x] Date of the Brah1na-slUras 4 21 the U paniads. Should I attempt to give an interpretation myself and claim that to be the right one, it would be only just one additional view. But however that may be, I am myself inclined to believe that the dualistic interpretations of the B1-ahma-sil!1-as were probably more faithful to the siitras than the interpretations of Satikara. The Srimadbhagavadgitii, which itself was a work of the Ekanti (singularistic) V ail)avas, mentions the B1-ahma-szUras as having the same purport as its own, giving cogent reasons 1 . Professor Jacobi in discussing the date of the phiiosophical siitras of the Hindus has shown that the references to Buddhism found in the Brahma-siUras are not with regard to the Vijiiana- vada of Vasubandhu, but with regard to the Siinyavada, but he re- gards the com position of the B1-ahma-sz{,t1-as to be later than N agar- juna. I agree with the late Dr S. C. Vidyabhiihana in holding that both the Y ogacara system and the system of Nagarjuna evolved from the P1-aji"iiipii1-amita 2 . Nagarjuna's merit consisted in the dialectical form of his arguments in support of Siinyavada; but so far as the essentials of Siinyavada are concerned I believe that the Tathata philosophy of Asvaghoa and the philosophy of the P1-a- jliiipii1-am.itti contained no less. There is no reason to suppose that the works of Nagarjuna were better known to the Hindu writers than the .lI1ahayiina sfttras. Even in such later times as that of Vacaspati Misra, we find him quoting a passage of the Sdlista11lbha szUra to give an account of the Buddhist doctrine of pratltya- samutpada 3 . We could interpret any reference to Siinyavada as pointing to Nagarjuna only ifhis special phraseology or dialectical methods were referred to in any way. On the other hand, the reference in the Blzagavadgitti to the Brahma-szUras clearly points out a date prior to that of Nagarjuna; though we may be slow to believe such an early date as has been assigned to the Bhaga- vadgitii by Telang, yet I suppose that its date could safely be placed so far back as the first half of the first century B.c. or the last part of the second century B.c. The BraI111la-sft,b-as could thus be placed slightly earlier than the date of the Bllagavadgitii. 1 "Brahmasiitrapadaiscaiva hetumadbhirviniscital)" Bhagavadgitii. The proofs in support of the view that the Bhagavadgitii is a Vai!iil).ava work will be discussed in the 2nd volume of the present work in the section on Bhagavadgitii and its philo- sophy.
- ! Indian Antiquary, 1915.
3 See Vacaspati Misra's Bhiimati on Sankara's bhasya on Brakma-sutra, II. ii.
