[Advaita-l] naiShkarmyasiddhi of sureSvarAcArya

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

This is a simple case of confusion arising due to composing sentences
like, "If he had liked ice cream, he would have bought it". Are the
two "he"s referring to the same person, or is it two different
persons?

For example, does it mean

a) If a person A likes ice cream, A would have bought it?, or
b) If a person A likes ice-cream, then person B (his father) would
have bought it?

Such sentences can be interpreted only on the basis of context. When
it has been explicitly stated by Sankara that the two were written by
different people, what is the point in taking the two as the same in
Sureshvaras work? Also in Indian languages it is a mark of respect not
to explicitly mention the name of a great person.

Now, it is quite clear that the puurva and uttara can be thought of a
single work in the sense that the former teaches brahman indirectly,
while the latter teaches it directly. I have posted verses from the
sambandha vaartika a while back on this. So, shankara many times talks
as if they are a single work. So they are interconnected in the sense
mentioned above, but not in the sense of being written by the same
author. Why else would shankara talk of them as a connected work and
then mention two different names with regard to their authorship? It
is a pity that even a normally astute writer like Alston goes off into
speculations like these sometimes.

Rama

On 5/25/06, Krunal Makwana <krunalmakwana at hotmail.com> wrote:
> namo nArAyana
>
> Dear Jaldhariji & list members,
>
> I was reading the naiShkarmyasiddhi of sureSvarAcArya and had come across a very surprising comment, where he points that brahma sUtra were authored by jaimini r^ishi (not bAdarAyana!).
>
> yadapi jaiminIyam vacanam udghATayasi tadapi tad vivakShA'parijnAnAd evodbhAvyate. kim kAraNam. yato na jaiminer ayam abhiprAya AmnAyaH sarva eva kriyArtha iti. yadi hy ayam abhiprAyo'bhaviShyat 'athAto brahma-jijnAsA. janmAdy asya yatah' iti evam Adi brahma vasta svarUpa mAtra yAthAtmya prakASana param gambhIra nyAya saMdr^ibdhaM sarva vedAntArtha mimAMsanaM Srimac cArIrakam nAsUtrayiShyat. asUtrayac ca. tasmAj jaiminer evAyam abhiprAyo yathaiva vidhivAkyAnAM svArtha mAtra prAmANyam evam aikAtmyavAkyAnAm apI  anadhigata vasta pariccheda sAmyAd iti. ata idam abhIdhIyate. (91) [1]
>
> And as for the quotation from jaimini (verse 17), that too, was based on ignorance of that writer's real intention. For jaimini did not mean that all Vedic texts are concerned with the injunctions to act or prohibitions from acting. If so, he would never have composed the vedAnta sUtras beginning with 'Now, therefore, the enquiry into the absolute' and 'He from whom all this comes forth', which are intent solely on proclaiming the true nature of the absolute as the real, and which amount to a critical expositions of the meaning of the upaniShads when taken in their entirety, backed by profound reasoning. But as a matter of fact he did compose them. [1]
> (I don't know how much credit the translation is giving to the saMskr^it but i do believe it's 'attempting' to say the same thing!)
>
> Can the learned members please enlighten me and the rest with their thoughts and views.
>
> The book that I am reading also holds a footnote saying that 'Samkara ascribes them (brahma sutras) to bAdArAyana, and upadeSa sAhasri XVI.67 suggests he may have identified bAdArAyana with vyAsa.........Above all, they (brahma sUtras) were probably originally part of the mimaMsaka sUtras, and SaMkara may well have been the first man to have treated them separately......SaMkara, too, sometimes speaks of the mimaMsaka sUtras and vedAnta sUtras as if they were one connected work (brahma sUtra bhASya III.III.53)
>
> How can SaMkara assign the brahma sUtra to bAdArAyana and then SaMkara's direct disciple assign it to jaimini?