GTIAPTER I GAUDAPADA ; BIOGRAPHY, WORKS AJTO INFLUENCES (i) HISTORICAL BACKGROIMD OF GAUI^a PADA Tradition accepts Gaudapada as the first teacher of Advaita Vedanta and also the grandteacher of SaAkaracarya• Sankaracarya, in his commentary on Brahmasutra Bhasya refers to certain karikas and says that these are the teachings of those teachers who knew the tradition of Vedanta.^ According to tradition, these teachers of Vedanta were Govinda and Gaudapada. However, the historicity of these teachers is a matter of speculation. According to some mythical accounts, the tradition of Vedanta begins with the Lord (Narayana) himself; Gaudapada is also mentioned in this tradition. Prof, T.M.P.Mahadevan thinks Gaudapada is the teacher in this tradition, "whose historicity we may be sure of ,... All the earlier teachers of Vedanta i,e, NarSyana, Vasistha, Sakti, Parasara, _ I Vyasa, Suka, are "more or less mythical persons; and traditionally Gaudapada is regarded as the first human 3 being to receive the highest knowledge”. Although, traditionally it is believed that there existed an 1. Bhattacharya, op.cit, p.lxiii. 2. Mahadevan T.M.P. , Gaudapada:^ln early Study in Advaita (1954) pp.1-2, 3. Ibid. p.2. 10 individual called Gaudapada, historians are still concerned with problems such as the historicity of Gaudapada, his date, the influence on his thought system, the authorship of certain works that are attributed to him, the relation­ ship of his work with the Mandukya Upanisad and so on. In this chapter, we shall make a brief mention of different views which are expressed by scholars in these matters. We would also make an attempt to find out whether Gaudapada was influenced by Buddhist thought. f The problem concerning the life and history of Gaudapada has been discussed by several scholars, such as Prof. V.Bhattacharya, Prpf. T.M.P.Mahadevan and others. Two views are held by these scholars in this regard. On one view, Gaudapada is a historical person; on the other view the name Gaudapada does not refer to any individual who existed in history. This is the 1 view of Dr. Walleser. Both Prof. T.M.P.Mahadevan 2 and Prof* V.Bhattacharya refute the views of Dr.Walleser. The problem of the historicity of Gaudapada arises in the context of the interpretation of the title Gaudapadakarika. According to one opinion, the text of Gaudapadakarika is systematic attempt to give an exposition of the Vedas and the Upanisads, as propounded 1. Ibid. p.3. 2. Ibid. pp.3-7. See also Bhattacharya : op.cit, pp.lxvii-lxx. 1 1 ’ by the then existing Gauda School of Thought. On this interpretation, it is stated that thsre existed a School t of Advaita thought in Gauda Desa or North Bengal. On this view, the title 'Gau^apadlyakarika* refers to the textual doctrine of .the Gauda School of Thought. The • word ’pada’ in this title - means four books (Prakaranas) of the work.^ The later commentators, it is argued, have ignored this fact, and have postulated the existence of an individual called Gaudapada. Prof. Mahadevan refers to another observation of Dr. Walleser, according to whom, although the latter commentators frequently refer to the text of Gaudapadiyakarika, yet, they are all silent about the author himself. For example, it is pointed out that although certain Tibetan translations of Buddhist literature and the writings of Govindananda, Snandagiri, etc. refer to Gaudapadiyakarika, yet, none of them explicitly refer to one single individual as the author of the text. As against these views, we find reasons given in support of the view that there existed an individual in the course of history and his name was Gaudapada. Prof. V.Bhattacharya writes that, "although these names such as Gaudapadacarya, or Gaudacarya are found, the real • • • • 1. Bhattacharya V, op.cit, p.lxvii. 12 1 name is Gauda. Both Prof. Mahadevan and Prof.V.Bhatta- charya explain the traditional practice of addressing the teacher. The reference to the teacher was always 2 made in the plural form. Similarly, Prof. Mahadevan gives some additional evidence in support of the view that Gaudapada was an individual who existed in course r> of time. Both Prof. V.Bhattacharya and Prof. T.M.P. Mahadevan agree that the text of Gaudapadiyakarika must have been written by one single individual and that it 4 is not a collective work. It is, of course, true that doubt can be expressed about Mandukya Karika being a single wo8k. Why should there be a Mangalacarana to the fourth chapter of the karikas ? Does it mean that it is written by some other person ? Similarly, it may also be noted that the Mandukya Karikas do not • • begin with Mangala in the strict sense of the term. Thus, there are reasons for and against the historicity of Gaudapada. Whether Gaudapada was one or many^ since the Karikas were written, it cannot be doubted that there was at least one individual who was known by the name Gaudapada. 1. Ibid. p.lxxi. 2. Ibid. p.lxxi. See also Mahadevan, op.cit, p.5. 3. Mahadevan, op.cit, pp.6-8. 4. See Mahadevan, op.cit, pp.3-8. 13 (ii) THE DATE OF GAUQAPADA Both Prof. T.M.P.Mahadevan and Prof. V.Bhattacharya agree on fixing the lower limit of GaudapSda* s date some- where about 500 A.D. Both of them examine certain amoimts of historical, documental, literary, legandary and other 1 evidences, and reach this conclusion. However, fixing the exact date of Gaudapada remains a matter of high 2 speculation as Prof. Mahadevan observes. (iii) OTHER WORKS ATTRIBUTED TO GAUDAPADA Gaudapada is popularly known as the author of the commentary on Mandukya Upanisad and also as the commentator • • • - _ _ _» * on the Samkhyakarikas of Isvarakrisna. However, there seems to be a good deal of difference of opinion about his authorship of the Igama Prakarana (popularly known as the first chapter of Gaudapadakarika). Some scholars • have held that the Igama Prakarana of Gaudapadakarika is not written by Gaudapada himself, but this prakarana forms a part of the Maij^ukya Upanisad itself. On the other hand, some scholars have held that the Agaraaprakarana is written by Gaudapada; and the real extent of the Mandukya Upanisad is only the twelve prose passages. 1. Mahadevan, op.cit, pp.8-15. See also Bhattacharya op.cit, pp.lxxii-lxxix. 2. Mahadevan, op.cit, p.15. 14 The question of the real extent of the Mandukya Upanisad has been discussed also in the context of the relation­ ship of the Mandukya Upanisad and Gaudapadakarikas. VJe shall therefore discuss this particular problem in a later section. Besides these two works i.e., a commentary on Mandukya Upanisad and a commentary on Samkhyakarikas, the following v/orks also are attributed to Gaudaoada. These are Ci) a commentary on Uttara Gita, (ii) Subhagodaya Stuti, (iii) Sri Vidyaratna Sutra, (iv) com.mentary on Mrsimha Purvatacini Upanisad: and also, a comm.entary on • • Dur^'asaptasati. Of these, Subhagodaya and Sri Vidyaratna 1 Sutra are regardei as Tantrika texts. It is again suggested here that possibly there might have been two 2 Gaudapadas. Uowever, this remains a matter of historical speculation and we shall not worry about it in the present study. riv) BUDD^-nST INFLUENCE ON GAUDAPADA Whether Gaudapada's philosophical thesis v/as influenced by Buddhist philosophical doctrine is an equally important problem for historians and inber- pretors of his thought. This is also true about the view that Gaudapada was influenced by t!ie Upanisadic 1. Bhattacharya, op.cit, p.lxxxx. 2. Ibid. p.lxxxx. 15 thinking, and that his vrork is largely Upanisadic in character. The historian would look at these probleTns from a particular point of viev/. He would, for example, consider the then contemporary school of thought and would try to find out whether the one school of thought, or whether one particular doctrine has influenced the other. In this regard, the historian might try to find out how a particular idea or a set of iieas that has been developed at the hands of different schools or different persons. The interpretor might find out the similarities or differences betv/een the concepts that are used, and might try to conjecture as to what is meant by certain idea or analogies that a particular philosopher is using. He might, for example, compare an argument which a philosopher is m.aking , and would try to find out similar arguments in some other works. When, the above m.entioned problem i.e. whether Gaudapada was influenced by Buddhist doctrine, is being discussed, we find that this problem has been approached through all these angles. On this issue mainly two views have been expressed by scholars. One view asserts that Gaudapada was not in any v/ay, under tbe influence of Buddhist doctrine. This viev/ has been expressed by scholars like Prof.T.M.P. Mahadevan. On the other hand, although Gaudapada is 16 recognised as a Vedantin, yet, it has been indicated that he might be under the influence of Buddhist doctrines. This view has been expressed by scholars like Prof. V. Bhattacharya, Prof, S.N.Dasgupta , and Jacobi. In support of these views, the method that is usually adopted is whether Gaudapada has used those very ideas or analogies or arguments, which are also found in Buddhist literature, Also, it has been pointed out that he uses the same arguments to prove the same conclusions. It has been pointed out that the thesis that both the Buddhists and Gaudapada are trying to establish is the unreality of the world of our experience. It has been thought that the Buddhists and Gaudapada are trying to establish this conclusion with the same arguments.