly defended their lifelong ritual obligations
marila as also pointed out by Olivelle. However, Mandana .. for
against the opposite claims as made by Vedantins. Nevertheless, . '
mstance, too, remamed a householder and also refused to become a
.

this has not happened, quite on the contrary. I n a way, the increase
renouncer.21 Fulfilling the three obligations (rl}a) of studying the
to be observed is somehow in line with Sankara's presentation of
Vedas, procreating offspring and of sacrificing was, to him no less
the mythic archetypes of lifelong householders and lifelong celi­
than to Sabara,22 a lifelong duty, in particular with regard to offer­
bates. I t is difficult riot to think of S ankara and of the majority of
ing. Suspending the same by a tum to a renouncer's life in the
Sarrinyasins following his path as of lifelong celibates either, and
search for nothing but pure self-knowledge would in Mandana's .
right from the outset of their religious career at that. This may re­
opinion have inhibited the attainment of such a goal through caus­
flect the bipartite iiS'rama-structure of the early Vedic period, which
ing a considerable delay. 23 I t is in terms of acceleration that he re­
knew of two stages in life only, celibate studentship and procreat­
commended a eombined procedure of continuing one's obligations
ing householder.18 And the Mlmarrisakas, who always emphatically
and of searching for self-knowledge without, however, taking to
contested the legitimacy of celibate life orders, held all the Sarri­
renunciation.
nyasins up to ridicule for precisely this reason. P. Olivelle, after
At any rate it should be recorded that Jaimini, Sahara, Kumarila
having demonstrated that Jaimini, Sahara and Kumarila clearly
and Mai:ic;lana explicitly defended the ideal of the practice of life-
took such a stance, came to the conclusion that
1.ong sacrificing.
at least some Mimli.1T1sists totally rejected the legitimacy of celibate ilsramas
for ordinary people, reserving them for the blind, the lame, the impotent, and
other ritually incompetent people.
19 Olivelle 1993: 239, 242.
To Olivelle the central aim of the Mlmarrisakas was 20 Olivelle 1993: 238.
21 BS (Introduction), pp. xxxv, xlix, Ii, lvii, lxxiv.

22
to deny Vedic authority to celibate modes of life. ... The injunctions dealing Cf. SBh ad MSu 6.2.31.
with celibate iliramas, if they had any validity at all, are directed not at 23
Cf. BS 36.9 ff, probably a direct reference to Sankara (BSuBh 789.3 f on
normal people who are capable of marrying but at the handicapped ... whom BS u 3.4.17): pratipannagilrhasthyasyiitmavidyayaiva krtakrtyatii1rz manvilnasya,
these texts provide with an alternative mode of life.19 _ akarw:iarrz praty anildrtasya, vihiti1karar.zanimittasya pi1pmano vidyodaya­
rr.zup
.
prat1bandhrtvarrz dariayati - rr.zilni trlr.zy apilkrtya [Manus 6.35a; cf. MSu
6.�} IJ. - iti . �s 36.21-37.1: iirdhvaretasi1rrz ciliramit:iilrrz vinifpi tair [i.e.
_ .
1 7 Cf. below sub 2.3 on the possibility of a ritually active life as a pravriljaka. ya1nud1bh1b] . v1su�dhavidyodaya i�yate, ki1rz tu killakrto vise�aJ:z. . . . karmi1r.zy
18 apek�yante v1dyuyum . _ abhyilsalabhyilyilm api ... And this is. what Sankara has to
The early Vedic period knew only of two stages in life (studentship and
householder), a third stage after the householder developed only later on. See sa� �b�ut the ii�d�varetas (BSuBh 788.16 on BSu 3.4.17): na hy agnihotri1dlni
Witzel 2003: §2, p. 105, n. 9. vaid1kum karmur.z1 te�i1rrz santi.
122 WALTER SLAJE Yiijnavalkya-briihmm:ws and the Early M!miirrzsii 123

2.3. Symbolic elements: Triple staff and appellations Kafhairuti- and other Sarytnyasa Upani�ads their Vedic authenticity
There are some more features keeping a Purva-Mlmarytsaka apart and authoritativeness, and of having insinuated they were com­
from an Uttara-Mlmarytsaka. The significant character is in their posed by some charlatan (NRD 316.6 ft). I n continuation of his
case rather of an emblematic, symbolic nature. It was used as a argument with Bhaskara he states that one should not reject texts
2
accepted by venerable and reliable persons (aptabhava), 8 in partic­
criterion to clearly distinguish between their respective representa­
tives. Features of such a kind were the carrying of the single or the ular when they belong to the foremost of learned men (si�fagrmfi).
24
triple staff (tridm.ujin) as well as the habit of adding some peculiar He enumerates them by their names of Visvarupa, Prabhakara­
appellations to their names. Advaita-Vedantins who followed San­ G uru, Mary�ana-Mi sra, Vacaspati-Misra and Sucarita-Misra. In­
kara were bearers of the single staff (ekadm:z<f,in), thus demonstrat­ terestingly, Visvarupa and Prabhakara-G uru are both assigned to
ing their state of renouncer of the highest order (paramahmJzsa). the faction of Anandanubhava himself, in that they were considered
The triple-staffed (tridar:i<;fin) Brahmins, however, belonged to fac­ bearers of the single-staff (ekadar:i<;fin). The three "Misras"29, on the
tions connected with karmajfianasamuccaya and related doctrines, other hand, were in no wrty suspected of having been ekadar:i<;fins.
as represented by, e.g., Bbaskara, the Visi�!advaitins or, most in­ Quite on the contrary, their relationship with the grhastha-airama
terestingly, by the Mlmarytsakas. They were assigned a minor state was seen in accordance with their carrying a triple-staff (tridar:i<;fa), .

of renunciation only, such as kuffcaka or bahiidaka25 • Anandanu­ and this is made explicit.30 It is further subst�ntiated by pointing out
bhava's Nyayaratnadfpavali (13th century) can be taken as a testi­ particular appellations that permit discerning between authors of
mony to this assessment. On account of one unambi guous pas­ the householder and the renouncer type. By means of this
sage,26 it becomes clear that at the time certain additions to names Anandanubhava identifies Visvarupa as Suresvara, taking Visva­
were i ndeed sufficiently "telling" for hi s contemporaries to identi­ rupa as his earlier name before he became an ekadar:i<;fin under the
fy27 the respective order of life (grhastha or smrmyasin) the author name of Suresvara. That Visvarupa wrote his Balakrf<j,a commen­
of a particular text was belonging to. tary as a householder (grhastha) can be recognized, he asserts, by
The following i s the context of this remarkable passage: the honorific "Bhana" prefixed to his name in the colophon. Had a
Anandanubhava reproaches Bhaskara for having denied to the Sarytnyasin written it, he would have identified himself by putting
Parivrajakacarya before his Sarytnyasin-name of Suresvara.31 Un­
24 Similarly also Bhaskara and the Visi��advaitins. The single-staff tradition fortunately, no similarly revealing remarks are made with reference
(ekadm:uj.in, ekave1Jupii1Ji) "entailed the total withdrawal from all ritual activities.
The other" (i.e. the triple-staff tradition) "considered some form of ritual life, in
28
keeping with the dharma of one's iiirama, an essential feature even of renun­ Preferring the variant 0bhiivai!1 (apparatus) to text: 0viikyai!1 (NRD 317. l 0).
ciation." See Olivelle 1986: 52 f. On ascetics and the tridanda cf. also von 29 The dvandva compound 0ma1:ujana-viicaspati-sucarita-miiraif:z should be
Hiniiber I 992: 52 (n. 83), 59, 62 (n. II 0), 65.
· ·

taken as an ekase�a with the final member referring to each of the three pre­
25 Cf. Olivelle 1986: 52 ff; cf. also TRD 284, 2-15 ad S DS, Adhikarana 6:
. ceding ones.
Jaiminlyas.
.

30 See Olivelle 1986: 52 f.

26
The passage under consideration (NRD 317.4/I2) was only briefly treated 31NRD 3I8.2-6: g!hasthiivasthiiyii1rz viracite ca vi§varilpagranthe . . . na ciisau
by Kuppuswami Sastri in his introduction to BS (pp. Ii f) and later reedited and grantha!z sa1rznyiisinii viracitaf:z. tathii hi - parivriijakiiciirya-sure§varaviracite -
translated by Olivelle 1986: 92-1I7. iti granthe niima likhet. likhitmrz tu bhaffa-visvarilpaviracite - iti. According to
27
Strikingly enough, the Brahmavaivartapurii7Ja makes also a clear distinc­ BS (Introduction), p. Ii f, n. 152 and Olivelle 1986: 105, n. 5-58 i� is Visvariipa's
tion between respectable layman Brahmins (bha!fa) and religious mendicants: Balakrlc,lii commentary. on the Yiijnavalkyadha ' rmasiistra which Anandii.nubhava
bha!!ii'!ls ca bhiksukii'!ls caiva ... (BVP 4.105.70). has in mind here.
 124 WALTER SLAJE Yiijnavalkya-briihmaf}as and the Early MzmiifJlSii 125

to Prabhakara. Anandanubhava might therefore have agreed with nlpil:ial.z. ye tllttaramfmurpsuvadinal.z ... (TRD 283.7-10 ad i?DS,
the opponent who held that Prabhakara was indeed an ekadandin Adhikarana
. ' . 6: Jaiminlyas).
as was perhaps inferred from the appellation guru.
.

Given such a background, it is worthy of note that in perfect

Therefore, we may come to the conclusi on that aged Mlmamsa­ accordance with Anandiinubhava' s information and Bhaskara' s re­
kas possibly might have left their home, but in doing so they � on­ marks we do indeed find specific appellations appended to the
tinued sacrificing and carrying their symbolic triple-staff. This does proper name of almost every Piirva-Mlmiirpsaka recorded in litera­
not necessarily mean they thereby would actually have changed ture. These additions such as "Misra", "Bhana" or "Svamin" point
their u.§rama. Their state may rather have resembled ei ther the to learned, respectable Brahmins of the "laity", but never to re­
vunaprastha or the late Vedic pravrUjaka type,32 who, when of old nouncers: 35 Sabara-Sviimin, Kumarila-Bhaga or Kumara-Svamin,36
age, had the choice to emigrate voluntarily from his village or Prabhakara-Misra Mandana-Misra,
.. Bhatta-Umbeka,
.. Sucarita-
'
urban environment, without abandoni ng his sacrificial duties. Misra, Siilikaniitha-Misra, Parthasarathi-Misra, Parito�a-Misra,
Although a precursor of what later developed into renunci ation Bhavaniitha-Misra, Murari-Misra, and so on. This cannot be merely
(sarµnyii.sa, pari-vrii.ja) in the strict sense of an ii.srama, the pra­ accidental. No Advaita-Vedanta renouncer is known to bear a simi­
vrii.ja mode of life nevertheless survived as a householder' s (grha­ lar addition to his name. I am therefore quite convinced that at the
stha) alternative to becoming an extreme renouncer (sm.nnyusin). time of the circles we are concerned with here the appellation
While the latter had to break away totally from tradition, a former bhatta (> bhartr) connoted the meaning of a married man, a private
householder roaming about in his old age continued sacrificing by citi �� n or 'Mister', so to speak. Hence, in terms of state (ii..§rama),
keeping also his sacrificial cord, topknot and other emblems such the Bhagas were married men (grhasthas).
as the triple staff.33 Whatever this may have been, a case of pra­
vrujaka or the viinaprastha-ii.srama, it was certainly not the pari­ 3. Ideologies
vrujaka mode a Mlmiirpsaka aspired or eventually took to. Thi s can 3.1. Activity (karman) and knowledge Onuna)
be substantiated by a revealing passage i n Bhiiskara's Brahma­
It may be recalled from chapter 2.2 above that Ma9�ana had
siitrabhii.�ya, where it has been stated that performing the rituals
favoured the ideal of a combination of ritual activity and know-
would very well go together with carrying the tridanda and that the .
v

ledge, which is als9 known as karma-jnuna-samuccaya.-'7 In hts

meaning of the word pravrajita has nothing in common with 're­
investigation of 1994, R. Mesquita has convincingly shown that
nouncement' (tyiiga). 34 No less revealing is Gu9aratna' s character­
already before Mal)�ana also Kumarila (in hi s TantraviJrttika and
i sation of Piirva-Mlmarpsakas as typical householders: tatra pilrva­
mfmii.rµsuviidinal.z kukarmavivarjino yqjanudi�a_tkarmakuri�w 35 For traditional names and titles such as '"Misra", "Bhaga" and "Svi.imin" as

brahmasiltrh:w grhasthu.§ramasthitul.z sudrunnudivarjakii. bhavanti. characteristic of Brahmins cf. Witzel 1994: 265. K�emendra, in his Lokaprakii§a
te ca dvedhii. bhu!.ful.z prubhukarus ca �a_tpancapramii1:1apra- (LPr, p. I, v . 8), relates the title of a Bhaga to ritually active Brahmins: rtviJo
)'Ll}iiiko yajvil siimanto bha((a ucyate I trisandhyopiisakas caiva vipra� caiva
.
purohita(i II. Vidyabhusana ( 1 915 : 88) fai ls to s�pply a reason supportm� his
.
32See Sprockhoff 1981 :· 84-87. statement that 0sviimin was related to people hailing from the southern regions:
33 "The title Svami appended to Pak�ila in the name Pak�ilasvi.imi also points to his
See Olivelle 1 Q86: 26 ff.
34 - . birth-place having been in Dravi4a."
See Bhaskara (SMBh 208.24 t): tndwy,lap
,

Mesquita 1994: 474, n. I 06.

ak?e . . . karmatyiigo niisti. na hi
36
pravrajita.§abdas tyiigiirtho . . . Cf. also below, footnotes 43 and 58.
37 BS ( Introduction), pp. xlvi f; Thrasher 1993: 32.
 126 WALTER SLAJE Yajnavalkya-brahmm:zas and the Early M!miifrisii 127

Brha!!fku) had supported a combined mode of life (samuccaya) in Vedantins. In this connection it should be recalled that Bhiiskara
like manner.38 Yet, Kumarila was certainly not the first to think explicitly rejected also opinions according to which the fruti would
along such lines and probably also not the first to lead his life indeed prescribe to refrain from a householder's duties at a certain
accordingly, as can be judged from the example of BhartrJJrapafica, stage and to enter another state, namely that of a renouncer. Such
the ancient commentator on the BAU, who was cri ticised by an i deology is merely based on the smrti, Bhaskara clarifies. From
Sankara for his bhedubheda views. 3 9 Householders were naturally a presupposed authoritativeness of the fruti in favour of a tum to an
bound to carry out activities (karman), the precise nature of which ascetic order of life, it would necessarily follow that the mendicant
depended largely on their respective (sva-)dharma, from ritual to life of Buddhists and Jainas, too, was i n accordance with the fruti
the fulfilment of various social obligations. Thus they must have (,srauta).43
conceived of themselves as being fundamentally related to the 'path Briefl y, Bhartrprapafica, Kumarila, Ma9c_lana and Bhaskara
of activities' (karmamurga, pravrtti), which, quite contrary to the were some outstanding personalities to support a karmajnunasam­
path concentrating on seeking only knowledge (jnunamil.rga, uccaya doctrine.
nivrtti), was basically open for an expansion into a combined
karma- and jfWna-murga. No wonder then that in exactly this 3.2. Karmajniinasamuccaya and the jfvanmukti
regard Sankara's Vedantic adversary Bhaskara has much more in From the Brha�Fka fragments preserved in Srldhara's Nyuyakandalf
common with Ma9c_lana than with Sankara. Apart from an explicitly and analysed by R. Mesquita it appears that Kumiirila seems to
formulated jfvanmukti doctrine he shared with Ma9c_lana,40 Bhiis­ have accepted a particular liberation concept,44 the notion and term
kara, too, besides his bhediibheda orientation, also held a karma­ (jfvanmukti) of which i s elaborately discussed f!rst in Ma9c_lana' s
jnunasamuccaya position41 and - quite befittingly - refused to ever Brahmasiddhi.45 Indeed, the karmajniinasamuccaya as well as the
become a renouncer.42 On account of this, he naturally incurred state of jfvanmukti connected with it share in a closer relationship
the hatred of ascetic and purely knowledge-ori entated Advaita- than di scernible from perhaps only a superficial point of view. As
i s well known,46 views of such a kind tend to trace back the idea of
38 On Tantravilrttika and Brha!!fkii, see Mesquita 1 994 : 459 ff and 465-469, jfvanmukti exclusively to the Advaita-Vedanta movement, in
479 f.
39 For Bhartrprapafica in the present context see Roping 1 977 and Mesquita
43 See S M Bh 207.26-208.4 and Bhaskara's harsh criticism of saf?myiisa on pp
1 994: 463, n. 59. 208-2 1 1 . Despite this, the Jabalasruti, not infrequently quoted in such contexts,
40 See below. For Man<lana, see BS ( Introduction), xxxvi ff, 1 32.6, 1 5 1 .7. For leaves it to the decision of the person concerned to directly 'renounce' (f pra­
Bhaskara, cf. SMBh pas;i�1, in particular 220. 1 3, 224.20.
-

Vvraj bore at all the very connotation of 'renunciation' in the sense as claimed by
41 SMBh 207.24 ff: tasmiid yathaiva §amildayo [cf. BSii 3.4.27] yilvajjlvam later traditions (see footnotes 34 and 58) - from whatever the actual order of his
anuvartante vidu�ilm apavargaprilptaye, tathiJ§ramakarmi1!1fti nilntarille pari­ life may be. Jiibil!Opani�ad 4: ... brahmacmym11 samiipya grhf bhavet, grhf
tyiiga!z. On Bhaskara and his relationship with Sankara see Roping 1 977: 65 ff. bhiitviJ vanf bhavet, vanf bhiitvii pravrajet I yadi vetarathii brahmacmyiid eva
42 SMBh 2 1 0 . 1 f: tasmiid yilvad idmrz me §arfram iti karmanibandhaniivrttir pravrajet, grhiid vii, vaniid vii I . See also footnotes 34, 58.
. .
•

anuvartate, tiivad ii§ramakarmilnuvrttir aiakyii niviirayitum As another ex­

... 44 Mesquita 1 994: 470 ff, 480. From Parthasarathi ' s presentation of the matter
ample for a close relationship between jiiilnakarmasamuccaya and jlvanmukti it would, however, appear, that mok�a realises itself only after death : asati
·one may draw upon Srldhara, the author of the Nyiiyakandalf. See Mesquita §arfrilrambhe pilrvaiarfranipilte cii§arfro 'vasthito mukto bhavati (SD 1 30.28 f).
1 994: 466, n. 73 and 469, n. 89. Parthasarathi is equally explicit with regard to 45 See, e.g., BS ( Introduction), xxxvi ff, 1 30. 1 7-1 34. 1 8 [ 1 32.6], 1 5 1 .7
lifelong offering combined with iltmajiiiina as the means to neutralize accumu­ (= quotation of Yogasutrabha�ya ad Yogasutra 4.30).
lated karman (SD 1 30.26 ff). 46 Cf. Slaje 2000b: 325 f.
128 WALTER SLAJE
Yiijnavalkya-briihmwzas and the Early Mlmiirrisii 129
particular to Sankara. But only scarcely did the latter touch on it'
� necessarily inhibited by ritual or social activities - quite on the
and very reluctantly at that. The first systematic representation of
contrary. The earlier jfvanmukti notions appear as i ntrinsically
an Advaita-Vedantic jfvanmukti doctrine becomes visible as late as
related to a karma- or a karma- and jnana-path. The development
in the 13th century through Anandanubhava who dedicated . the
and the early history of the jfvanmukti i dea was - on the basis of
fourth chapter of hi s Nyayaratnadipavali to this concept.48 This was
the Bhagavadglta, the Mahabharata and the Mok�opaya -
about one hundred years before Vidyara9ya firmly established the
demonstrably closely related to the grhastha order of life, in
jfvanmukti idea in Advaita-Vedanta circles by writing his famous
particular to grhasthas and the k�atra dharma of the ruling class
Jivanmuktiviveka treatise. Earlier on only V imuktatman (between
(k�atriya), with an emphasis on their active participation i n society
the second half of the 8th and the first half of the 1 Oth century)
(karmin).52 Let it be noted that famous exponents of the nobility
pronounced himself more prominently in favour of a jivanmukti
figure always prominently in such contexts: Arjuna i n the Bhaga­
doctrine as this had become unavoidable for safeguarding his
4 vadglta, Rama i n the Mok�opaya, King Janaka5 3 in the Maha­
ekajiva-vada. 9 Moreover, Anandanubhava, who as a commentator
bharata. The latter in particular, who remained socially active
on the I�!asiddhi was well acquainted with Vimuktatman's ideas
throughout his life,5 4 has not only become the model of a jfvan­
took the latter as a point of reference for his own jivanmukt ; mukta in later tradition, but was - as Sankara has it - referred to
exposition . On the other hand, idea and term of jivanmukti were
. even by Jaimini with a view "to demonstrate that householders
already there in Mlma:rµsa circles in the 7th century, implicitly
engaged in procreation and ritual ·activities can indeed attain the
erhaps in Kumarila (the first half of the 7th century), but explicitly
� knowledge revealed in the Vedas."55 Tradition has it that under the
m Mai:i�ana ( 660-720), and so also in the Bhedabheda-Vedantin
influence of Yajfiavalkya's thought, advice and example he re­
Bhaskara, who must be assigned a time between Mandana and
mained a house-holding king and did not renounce although he had
Vimuktatman. Apart from the two Mlma:rµsas, the jfva��ukti can
already become ajnanin - the archetypicaljfvanmukta as i t were.
terminologically and doctrinally be traced back to the Bha�yas on
In short, our distorted picture of the history of jfvanmukti is
the Yoga- and on the Nyayasiitras respectively, and Uddyotakara,
largely due to a preconceived notion according to which the term
too, is very explicit with regard to that idea. 5 0 So contrary to the
would necessarily bear an Advaita-Vedanta coinage, considered to
"Vedanticized" mainstream opinion maintained uncritically by too
be the same in all traditions. This is not the case� It is true that in
many I ndologists, the historical truth turns out rather as follows: the
the broader context of Advaita-Vedanta renunciation the jivanmukti
Vedanta tradition initially felt compelled to react to an idea
gradually gainin� predominance over their own claim of a primacy
5 1 Slaje 2000b: 325 ff.
of renunciation.'1 Thi s idea did not regard li beration as being 52 See Slaje 2000a; 2000b; 2001. Cf. Bhaskara [BhGBh(Bh) 165.6 on BhG
6.47] : grhasthasyiirjunasya . , and also Sankara (BSuBh p. 783, 8 ff ad BSu
. .

47 Cf. BSuBh, pp. 97,3, 850,3-851,4; BhGBh ad BhG 6.27. See also Mesquita 3.4.3). In Kashmir, grhastha traditions had typically been predominant, and
1994: 470, n. 25 and 480, n. 129; Slaje 2000b: 326, n. 5. works concerning this matter were still composed under Mogul rule i» the late
17th c�ntury, as can be seen from Anandavardhana's jnanakarmasamuccaya­
48 Translation and analysis by Hoffmann (2005).
exeges1s of the Bhagavadglta (Slaje, forthcoming).
49 For this problem in Yimuktatman's doctrine cf. Schmucker 2001: 1 58- 1 71.
53 On his identity cf. Witzel 2003: §2, pp. 1 06 ff, n. 13.
�f. also Mesquit� 200?: 181 f, n. 375 and 520 ff, n. 688 for a summary of the
_ V1muktatman and other Advaitins. 54 Slaje 2000b: 338-342.
_

idea ofpvanmukt1 m
_

50 See Slaje 2000b: 343, n. 78 for references.

55 Olivelle 1993: 241. For this view as ascribed to Jaimini cf. Sankara's
Bha�ya on BSu 3.4.18 (Olivelle 1993: 239 f).
 130 WALTER SLAJE Yiijnavalkya-briihmar;as and the Early Mzmiirrzsli 13 1

must be taken as an anticipation of final liberation in the sense of II

an attainment of a positive experience (bliss, etc.), so to speak. In
contrast to this, the doctrines as preserved in the epic, in the Let us now tum to Yajfiavalkya, Janaka's adviser, and i nquire into
Mok�opiiya, and also in the Yoga- and Nyaya-commentaries, a possible historical relationship with the two Mlmarrsas. Yajfia­
conceived of the jlvanmukti as of liberation from attachment to the valkya is represented in the SPB as officiating priest and house­
fruits of actions and from passionate involvement i n worldly things holder, as a seeker for self-knowledge and, in one place, seemingly
and matters. This would result in a lasting dispassionate attitude, also as a pra-vriijaka.58 Yajfiavalkya' s outstanding personality and
the basis for non-intentional activities and participation in the idiosyncratical manner of speech cannot be explained by literary
world, which alone would be neutral in terms of karmic retribution. fi1ct10n alone. 5
· .
9
There is also a subhii#ta on the grhastha-iisrama evidently taken In the Atmavada section of the "Vrttikaragrantha",�0 as handed
from the Yiijnavalkyasmrti and tying it nicely with some of the down by Sabara (ca. 4th/5th century AD)61 i n his Bha�ya on MSu
features just pointed out: nyiiyiirjitadhanas tattvajniinahi�!ho 'tithi­
priyaf:z I siistravit satyaviidz ca grhastho 'pi vimucyate ll.56 58 BAU 4.5.2 (M/K): pravraji�yan ... aham ... (Yiijfiavalkya's direct speech);
.

Thus, if we take R. Mesquita' s pioneering investigation i nto 4.5.25 (M): pravavriija (redactional conclusion) for which K (4.5.15) reads:
vijahiira. Hanefeld ( 1976: 72, n. 3) reports the reading udyiisyan for the direct
passages pointing to Mlmarrsa jlvanmukti ideas into consideration,
speech pravraji�yan in M (4.5.2). On some doctrinal implications of the
as they were related to a continuation of ritual activities,57 we may (historically later) pra- ..Jvraj usage in the BAU cf. Sprockhoff 1979: 396 ff;
not be wrong in assuming that a similar conception may have pre­ 1981: 68-76, 84 ff. Note that according to Bhiiskara pra-..Jvraj does not mean
'renouncement' (tyiiga) [see above, footnotes 34 and 43]. Sankara, however, was
vailed among the Mlmarrsaka householders. As an interim result it conspicuously quick in identifying pra-..Jvraj with pari-..J vraj (pravraji�yan [=]
may therefore be maintained that the bifurcation of the two Ml­ piirivriijyairi kari�yan (BAUBh 661.2 ad BAU 4.5.2); so also in the case of
marrsas fairly extended also to social, symbolic, ideological and udyiisyan: udyiisyan [=] iirdhvaf!l yiisyan [ =] piirivriijyiikhyam iiframiintaram
[BAUBh 299.8 fad BAU 2.4.1], as he also was in excluding socially active
soteriological aspects. classes from the renouncer's mode of life: na hi k�atriyavaisyayo!z piirivriijya­
pratipattir asti (BAUBh ad 4.5.15 [cf. Sawai 1992: 129, n. 44, 131]).
59 Parpola 1981: 159 ff; s�e Fiser 1984 and, in particular, Witzel 2003.
56 SRBh, p. 93, 8 f (= 2nd Prakararya, Grhastasramaprasa�sii, v. I). Cf. YS Whether it was Yiijfiavalkya himself or the character depicted as "Yiijfiavalkya"
3.205. The Yiijnavalkyasmrti, and in particular Apariirka's commentary on it, in the Upani�ads that may have served as a model for some peculiar develop­
were extensively exploited by Anandavardhana to demonstrate that the smrtis ments in both the Piirva- and the Uttara-Mlmii�sii respectively, is of no rele­
(including the Mahiibhiirata) favoured a householder's balanced way of lif� in vance for the point to be made here.
that such a one combined sacrificial activities (karmin) with knowledge (jiiiinin), 6° Cf. Frauwallner 1972. For attempts at an exact demarcation of the Vrtti­
following the jniinakarmasamuccaya. Ontologically, it is the bhediibheda-viida, kiiragrantha from Sabara's own words, which has not yet really been settled
which he ascribes to those traditions. In fact, this would separate them in more beyond doubt, cf. Strauss 1932: 487 ff, 516, n. 3 [ Kl. Sehr., pp. 397 ff, 426,
=

then only one aspect from Sankara's advaita-viida, who accepted only know­ n. 3); Zangenberg 1962: 61 ff (62 f on the structure); Frauwallner 1968: 108 ff.
ledge as the means to final release. On Anandavardhana, see above, fn. 25. On pp. 109-111 Frauwallner assigns also the iitma-viida section to the Vfttikiira.
57 This is also supported by the emphasis put on the neutralisation of karman In contrast with Strauss, according to whom the Vrttikiiragrantha would have
through fully experiencing (bhoga) its effects already brought into action (prii­ covered the text from p. 24, 16 to p. 48, I4 (SBh[F] ), Frauwallner extends the
rabdha) [cf. Mesquita 1994: 458 f, 479; cf. also SD 129.20 ff and 130.26 ff) and section from p. 24, 16 to p. 60, 25, marking at the same time the end of his edi­
by a particular view-point according to which mok�a means liberation from any tion. Piirthasiirathi treats the "Vfttikiira section" in his Siistradfpikii (SD) from p.
relationship with the (mat�rial) world: so 'yaf!Z prapancasarµbandho bandhas, 89, 2 to p. 132, 15.
61
ta,d-vimok�as ca mok�a!z (SD 125.32 f); nifzsw.nbandho niriinandas ca mo�a!z As to Sabara's dating cf. Verpoorten 1987: 8 ("between 350 and 400
(SD 128.30). A.D."). Clooney (1990: 53) assigns him a time "two or three centuries" after "the
132 WALTER SLAJE Yiijnavalkya-briihma�ws and the Early Mfmiirµsii ·
133

1.1.5, a number of Upani�adic statements are quoted.62 All of them are as well called 'bruhmm;as , the particular way. the 'bruhmm:za'
'

are authored by Yajfiavalkya and correspond with the received references under consideration are arranged and used by the Vftti­
Madhyandina recension of the Brhadurm;.yaka. Let it be noted right kara and Mlmamsa authors rather point to the meaning of 'direct
at the outset, however, that the BAU had been redacted compara­ authoritative instruction' or, as implied by the title of the present
tively late (ca. 200-100 BC),63 and that in the Yrttikaragrantha as paper, of an 'instructional formulation'. This observation can claim
such no direct reference is made to the names of either Yajfiavalkya confirmative support from the matching usage of other Mlmaipsa­
or of the Brhadurm;yaka-Upani!Jad. All the quotations there go by kas such as Kumarila and Parthasarathi, Prabhakara and Salika­
the denotation of 'bruhmm;a'.64 Unless they refer to the smallest natha,65 and also from what L. Renou· had independently assumed
divisional units of the BAU or of the Satapathabruhmm;.a, which already in 1948, namely that the reference to brii.hmar:ias of Yajfia­
valkya by Katyayana,66 a "key figure in the early history of
second century A.O." and to Jaimini's Siitras a time for taking their shape Mlmamsa"67
. and who, as of the 3rd/2nd century BC lived slightly
"between the fourth and second centuries B.C., and a redactional process until before the final redaction of the B.AU took place, was entirely un­
about 200 B.C." According to Parpola (1994) Jaimini is earlier than Kiityiiyana
(p. 303), who can be dated between 248-180 BC (p. 300, n. 40). Yoshimizu
likely to have referred to the whole Yajfiavalkyakary�a of the BAU:
(1997: 33, n. 1) cautiously refrains from any determination of Sabara's jloruit. It
was Zangenberg (1962: 66) who establ ished the time of the Yrttikiira as the first II est tout-a-fait improbable ... que cette expression vise le Yajfiavalkya­
half of the 5th century as a "preliminary working hypothesis". Frauwallner' s in­ kanda de la BAU: le sii. IV. 3, 105; auquel se refere !'exception de Kiitya­
cl ination to assign to him the second half of the 5th century was based on the ya��. conceme ' les traites de Brahma1_1a et de Kalpa', non des chapitres
assumption ("augenscheinlich") that the Yrttikiira had probably been aware of d'Upani�ad.68
Vasubandhu's Viidavidhi (Frauwallner 1968: IOI). This, however, is anything
but certain. Zangenberg (1962: 65, 67) had already emphasised the highly
In a recent study, J. Bronkhorst69 arrived at the exact opposite
speculative nature of such an assumption by using "viel leicht" and "unverkenn­
bare Ahnlichkeit''. Verpoorten (1987: 8) placed the Yrttikiira in the first half of opinion. According to Bronkhorst "BAU 3-4 must be meant by
the 4th century ("between 300 and 350 A.O."), although by an obviously Katyayana" (p. 114). He takes it for granted that by 'brii. mar:ia' �
erroneous reference (note 3 8) to Frauwallner 1968: 113.
·

61 H. Jacobi (1914: 1 53 ff [ Kl. Sehr., pp. 750 ff]) was the first to point to the
=

fact that the oldest extant exegeses of the BAU are contained in a Mlmiimsii . 65 Cf., e.g., SY (iitmav.) 140 f, 143, 146 (as explained by the NK) and SD, p.
work, the Siibarabhii�ya. For subsequent treatments of this passage cf. Strauss 131, 19 - p. 132, 13 ; Br 165.9 (�jV 165 .26), 176.1, 179.7,J l; (�jV 179.21, 28);
1932: 521-524 [=Kl. Sehr., pp. 43 1 -434]; Biardeau 1968: 113 f; Frauwallner 186.7 f (�jV 186.26 f).
1968: 54 f. 66 Viirttika 1 on Pan 4.3 .105 (Mbh 2 .316.12-15 ): puriir:iaprokte�u briihma�ia­
63 Witzel 2003: § 9, p. 1 35 . kalpe�u yiijnavalkyiidi hya� prati�edhas tu tulyakiilatviit. Patafijali states more
b
64 A s already noted by Strauss: "Upani�adstellen", [emphasis mine] "die precisely: yiijnavalkiini briihmm:iuni (MBh 2.316.15). .

bezeichnenderweise hier immer Briihma1_1a heil3en, . .. " (Strauss 1932: 493[=Kl. 67 Parpola 1994: 298.
Sehr., p. 403]). A comparable usage has been brought to light by Thieme's 68 Renou 1948: 75 [885]. "The weakness of Goldstiick er's argument l ies in his
investigation on brahman: bnl.hmm:ia (n.) is frequently (e.g., AiB, TS, S PB) used identification of the Yajiiavalkani Briihma1_1iini with the Briihma1_1a of the Vajasa­
in the sense of "Wahrheitsformul ierung", "was Wahrheitsformulierung[en] neyins . ... The Yajfiavalkiini Brahma1_1ani ... seem to me to stand somewhat on a
enthalt", etc. (Thieme 1952: 118 ff[= Kl. Sehr., pp. 127 ft]). Formulations of par with the 'Tittiri1_1a proktii� sloka�', which, in Patafijali's time, were excluded
such a kind may consist of a single statement ("Ausspruch") only. See, however, from the term 'Taittir"lya� ' as uncanonica l. ... Both kinds of tracts probably
already Eggeling: "Single discourses of th is kind were called bruhmana . .. or belong to the last floating materials of Ad[h]varyu tradition, which had not yet
because they were ... the authoritative utterances of such as were th�roughly been incorporated with the canon . ..." (Eggeling 1882: xxxviii). Recently, Rein­
versed in Vedic and sacrificial lore and competent ... In later times a collection or vang (2000) referred to the "bruhmm:ias" of Yajfiavalkya as "pericopes".
digest of such detached pieces came to be l ikewise called a Briihmana." . 69 Bronkhorst 1993: 113 f.
(Eggeling 1882: xxii f).
 134 WALTER SLAJE
Yaj iiavalkya-briihmm:tas and the Early MfmiiJ?lSii 1 35
Kiityiiyana and Patafijali were referring to recently composed
'works', and translates Patafij ali ' s yiijiiavalkiini briihmanuni ac­ whose meritorious i nvestigations into the prehistory of the M1miirp­
cordingly as: "the Briihina 9a works uttered by Yiijfiavalk ya" (p. sa72 yielded - among others - also the result that Vajasaneyins such
113) [all emphases mine]. Bronkhorst, however, had not taken as Katyayana would have been i nvolved in th·� early development
notice of Eggeling 1882, Renou 1948 and Thieme 1952, and has of the Parvamfmilf!Zsiisutra. In addition, the Samavedic affiliation
not discussed the evidence of the unambiguous Mlmiirpsii usage of of Jaimini reflects a close connection between the (Madhyandina-)
'briihmm:ia' i n the given context, which clearly contradicts his Vajasaneyins and the Kauthuma-Siimaveda branch at the formative
as� umption. Furthermore, tlie late redaction (200- I 00 BC?) of the time of the M'i1nilf!Zsilsutra, as attested to elsewhere.73
BAU, carried out only after Kiityiiyana,70 makes the assumption of
a reference by Kiityiiyana to the (Yiijfiavalkya-)kiindas still more 1. Recensional bifurcation in the commentaries
..
unlikely. Quite contrary to Sankara, who commented upon the B AU in its
Therefore, what we actually meet with here under the designa­ Karyva recension, the quotes in the Siibarabhii�ya are almost exclu­
tion of briihmat;,as are single formulations attributed to Yiijfia­ sively, i.e. with the exception of one indeterminate reading, taken
valkya, quoted in direct speech. from the Madhyandina recension alone.74 This exclusive B AU af­
The so-called Vfttikiiragrantha section as transmi tted through filiation of the early (Piirva-)Mlmiirpsa to the Madhyandina branch
the Mfmurrzsubhii�ya displays some exegeti cal efforts wi'th the aim could indeed reach back to the i nitial period of i ts formation.75 The
of reinforcing or defending a Buddh ist or the Mlmiirpsaka's posi­ Madhyandinas were very prominent already well before the Vaja-
tion, as the case may be, starting from one Upani�adic formulation
launched against the Mlmarpsaka by a Buddhist. I rrespective of the 72 Parpola 1981; 1994.
exact time that may be assigned to the anonymous Vrttikiira and 73 Parpola 1994: 304, 305, n. 68.
which might range between the 3rd and the 5th century �s the latest 4
7 In general this was already observed by Strauss 1932: 491 [= Kl. Sehr., p.
40 I ], but entirely overlooked by Biardeau in her 1968 study, which she based on
possible terminus ante quern, the present exegeses of the BAU are
a comparison with the Kiiryva recension only (cf. on p. 114, n. I and p. 120, n. I ).
at any rate considerably, namely almost half a millennium older In the absence of a critical edition (cf. also Reinvang 2000: 163, n. 23) nothing
than Sankara (the second half of the 7th century), who is co monly definite can, however, be said with regard to the readings the ancient
� Mimiif!"Jsakas may have recited. I have pointed out elsewhere (WS (II), p. 30 I )
regarded the earliest preserved Vedanta commentator of the BAU t�at there is substantial reason to assume that_ by the times of the Vrttikiira and
(Kiiryva).71 By this fact alone, · these early hermeneutics, dealing Sabara the wording and the structure of the BAU might indeed in some passages
with an Upani�ad and authored by a Mlmiimsaka, deserve our close have differed from our received recensions of today. Yet, I do not want to enter
�ere into a discussion of the textual prehistory of the Ylijiiavalkyakiil)�s in the
<:ttention. The B AU(M) i s the only Upani ad found quoted in the
� SPB. The solution of ·such a problem would above all require a critical edition of
Siibarabhu�ya, albeit embedded i n the Vfttikiiragrantha. This fact, early commentaries and other works of both the Mimiif!"ISii and Vedanta traditions
however, may be explained from the point of view of Parpola, explaining or transmitting BAU quotations. Cf. Rau 1959-61: 299 (121):
"kritisch ediert wird [das Brhadarai:iyakopani�adbhii�ya] den altesten uns vor der
Hand erreichbaren K-Text der BAU enthalten." . . . "Die Varianten des miila­
grantha wurden . . . in die MSS des bhii�ya verschleppt. Das einzige Mittel, dieser
70 Witzel 2003: § 9, p. 135.
Verwirrung ein Ende zu setzen, ist die Aufstell ung eines Stemmas alter erreich­
71 On Sankara's knowledge (or rather: ignorance) of the BAU in both
its baren bhii�ya-MSS und eine darauf gegrilndete kritische Edition."
recension s as well as for other essentials regarding his Bhiisya on the BAU
' cf. 75 Parpola 1994: 305, n. 68. Note, however, that in later times Kumiirila pre­
Rau' s revealing "Remarks" (Rau 1959-61 ); see also notes 84 f.
ferred to draw mainly upon the Chiindogyopani�ad (see K. Yoshimizu's paper in
-the present volume, chapter 4).
 136 Yltjnavalkya-brilhmwias and the Early Mlmarrisil 137
WALTER SLAJE

valkya's language and personality.79 Given the unconcealed allu­

saneyin Katyayana (ca. 248- 180 BC), and certainly also during
sions in Gau<;tapa<;la's Agamasiistra (AS 2.2-5) to Yajfi.avalkya's
Megasthenes' presence at the Maurya court (ca. 300 BC), who left
dialogue with Janaka (BAU 4.3), the frequent occurrence of ad­
us a reference to them.70 Thus, there is a direct line from Yajfi.a­
vaita/advaya80 in this earliest extant Adva.i ta-Vedantasastra may be
val a Vajasaneya, the probable redactor and most prominent fig­
�f
ure of the corpus of White Yaj urveda texts including the B AU, connected with this fact.
to some key-figures of the early Mima111 sa, as were Jaimini and In the Mima111 sa texts, on the other hand, .it is Yajfi.avalkya's
Katyayana. So it will not really come as a surprise that the Vaja­
ii.Iman doctrine as imparted to MaitreyI, which is given a prominent
_ Katyayana expressly referred to formulations (briihmanas) role, but not the advaita doctrine. This might be due to the Buddh­
saneym .
ists' preference to quote from the dialogue in their own favour.
of Yajfi.avalkya (see above), that a coherent set of such formula­
Should the Buddhists really have used to refer to this passage in the
tions was cited from the B AU in i ts Madhyandina recension by the
rttikara and that the B AU(M) i s the only Upani�ad i ncorporated
'!' way as testified to by the Vfttikara, which from a historical view­
, point is not entirely unlikely, their peculiar interpretation of this
mto the Siibarabhii�ya at all. Thus up to a certain point i n history
the Piirva-Mima111 sa seems to have stood in an unbroken line of quote quite naturally necessitated a refutation. This refutation was
� adhyandina recitation, leading right back into the formative pe­ carried out by way of sentence contextualisation, always from the
_ angle of the narrowest possible context. As such, the procedure is
nod of the BAU. The same can hardly be said of the Kanva recen- ·

indigenous to Mima111 sa hermeneutics, as a theoretically reflected

·

sion as commented upon b y Sankara.

method81 as well as an exegetically applied strategy.82 Each of the
2. Exegetical stratagems in the Sabarabha�ya single quotes can exclusively, or at least also, be located in the
fourth kiir<j.a of the BAU, forming as such part of the so-called
From the quotations in the Siibarabhii�ya, it becomes clear that
Yajfi.avalkyaka9<;la, in adhyiiyas 2-4 ( Janaka) and 5 ( MaitreyI).
Yaj fi.avalkya's Janaka- and Maitrey1-dialogues78 were regarded as
= =

The majority of the citations, however, were demonstrably taken

highly authoritative already in comparatively early times. In ad­
from the MaitreyI dialogue in the fourth kiit:z.<j.a (4.5). Not really
dition, Yajfi.avalkya's conceptions, word-formations and sayings
unexpected for a Mima111 saka, the quotes under consideration were
have become extraordinarily influential for subsequent doctrinal
interpreted by way of contextualizing the statements by pointing
developments. This is in particular true with reference to his state­
out their meaningful relationship. Thus, the respective immediate
ments on self-knowledge (iitmajiiiina) and to the doctrine of non­
context is assigned a prominent criterion for a correct understand­
duality (advaita). The formation and initial coinage of the latter
ing of the intention of the whole. I f compared, e.g., to Sankara's
te1?11 (advaita) go doubtlessly back to Yajfi.avalkya himself, as
way of interpretation, it is noticeable that he absolutely would have
Witzel has achieved to demonstrate in his jnvestigation into Yajfi.a-
tried to supply as matpi quotes as possible from as many different

76 Maduandinoi, cf. Witzel 2003 : §9, p. 1 37.

79 See above, fn. 77.
77 For � study of Yajfiavalkya, his personal language and his involvement in
80 advaita: AS I .IO!_ 1,6, 17; 2.18, 36; 3.IS. advaya: AS 2.33, 35; 3.30; 4.4, 45,
the canonical development of the White Yajurveda corpus see now Witzel 2003.
62, 80, 85. advayatii: AS 2.33.
. I�· haskara replaces the feminine maitreyl by the masculine
78 Stn.kmg � 8 1 Cf. the sixfold hierarchy (prctmiii:ia) as established to determine Vedic sen­
.
maitreya. A m1spnnt can safely be ruled out in this case since the masculine stem
tence meanings when they relate to ritual matters (SBh ad MSii 3.3. 14).
occ�rs more than once and i s also i nflected in the instrumental case (maitreyei:ia),
cf. SMBh 80.2, 5, 17 (ad BSu_ 1.4.18 : viikyiinvayiit). 82 Cf. Bronkhorst 1997. See also below, fn. 95.
 138 WALTER SLAJE I Yiijnavalkya-briihmal}as and the Early Mfmiirµsii 139

iruti passages as possible with a view to prove their internal coher­ preted in context by the Mlmiirpsakas without further quotation aid
ence according to his own claims. There me roughly 65 quotes I to be supplied from elsewhere. Sankara on his part knew Miidh­
have cursorily counted in his comments on the Maitreyl dialogues yandina variants (irutyantara) only from BhartfPrapafica' s (n� w
(2.4 and 4.5). Among these, only one citation (neti neti), occurring J ost) commentary on the BAU. The interesting point, however, 1s,
three times, actually stems from Yajfiavalkya. The rest was taken .
that BhartfPrapafica not only commented upon the Madhyandma
from elsewhere, from different iruti and smrti text-places obviously recension, 86 but also shared with many Mlmiirpsakas their charac-
87
considered apt to prove the point Sankara was trying to make teristic karmajniinasamuccaya onentat1on.
• •

himself. The authoritativeness of his interpretation is thus derived ..

from a maximum of matching quotes, which were associatively 3. Detailed exposition of Yaj iiavalkya-brahrna1.1as in the
accumulated. The method in the Siibarabhii�ya, however, is de­ Vrttikaragrantha
cidedly different, at least as can be judged from the comparatively
Jn the following, I shall try to briefly analyse the Vfttikiira' s treat­
short text-piece as retained there. The interpretations comply with
ment of some of Yiijfiavalkya' s instructional formulations.
the immediate context of the respective quote, and whenever a sup­
A Buddhist opponent88 cites a briihmar;.a (BAU 4.5.13/2.4.12)
porting statement is adduced to reinforce a position, it not only is
in his own favom:.. By way of conclusion he makes use of this q uote
directly taken from Yajfiavalkya, but also seems to have been justi­
for supporting his arguments put forward against the Mlmiirpsaka's
fiably contextualized. So, incidentally, did Kumiirila and Piirtha­
doctrine of a permanent substrate (iitman) of cognition. For, being a
siirathi.83 It is possible that some Mlmiirpsakas, as they can his­
Sautriintika, the opponent advocates impermanent ' mind-consti­
torically be somehow attached to the Viijasaneyi branch, regarded
tuents' (vijniina-skandha) only. All this is preceded by a conclud­
the �tatements of Yajfiavalkya Vajasaneya as making up a coherent
ing statement of the Mlmiirpsaka, who had argued th� s: "Memo?'
system of thought in its own right. It was probably also handed
with reference to [what is] an impermanent mind-consti.tuent only is
down as such by the exegetical tradition of the Miidhyandinas.
therefore implausible" (tasmut �at;.ike vijniina-skandha-miitre
Contrary to Sankara, who, as convincingly demonstrated by W.
smrtir
. anupapanneti, SBh(F) 54.15 f). The Buddhist opponent took
Rau,84 is not likely to have received a traditional Vedic training and
up this expression of vijniina-skandha-miitra by [�ijniina]-skandha­
could hardly ev,:er have had direct access to an unbroken exegesis of
, ghana, thus terminologically preparing, as it were, for his vij iina:.. �
the BAU,85 Yajfiavalkya' s formulations were meaningfully inter-
ghana quote from the Upani�ad by anticipating �n unde sta� dmg of �
0miitra/0ghana in the sense of "mere/only/nothmg but . S mee the
83 See SY, atmav. 1 46 and N R thereon. See also SD, the Mok�avada section
argument had already been pushed forward to 'memory' (�mr i) �
(pp. 1 25 ff) of the Vfttikaragrantha (p. 89, 2 - p. 1 32, 1 5), abounding in ! nter­
pretations of Upani�adic quotes. and to the problem with reference to what memory could anse m
84 Rau 1 959-6 1 : 295 ( 1 1 7): "Fiir mi ch unterliegt es keinem Zweifel, daB the absence of a permanent substrate, the Buddhist counteracted the
Sankara traditionellen U nterricht im vedischen Sinne nie genossen hat, daB er die
Rezensionen der BAU nach MSS verglich, die womogl ich noch nicht einmal
akzentuiert waren, kurz, daB er vielerlei Versionen las, wo das Altertum eine 86 Rau 297 ( 1 1 9).
Version auswendig kannte." Cf. also footnotes 7 1 , 85. 87 See above, section I, sub 3.2.
. 85 This .is mirrored by Sankara' s following remark on BAU 4.5 . 1 5 (the 88 Most probably a Sautrantika as might be judged from �he (vi)jnrlna-sa_ntiina
Maitreyi dialogue): srutismrtiviikyiini satasa upalabhyanta itaretaraviruddhiini I doctrine. Cf. Schmithausen 1 967. On the frequent exegetical preoccupation of
Cf. Rau 1 959-6 1 : 297 ( 1 1 9). Jainas and Carvakas with BAU(K) 2.4. 1 2, cf. Uno 1 999.
140 WA LTER SLAJE Yiijnavalkya-briihmm:ws and the Early Mfmil.f!lsii 14 1

Mlmamsaka
. . with the help of a definition of memory that would not of Yajfiavalkya' s statement, which forms the starting-point for
necessarily presuppose any permanent substrate. According to him, the Upani�adic hermeneutics under consideration, the Mlmarrsaka
it Is indeed possibl e that a constituent of ' mind alone' (vijiiuna­ quotes a series of additional statements, all stemming from Yajfia­
skandha-mutra/-ghana) be directed at a previous series (santati) of valky�, and in the majority of cases presumably all taken from
'mind alone' and that from such a perspective it would actually be BAU 4.5. 94 With a view to disprove the Buddhist' s conclusion that"
mind alone, which remembers mind. 89 Accordingly, no permanent nothing but a mind-series exists, the Mlmarrsaka makes his point
substrate needs to be postulated. Therefore, he carries on to argue: by showing that a permanent substrate of cognition, as would be
the utman, must necessarily be presupposed. The Mlmarrsaka quite
obviously argues here from the context, a frequently applied exe­
anyasmin skandhaghane 'nyena skandhaghanena ya) jiiiinam, tat tatsantati­
jeniinyenopalabhyate, niitatsantatijena. tasmiic chunyii(l skandhaghanii iii.
athiisminn arthe briihma!Wf!l bhavati - vijiillnaghana evaitebhyo bhiitebhya(1 getical principle,95 and by way of this he tries to demonstrate that
samutthiiya tiiny eviinuvinasyati. na pretya SGIJ1}iiiistfti (SBh(F) 54. 1 9-23) Yajfiavalkya' s intention was totally different from what the Buddh­
[It] one [previous] mere constituent [of mind becomes] known by another ist had attempted to interpret:
mere constituent [of mind, then] this [previous one] is perceived by the
athiipy asminn arlhe briihma!Wf!l bhavati - sa vii are 'yam iilmeli pra­
other, [subsequent] one, [only if it was] caused by the series of this [previous
krtyiimananty - a§l1yo na hi slryata iii. 96 tathii - aviniiSI vii are 'yam iilmii,
mind-constituent, but] not [it] it was not caused by this [very] series.
anucchittidharmeti. 97 vinasvarGIJl ca vijiiiinam . lasmiid vina§variid anya(1 sa
Therefore, the mere constituents [are] empty [of any permanent substrate].90
ity avagacchiima(l (SBh(F) 56. 1 2- 1 5).
Now, on this subject matter (/ in [exactly] this sense) there is an inst111clional
formulation [of Yajfiavalkya]:9 1 Furthermore on th is subject matter (/ in [exactly] this sense) there 1s an
[It is] actually mind alone (-ghana) [which] emerges from these ele­ instructional formulation [of Yajfiavalkya which] they hand down as
ments; [and,] after [having thus emerged from them], it [again] disperses "- [The self] is indestructible, for it does not perish -"
along with them [and] only them. There remains no consciousness [of an by [making another formulation of his] the referential of [thisJ quote:
individual substrate] after dying (/ no [permanent] post mortem awareness "- Look, this certainly is the self [of ycl\Jrs] here."
persists).92 In the same way [, by relating it to the same referential statement, they also
hand down] :
In the course of refuting the Buddhist's peculiar, although from a "- Look, actually imperishable, this [your] self here bears [indeed] the prop­
historical perspective perhaps not entirely implausible,93 utilization erty of indestructibi l ity."
M ind, to be sure, [is] impermanent. Therefore we understand [it] in this way
89 piirvavijniinasadr§am h [that] the [self must be] different from what is impermanent.
. . vijniinam . piirvavij iinavisayam
. . vii smrtir ity ucyate
(SBh(F) 54. 1 7 f). .
90 This passage has something in common with the Sravakabhiimi . The Vftti­

kara's use of iti could indeed point to a reference of such a kind. The following is 94 We have to assume this in the light of the other quotes. From the narrower
the quote of a cognate Sravakabhiimi passage from the text as given by context of 2.4 a simi lar procedure would not have been possible, because virtual­
Schmithausen ( 1 987: 297, n. 22 1 ) : tad eVGIJl sati skandhamiitram elan, niisty e:tu ly all of the counter-statements relevant for the Mlmaryisaka are entirely lacking
skandhe:jU nityo dhrnvaJ:i su§vata(1 svil<m1>bhiita(i kascid iitmii . . . 1 iii hi siinyii there.
ete saf!lskiirii(i iitmavirahilii(i . .. 1 95 See above, fn. 82.
91 The present translation has, in the attempt of historical faithfulness, to adopt 96 BAU 4. 5 . 1 5 (not in 4.4). There are more occurrences of thi s statement in the
the intention of the Buddhist opponent. For the probable original Upani�adic BAU, cf. Frauwallner's apparatus ( 1 968:. 56). However, all the citations here are
meaning cf. WS (III), pp. 2 1 4 ff. based on context and were therefore in all likeliness also taken from the Maitreyl
92 For th� possibility of an alternative translation cf. WS (II) 3 1 9, nn. 20, 27. dialogue of 4.5.
•
93 Cf. on this WS (I); WS (II). 97 BAU 4.5. 1 4 (not in 4.4).
142 WALTER SLAJE Yiijiiavalkya-briihmm:zas and the Early Mimiirrzsii 143

To the Buddhist, who challenged the Mlmaf!1saka to point out an The intention of this [formulation] is that [one' s self] canno.t be perceived by
another. Why? Because of [Yaj fiavalkya's] declaration [that the self] is by
agent (/subject) of cognition (vijniitr) which would be independent
itself the light [of knowledge].
of mind, the Mlmaf!lsaka replies that one's self can always be ex­ On this [subject matter] also there is an instructiona!formulation:
perienced only by oneself (svayatµsal'Jlvedya) and thus cannot . be "Here [in dream] this person is himself the l ight [of knowledge]."
9
presented to any other person. 8 By what means then [can] this [self] be described for another? There is an
I n support of this point the Mlmaf!1saka quotes again another set instn1ctional formulation also on this means:
of instructions formulated by Yajfiavalkya: "It is this self here [which is referred to] by means of (iti) [all that with
04
reference to what it is] not (na)." 1 Thus spoke [Yiijfiavalkya]."
athilsminn arthe briJ.hma!1Gl!I bhavati - siJ.ntiJ.yltl.n Vii.Ci kif!1)yotir evilya�n
99
puru�al:z. iltmajyotil:z Saf!1ril<J iii hovilceti. pare!ia nopalabhyata ity atnlpt' The Vfttikara continues his explanation along exactly the same
00
brilhma!Wf!l bhavati - agrhyo na hi grhyata 1 iti. pare!ia na grhyata ity line of negative references to the self, i.e. by way of exclusion, of
etadabhiprilyam etat. kutal:z? svayaf!1)yoti�!Jlavacanilt. atrilpi brilhma!ia1rz
10
bhavati - atruya1!1 p11ru�a(1 svayaf!l)yotir bhavatfti. 1 kena punar upilyenil­
which I shall give one example:
yam anyasmai kathyata iti? atrilpy upilye brilhmar:zar.n bhavati - sa e�a neti
02 asLlv ayam evmrzriipa iti na sakyate nidarfayitum. yac ca paral:z pasyati,
nety iltmeti hovliceti 1 (SBh(F) 58.7- 1 4).
tatprati�edhas tasyopadefopilyal:z. farlraf!1 para(1 pasyati. teniltmopadisyate.
Now there is an instructional formulation on this subject matter (/ in [exact­ farfra1_n niltmil. asti forfrild anyal:z sa ciltmeti sarfraprati�edheniltmopadis­
ly] this sense): yate (SBh(F) 58. 1 4- 1 8).
"When the voice is stilled, 1 Q1 what light (of knowledge) exactly has this per­
It is not possible to present [the self] as: "This is N.N. (asau), of such [and
son here? He has his self as the l ight [of knowledge], Your Majesty. Thus
such] an appearance." The means of pointing it out [to another] consists in
spoke [Yiijfiavalkya]."
the negation of what indeed (ca) the other sees. [It is] the body [which] the
On [the meaning of this statement, namely] that [one's self] cannot be per­ other sees. [It is] through the [body that] the self is indicated: "The body is
ceived by another, there is yet another instructional formulation: not the self. There exists [something] different from the body, and this is the
"It is not perceptible, for it cannot be perceived." self." [It is] in this way [that] the sel f is indicated through the negation of the ·

body.
98
The plural usage shows that the existence of a number of "selves" was After having supplied some additional reasons to prove the exist-
clearly presupposed . sarve svena sveniltmaniltmanam upalabhamilnill:z santy ' 1 05
ence of a permanent substratum as would be the self the M1-
•

eva I (SBh(F) 58.6). On the Vfttikiira�s dependency on particular doctrines

characteristic of early Vaise�ika (as is also the assumption of a plurality of eternal maf!1saka concludes that an eternal soul must be accepted which is
souls) cf. Jacobi 1 9 1 4; Strauss 1 932: 490-492 [= Kl. Sehr. , pp. 400-402); different from its properties. On the basis of this he rounds off the
Biardeau 1 968: 1 1 1 , 1 1 5 ff; Frauwallner 1 968: 95-98 (Bhavadiisa), 1 1 1 f (Vftti­
kiira). matter by returning to the initial vijniinaghana quote with a view to
99
BAU(M) 4.3.6 . .
1 00 BAU(M) 4.2.6 ( K 4); (M) 3 .9.28 ( K 26); (M) 4.4.27 ( K 22); (K) 4.5 . 1 5 1 04 The present translation adopts the intention of the Mimii�saka which re­
(not i n M). veals itself by the following set of examples: a-grhya, a-sf1ya, etc. Hence my
1 0 1 BAU(M) 4.3. 1 0/ 1 6 (K 91 1 4). Cf. for this passage Slaje 1 993.
rendering of the double negation (na, na) by: "all that with reference to what it is
1 02
Only 4.2.4 (K) I 4.2.6 (M) ends with iti hovilca yiljnavalkyal:z. For further not".
instances of neti neti formulations cf. BAU 3 .3 .6 (M/K), (M) 3 .9.28 (K 26), (M) 1 05 E.g., completing one's work on the following day [SBh(F),58.2 1 -24); by
4.2.6 (K 4), (M) 4.4.27 (K 22), (K) 4.5. 1 5 (not in M). comparing one's own experiences of oneself to those of others [SBh(F) 5 8 .25-
1 03 Cf. Ol ivelle 1 998: 1 1 1 . 60.4).
�
I

I
1 44 WALTER SLAJE
Yii.jnavalkya-briihmm;.as and the Early Mlmiirµsii 145
invalidate the Buddhist's interpretation by another set of contex­
tuall y related quotes from Yajfiavalkya's statements: Thus by contextuall y pointing out the interrelationship of Yajfia­
valkya's instructional formulations the Vfttikara demonstrates the
atha yad uktaf!l - viji'iilnaghana evaitebhyo bhiitebhya(i samutthilya lilny implausibility (vai�amya) of the Buddhist argument and doctrine.
106
evilnuvinasyati, na pretya sa1J1)i'iiistfti,
1 07
atrocyate - atraiva mii bhaga"wln Let it be noted, however, that the section comprising the dispute
mohilntam ilplpadad iti paricodanottarakLl!e 'pahnutya mohilntilbhipnl­
under consideration here commenced with the refutation of an op­
yam asya vacanasya van:zitawln - na vii are 'hm.n mohm!1 bravlmi, avim/S/
vil are 'yam iltmilnucchittidharmu, miitrilsa'!1sargas tv asya bhavatlti.
1 08 ponent attacking the validity of Vedic utterances. The opponent's
tasmiin na viji'iilnamiitram (SBh(F) 60. 1 7-22). obj ection reads as follows:
Now, to [the quotation] as put forward [by you]:
. dr�faviruddham api, bhavati kitJ1cid vaidikaf!l vacanam. piitracayanaf!l
"[It is] actually mind alone [which] emerges from these elements; [and,] after
·

14
vidhilyiiha - "sa e�a yaji'iiiyudhl yajamiino 'i'ijasii svarga1J1 loka1!1 yiiti " iti 1
[having thus emerged from them], it [again] disperses along with them [and]
pratyak�af!l iarfJW!1 vyapadiiati. na ca tat svarga1!1 loka1.n yiiti. pratyak�m!1
only them. There remains no consciousness [of an individual substrate] after
hi tad dahyate. na cai�a yiitfti vidhiiabda(i (SBh(F) 34.6-9).
dying (/ no [permanent] post mortem awareness persists)",
1 15
we reply : Although contradicting perceived [facts], there is indeed a particular
Vedic utterance [which must be regarded as authoritative]. After having pre­
Immediately after1 09 [Maitreyl's] reproach:
0 scribed the piling up of the receptacles it says: "This [deceased] institutor of
"With regard to exactly this point (atraiva) 1 1 ' Venerable Sir has driven me
the· sacrifice here instantly proceeds to the heavenly world, furnished with
into utter confusion"', . 1 16
[his] sacrificial utensils", [a statement, which] c IearI y (pratyak�af!l) md'1-
•

[Yajfiavalkya], by denying [any] intention of [causing] utter confusion, [car- cates the body. However, the [body] does not ascend to the heavenly world.
. . . . 111
ned on to) expIam t h"1s mstruct1 on: For in front of [our] eyes (pratya�af!l) it is consumed by fire. Furthermore,
"Look, I certainly do not speak in order to confuse1 ' 2 [you] . Look, actually the expression [in the indicative mood) ' he (/it) ascends' is no injunction. 1 1 7
imperishable, this self [of yours] here bears [indeed] the property of in­
destructibility. However, ft joins with (sm!1sarga) '.material' components The refutation starts with a reference to the above-mentioned ob­
1 13
(miltril). "
jection:
By reason of this [it can] not [be claimed that] only mind [would exist] .
yat tu pratyak�aviruddhaf!l vacanam upanyaslaf!l "sa e�a yaji'iiiyudhf yaja­
1 06 BAU 4.5 . 1 3 (M/K) I 2.4. 1 2 (M/K) miino 'i'ijasii svargG1!1 lokaf!l yiiti" iii pratya�a1.n iarfrfJ/!1 vyapadiiatfti, tad
1 07 BAU 4.5 . 1 4 {M) ucyate ... (SBh(F) 50. 1 -4).
1 08 BAU 4.5. 1 5 (M)
We reply to the statement mentioned [by you as one] contradicting direct
1 09 Note that here again the argument derives its validity from the immediate perception insofar as it clearly indicates the body, [namely] :
Upani�adic context.
1 1 0 I.e. by having said that "no consciousness [of an individual substrate]
remains after dying".
1 1 4 According to Frauwallner ( 1 968: 34, n. 2) the sentence is quoted in ApSS
1 1 1 Despite the given word order the possibil ity of construing the two genitives
3 1 .2.2 1 , with its ultimate source unknown. Cf. "Strauss 1 932: 507 [=Kl. Sehr� , p.
asya vacanasya with 0abhiprilyam cannot be ruled out: " . . . denying [that] the 4 1 7), n. I , and, for the identification of the first part of the quote (= SPB

I
instruction had the intention of . . . " 1 2.5.2.8), see Biardeau 1 968: 1 1 0.
1 1 2 For moh-am as a possible !tamul gerund cf. WS ( I l l), p. 2 1 5, n. 23. 1 15 Note the emphatic position of bhavati.
1 1 3 For the probable original meaning of sa1nsarga in the Upanisadic context

I
. 1 1 6 Alternatively: " ... indicates the perceptible (pratyak�af!l) body".
('to rejoin ' ) cf. WS (II), pp. 303 f, 320, n. 33; WS ( I l l), p. 207, n. 7 and pp. 2) 5 1 17 An inj unction requires the use of the optative mood. It is only because it is
f, n. 24. Cf. also the definitions of mok�a and bandha in Parthasiirathi's SD in the indicative that the present statement could be taken to refer to events that
1 25.32 f: so 'ya1!1 prapai'icasm!1bandho bandhas, tadvimok�as ca mok�a(i. will really take place.
146 WALTER S LAJE Yii.jiiavalkya-brii.hmat;as and the Early Mfmii.fJ1sii. 147

- "This [deceased] institutor of the sacrifice here instantly ascends to the out by J . Bronkhorst in his present contribution, ideas of rebirth and
heavenly world, furnished with [his] sacrificial utensils" . . . -. liberation (mok�a) from sarµsiira, as they were not accepted and
thus also not aimed at by the sacrificing faction, could hardly have
The immediately following dispute, occasionally alluding to the
1 8
fulfilled such a uniting function. The same, incidentally, would
subject under consideration, 1 eventually terminates with the fol- quite justifiably apply to the monistic ontology (advaita) as well,
lowing reference to the same, which concludes the argument: ·

pursued by the ritually passive group only. However, the respective

yad uktam - na cai�a yiitlti vidlriiabda iti, mii bhiid vidhi§abda�. svarga­
ontological and soteriological notions of advaita and moksa
kiimo yajeteti vacaniintare!iiivagatam anuvadi�yate. tasmiid avirodha� possibly constituted a subcutaneous point of fracture right from th e
(SBh(F) 60.23-25). times of their introduction into the Upani�adic corpus. They would
The objection made [by you] as eventually have caused the tradition, after it had broken up, to fully
- "Furthermore, the expression [in the indicative mood] ' he (/it) ascends' is develop into bipartite, more or less independent schools of isolated
no injunction'" - [admittedly], it may be no injunction. [However, the ascent Purva- and Uttara-Mlmarrsas. Parpola, too, underlines that their
to heaven] will be conveyed [by this expression] in conformity with the
philosophies became mutually exclusive only after Kumarila and
understanding [gained] by another statement, [which is an inj unction in the . .
optative mood] that "[someone] desirous of heaven should sacrifice". There­ S, an. kara. 1 20 Moreover, 1t was not earlier than from · the 6th century
fore [there is] no inconsistency [on our part]. onwards that some Buddhist (Bhavya) and Jain (Siddhasena
Divakara) doxographers started treating the 'Vedanta' as a separate
Thus the instructional formulations of Yajfiavalkya, forming in fact tradition in its own right, 1 2 1
part of the Jfianaka9\la, were so to speak sandwiched 1 1 9 by a di­
spute on the contradictoriness of Vedic utterances and injunctions,
4. Yaj fi avalkya in context: rough structure o f t h e argument
which form part of the Karmaka9\la.
Clearly, the Upani�adic instructions on the self (iitman) were 1. Buddhist (Sautrantika):
used for supporting some of the vital points of Purva-Mlmarrsa N o need for a Mlmarrsaka to postulate a permanent substrate
doctrines. S uch integration may corroborate Parpola' s assumption (iitman) of cognition for explaining memory. The assumption of the
of an originally unified Mlmarrsa tradition. However, I would existence of mind alone (vijfiiinaghana) is sufficient. Even a Yajfia­
rather maintain that this supposed "unity" was confined just to a valkya-briihma1_la corroborates this:
common interest in the interpretation of the respective kiif.l<fas, and
Starting quote [BAU(M) 2 .4. 1 2/4.5 . 1 3 (=K)]:
in this wider sense in the exegesis of the Veda as a whole. The
vijniinaghana evaiteb�yo bhiitebhya� samutthiiya tiiny eviinuvinasyati,
knowledge of . the self (iitmajfiiina), being essential also to the na pretya saf!!}niisti (SBh 54.22 f).
sacrificer occupied with the ritual part of · the Veda, may initially
have formed a common ground of interest. As convincingly pointed

1 20
·

118 Parpo l a 1. 98 1 : 1 53 ff; cf. also Frauwal lner 1 968: 1 1 O; Mesquita 1 994: 45 1 ,
"This, [namely the experience of the notion of 'I' as different from
n. 1 f.
properties] being the case, [it is] the very [self-experience, which] is referred to 121
by 'furnished with [his] sacrificial utensils'." (evarrz cet, sa eva yajniiyudhlti See Qvamstrom 1 989; 2003. It i s perhaps worthy o f note that Gunaratna
, characterises the Piirva-Mlmairisakas as brahmasiitrinah (TRD .283. 8 ad
vyapadisyate. SBh(F) 56. 1 9 f). SDS
119 Adhikara9a 6: Jaiminlyas).
· ·

C f. Also Strauss 1 932: 493 [= Kl. Sehr. , p. 403] ; Frauwallner 1 968: 1 1 0 f.

148 WALTER SLAJE
J'[ij!lavalkya-briihmm:ws and the Early Mfmiif!!Sii 149
1. 1. Mlmarrsaka:
1. 1.2. 1.2. The means of pointing out the substrate of cognition is an
Mind constituents are impermanent. For recollection, a permanent indirect one, viz. by way of negating what is not the substrate:
substrate must be presupposed. It is the latter what the brahmat;a
intends to express: Quote [M 4.2.6 (= K 4)] : sa e�a neti nety iitmii iti hoviica (SBh 5 8 . 1 4)

1. 1. 1. Establishing a referential statement for the brahmanas to

1.2. Mlmamsaka:
follow
Conclusion: Clarification of the true meaning of the vijnanaghana
[- K 4.5. 1 3] : sa vii are 'yam iitmii (SBh 56. 1 2 t) formulation from the context of Yajnavalkya's statements as im­
mediately connected to it.
Contextualising the referential statement: 1.2.1. Repetition of the brahmal}a-quote
1. 1. 1. 1.
[M 2.4. 1 2/4.5 . 1 3 (K)] : vijniinaghana evaitebhyo bhiitebhya!z samutthiiya
[M 4.2.6 (= K 4)] aszryo, na hi sl1yate (SBh 56. 1 3 ) tiiny eviinuvinasyati, na pretya sarrijniisti (SBh 60. 1 7 t)

1.1.1.2. 1.2. 1. 1. The Buddhist opponent quoted the formulation out of con­
text and interpreted its meaning against the background of his own
[M 4.5. 1 5 ( K 1 4)] aviniisl vii are 'yam iitmiinucchittidharmii (SBh 56. 1 3 t)
presuppositions as quite self-evident:
=

1.1.2. Buddhist obj ection: 1.2.1.1.1. The meaning of the formulation is far from being self­
A permanent substrate (/agent) of cognition being different from its evident:
cognition must be pointed out.
Quote [M 4.5 . 1 4] : atraiva mii bhagaviin mohiintam iiplpadat (SBh 60. 1 8 t)
1.1.2.1. Mlmarrsa refutation: A substrate of cognition (atman) can
be experienced only by itself (svasarrzvedya). 1.2.1.1.2. Still the formulation was not intended to cause confusion:

Quote [M 4.3.6] : siintiiyiirri viici kilµjyotir eviiya1µ puru�a!z. ;Jtmajyoti!1 sarri­ Quote [M 4.5 . 1 5] : na vii are 'harri moha1µ bravlmi (SBh 60.20 t)
riiij. iii hoviica (SBh 58.8 t)
1.2. 1. 1.3. On the basis of this the Sautrantika Gan no longer hold on
1. 1.2. 1. 1. Therefore one's own substrate cannot be exposed directly to interpreting the instruction in the light of the doctrine that no
to other subj ects of cognition. permanent substrate of cognition, but only mind constituents would
exist.
Quote [M 4.2.6 (= K 4)] : agrhyo, na hi grhyate (SBh 58.9 t)
1.2. 1. 1.3. 1. There is a permanent substrate of cognition bearirig the
1.1.2.1. I . I . The correctness of the above follows from another property of indestructibility:
Yajfiavalkya-brahma'!a:
Quote [M 4.5. 1 5 (= K 1 4)]: aviniisl vii are 'yam iitmiinucchittidharmii
(SBh 60.2 1 )
Quote [M 4.3. l 0/1 6 ( K 9/1 4)]: atriiya1µ puru�a!z svaya1µjyotir bhavati
=

(SBh 58. 1 1 t)
1.2.1.1.3.2. It joins with material components in the state of bond­
age:
150 WALTER SLAJE Yajnavalkya-brahmm:zas and the Early Mfmarrz�a 151

Quote [M 4.5 . 1 5] : miitriismrzsargas tv asya bhavati (SBh 60.2 1 t) (iitmajniina) as quoted from the Miidhyandina _recension of the
BAU. Mlmiirpsii interpretations therefore deserve attention, as
they supposedly could be more faithful to Yiijfiavalkya' s origin­
III al thought in historic terms than, e.g., Sankara's.
Sankara and the subsequent Advaita-Vediinta tradition were
Summary basing themselves on the Kii9va recension of the BAU. Yiijfia­
Mzmiirrzsii prehistory valkya's infl uence on Sankara's thought is recognisable first -
through G au<;lapiida - on account of the ontological concept of
Yiijfiavalkya Viijasaneya was involved in the formation of the
advaita, adopted by him as a word-formation of Yiijfiavalkya:
Sukla Yajurveda corpus of which the BAU forms part. The
No direct lineage connecting Sankara with the formative period
Viijasaneyin Kiityiiyana was a key-figure in the early history of
of the BAU has so far become discerni ble. His adaptation of the
Mlmiimsii.
BAU to a radical, idealistic advaita monism was achieved by a
As a sacrificing householder (karmin) with a deep concern also
particular mode of interpretation (below, 5). Although Sankara
for self-knowledge (jniinin) Yiijfiavalkya may be seen as a re­
presentative of keen i nterest i n ritual and knowledge of Vedic must indeed have had predecessors in the field of illusionistic
1 22
monism, it was possibly he who was instrumental in disinte­
lore, long before two one-sided traditions with differently
grating with a lasting effect an originally unified ' tradition of
shaped emphases gradually began to emerge in later times only.
exegetics' occupied with the Karma- and the Jfiiinaka9<;la.
Yiijfiavalkya may even have been the first pra-vriijaka from the
householder state in Indian tradition and may as such have (3) Social aspects
served as a model for aged Mlmiirpsakas. Piirva-Mlmarpsakas referred to themselves as life/ong sacrificing
householders (grhasthas and karmins). They carried the triple
The period of established systemic traditions ofthe two Mzmii,rrz siis staff (tridarz<j.in) and were clearly identifiable (in literature) by
( l ) Canonical affiliation specific additions to their names such as bha!!a etc.
' - Uttara-M1marpsakas ' or Advaita-Vedantins in . the tradition of
The learned exponents of the rurva-Mlmiirpsii remained first
and foremost attached to the Kriyiikii9<;la, accepting the Jfiiina­ Sankara were self-knowledge seeking, i deally lifelong renounc­
kii9<;la as auxiliary to enhancing a given, natural certainty about ers (saf!znyiisins and jniinins ), who carried the single staff (eka­
one's self. darz<j.in) and were clearly identifiable (in literature) as married
Advaita- Vediintins were exclusively attached to the study of the men by specific additions to their names such as parivriija­
Jfiiinakii9<;la, by according the Kriyiikii9<;la a subordinate, pre­ kiiciirya, etc.
paratory value at the most. (4) Ideologies
(2) Recensional bifurcation - The positive approach to a karmajniinasamuccaya, which would
The early development of the Piirva-Mlmiirpsii was in its i niti al be quite natural for lifelong sacrificing householders, makes the
phase closely related to the Miidhyandina branch of the Viija­ Piirva-Mlmiirpsa continuing Yajft.avalkya's engagement i n sacri-
saneyins. This may i ndeed account for the Upani�adic references
made by them to Yiijfiavalkya's words on self-knowledge 1 22
Quoted by Bhart!)Jrapafica, see Riiping 1 977: 2, 69 ff
152 WALTER SLAJE Yiijnavalkya-briihmm;as and the Early Mfmiif!1sii 153

ficing act1 v1t1es and in the search for self-knowledge. On

R E F E R ENCES
account of that, also the idea of jfvanmukti - ' liberation from
(0mukti) attachment to the fruits of activities, though never­ Texts and abbreviations

theless actively participating in (jfvan°) the world of ritual and ApSS Apastambairautasiltra
social duties' - ties in remarkably with the karmajiiiinasam­ As [Agamasustra] The Agamasiistra of Gawjapuda. Ed., transl. and an­
notated by Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya. Reprint: Delhi 1 989.
uccaya ideology.
BAU B!hadura11yaka- Upani�ad. I n : V. P. Limaye& R. D. Vadekar (eds.),
Bhedabheda-Vedantins such as Bhartrprapafica and Bhas­ Eighteen Principal Upani�ads, I. Poona 1 958. (Also in Ol ivelle 1 998.)
kara similarly favoured a karmajiiiinasamuccaya plus (Bhas­ BAU{M) [B!hadiira11yaka- Upani�ad, Mii.dhyandina Recension] B!hadural}}ako­
kara) the ideal of a jfvanmukta state. Another common feature panishad in der Mudhjmµdina-Recension. Hrsg. u. tibers. von Otto
consists in BhartfPrapafica's recitation of the BAU according to Boehtlingk. St. Petersburg 1 889.
the Madhyandina recension. BAUBh (Sarikara:) B!hadiira11yakopani�adbhu�ya. In: Complete Works of Sri
Sankaracharya in the Original Sanskrit, X . Samata revised edition .
. On the other hand, a negative approach to the karmajiiiina­
Madras 1 983.
samuccaya would be quite natural for advocates of ritual and BAUBhV [(Suresvara:) B!hadura11yakopani�adbhii�yaviirttika] Shri Sureshva­
social inactivity (satµnyiisin) as were the extreme Advaita­ ruchiirya 's Brihadiira!iyakopanishad-Bhashyaviirtikam. With the com­
Vedantins, who considered their way of life alone as privileged mentary Shii.straprakii.shika of Acharya Shri Anandagiri, II. Ed. by S.
for liberation. The jfvanmukti idea became an integrative part of Subrahmanya Shastri. (Advaita Grantha Ratna Manjusha Ratna, 30.)
Varanasi 1 990.
their doctrinal system comparatively late, as an unavoidable re­
BhGBh [(Sarikara:) Bhagavadgltubhu�ya] Bhagavadgftii with Sunkarabhii�ya.
action to the ideology of socially active jfvanmuktas. The above­ (Works of Sarikarii.cii.rya in Original Sanskrit, 2.) Reprint [of the edition
mentioned Bhesabheda-Vedantins, who besides the Madhyan­ Poona 1 929] : Delhi 1 98 1 .
dina recitation also shared the karmajiiiinasamuccaya and jfvan­ BhGBh(Bh) [(Bhaskara:) Bhagavadgltiibhii�ya] Bhagavadgftii Bha�ya by
mukti ideals with the Piirva-Mimarrisakas became superseded by Bhuskariiciirya. (Sarasvafi Bhavana Granthamii.lii., 94.) Varanasi 1 965.

Sankara and the subsequent Advaita-Vedanta tradition and could Br [(Prabhakara:) B!hatf] B!hatf. A Commentary on Sabarabhashya, I-Ill.
By Prabhakara Misra. With the commentary The �juvimala of Salika­
not gain wide acceptance. natha Misra. Ed. By A. Chinnaswami Sastri. (Cbowkhamba Sanskrit
(5) Hermeneutics Series, 39 1 , 406, 4 1 4.) Benares 1 929-33 .
Piirva-Mimarrisakas applied the exegetical principle of ' context' BS [(Mary<Jana:) Brahmasiddhi] Brahmasiddhi by Acharya Mal}tj.anamifra.
With commentary by Sarykhapii.ni . Ed. by S. Kuppuswami Sastri. Second
(prakara1Ja) for interpreting Yaj fiavalkya' s formulations. edition. (Sri Garib Das Oriental Series, 1 6.) Delhi 1 984.
The correctness claimed by Advaita-Vedi}ntins for their inter­ BSu Brahmasiitra
pretation of BAU passages was based on a maximum of match­ BSuBh [(Sankara:) Brahmasiitrabhu�ya] Brahmasiitra-Siinkarabhiisyam. With
ing quotes associatively accumulated from as many different the commentary Bhii�yaratnaprabhii of Govindiinanda, Bhumatf of
iruti and smrti text-places as possible. Viicaspatimiira, Nyuya-Nirl}aya of Anandagiri. Ed. by J . L . Shastri.
Delhi 1 980.
BVP [Brahmavaivartapurii1Ja] Brahmavaivartapurii7J.a of Kr�7J.a pvaipiiyana
Vyiisa, 1.2. Ed. by J . L . Shastri . Index and Introduction by Satkari
M ukhopadhyaya. Delhi 1 984-85 .
 154 WALTER SLAJE Yiljnavalkya-briihmm:zas and the Early Mlmiirrisii 155
LPr [(K�emendra:) Lokaprakii§a] Lokaprakasha of Kshemendra. Ed. by YS [ Yiijiiavalkyasmrti]; Apariirkiipariibhidhiipariidityaviracita!lkiisametii
Jagaddhar Yadoo Shastri. (The Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies, yiijnavalkyasmrti[i. ... Hari Narayai:ia Ap!e ity anena ... prakasitam.
75.) Srinagar 1 947. (ASS, 46.) Poona 1 904.
LYV [Laghuyogaviisi�!ha] Srlmattarkaviiglsvarasiihityiiciiryiibhinandapaiuji­
tasamuddhrtaf:i laghuyogaviisi�!haf:i. viisi�!hacandrikiivyiikhyiisahitah. 2. Studies
avftti�. Pai:iaSikaropahvavidvadvara Lak�mai)asarmatanujanu�a Vrrsu­
devasarmai:ia saryisodhita�. Mumbayyaryi saka� 1 859, san 1 937. B I ARDEAU, Madeleine 1 968. L' Atman dans le commentaire de S abarasvamin.
In: Melanges d '/ndianisme. A la memoire de Louis Renou. (Publications
M bh [Mahiibhii�ya] The Vyiikarm:za-Mahiibhii�ya of Pataiijali, I I : Adhyaya
de l'Institut de Civilisation Indienne, Serie in-8 :0, 28): 1 09- 1 25 . Paris:
III, IV and V. Ed. by F. Kielhorn. Third edition by K. V. Abhyankar.
Editions E. De Boccard.
Poona 1 965.
·

BRONKHORST, Johannes 1 993. The Two Traditions of Meditation in Ancient

MSii Mlmiif!lsiisiltra
India. Second edition. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
NR (Parthasarathimisra:) Nyiiyaratniikara. In SY.
1 997. Philosophy and Vedic exegesis in the Mlmaryisa. In: Eli Franco &
NRD [(Anandanubhava:) Nyiiyaratnadlpiivali] Nyiiyaratnadlpiivali[i. With the Karin Preisendanz (eds.), Beyond Orienta/ism. The Work of Wilhelm
commentary Vediintaviveka by Anandagiri. Critical ed. with introduction Hal�fass and its Impact on Indian and Cross-Cultural Studies. (Poznan
by V. J agadisvara Sastrigal and Kalyanasundara Sastrigal. (Madras Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, 59): 359-
Government Oriental Series, 1 66.) Madras 1 96 1 . 3 7 1 . Amsterdam: Rodopi.
R"V
.J (Salikanatha:) !Jjuvima/ii. In: Br. CLOONEY, Francis X. 1 990. Thinking Ritually. Rediscovering the Pilrva Ml­
S Bh [(Sabarasvamin:) Mlmiif!lsiisiltrabhii�ya] Mlmiif!lsiisiitrabhii�ya, I-VI. mii1J1Sii ofJaiminf. (Publications of the De Nobili Research Library, 1 7.)
Ed. by K. V. Abhyankar, G. Josi et al. (ASS, 79.) Poona 1 976-84. Vienna: Institute for lndology, Vienna University.
S Bh(F) Siibarabhii�ya. Partial edition in Frauwal lner 1 968. EGGELING, Julius (transl.) 1 882. The Satapatha-Briihmara. According to the
_
SD [(Parthasarathimisra:) Siistradfpikii] The Shii,stradlpikii. Ed. by Sri text of the Miidhyandina School, I. (Sacred Books of the East, 1 2.)
Dharmadattasuri. Bombay 1 9 1 5. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
�DS [(Haribhadra:) $at,ldar§anasamuccaya] Shaddar§ana-Samuchchaya by FISER, lvo 1 984. Yajfiavalkya in the Sruti tradition of the Veda. Acta Orientalia
Haribhadra. With Gw:zaratna 's commentary Tarkarahasya-Dipikii. Ed. IO: 55-87.
by Luigi Suali. Calcutta 1 905. (Also in Qvamstrom 1 999. ) FRAUWALLNER, Erich 1 968. Materialien zur ii/testen Erkenntnis/ehre der
SMBh [(Bhaskara:) Siirirakamlmiif!lsiibhii�ya] Brahmasutra with a Commen­ Karmamlmiif!1sii. (SB OA W, 259.2. VKSKS, 6.) Wien: Oster­
=

tary by Bhiiskariichiirya. Ed. ·by Vindhyesvari Prasada Dvivedin. Second reichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
edition. (Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, 20.) Varanasi 1 99 1 . 1 972. Zurn Yrttikiiragrantha�. WZKS 1 6 ( 1 972): i 65- 1 67.
SPB Satapathabriihmana HAN EFELD, Erhardt 1 976.. Philosophische Haupttexte der iilteren Upani�aden.
SRBh [Subhii�itaratnabhiil}</iigara] Subhii�ita-Ratna-Bhiil}</iigara or Gems of (Freiburger Beitrage zur Indologie, 9.) Wiesbaden.
Sanskrit Poetry. Selected and arranged by Kashinatha Pa1.1 durang Parab. HINOBER, Oskar von 1 992. Sprachentwicklun!{ und Kulturgeschichte. Ein Bei­
Sixth edition. Revised by Wasudev Laxmai:i Sastrl Pai)slkar. Bombay trag ::ur materiel/en Kultur des buddhistischen Klosterlebens (AWL
1 929. Mainz, Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse,
SY [(Kumarila:) Slokaviirttika] Slokaviirttika of Sri Kumilrila Bhatta.
.. With 1 992, 6]. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner ".erlag.
the commentary Nyiiyaratniikara of Sri Piirthasiirathi Mifra. Ed. and HOFFMANN, Carmen Undine 2005. Zur Moglichkeit einer ,,ErlOsung zu Leb­
rev. by Swami Dvarikadasa Sastrl. (Prachyabharati Series, 1 0.) Varanasi zeiten" Ufvanmukti) vor dem Hintergrund der absoluten Zweitlosigkeit ·

1 978. des Brahman. Eine Obersetzung und Textanalyse des vierten Kapitels
TRD (Gui:iaratna:) Tarkarahasyadfpikii. In �DS. der Nyayaratnadlpavali. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Halle.
VC (Atmasukha:' ) Viisi�!hacandrikii. In LYV, Prakarai:ia 1 -3 . JACOBI, Hermann 1 9 1 4. Ober die altere Auffassung der Upani�ad-Lehren. In:
Festschrift fur Ernst Windisch zum siebzigsten Geburtstag: 1 53- 1 57.
Leipzig: Harrassowitz. [= Kl. Sehr. , pp. 750-754].
 156 WALTER S LAJE Yiijnavalkya-briihmm:ws and the Early Mfmiirrzsii 157

KATAOKA, Kei 2003 . Kumarila' s critique of omniscience. Inda Shisoshi Kenkyii ROPING, Klaus I 977. Studien ::ur Frzihgeschichte der Vediinta-Phi/osophie, I:
1 5 : 3 5-69. Phi/ologische Untersuchungen ::u den Brahmasiitra-Kommentaren des
MANI, Vettam 1 975. Puriif}ic Encyclopaedia. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Smikara und des Bhiiskara. ( Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien, 1 7.) Wies­
baden: Franz Steiner Verlag.
. . WZKS 3 8 :
M ESQUITA, Roque 1 994. Die Idee der Erlosung bei Kumarilabhatta.
45 1 -484. SAW Al, Yoshitsugu 1 992. The Faith ofAscetics and Lay Smiirtas. A Study of the
Sankaran Tradition of Srngeri. (Publications of the De Nobili Research
2000. Madhva: Vi�11utattvanir1wya. Annotierte Oberset::ung mit Studie.
L ibrary, 1 9.) Vienna: Institute for Indology, Vienna University.
(Publ ications of the De Nobili Research Library, 28.) Vienna: Institute
for South Asian, Tibetan and Buddhist Studies, Vienna University. SCHMITHAUS EN, Lambert 1 967. Sautrantika-Voraussetzungen in Vif!1satika
und Trif!15ika. WZKS 1 1 : I 09- 1 36.
OLIVELLE, Patrick 1 986. Renunciation in Hinduism. A Medieval Debate, I .
(Publications o f the De Nobi li Research Library, 1 3 .) Vienna: Institute 1 987. Alayavijiiiina. P. 1 . 2. ( Studia Philologica Buddhica, 4ab.) Tokyo.
for South Asian, Tibetan and Buddhist Studies, Vienna University. S C H M U CKER, Marcus 200 1 . Weder als seiend noch als nichtseiend bestimm­
..

1 993 . The Airama System. The History and Hermeneutics of a Religious bar". Vimuktiitmans Lehre van der ,. Rea/itat " der Welt. (Publ ications of
Institution. New York: Oxford University Press. the De Nobili Research Library, 29.) Vienna: Institute for South Asian,
Tibetan and Buddhist Studies, Vienna University.
(transl.) 1 998. The Early Upani�ads. Annotated Text and Translation.
(South Asia Research.) New York: Oxford University Press. SLAJE, Walter 1 993. BAU 4.3 . 1 4 (M 1 6) und die Entwicklung des subjektiven
I l lusionismus im alteren Vedanta. Studien ::ur lndo/ogie und /ranistik 1 8:
PARPOLA, Asko 1 98 1 . On the formation of the Mlma'Tlsa and the problems
223-250.
concerning Jaimini. With particular reference to the teacher quotations
and the Vedic schools. WZKS 25: 1 45- 1 77. 2000a. Liberation from intentional ity and involvement: On the concept
ofjlvanmukti in the Mok�opaya. JJP 28.2: 1 7 1 - 1 94.
1 994. On the formation of the Mlmaf!1sa and the problems concerning
Jaimini. With particular reference to the teacher quotations and the 2000b. Towards a history of the jlvanmukti concept: The Mok�adharma
Vedic schools. ( Part I I ) WZKS 3 8 : 293-308. in the Mahabharata. I n : Ryutaro Tsuchida & Albrecht Wezler (eds.),
Hariinandalaharl. Volume in Honour of Professor Minoru Hara on his
QVARNSTROM, Olle 1 989. Hindu Philosophy in Buddhist Perspective. The
Seventieth Birthday: 325-348. Reinbek: Dr I nge Wezler Verlag ftir
Vediintaviniscaya Chapter of Bhavya 's Madhyamakahrdayakiirikii.
Orientalistische Fachpublikationen.
(Lund Studies in African and Asian Religions, 4.) Lund: Plus Ultra.
200 I . Rajavidya. Studien ::ur lndologie und /ranistik 22 ( 1 999) [pub I.
1 999. Haribhadra and the beginnings of doxography in I ndia. In: N. K.
200 1 ] : 1 3 1 - 1 66.
Wagle & Olle Qvarnstrom (eds.), Approaches to Jaina Studies: Philoso­
phy, L ogic, Rituals and Symbols. (South Asian Studies Papers, I I ): I 69- , forthcoming . Quellen des Jfianakarmasamuccayavada.
2 1 0. Toronto: Centre for South Asian Studies, University of Toronto. (See also WS, below)
2003 . Early Vedanta philosophy preserved by the Jain tradition: The SPROC K I-IOFF, Joachim Friedrich 1 979. Die Alten im alten l ndien. Ein Versuch
VedavadadvatriJTlsika of Siddhasena Divakara. In: Olle Qvarnstrom nach brahmanischen Quel len. Sqeculum 30.4: 374-43 3.
(ed.), Jainism and Early Buddhism: Essays in Honour of Padmanabh S 1 98 1 . Arai:iyaka und Vanaprastha in der vedischen Literatm. WZKS 25:
Jaini: 575-593. Fremont, Cali f.: Asian Humanities Press. 1 9-90.
RAU, Wilhelm I 959-6 1 . Bemerkungen zu Sailkaras Brhadarai:iyakopani�ad­ STEIN K E L LN ER, Ernst I 997. Kumarila, Tsvarasena, and Dharmaklrti in dialogue.
bha�ya. Paideuma 7: 293-299. A new interpretation of Pramai:iavarttika I 33. In: Petra Kieffer-Piilz &
REINVANG, Rasmus 2000 . . A critical survey of the dialogue between J.ens-Uwe Hartmann (eds.), Bauddhavidyiisudhiikara(i. Studies in
Y ajfiavalkya and Maitreyl in B rhadarai)yaka Upani�ad 2.4 and 4.5. Acta · Honour of Hein:: Bechert on the Occasion qf His 65th Birthday. ( lndica
Orienta/ia 6 1 : 1 45-202. et Tibetica, 30): 625-646. Swisttal-Odendorf: Jndica et Tibetica Verlag.
RENOU, Louis 1 948. Les relations du Satapathabrahmana avec la Brhad­ . STEPHAN, Peter 2002. Erfosung im Spannungsfeld van aktivem Leben und
arai:iyakopani�d et la personnalite de Yaj fiavalkya. I�dian Culture 1 4.3 : Entsagung. Eine Studie ::u Salikaras Exegese der Bhagavadgftii.
75-89. [= N: Balbir & Georges-Jean Pinault (eds.), Chaix d 'Etudes (Geisteskultur l ndiens. Texte und Studien, 3 . ) Aachen: Shaker Verlag.
Indiennes, II: 885-899. Paris I 977.]
158 WALTER SLAJE

STRAUSS, Otto 1 932. Die alteste Philosophie der Karma-Mlmarpsa. Sit=zmgs­

berichte der Preuflischen Akademie der Wissenschafien 1 932: 469-532.
[= Kl. Sehr., pp. 379-442]
THI EME, Paul 1 952. Brahman. ZDMG 1 02: 9 1 - 1 29. [= Kl. Sehr. , pp. 1 00- 1 3 7]
THRASHER, Al len Wright 1 993: The Advaita Vedrlnta of Brahma-Siddhi. Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass.
UNO, Tomoyuki 1 999. A debate between materialists and Jainas on the interpre­ Kumarila the Vedantin?
tation of Brhadarai:iyakopani�ad 2.4. 1 2. In: N. K. Wagle & Olle Qvarn­
strom (eds.), Approaches to Jaina Studies: Philosophy, Logic, Rituals JOHN TA BER
and Symbols (South Asian Studies Papers, 1 1 .): 238-249. Toronto:
Centre for South Asian Studies, University of Toronto.
V ERPOORTEN, Jean-Marie 1 987. Mlmr11.nsrl Literature. (A , H istory of Indian
Literature,_ 6.5.) Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
VETTER, Tilmann 1 969. Ma1J<f.anamifra 's Brahmasiddhi�. Brahmakrll}<;ia�. In an important article that -appeared in the Wiener Zeitschrift in
Obers., Einl. u. A nm. (SB OA W, 262.2.) Wien: 6sterreichische Akade­ 1994 Roque Mesquita undertook a systematic study of Kumarila' s
mie der Wissenschaften.
doctrine of liberation as it has been preserved in three texts: · the
1 979. Studien =ur Lehre und Entwicklung Sankaras. (Publications of the
De Nobi li Research Library, 6.) V ienna: I nstitute for Indology, Vienna
Slokavii.rttika, the Tantravii.rttika, and extant fragments relating to
University. this theme from the Brhattfkii.1 Mesquita made the somewhat sur­
V J DYABH USANA, S. C. 1 9 1 5 . Vatsyayana, author of the Nyayabhasya. Indian prising discovery that Kumarila appears to shift his position regard­
Antiquary 44: 82-88. ing the practices that lead to liberation from what could be called,
WITZEL Michael 1 994. The Brahmins of Kashmir. In: Yasuke lkari (ed.), A perhaps, a karmamiirga in his .Slokavii.rttika to a version of the
Study of the Nllamata. Aspects of Hinduism in A ncient Kashmir: 237-
jiil"inakarmasamuccaya doctrine in his Tantravii.rttika and Brhafffkii.
294. Kyoto: I nstitute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University.
that in fact emphasizes the importance of knowledge over karma.
2003 . Yaj fiavalkya as ritualist and philosopher, arid his personal lan­
guage. In: S. Adhami, (ed.), Paitimana. Essays in Iranian, lndo-Euro­ Specifically, in the Sambandhak�epaparihara (SAP) chapter of
pean, and Indian Studies in Honor of Hanns-Peter Schmidt: 1 03- 1 43. his SY (see Appendix, Text I ) Kumarila emphasizes that liberation
Casta Mesa, Calif. : Mazda Publishers. can only be achieved as a result of the extinction of karma, which
WS (!) = Walter SLAJE, Water and salt (!): Yajfiavalkya ' s Saindhava Dr�!iinta
is to be brought about by the exhaustion of the fruits of past karma
(BAU II 4, 1 2). lndo-lranian journal 44. 1 (200 1 ): 25-57.
and the· avoidance · of any further karma, through not engaging in
WS (II) = Walter SLA.JE, Water and salt (I I): 'Material ' causality and hylozoic
thought in the Yaj fiavalkya-Maitreyi dialogue? /ndo-lranian Journal any optional (kii.mya) or forbidden (ni�iddha) acts, while continui,ng
44.4 (200 1 ): 299-327. to carry out regular (nitya) and occasional (naimittika) obligatory
WS ( I I I ) = Walter SLAJE, Water and salt (I I I): An analysis and new translation of acts. Kumarila says there that "knowledge of Saryikhya, etc. "
the Yajfiavalkya-Maitreyi dialogue. lndo-!ranian Journal 45.3 (2002): cannot be the cause (nimitta) of mok�a (SAP 102); nothing that is
205-220.
caused can be eternal. Only as a result of the elimination of the
YOS H I MIZU, Kiyotaka 1 997. Der , Organismus ' des urheberlosen Veda. (Publi­
cations of the De Nobili Research Library, 25.) V ienna: Institute for cause of rebirth, i . e., karma, can mok�a come about ( S AP 106). (I
South Asian, Tibetan and Buddhist Studies, V ienna University. believe, by the way, that the parallel here to the Four Noble Truths
ZANGENBERG Fritz 1 962. Sabara� und seine philosophischen Que lien. WZKS 6:
60-77.
1 Mesquita 1 994.