The oldest preserved commentary on the Br̥ hadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad was composed by Ś aṅkara. Sureśvara composed a sub-commentary on this commentary, while Ā nandagiri composed commentaries both on Ś aṅkara's commentary and on Sureśvara's sub-commentary. All these four books contain a number of passages from earlier works which are not preserved. Sureśvara and Ā nandagiri attributed some of these passages to a commentator named Bhartrprapañca. The aim of this article is to present a philological method which will establish which of the passages might be paraphrases and which might be quotations from Bhartrprapañca's lost commentary composed in the scope of the bhedābheda theory. This article will argue that Ś aṅkara paraphrases Bhartrprapañca's text, while Ā nandagiri quotes most probably Bhartrprapañca's text literally. This text was metrically adjusted by Sureśvara who paraphrases Bhartrprapañca by shortening and adjusting the original text (preserved in Ā nandagiri's accounts) in order to fit into the pattern of the śloka meter. If this is true, it is possible to establish a methodology which may help us to reconstruct portions of the oldest known commentary on the Br̥ hadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad.

No abstract

A gradual evolution of Brahman in eight successive states is described and criticized in Śaṅkara's commentary on Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad and in Sureśvara's and Ānandagiri's sub-commentaries, where the teaching is attributed to Bhartṛprapañca, an ancient Bhedābhedavādin whose commentary on BĀU is now lost. This paper examines fragmentary records of the teaching of Brahman's evolution and tries to interpret different categories mentioned in different accounts of the teaching by comparing these terms with same or similar categories in other philosophical and religious systems of ancient India in order to understand Bhartṛprapañca's original eight-fold scheme and its meaning. Tentative conclusion might be that Ānandagiri conveyed Bhartṛprapañca's scheme literally while Śaṅkara and Sureśvara paraphrased it very freely.Keywords: Bhedābheda, Bhartṛprapañca, Advaita, Vedānta, monism, illusionism Bhartrprapañca y los ocho estados de BrahmanResumen Una evolución de Brahman en ocho estados sucesivos es descrita y criticada en el comentario de Śaṅkara a la Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad y en los subcomentarios de Sureśvara y Ānandagiri, donde las enseñanzas se le atribuyen a Bhartṛprapañca, un antiguo Bhedābhedavādin cuyo comentario sobre la BĀU se ha perdido. El artículo examina registros fragmentarios de las enseñanzas relativas a la evolución de Brahman y trata de interpretar las diferentes categorías mencionadas en diferentes versiones de las enseñanzas, comparando estos términos con categorías iguales o similares en otros sistemas religiosos y filosóficos de la India antigua, para entender el original esquema óctuple de Bhartṛprapañca y su significado. Una conclusión tentativa podría ser que Ānandagiri transmitió literalmente el esquema de Bhartṛprapañca mientras que Śaṅkara y Sureśvara lo parafrasearon muy libremente.Palabras clave: Bhedābheda, Bhartṛprapañca, Advaita, Vedānta, monismo, ilusionismo Bhartrprapañca e os oito estados de BrahmanResumo Uma evolução do Brahman em oito estados sucessivos é descrito e criticado no comentário Śaṅkaraen em BrhadaranyakaUpaniṣad e os sub-comentários de Suresvara e Anandagiri onde os ensinamentos são atribuídos a Bhartrprapañca, um ex-Bhedābhedavādin cujo comentário sobre bau está perdido agora. O artigo examina registros fragmentados dos ensinamentos da evolução do Brahman e tenta interpretar as diferentes categorias mencionadas em várias contas dos ensinamentos comparando estes termos com os mesmos ou similares categorias em outros sistemas religiosos

No abstract

This paper presents and compares different interpretations of the passage from Br . hadāran . yakopanis . ad 2.4.5/4.5.6, according to which one should hear about the Self, reflect, and meditate on it. In his commentary, Śaṅkara cites the view, in sub-commentaries attributed to Bhartr . prapañca, according to which this cognitive process is divided into three parts. Furthermore, different parts of the Upanis . ad are responsible for each stage of the process. According to this view, the third part, which states that one should meditate on the Self, is a vidhi, i.e. an injunction for mental action that leads to knowledge. This paper shows why this is unacceptable for Śaṅkara and his followers, why the cognitive process can neither be separated nor enjoined. The paper shows that this discussion in Advaita Vedānta is primarily hermeneutical because in fact, in the background, it is a discussion of the hierarchy of importance of the texts of the Vedic canon; the Upanis . ad must be a valid means of cognition, and thus more important than Brāhman . as, which contain injunctions for action.