Badarayana

[Guest guest]

>KS: Just one question to the learned members of the list. Is the author

> of Brahmasuutra, Sage Badaraayana the same as Vyaasa Bhagavaan? I

> know most of the bhaashyakaara-s equate the two as one.

VA: In many old texts, Badarayana is actually counted separately from

Parasharya Veda Vyasa. For instance Samavidhana Brahmana 3.9.8 mentions

Badarayana 4 generations or so after Parasharya (who is placed before

Jaimini). Sri Sudarsana Suri considers the Samavidhana passage in the

beginning of his Srutaprakasika and declares that there were two Badarayanas,

one of whom was the same as Vedavyasa.

There is no need to equate Badarayana with Vedavyasa to settle the authorship

of Brahmasutras. Badarayana as a teacher is mentioned in numerous texts, and

many of the views cited therein do not occur in the Brahmasutras. Eg.

Baudhayana Gryhasutra 3.9.3

Baudhayana Srautapravara sutra: 20.2

Hiranyakesin Srautasutra: 16.7.23; 22.2.20

Hiranyakesin Grhyasutra: 1.25

Bharadvaja Parisesasutra 128:

Sankarsha Kanda Sutra: 3.2.38

Atharvaprayaschitta: Dvaipayana is mentioned in 2.2.3

It is possible that VedaVyasa coombined the Brahmasutras of Kasakrtsna etc.

to create the eclectic text that we know today (since the views of Kasakrtsna

etc. are likewise found quoted in many other texts, like those of Badarayana).

 

Parasarya as such is quoted/mentioned in several texts also

1. Asvalayana Srauta sutra: 12.15.2

2 Apastamba Srauta sutra: 24.10.6

3. Hiranyakesin Srauta sutra: 21.3.14

4. Baudhayana Srautapravara sutra: 48.15

5. Vaikhanasa Dharma sutra: 4.6.1; 4.5.9

6. First Aranyaka of Taittiriya Aranyaka

7. Katha Aranyaka (do not have the last two texts with me right now)

 

The equation Badarayana = Veda Vyasa however predates Shankaracharya. For

instance, in Shloka Varttika on Mimamsasutra 1.1.5 (which mentions

Badarayana), Kumarila Bhatta states the view to be that of Veda Vyasa, which

indicates that he equated Veda Vyasa with Badarayana. In commenting on this

verse of Shloka Varttika, Umbeka also clarifies that Veda Vyasa is meant.

Canto XXVI of Manimekhalai (~500 AD or earlier) also seems to credit Veda

Vyasa with the authorship of the Brahmasutras.

 

I have seen a passage in Padma Purana which gives Badarayana as a synonym of

Vyasa (do not have the text with me right now).

> But as one

> finds it in the Brahmasuutra the criticism of not only saankhya and

> yoga but also Bouddha and Jaina matams which puts the time of

> suutrakaara to post-Buddha period. In fact the dialectic arguments

> in Buddhism did not start till around Naagarjuna period. When we

> think of Vyaasa Bhagavaan we think of pre-historic at least 5000

> years ago. The equation of Sage Baadaraayana with Vyaasa Bhagavaan -

> is it done to uplift the status of Brahmasuutra to the

> prasthaanatrayam- If not how can one account for the criticism of the

> post-Buddha philosophies.

VA: The sutras of padas 1-2 of Adhyaya II can be interpreted very easily to

omit all references to specific Buddhist or Jaina tenets. However, Pashupata,

Pancharatra, Yoga, Bahrspatya, Samkhya, Vaisheshika cannot be wishes away. Of

these, there is no need to assign S, V, Y, B, P at least to post Buddhist

period and current datings by Indology are quite speculative. Buddhist

scholars like Asvaghosha themselves place Kanada etc, before Buddha. Infact,

if you will recall, I had shown on the Advaita list how Sutras 2.1.1-2.1.3

themselves can be interpreted easily so that there is no reference to Samkhya

and Yoga as such.

>I am aware of the Giita sloka in 13th

> Ch.-that has some reference to bharmasuutra - There the

> interpretation could be also something other than the Baadaraayana

> suutra-s. Any thoughts on this?

VA: There could have been more than one Brahmasutras. Infact, the references

to specific views of the Acharyas mentioned in the Brahmasutras in other

texts as well forces us to draw this conclusion. For instance, consider the

case of Ashmarathya. He is found quoted in:

1. Purva Mimamsa sutra: 6.5.16

2. Sankarsha Kanda sutra: 2.2.42; 4.2.2

3. Brahmasutra: 1.2.29; 1.4.20

4. Bharadvaja Srauta sutra: 1.14.7; 1.16.7; 1.17.1; 1.20.15; 2.11.7; 4.3.9;

4.22.12; 4.13.14; 4.17.7; 4.21.13; 9.2.17; 9.5.2; 9.6.3; 9.7.7; 9.7.8; 9.8.2;

9.9.6; 9.9.11; 9.9.15; 9.15.12; 9.16.9; 9.17.10; 13.2.7; 15.1.6; 15.1.8;

15.2.3; 15.2.6; 15.4.7

5. Bharadvaja Paitramedhika sutra: 1.10.12

6. Bharadvaja Parisesha sutra: 102; 117; 130; 132; 139; 142; 143; 185

7. Bharadvaja Grhya sutra: 1.20

8. Apastamba Srauta sutra: 5.29.14; 9.3.15; 9.4.7-9; 9.6.3; 9.8.3; 9.10.12;

9.16.6; 9.19.14; 10.16.4; 14.13.8; 14.22.13; 19.6.10; 19.8.8; 19.10.4;

21.3.7-8; 21.6.2; 21.15.6; 21.19.19-20

9. Rudradatta's commentary on the Apastamba Srauta sutra: 5.17.1; 7.10.2;

9.2.1; 10.21.11

10. Satyashadha Srauta sutra: 23.1.20; 23.1.54; 23.1.135

11. Mahadeva's commentary on the Satyashadha Srauta sutra: 25.1.14

12. Asvalayana Srauta sutra: 5.13.10; 6.10.30

13. Baudhayana Pravara sutra: 3.46

14. Atharvaprayaschittani: 3.7-8

Incidently, Sri Vedantadeshika quotes an older interpretation of the relevant

Gita shloka according to which the words 'Brahmasutra padaschaiva' refer to a

text on Samkhya by Panchashikha. (See the epilogue of his subcommentary on

Sri Ramanuja's Bhashya on the Gita). In my opinion, the reference is to the

commentary on Gita by Yadavaprakasha.

 

Sincerely,

 

Vishal

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Agarwal:

 

I wish to place on record my deep appreciation for

the scholarly postings of yours . Thanks very

much indeed for your informative inputs.

 

Look forward to many such postings based on

source information , which are hard to come by.

You are providing a very valuable service to

this community.

Best Wishes,

V.Sadagopan

 

At 06:28 AM 2/22/01 EST, you wrote:

>

>>KS: Just one question to the learned members of the list. Is the author

>> of Brahmasuutra, Sage Badaraayana the same as Vyaasa Bhagavaan?

[Guest guest]

Fantastic! Vishal thanks - Now I know where I should turn to for all

my questions!

 

>I have seen a passage in Padma Purana which gives Badarayana as a synonym of

>Vyasa (do not have the text with me right now).

 

Interesting - Shree Madhva quotes extensively from padma puraaNa.

Most of the puraaNa-s are also attributed to Vyaasa, sometimes to

upgrade them as valid pramaaNa-s.

 

I also have question about Shreemad Bhaagavatam which is also

attributed to Vyaasa- As I understand Shankara Bagavat paada has not

quoted any thing from Bhaagavatam. Is that text from post Shankara

period? Reference to Kapila is there in B. Giita - Ch.10. I assumed

this Kapila is the daarshanika of sankhya. Lord Krishna, listing his

vibhuuti-s, says I am kapila muni. But again there is Bhagavaan

Kapila as the incarnation of Lord MahavishhNu in Bhaagavatam,

teaching sankhya to his mother. Vishal, as you might have noticed in

my notes on Brahmasuutra in adviata list, I differentiated these two

kapila-s - that does not mean I am clear on these. Any help in

sorting out these.

>

>VA: . Infact,

>if you will recall, I had shown on the Advaita list how Sutras 2.1.1-2.1.3

>themselves can be interpreted easily so that there is no reference to Samkhya

>and Yoga as such.

 

Yes I followed that discussion. I am aware of Shankara's

interpretation. If I recall, Shree Madhva also assumes those

suutra-s refer to sankya and yoga only. I have not yet studied Shree

Bhaashya to see how Bhagavaan Ramaanuja interpreted the suutra-s.

You presented an interesting thoughts in your postings. I may refer

to them when my notes on the suutra-s reach that point.

>

>VA: There could have been more than one Brahmasutras. Infact, the references

>to specific views of the Acharyas mentioned in the Brahmasutras in other

>texts as well forces us to draw this conclusion.

 

Very interesting - more than one Brahmasuutra-s! Is this conclusion

supported by traditional logicians?

>

>VA:Incidently, Sri Vedantadeshika quotes an older interpretation of

>the relevant

>Gita shloka according to which the words 'Brahmasutra padaschaiva' refer to a

>text on Samkhya by Panchashikha. (See the epilogue of his subcommentary on

>Sri Ramanuja's Bhashya on the Gita). In my opinion, the reference is to the

commentary on Gita by Yadavaprakasha.

 

Vishal I am little confused - text on Sankhya of Panchashikha - I

am not aware of Panchashikha - is this sankhya used in a general

sense as Vedantic knowledge or used as sankhya as darshhana of Kapila

or completely different from these two. Shree Krishan Kalale in his

last telephone B.Giita class referred to Shree Deshika's

subcommentary on Geeta Bhaashya of Shree Ramanuja. He motivated me

to get hold of these books to study.

>Sincerely,

>

>Vishal

 

Hari OM!

Sadanadna

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Srivaishnavas,

 

The ongoing postings by Sri V Agarwal regarding the identity of Vyasa make

interesting reading.

I have heard that in each cycle of a chaturyuga all avataras repeat

themselves. We are now in the Kaliyuga of the 28th Chaturyuga. In the

first skandha of SrimadBhagavatam in the third Adhyaya we have a list of

23 of the most important incarnations of Lord Vishnu.

There is one verse,

tatassapthadashe jAta: satyavatyam Parasharat

chakrE vEdatarOshshAKha: drishtvA pumso$lpamEdhasa:

 

which tells that Vishnu incarnated in the 17th avatara as the son of

Satyavati through Parashara and classified the vEdas as the people were

having poor intelligence. Regarding the heirarchy, Sri Rama's Avatara is

reckoned next and then Balarama and Krishna and then comes Buddhavatara.

We cant say that this purana is written after the events, because Sri

Kalki's avatara is reckoned as the future prediction,

athAsow yugasandhyAyAm dasyuprAyEshU rAjasu

janitA visnuyashasO nAmnA Kalkirjagatpati:

There is another verse in the 3rd skandha which pinpoints the identity of

Vyasa.

 

Naitachchitram tvayi Kshttar badarayana VeeryajE.

Yattvaya nanyabhavena Bhavito harireeshvara:

Mandavya shapat Bhagavan praja samyamanO Yama:

Bhratu: Kshetre Bhujishyayam jatassatyavatIsutat.

 

which means (as Maitreya tells Vidura)

It is not surprising that Oh Kshatta (Vidura born of sudra mother and

brahmin father) who is born of the veerya of Badarayana that you are

thinking of Lord Hari so deeply. You were actually Lord Yama born by the

curse of Mandavya in the kshetra (wife) of vyasa's brother sired by the

son of Satyavati.

This reference should prove that vedavyasa is same as parashara's

son, satyavati's son and called badarayana. He is also referred to as

Krishna and Krishna Dwaipayana vide,

in Acharyahrudayam " Krishna KrishnadwaipayanotpattihaL polanre

krishnatrishnatatva janmam "

 

Adiyen

M.N.Ramanuja

[Guest guest]

Please see below:

 

In a message dated 2/23/01 4:52:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,

sada writes:

> I also have question about Shreemad Bhaagavatam which is also

> attributed to Vyaasa- As I understand Shankara Bagavat paada has not

> quoted any thing from Bhaagavatam. Is that text from post Shankara

> period?

VA: The date of Srimadbhagavatam is still a matter of dispute. There are

certainly several archaisms in the language of the text, which have been

studied by scholars. J A B van Buitenen curiously takes these archaisms as a

consious attempt by the Puranakara to give it the semblance of an old work

(See Pg. 223-242 of Studies in Indian Literature and Philosophy/ J A B van

Buitenen; Motilal Banarsidass; 1988- a compilation of his scattered journal

articles). Citations from the Purana occur late (missing even from the

Vishnusahasranama Bhashya attributed to Bhagvatpada) and to my knowledge, the

oldest texts citing the Purana are the Matharavrtti on Samkhyakarika of

Isvarakrishna (again, undated but perhaps close to Shankara's times) and a

work of Abhinavagupta (his Gitabhashya? Will have to check). Then, the

Neelakesi, a Tamil Jaina work quotes some verses below which occur in the

Bhagvatam:

 

1. Vyasa, born of a dancing girl, became a great Rishi; Hence, it is tapas

that makes one a Brahmin, and not his birth.

2. Sakti, born of a Chandala woman, became a great Rishi. Hence, it is tapas

that makes one a Brahmin, and not his birth.

3. Parasara, born of SwapAki, became a great Rishi; Hence, it is tapas that

makes one a Brahmin, and not his birth.

4. Vyasa, born of a fisherwoman, became a great Rishi; Hence, it is tapas

that makes one a Brahmin, and not his birth.

I do not know if these verses occur in some other Purana as well. There are

other problems- the text of Neelakesi is not dated precisely and I have

encountered dates from 100 AD to 800 AD. Moreover, the translation that I

used (A. Chakravarti; Neelakesi, the Original Text and the Commentary of

Samaya Divakara Vamana Muni; Kumbhakonam; 1936) does not clarify if the

section of the text is from the original text of Neelakesi or if it belongs

to a late commentary found on the text. Maybe a Tamil scholar could help us

decide by checking the original text in Tamil and adding more details on this

reference.

 

>Reference to Kapila is there in B. Giita - Ch.10. I assumed

> this Kapila is the daarshanika of sankhya. Lord Krishna, listing his

> vibhuuti-s, says I am kapila muni. But again there is Bhagavaan

> Kapila as the incarnation of Lord MahavishhNu in Bhaagavatam,

> teaching sankhya to his mother. Vishal, as you might have noticed in

> my notes on Brahmasuutra in adviata list, I differentiated these two

> kapila-s - that does not mean I am clear on these. Any help in

> sorting out these.

VA: There are not 2 but 4 Kapilas spoken of in the Puranas!! This might well

be a later attempt to cover up for the embarassment of earlier prestige of

Samkhya which became the favorite whipping boy of Daarshanikas of all stripes

in later times. A certain animosity existed towards Kapila in ancient times

as well because of the opposition of his followers to the Vedic Karmakanda

(see the Kapila-Go Samvaad of Mahabharata Shanti Parva). In the Baudhayana

Dharmasutra, a Purvapaksha is cited wherein Kapila is called an Asura who

created the Asrama system to delude people. In the Yatidharmasamucchaya of

Yadava Prakash, a contemporary tradition is noted according to which the

division of Sannyasins into 4 classes (Bahudaka etc.) was the invention of

the folloers of Kapila. Thus, the invention of multiple Kapila's could well

be a reflection of the ambiguity with which Indian tradition looked at him.

Incidently, his Ashram is said to be at Siddhapur (where the Sarasvati met

the ocean- close to Chhota Rann of Kutch) and also at Gangasagar (where the

Hooghly meets the Bay of Bengal). Siddhapur as such was devastated when the

Islamic invaders destoyed the Rudramahalaya and other shrines there and

thereafter, the Matrshraddha and other rites of N Indian Hindus associated

with the site have never been revived. Some of my relatives however still

undertake pilgrimages to Gangasagar during the Mela there.

A good summary of various Kapilas is contained in

Chakrabarti, Pulinbehari; Origin and Development of the Samkhya Thought

and

Samkhya darsana ka itihasa; Udayvira Shastri; Virajanand Vaidik Sodha

Samshthana; Ghaziabad (reprinted by Vijakumar Govindram Hasanand; Delhi)

> Yes I followed that discussion. I am aware of Shankara's

> interpretation. If I recall, Shree Madhva also assumes those

> suutra-s refer to sankya and yoga only. I have not yet studied Shree

> Bhaashya to see how Bhagavaan Ramaanuja interpreted the suutra-s.

> You presented an interesting thoughts in your postings. I may refer

> to them when my notes on the suutra-s reach that point.

VA: Well, just to clarify, my interpretation was not based on the Sribhashya.

Infact, since you are BS 1.1.4, you should definitely refer to the Sribhahsya

at this stage because the most lengthy comment is over before this Sutra in

that work and much of the criticism of Advaita Vedanta is also over by then.

 

> >VA: There could have been more than one Brahmasutras. Infact, the

> references

> >to specific views of the Acharyas mentioned in the Brahmasutras in other

> >texts as well forces us to draw this conclusion.

>

> Very interesting - more than one Brahmasuutra-s! Is this conclusion

> supported by traditional logicians?

VA: By thetime of Shabara and Shankara, the Mimamsa systems had already

standardized around the texts of Jaimini and Badarayana (or whoseover is the

BS-kaara) just as the Vyakarana of Panini eclipsed the texts of his

predecessors like Apisali, Shakatayana etc. Similar standardization is seen

in other areas as well- Sakala RV almost absorbing all other Sakhas of RV

(with exceptions like Malabar and Gujarat). However, in the

Naishkarmyasiddhi, the Sarirakasutras of Jaimini are clearly mentioned. Refer

the Suresvaracharya's svopajnavrtti titled 'Sambandhokti' on

Naishkarmyasiddhi 1.91 wherein the context makes it clear that it is Jaimini

whose Sariraka sutras are implied (despite unnecessary insertions like

'tadguru' etc. by the later commentators).

 

>

> I

> am not aware of Panchashikha - is this sankhya used in a general

> sense as Vedantic knowledge or used as sankhya as darshhana of Kapila

> or completely different from these two.

VA: Panchasikha was the disciple of Asuri, who in turn was the disciple of

Kapila. Form the penultimate verse of Samkhyakarika, it is clear that Kapila

and Asuri did not write much on the system (although Kapila is the founder)

and it is Panchasikha who composed most of the texts of the school ('tena cha

bahudha krtam tantram'). Under Brahmasutra 2.1.4 as well, Panchasikha is

called 'Paramarshi' and his text is called 'Tantra' . The actual name of the

text was 'Sashtitantra' as known from numerous sources. In the course of

time, Samkhya itself split into numerous schools and the dominant stream was

the one proposed by Panchasikha (with schools of others like Varshaganya,

Vindhyavasin and Panchadhikaran- who is quoted by Padmapada in

Prapancasaravivarana). K, A and Pancasikha are mentioned by name in the

Srutisarasamuddharanam of Sri Totakacharya (see

http://www.voi.org/vishal_agarwal/totaka.html )

The extant Samkhyasutras are sometimes called 'Pancasikha pravachasutras'

which could mean that they are extracted from the Shastitantra. Kramadipika,

a commetary on the Tattvasamasasutras is sometimes attributed to him.

 

The attribution of all texts of Samkya to Kapila is similar to attributing

statements from Sabarabhahsya to Jaimini. Such a practice is seen very often

in Indian texts- that of attributing later texts to the founders of their

respective schools. Thus, Vyasabhashya is quoted under Yogasutrakrt

Patanjali's name sometimes and so on.

 

To end, the Srutaprakasika quotes an older commentator on the BS to the

effect that the naastika elements of of Samkhya etc, were added later on. He

says:

" All the four of the Agamas praised by Badrayana in the Mahabharata were

originally wholly authoritative and totally without conflict with the Vedas,

since their original propounders are omniscient lords who are completely

without any of the faults that would vitiate their intrinsic validity.

However, in the case of each of these four Agamas, non-authoritative aspects

in conflict with the Vedas crept in because of faults in the intellects of

the composers of later books that were based upon and attempted to interpret

the original Agama. Therefore, Badrayana in the Tarkapada of the Brahma

Sutras intended to refute those secondary, non-Vedic aspects that were

imposed upon the original Agamas by later fallible human authors who did not

correctly grasp the intention of the original infallible composers."

The agamas in question are Samkhya, Yoga, Pancharatra and Yoga.

 

Regards

 

Vishal

[Guest guest]

Vishal - no words to express my thanks for the educative information.

 

Looks like I have to catch up with lot of reading. I will take up

your suggestion to study intensely Shreebhaashya before I venture

into taking up Bhagavaan Raamaanuja's criticism of Advaita system. I

am little bit familiar about the laghu, mahaa purvapaksha-s and

siddhanta-s of Ramanuja, particularly with reference to the avidya

aspect of advaita system. I am still collecting books on these and

also as your suggestion of Sudarshanasuuri's commentary as well - if

I can get hold of side by side good English commentary.

 

Currently in my notes on Brahmasuutra, I am restricting myself

predominantly to Shankara Bhaasya to do a justice to it. I am doing

elaborately to insure that the arguments presented are very clear at

least to myself first. I noticed Shankarabhagavatpaada spent lot of

discussion taking puurvamiimaamsa as puurvapaksha - particularly

Praabhakara and BhaaTTa matams under the pretext of explaining the

word 'tu' in the- tat tu samanvayaat -suutra. I am still writing on

that.

 

If and when I am through with Shankara Bhaasya I intend to take up

Shree bhaashya and study his criticism of Advaita from my

perspective.

 

I will take rain check from you to tap your wisdom and knowledge

whenever I need it. I did look into your web pages on

Sudarshanasuuri and Totakachaarya - They are very informative. Have

collected references from your list.

Thanks again with praNaam-s.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623