2023-03-01 15:21:42 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
xxvi
doubted instance of Sankara's interpretations not
always agreeing with the text of the Sutras."
The passage referred to consists of Sutras 7-16
of the third pada which contains the views of
three teachers Badari, Jaimini, and Badarayana.
Dr. Thibaut admits, though unwillingly, that
Sankara's procedure in detaching from the rest
of the adhikarana the sutras which set forth
Badarayana's view "though not possible, yet
cannot be said to be altogether illegitimate." He
gives no discussion of the subject. He proceeds,
however, to remark that, as Badari's view is
mentioned first and Jaimini's afterwards, the
former is the purvapaksha, and the latter is the
siddhanta and that Sankara is wrong in deviating
from the rule which regards the concluding
statement (upasamhara) as containing the autho-
ritative doctrine. We have already discussed
this view at length and stated our grounds for
rejecting Dr. Thibaut's estimate of the compara-
tive importance of the upakrama and the upa-
samhara. There is, therefore, no need to repeat
the arguments already advanced.
Dr. Thibaut affirms that even the Upani-
shads do not support what he calls above "the
doubted instance of Sankara's interpretations not
always agreeing with the text of the Sutras."
The passage referred to consists of Sutras 7-16
of the third pada which contains the views of
three teachers Badari, Jaimini, and Badarayana.
Dr. Thibaut admits, though unwillingly, that
Sankara's procedure in detaching from the rest
of the adhikarana the sutras which set forth
Badarayana's view "though not possible, yet
cannot be said to be altogether illegitimate." He
gives no discussion of the subject. He proceeds,
however, to remark that, as Badari's view is
mentioned first and Jaimini's afterwards, the
former is the purvapaksha, and the latter is the
siddhanta and that Sankara is wrong in deviating
from the rule which regards the concluding
statement (upasamhara) as containing the autho-
ritative doctrine. We have already discussed
this view at length and stated our grounds for
rejecting Dr. Thibaut's estimate of the compara-
tive importance of the upakrama and the upa-
samhara. There is, therefore, no need to repeat
the arguments already advanced.
Dr. Thibaut affirms that even the Upani-
shads do not support what he calls above "the