[Advaita-l] Advaita-l Digest, Vol 48, Issue 14

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

--- On Wed, 7/23/08, Antharyami <sathvatha at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not saying that the Avirodadhyaya does not mention
> Buddhism at all. I
> only advocate that Badarayana systematically argued against
> the root ideas
> on which Buddhism developed its philosophy much later.

Shree Devanathanji - PraNAms

I agree with your assessment.  

We have always a problem in matching the philosophical account of time with historical account, since we have no clear account of the later. We have Kanchi maTam claiming even Bhagavatpaada Shankara as prehistoric, that is B.C. It has conventionally accepted by all suutra bhaashyakaaras that Bhagavan Badarayana is the same as Bhagavan Vyaasa. Here belief system and history got fused into one. Acceptance that Shree Badarayana is same as Vyaasa and claiming that suutras agree with their doctrine is an accepted way of authenticating the doctrine too. 

Shree Vishal, whom I respect, once had analysis showing that there were more than one Brahmasuutras, while Badarayana suutras ultimately prevailed. I do not have ready reference here but will be able to find it if I search hard in my old files. 

>From the point of philosophy, history is immaterial. I have no problem in separating the two. Personally I do not have to accept Badarayana is the same as Vyaasa or even whether Brahmasuutras agree with advaita Vedanta or not, as I am convinced of the advaitic nature of the truth based on Shruti and Shankara bhaashyaas. As you have quoted Krishna's statement - R^ishibhiH bahudaagiitam ... hetu ... nischitaihi| - hetu is also included in the list, albeit in the end.  


Hari Om!
Sadananda