[Advaita-l] Is Badarayana same as Vyasa?

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste
> Hence alone Shankara gives the different meanings for itihasa, purana,
> etc. and thereby alone the shruti passage is correctly interpreted.
>
Srinath ji you write -
If it was said Shankara were to 'correctly' interpret other shruti passages
based on so called sUtra passages within the same apourusheya shruti

No one said that based on the 'sutra' passages in the Vedas , we have to
interpret the rest of the passages of shruti. Thats your own wrong
imputation. The rest of what you wrote is irrelevant

The word sUtra ***in this context*** is क्स्तु-सङ्गग्रह-वाक्यानि  (those
passages of the Vedas which present the truth in a nutshell, for example,.
'The Self alone is to be meditated upon' (I. iv. 7).)

It's not as if the word sUtra always refers to vedic passages alone since
pANiNi sUtras etc., were all in existence and yet bhAShyakAra chose to give
this meaning to the word sUtra in order to appropriate interpreting that
particular  Br. Up. passage.

Please note also the mention of the word Upanishad in the Br. Up. passage
after mentioning the Vedas as in  ...
निश्वसितमेतद्यदृग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः सामवेदोऽथर्वाङ्गिरस इतिहासः पुराणं विद्या
उपनिषदः श्लोकाः...
although the Vedas include them anyway. Shankara has apparently followed
the cue and interpreted the words Upanishad, Shloka, Sutra etc as being
part of the Vedas. That alone renders them a nirapekSha pramANam.

Om


On Thu 19 Jul, 2018, 9:44 PM Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 3:15 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> > No. It does not render the shruti terms of sutra, itihasa, etc.
> > redundant.  The shruti passage is thus:
> >
> > स यथार्द्रैधाग्नेरभ्याहितात्पृथग्धूमा विनिश्चरन्त्येवं वा अरेऽस्य महतो
> > भूतस्य निश्वसितमेतद्यदृग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः सामवेदोऽथर्वाङ्गिरस इतिहासः
> पुराणं
> > विद्या उपनिषदः श्लोकाः सूत्राण्यनुव्याख्यानानि व्याख्यानान्यस्यैवैतानि
> > निश्वसितानि ॥ १० ॥
> >
> > The shruti says that from Brahman, like smoke issuing forth from fire
> > burning due to wet fuel, from Brahman, the Great Sat, the breath,
> rigveda,
> > yajurveda, sama, atharva, itihasa, purana, vidya, upanishad, shloka,
> sutra,
> > anuvyakhyana, vyakhyana which are all his breath alone.
> >
> > All of us agree that the shruti consisting of rig, yajus, sama, atharva
> is
> > apaursheya and all other things like itihasa, purana are all paurusheya.
> > Also, there is the term upanishad in that list. This is not the same as
> the
> > popular upanishad, which is part of the veda, apaurusheya.  If  the
> popular
> > meaning of itihasa, purana, sutra, etc. is taken, then the difference
> > between paurusheya and apaurusheya stands nullified.
> >
>
> Why do you differentiate the list based on apourusheya vs. pourusheya?  The
> context of quoted passage is about what happens at the time of creation and
> how things are 're-instantitated' in the new kalpa.
>
>
>
> > This is because, the above passage says:  all those items in that list
> > have come from Brahman.
> >
>
> This can be still true when one consider all pourusheya texts are
> pravahataH nitya and pravahI anitya. All pourushEya texts as such will be
> there in all kalpas, but the content (pravahi) will be different. This is
> the same idea when one says I bathe in the same river as I did yesterday.
> The 'sameness' corresponds to river as pravaha, but the pravahi water is
> changed (anitya).
>
>
> > Hence alone Shankara gives the different meanings for itihasa, purana,
> > etc. and thereby alone the shruti passage is correctly interpreted.
> >
>
> If it was said Shankara were to 'correctly' interpret other shruti passages
> based on so called sUtra passages within the same apourusheya shruti; then
> the possible akShEpa would be that very characteristics of actual
> Brahma-Sutras texts called 'nirNayaka' is lost. The very notion of sUtra-s
> as nyAya-prashthAna is meaningless. Along with it Shankara's own guru
> Vyasa's intention of writing such sUtra is rendered useless. Also, along
> with it Shankara's own effort of writing bhAshya (on such useless sUtras)
> will render waste of effort.
>
>
> > Else, itihasa, purana, sutra, etc. will have to be apaurusheya.  This is
> > not the way all of us see these.
> >
>
> As said above, there is no need to divide the list of texts on those two
> categories of apaurusheya vs. pourusheya.
>
>
> >
> > It is also wrong to say 'all itihasa, purana,  sutra, etc. are composed
> by
> > those munis/rishis only by Brahman's blessings/ability'.  This is a weak
> > argument.
> >
>
> This is strawman's argument. No one argued that way. Refuting an
> non-existing argument is a flaw in the vAda you know.
>
> /sv
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>