01. Introduction
In spite of the Greek interpretations of philos and logos, philosophers throughout the world have proved that there is neither love nor science in philosophy. Hallucinations and speculations have always played great roles in the development of this precious art. Great masters such as Socrates were no exceptions in proving that they were no better than the ordinary laymen in their beliefs, whenever they dared to reveal them in love of truth. But it is an accepted fact that the philosopher class has kept its thoughts distinct from its beliefs as far as possible to uphold the superiority of pure reason; no matter whether they achieved it or not.
Even though philosophers are widely mocked at on their lack of interest in practical and tactical senses, they have contented on achievements attainable within a long lasting span of time and thereby surpassing the merit of the wealthy and the influential. The processes of inquiry set out by the philosophers to upset the ruling ideals were seldom without any consequence. Many of such inquiries sprang out of mere curiosity or love of knowledge.
Knowing a philosopher properly necessarily leads into a state where learning all others becomes unnecessary, on the ground that a proper inquiry into the thought of a complete man shall cover all basic aspects of human aspirations. In that case, if we attempt to select an Indian philosopher as a model for such a study, we shall be sunk into an entire ocean of philosophies, but all currents therein shall lead into only one man namely Bādarāyaṇa.
02. The uniqueness of Indian Philosophy
Until the medieval centuries, the so called Indian cultural nation was considered as a region in the south of the Himalayas of the southern Asia covering areas east of Middle East up to Thailand, from Iran to Myanmar in the Modern sense. However the river Indus was the most prominent part of this civilization with solid evidences of more than a thousand decades of social life. Similarly All Indian philosophers have always appreciated unpredictability in jurisdiction and a well defined centre point in the treatment of their philosophical processes. Bādarāyaṇa on the contrary was a propagator of a methodology where facts and procedure always preceded conclusions. His aphorisms seldom contained metaphors and always were in the fifth case denoting a language of pure reasoning unless otherwise required. His definitions were perfect even in grammatical sense, his immense universe was but limited, his imagination was visionary, his averments were free and devoid of prejudice, his affinity was knowledge and his commitment was to the generations yet to be born. But his life still remains unsolved to his fans.
03. Bādarāyaṇa, the man and his time
Tradition preaches that Kṛṣṇadvaipāyana, Pārāśara, Vedavyāsa and Bādarāyaṇa are synonyms of the same prodigy. But whenever a question of evidence is raised from some corner, they answer that the name was obtained as he was either born in an island with badara (Indian jujube) trees or dwelt at Badari of the Himalayas. The only facts available are the presence of a gotra named Bādarāyaṇa gotra among the Brahmins of India, and that his name is quoted as the author of Brahmasūtra, also known as Vedānta Sūtra, Sārīraka Mīmāṁsa Sūtra and Uttara Mīmāṁsa Sūtra. But Brahmasūtra being an ancient work quoted widely by historical personalities throughout thousands of years and as a source referring to dozens of great philosophers and philosophical treatises of the time and as an evaluator of the wisdom of the Vedas and Upaniṣads, offers abundant material to ascertain pointers to the worldly life of Bādarāyaṇa.
As Bādarāyaṇa is equated with Vyāsa, it is necessary now to correct a common error associated with the dating of Mahābhārata. Either the end of the Kurukṣetra war or the death of Kṛṣṇa is commonly regarded as the starting of the Kaliyuga. But what is stated in Mahābhārata Strīparva, Section VIII is that a portion of Kali was born as Duryodhana in the womb of Gāndhāri. It is also described in detail in Strīparva, Section X, XXI, XXIV etc, that the end of the Yuga had started as early as the lamenting ladies of the Kuru household had entered in the battlefield after the entire Kauravas were slaughtered in the battlefield. Eventhough Vyāsa, Vidura and Dṛtarāṣṭra were informed about the fact by others earlier, it was Gāndhāri who realized that the Yuga had changed.
Another misconception is fixing the Yugādi according to Mahābhārata and the Yugādi as envisaged by Āryabhaṭṭa in his interpretation of Sūryasiddhānta. In verse 5 of Daśagītikā he states,
Kaho manavo ḍha manuyugaḥ skha gataste ca manuyugaḥ chuna ca
Kalpāderyugapāda ga ca gurudivasacca bharatāt pūrvaṁ
The phrase bharatāt pūrvaṁ is wrongly interpreted as Mahābhāratāt pūrvaṁ. Accordingly corruption in texts were also incorporated in recent texts in the last line as
Kalpāderyugapāda ga ca gurudivasacca bhāratāt pūrvaṁ
Āryabhaṭṭa being a Jain pertaining to Aśmaka and as Aśmaka was traditionally regarded as the place where Bāhubali did penance after enthroning his brother Bharata who became the first universal emperor of Jains since the Yugādi. Bāhubali became the first saint to attain liberation in the Apasarpiṇi kāla coinciding with Kaliyuga. K. Chandra Hari has substantiated this point in his “Intricacy of Certain Verses of Āryabhaṭṭīya and Jain Tradition - Identification of Aśmaka as Śrāvaṇabelgoḷa-Camravaṭṭaṁ Jain Country” published in Indian Journal of History of Astronomy, Vol. CCX (4) 1 October 2007. However if the Yugādis were identical with a common scientific source, their correspondence would be natural. But the vedic 360 day calendar and the 365.2587523 day calendar according to Āryabhaṭṭa differ considerably. The next chance is that the Yugādi being the conjunction of all the planets including the sun in Meṣa, the first sign of the zodiac, if the Yugadi was astronomically observed physically at the time of the end of the Kurukṣetra war and if the estimation of the time of Yugādi by Āryabhaṭṭa is without fault, both may reasonably coincide. But there is no evidence for either. However the disagreement in the calculations of the 365.2587523 day of Āryabhaṭṭa and the Recent scientific 365.2563721 days, is only of 2.380232 days in 1000 years. As the Yugādi as arrived by Āryabhaṭṭa is -3101 January 23 (BC 3102 January 23, 6.00 am) approximately according to present Gregorian Calculations, or -3101 February 18 (BC 3102 February 18, 6.00 am) as per present Julian Calendar discarding the discrepancy in the calculation of leap years from the beginning and January 1, of AD 1. But as the Yugādi represents conjunction of all the planets and as the calculations of Āryabhaṭṭa in respect of other planets are not as good as that of sun, the error is more than we shall ordinarily think. But we cannot blame him because he has surpassed all other astronomers of his time. Hence an approximation of the time of Kurukṣetra war, if at all it has actually occurred based on the Yugādi, if no other evidence could be gathered on the contrary.
Hence by going after Mahābhārata and Āryabhaṭṭa we cannot go beyond any speculations. The next possibility is the authors and texts quoted by Bādarāyaṇa. There is specific mentioning of the names of Kāśakṛtsna(1.4.22 Śaṇkara), Audulomi (1.4.21, 3.4.45, 4.4.6 Śaṇkara), Bādari (1.2.30, 3.1.11, 4.3.7, 4.4.10 Śaṇkara), Jaimini (1.2.28, 1.2.31, 1.3.31, 1.4.18, 3.2.40, 3.4.2, 3.4.18, 3.4.40, 4.3.12, 4.4.5, 4.4.11 Śaṇkara), Āśmarathya (1.2.29, 1.4.20 Śaṇkara), Atreya (3.4.44 Śaṇkara) and Kārṣṇājini (3.1.9 Śaṇkara). Śuka (1.3.34 Śaṇkara), Caitraratha (1.4.35 Śaṇkara) etc may not necessarily denote a name. Brahmasūtra refers Bādarāyaṇa himself in many occasions mainly to uphold his theorems (1.3.26, 1.3.33, 3.2.41, 3.4.1, 3.4.8, 3.4.19, 4.3.15, 4.4.7, 4.4.12 Śaṇkara). Kāśakṛtsna is a well known pre Pāṇinian grammarian also. In Kathā Saritsāgara, Vararuci tells a story of two preceptor brothers Varṣa and Upavarṣa as “Now in course of time Varsha got a great number of pupils, and among them there was one rather stupid pupil of the name of Panini” Upavarṣa, the brother of the preceptor Varṣa of Pāṇini according to Kathā Saritsāgara has commented on both Pūrvamīmāṁsa Sūtra of Jaimini and the Brahmasūtra of Bādarāyaṇa. Hence it can be assumed that Bādarāyaṇa flourished between the times of Kāśakṛtsna and Pāṇini. Arthur A. MacDonell opines that as Pāṇini uses the word yavanāni meaning the writings of the Greeks as explained by Kātyāyana, his probable date may be after the invasion of Alexander in BC 327. Another text of Aṣṭādhyāyī Sūtrapāṭha 4.1.49 indravaruṇabhavaśarvarudramṛḍahimāraṇyayavayavanamātulācāryāṇā-mānuk also supports the same. Hence the date of Pāṇini is circa 300 BC. If the word yavana is arrived from the Persian word yauna, then the ancientness of this usage may be extended upto 520 BC, i.e. the time of Darius the Great's (Darius I of Persia) conquests in India.
Ṛṣibhirbahudhā gītaṁ chandobhirvividhaiḥ pṛthak
Brahmasūtrapadaiścaiva hetumadbhirviniscitaiḥ b(Bhagavat Gīta 13.5)
Brahmasūtra is thus praised in Bhagavat Gīta and therefore it can be assumed that Brahmasūtra is older than Bhagavat Gīta. But some aver that there are common lines in both Brahmasūtra and Bhagavat Gīta. Such baseless averments are footed on the commentaries of Brahmasūtras. Whenever something is quoted to elaborate some idea in the commentary, they argue that such ideas originate from Gīta. Two examples are given below.
api ca smaryate (Brahmasūtra 2.3.45 Śaṇkara)
mamaivāṁso jīvaloke jīvabhūtaḥ sanātanaḥ (Bhagavat Gita 15.7)
yoginaḥ prati ca smaryate smārte chaite (Brahmasūtra 4.2.21 Śaṇkara)
yatra kāle tvanāvṛttimāvṛttiṁ caina yoginaḥ
prayātā yānti taṁ kālaṁ vakṣyāmi bharatarṣabha (Bhagavat Gita 8.23)
It is evident from the above that the original texts do not have any similarity. However it cannot be concluded that Brahmasūtra precedes the original Bhagavat Gita, on the ground that the original Bhagavat Gita had four chapters only and the remaining fourteen chapters were supplemented later. The mentioning of Brahmasūtra in Bhagavat Gita is in the thirteenth chapter. Therefore it can rightly be concluded that the time of Bādarāyaṇa is between the original Gīta and the completion of the thirteenth chapter of the present Bhagavat Gita.
The averment that the period of Bādarāyaṇa is after the birth of Buddha and Varddhamāna Mahāvīra on the ground that Bādarāyaṇa has criticized Buddhist and Jain philosophies, is also defective as there is not even a single syllable in the entire Brahmasūtras mentioning Buddha or Mahāvīra. The refutation of Buddhist and Jain thoughts was only the contribution of the commentators of Brahmasūtra. Moreover the Buddhist and Jain thoughts had a history of at least one thousand years prior to Buddha or Mahāvīra and therefore a remark on such original philosophies were quite natural too.
Thus it can be concluded that Bādarāyaṇa flourished circa 600 BC.
