When we think about the ontology of the Vedānta, the most popular argument may be Śaṅkara’s monistic interpretation of the Upaniṣads. He interprets “sat” of the passage “sad eva somyedam evāgra āsīt” (ChU VI.2.1.) as the absolute being and emphasizes the point that there exists only one being (brahman) with the empirical existence (jīva) being merely an illusion caused by nescience (avidyā). His monistic theory of beings, usually regarded as “illusionistic cosmology,” however, deviates from the traditional viewpoint of the Vedānta which has been followed by some later adherents of the Vedānta such as Bhāskara. Bhāskara holds the view that brahman, while being in a single form as the cause of the world (abheda), also exists in a multiplicity of forms as the effects (bheda). This paper discusses Bhāskara’s ontological concept of bhedābheda and his criticism of Śaṅkara’s notion of avidyā, mainly dealing with Bhāskara’s commentary on the Brahmasūtra. As is often the case with the consequences of the monism, the followers of the Vedānta face the question of how a single entity possesses diversity. Śaṅkara introduced the concept of avidyā, by which he posited a relationship of real vs. unreal between the absolute being and all other existences in this empirical world. Bhāskara criticizes Śaṅkara’s illusionistic monism from the view point of realistic cosmology which is, according to Bhāskara, more truthful to the intention of the author of the Brahmasūtra. More specifically, Bhāskara refutes Śaṅkara’s notion of illusory world by means of denying the existence of its cause, i.e. avidyā. According to Bhāskara, the diversity of the single entity can be explained by the notion of part-whole relationship which is taught in the MuU through the metaphor of the relationship of a fire and sparks. The point of their discussion can be summarized as follows: Śaṅkara introduced the notion of falsity and observed the principle of monism, while Bhāskara emphasized the realistic point of view and was rather intent on rationalizing the diversity of brahman. The radical monism of Śaṅkara might have resulted in the conservative attitude of Bhāskara who tried to be truthful to the traditional cosmology taught in the Upanis.ads. This study is based on a new critical edition prepared by the present author, since the first edition of Bhāskara’s Brahmasūtrabhāṣya has been held in disrepute as being poorly edited since its publication in 1915. For this new edition, I have consulted a posthumous edition by the hand of the late Prof. J.A.B. van Buitenen and some recently identified manuscripts.
