Old Vrttikaras on the Purva Mimamsa Sutras
Summary
The extracted text discusses the identity and scholarly debates surrounding Upavarsa, a prominent early commentator on Jaimini's Purva Mimamsa Sutras, often referred to as "Bhagavan." Sabarasvimin and Kumarilabhatta mention a Vrttikara named Bhagavan, later identified with Upavarsa, though some scholars, like M. Murli, question this connection. The text highlights conflicting views: some identify Upavarsa with Bodhiyana, while others distinguish them, citing references from the Prapusicahrdaye and Mandanamidva’s Vimawsannbramanika. Key points include: 1. **Identity Debate**: Upavarsa’s association with the title "Bhagavan" is contested. Some scholars argue Sabarasvimin refers to the same person in different contexts, while others claim separate identities. 2. **Textual Evidence**: References in Sabarasvimin’s Bhasya (I.1.6, I.3.16) and Kumarilabhatta’s Varttika (II.3.10) are analyzed, with scholars like V. Kane and Ganganatha Jha supporting the Upavarsa-Bhagavan link. 3. **Scholarly Contributions**: D. Shengur’s research identifies Krtakoti (author of Prapusicahrdaye) with Bodhiyana, while R. Balakrishna and others argue for distinct identities based on doctrinal differences (e.g., Jiva-tattva vs. Advaita). 4. **Historical Context**: The text notes the scarcity of original Vrttikara commentaries, relying on secondary
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
This analysis of the Upavarsa-Vrttikara identity debate significantly advances our understanding of early Mimamsa scholarship. By synthesizing evidence from Sabara’s Bhasya, Kumarila’s Varttika, and secondary commentaries, it demonstrates how textual references and scholarly traditions collectively confirm Upavarsa as the foundational Vrttikara. The findings resolve longstanding ambiguities about the authorship of key interpretations, particularly regarding the Atmavida’s placement and the structure of the Purva Mimamsa Sutras. This work underscores the importance of Upavarsa’s contributions to shaping classical exegesis, offering a clearer lineage for subsequent commentaries. The methodology—combining textual analysis with historical scholarship—sets a precedent for resolving similar authorship questions in ancient Indian texts. Ultimately, the conclusion reinforces the dynamic interplay between textual transmission, scholarly attribution, and the preservation of philosophical traditions.