^{page 193 note 1} All the translations from the Sanskrit are my own and are quoted from my Hindu Theology: A Reader (Garden City, New York: Image Books, Doubleday, 1976).

^{page 193 note 2} Thus Wolfson, Harry Austryn in Philo. Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, 2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1947)Google Scholar, claims that ‘this new school of philosophy’, which has as ‘its chief basis, the belief in revelation’, ‘attains its systematic formulation in Philo’. Vol. 2, pp. 457 and 458.

^{page 195 note 1} See Sharma, B. N. K., The Brahmashtras and Their Principal Commentaries (A Critical Exposition), 3 vols. (Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bharan, 1971)Google Scholar, probably the profoundest work of its kind. To it I owe my awareness of Bādarāyana's genius. See also Radhakrishnan, S., The Brahma Sutra (London: Allen & Unwin, 1960).Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 2} Chāndogya Unpanisad, 6: 2: 3 if.

^{page 196 note 1} Aquinas adopts a variant of the tripartite scheme discussed above. His Summa has three parts; the first deals with God, the second with the movement of the rational creature towards God, and the third with the means through which this movement is fulfilled, Christ. But Suarez follows the original scheme closely: God in Himself (discussed in Suarez's work De Deo Uno et Trino); as efficient cause, from Whom all creatures proceed (in De Angelis, De Opere Sex Dierum and De Anima); and as final cause, to Whom they all return, especially the rational creature (De Incarnatione, De Gratia and De Legibus).

^{page 196 note 2} Zaehner, R. C., The Bhagavad Gad. With a Commentary Based on Original Sources (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), p. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 1} A brilliant analysis of the thought of the theologians is to be found in Barua, Benimadhab, A History of Pre-Buddhistic Indian Philosophy (Delhi: Motilai Banarsidass, 1970).Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 1} For a schematic presentation of Bādarāyana's systematics and method see Hindu Theology, p. 439.

^{page 198 note 2} Hindu Theology, p. 240.

^{page 199 note 1} Sudarśana Sūri, Śrutaprakāśikā on Rāmānuja's Śribhāsya, Introduction; in Sarma, T. Srinivasa (ed.), Śribhāsyam of Śribhagavad-Rāmānujamuni with the commentary Śrutaprakāśkāahellip;chatussntri portion (Bombay: Nirnaya Sagara Press, 1916), pp. 1–2.Google Scholar translated in Hindu 1 Neology, p. 290.

^{page 199 note 2} For a discussion of the unitariness of the Mimāmsā see Jha, Ganganatha, Pūrva-Mīmāmsā in its Sources (Benares: Benares Hindu University, 1942).Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 3} Translated in Hindu Theology, p. 126, from Madhva, , AnuvyākhyānaGoogle Scholar on the Brahmasūtras, v.II edited and translated into French by Siauve, Suzanne in La voie vers la connaissance de Dieu selon l'Anuvyākhyāna de Madhva (Pondichéry: Institut Français d'Indologie, 1957).Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 4} Jaimini, , MimāmsāsūtrasGoogle Scholar, commented on by Śahara in his Mirnāmsāsūtrabhāsyam, edited with Prabhākara's Brhati and Śālikanāthamisra's, Rjuvimalapañcikā by K. R. Sastri (Madras: University of Madras, 1984). Translated by Ganganatha Jha, Baroda 1933.Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 1} Garge, D. V., Citations in Śabara Bhāsy (Poona: Deccan College Postgraduate & Research Institute, 1952).Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 2} Kashikar, C. G., ‘A survey of the Srautasntras’, Journal of the University of Bombay, 09 1966, entire issue.Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 1} Āśmarathya is cited once by Jaimini in his Mimāmsāāsūtras 6: 5: 16, and twice by Bādarāyana in his Brahmasātras 1: 2: 29 and 1: 4: 20.

^{page 201 note 2} Ātreya is cited thrice by Jaimini in 4: 3: 18, 5: 2: 18 and 6: 1: 26, and once by Bādarāyana in 3: 4: 44.

^{page 201 note 3} For Bādaramacr;yana see below, notes 34–6.

^{page 201 note 4} Bādari is cited four times by Jaimini in 3: 1: 4, 9: 2: 36?, 9: 2: 39 and 12: 1: 17, and once by Bādarāyana in 1: 2: 30.

^{page 201 note 5} For Jaimini see below, notes 28–9.

^{page 201 note 6} Kārsnājini is cited twice by Jaimini in 4: 3: 17 and 6: 7: 35, and once by Bādarāyana in 3: 1: 9.

^{page 201 note 7} Aitisāyana is cited thrice by Jaimini in 3: 2: 43, 3: 4: 24 and 6: 1: 6.

^{page 201 note 8} Ālekhana is cited once by Jaimini in 6: 5: 17.

^{page 201 note 9} Kāmukāyana is cited twice by Jaimini in 11: 1: 58 and 11: 1: 63.

^{page 201 note 10} Lāvukāyana is cited once by Jaimini in 6: 7: 37.

^{page 201 note 11} Audulomi is cited by Bādarāyana thrice in 1: 4: 21, 3: 4: 45 and 4: 4: 6.

^{page 201 note 12} P Kāśakrtsna is cited once by Bādarāyana in i: 4: 22.

^{page 201 note 13} Jaimini is cited Io times by name by Bādarāyana in 1: 2: 31, 1: 3: 31, 1: 4: 18, 3: 2: 40, 3: 4: 2, 3: 4: 18, 3: 4: 40, 4: 3: 12, 4: 4: 5 and 4: 4: 11.

^{page 201 note 14} Bādarāyana refers twice to Jaimini's work, according to the commentators, (a) to Mimāmsāsūtras 10: 8–15 (in Brahmasūtras 3: 3: 26) and (b) to Mimāmsāsūtras 3: 5: 21 and 10: 4: 22 (in Brahmasūtras 3: 3: 50).

^{page 202 note 1} Bādarāyana agrees with Jaimini in Brahmasūtras 1: 2: 31, 3: 4: 40, 4: 4: 5 and 4: 4: 11.

^{page 202 note 2} Bādarāyana does not seem to disagree with Jaimini in 4: 3: 12.

^{page 202 note 3} Bādarāyana disagrees with Jaimini in 1: 3: 31, 1: 4: 18, 3: 2: 40, 3: 4: 2 and 3: 4: 18.

^{page 202 note 4} Sureśvara, quoted by Garge, , op. cit., pp. 14–15.Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 5} Jaimini quotes Bādarāyana in his Mimāmsāsūtras 1: 1: 5, 5: 2: 19, 6: 1: 8, 10: 8: 44 and 11: 1: 64.

^{page 202 note 6} Jaimini disagrees with Bādarāyana once, in 10: 8: 44.

^{page 202 note 7} Mimāmsāsūtras, 1: 1: 5.

^{page 202 note 8} Śabara, on Mimāmsāsūtras, loc. cit.

^{page 202 note 9} Madhva, , Anuvyākhyāna, V. 8Google Scholar, translated in Hindu Theology, p. 125.

^{page 203 note 1} Mimāmsāsūtras, 3: 5: 3–9.

^{page 203 note 2} Kālyāyana Śrautasūtras, 9: 5: 29 and 9: 11: 11–15.

^{page 204 note 1} As Bādarāyana, in Brahmasūtras 2: 2: 18–32, is interpreted as refuting Buddhism, especially Mahāyuāna Buddhism, he is sometimes placed c. 200 A.D. and even later. See, for instance, Warder, A. K., Outline of Indian Philosophy (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1971), p. 70.Google Scholar If the arguments that I have presented are correct, then it is reasonable to postulate that these sūtras are either sinterpolations or reinterpretations. If the latter, they must have originally been intended by the sūtrakāra to refute systems sharing features with Buddhism, but obsolete by the period of Mahāyāna dominance. Then, given the need to invoke the sūtrakāra's great authority against the formidable challenge of Buddhism, the sātras could be employed by the bhāsyakāras to combat the new menace. As for the sūtreas being probable interpolations, at least one of them may plausibly be so, the sūtra numbered 31, since it is rejected by Rāmānuja. As for the remaining sūtras, there is a limited consistency in their interpretation among the chief representatives of the four most commonly studied Vedantic schools, Śankara, Rāmānuja, Madhva and Vallabha, as is evident from the following five points. (1) The number of sūtras and their numbering varies. Śankara, Madhva and Vallabha have 15, which they number 18–32, while Rāmānuja has 14, which he numbers 17–30; he omits their sūtra 31. (2) As to the interpretation of the sātras, all the four theologians agree that 18–27 (Rāmānuja's 17–26) refute Sarvāstivāda, a prominent Hinayāna school, said to have originated in 237 B.C. (3) But they disagree on the Mahāyāna schools. Śankara and Vallabha hold that only Vijnānavada is being refuted; Rāmānuja and Madhva, that Śānyavāda is too. (4) They disagree on which sūtras attack Vujñānavāda and which Śūnyavāda. As for Vijñānavada, systematized by Asanga (c. 290–360 A.D.), Śankara and Vallabha apply five sutras to its rebuttal (28–32), Rāmānuja three (28–30, his 27–29), and Madhva also three (30–32). There is thus unanimity only on sūtra 30; but its wording, however, has nothing that specifically applies to Vijñānavada. Bādarāyana, therefore, does not appear to be attacking that Mahāyāna system at all. (5)As for Śūnyavāda, systematized by the great Nāgārjuna (mid 2nd century A.D.), Rāmānuja applies only one sūtra to it (32, his 30); Madhva applies four entirely different ones (26–29). Here again, it is difficult to believe that the sūtrakdra has the Śūnyavāda in mind. If Sankara and Vallabha are right, why would the sūtrakāra attack the later system Vijñānavada and ignore the earlier and more basic Śūnyavāda? And if Rāmānuja and Madhva are right, how is it that they are unsure as to where Śūnyavāda is being rebutted? And lastly, if the interpolation theory is tenable, it is possible that the Sarvāstivāda sūtras were interpolated before those supposed to attack the Mahāyāna.

^{page 204 note 2} Madhva, , Anuvyākhyāna, V. 4;Google Scholar translated in Hindu Theology, p. 125.