Thread by @RangaTheDude

saṅkarṣakāṇḍa (SK) 6/6: Conclusion/story time

Continuing from here:

Whatever one may think of śankara's philosophy, his endeavors caused waves in the āstika circles.

https://x.com/RangaTheDude/status/1958759349356261824

Bhāskara stepped in wrote a commentary on brahmasūtra to correct śankara's misrepresentations of bādarāyaṇa (though he doesn't name the opponent directly). In this milieu, we see vaiṣṇavas taking interest and commencing a vedāntisation initiative.

Obviously pāñcarātra's origins were in sāṅkhya and had its own trajectory. Also, not all vaiṣṇava leaning v1s were pāñcarātrins. A recombination with vedānta module was the need of the hour.

By 10th century CE, we see job openings for a mīmāmsā scholar vaiṣṇava circle from and a confirmed inscriptional evidence of a job hire with qualifications that included "20 chapter mīmāmsā" expert. His job duties also included teaching 4 students.

Evidently he didn't do a good job as far as SK is concerned. Also, this hiring couldn't be a solitary instance and there should have been a drive to hire many such experts.

The only problem was SK was not a widely available text.

It is supplemental by nature and inessential for mīmāmsā studies. Even in the mīmāmsā circles, it was rare despite a commentary from devasvāmin (14th CE). In early 1900s, scholars who looked into the matter even doubted if this was a genuine work

It was even suggested that SK was a spurious work by khaṇḍadeva. Only by 1960s, its genuineness was established beyond doubt. If this was the case and given there were job openings for an expert in "20 chapter mīmāmsā" around 10th CE, what could have happened?

I suspect enterprising V1s started inserting pāñcarātra texts leveraging the similarity of saṅkarṣa and saṅkarṣaṇa as the missing 4 chapters. In such insertion attempts there should also be an instance of a karmakāṇḍa leaning daivimīmāmsā

which would have quickly been quickly consigned to the bin. I wouldn't have solved anyone's purpose (and a more attractive vaiṣṇava alternative is making rounds). There is no way vaishnavas would have let go of a genuine madhyama mīmāmsā if it confirmed viṣṇuparatva.

There would have been bhāṣyas and vṛttis on those 4 chapters and systematic inclusion into the syllabus for future propagation. Instead, we see Deśika explicitly confirming SK was lost. meghanādasūri from around the same period says the same.

Thus the interest in SK briefly flashed from 10th to 15th centuries and got lost again in mists of time until it was brought back to light in 20th century.

/Fin