Guest guest Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Dear Scholars, I have some basic questions about the date of the Brahma Sutras of Badarayana. Sampradaya identifies the identity of badarayana with Veda Vyasa, the redactor of the Vedas, Itihaasa-s and Purana-s. The latter's age is said to be around the end of the Treta Yuga, i.e around 3100 BCE. If Badarayana is identified with Veda Vyasa, some problems arise. This is because the brahma Sutras of badarayana refer to Buddhist/Jaina/Naasthika doctrines which are known to have historically been existent only after 400 BCE. If such be the case above, how is badarayana the same as Veda Vyasa? Regards, Malolan ________ India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new http://in.answers./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 Dear Sri Malolan Cadambi, As adiyEn heard from a scholar during Kalakshepams, the so called doctrines of Buddhism etc. were in existent even before the advent of the Buddha, Mahavir etc. and therefore there need be no doubt about the references to these in the Brahma Sutras of Badarayana who was none other than Veda Vyasa. Such ideas or views get boosted up by some personalities who become attracted by these ideas. Even in Ramayana, atheistic ideas are discussed and rejected. Regards, dAsan srInivAsan Malolan Cadambi <mcadambi > wrote: Dear Scholars, I have some basic questions about the date of the Brahma Sutras of Badarayana. Sampradaya identifies the identity of badarayana with Veda Vyasa, the redactor of the Vedas, Itihaasa-s and Purana-s. The latter's age is said to be around the end of the Treta Yuga, i.e around 3100 BCE. If Badarayana is identified with Veda Vyasa, some problems arise. This is because the brahma Sutras of badarayana refer to Buddhist/Jaina/Naasthika doctrines which are known to have historically been existent only after 400 BCE. If such be the case above, how is badarayana the same as Veda Vyasa? Regards, Malolan ________ India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new http://in.answers./ How low will we go? Check out Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 Dear Sri Malolan, Buddhists and Jains themselves believe that that there were many Buddhas and Mahavir's prior to those dated to the 4th and 5th centuries. And that the ideas they expressed are also very old. When adiyEn asked a similar question to a scholar regarding Azhvars dates and their references to Buddhist and Jainist philosophies, I was told the same. That there is no need to tie these philosophies only to the most recent known Buddha or Mahavir. adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan Malolan Cadambi <mcadambi > wrote: Dear Scholars, I have some basic questions about the date of the Brahma Sutras of Badarayana. Sampradaya identifies the identity of badarayana with Veda Vyasa, the redactor of the Vedas, Itihaasa-s and Purana-s. The latter's age is said to be around the end of the Treta Yuga, i.e around 3100 BCE. If Badarayana is identified with Veda Vyasa, some problems arise. This is because the brahma Sutras of badarayana refer to Buddhist/Jaina/Naasthika doctrines which are known to have historically been existent only after 400 BCE. If such be the case above, how is badarayana the same as Veda Vyasa? Regards, Malolan ________ India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new http://in.answers./ Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 8, 2006 Report Share Posted September 8, 2006 Sri: In connection with this query, we would like to see if there is any remote reference to Buddha in our granthas. Let us take up Ramayana. We know that at many places where srirama exhibited fury, He was compared to pralayagni, and Rudra when killing Andhakasura and tripurasura. Which means that the episodes of Siva were all past, by or before treta yuga. Hanuman's advice to Ravana "brahmA svayambhU: chaturAnano vA. rudra striNEtrastripurAntako vA..." is a proof that tripurasura vadham was much before the time of srirama. Now, there is a name in srivenkata sahasranamam, "tripurastrImAnabhanga:" that is one who outraged the modesty of wife of tripura demon. Just like tulasi's story, even tripura's wife was a chaste woman who went on a pilgrimage to kshetrams to pray for the longevity of her husband and security of her mAngalyam. At one place she saw very beautiful handsome Buddha who was digambara or nude and lost her heart to him and embraced him in ecstasy forgetting her mission. Of course, Buddha was unaffected by this embrace. This buddha was the avatAra of Vishnu meant to mislead all demons to hate vedas by his mesmerising words. Refer to names in Srivishnusahasranama "durArihA, shubhAngo lokasAranga:sutantu:.. kritAgama: .. suvarnabindurakshobhya:... sarvavAgIshvareshvara: mahAhrado mahagarto " which refer to buddhAvatAra much earlier to the last buddha. So once her chastity was lost it was easy for Rudra to kill tripurasura with the help of Vishnu. see "yasyAtmatAm tripurabhanga vidhAvadhAstvaM.." in atimAnushastavam of KurattAlvAn. This shows that this buddha was in treta or krita yuga itself. Therefore it is not out of place to mention Bouddhamatam and Arhat and other bAhyamatams in brahmasUtras and it will not postdate brahmasutras. Besides, in srivishnupurAna 3-3, SriparAsara mentions that in every dvApara yuga one person is born with the identity to Vishnu, as vyAsa. Seeing the weakness and ignorance of people, God sends one to demarcate vedas into four parts. In this Vaivaswata manvantara in which 27 chaturyugas have past the 28th is running now, ParAsara says that there have been 28 vedavyAsas so far and enumerates them. Highlights among them are BrahmA(first), prajApati (second) , SukrachArya (third), Indra, bruhaspati, vasishtha (shakti's father), bhAradvaja, goutama, vAlmIki, Jaya (in the 18th dvApara and this name also stands for 18 "tatO jayam udIrayEt" ), Shakti (parasara's father), Parasara himself in 26 th dvAparayuga, and the present vedavyAsa in 28th dvAparayuga known as krishnadvaipAyana who wrote mahAbhArata. Cf "krishnadvaipAyanam vyAsam viddhi nArayaNam prabhuM, kOhyanyO bhuvi maitrEya mahAbhAratakrit bhavEt" and parAsarabhattar's "namO nArAyaNAyEdam krishnadvaipAyanAtmanE. yadAmushyAyaNA vedA mahAbhAratapanchamA:" in bhagavadgunadarpanam. These may also give clue to the time of origin bAhyamatas which is not just 400 BC. It may be many yugas ago. dasan Ramanuja > Malolan Cadambi <mcadambi > wrote: > Dear Scholars, > > I have some basic questions about the date of the Brahma Sutras of > Badarayana. > > Sampradaya identifies the identity of badarayana with Veda Vyasa, the > redactor of the Vedas, Itihaasa-s and Purana-s. The latter's age is > said to be around the end of the Treta Yuga, i.e around 3100 BCE. > > If Badarayana is identified with Veda Vyasa, some problems arise. > > This is because the brahma Sutras of badarayana refer to > Buddhist/Jaina/Naasthika doctrines which are known to have > historically been existent only after 400 BCE. > > If such be the case above, how is badarayana the same as Veda Vyasa? > > Regards, > > Malolan > > > ________ > India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new > http://in.answers./ > > Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail. > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.