[Advaita-l] Question on Bodhayana and Upavarsha Vruttis of Brahma Sutras

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

But there is strong reason for saying Bhartuhari is a strong Advaiti
only. But he argued for Shabda Advaita.

The great Visistadvaiti Yamunacharya has said Bhartruhari is a
Vyakhyanakara of Brahma Sutras in the Siddhi Traya.

Moreover the great Grammarian Bhattoji Dikshita has made a very
important comment in the Shabda Kaustubha.

1 Advaitaupanishade BrahmaNyapi Vyutpadyatamiti Abhiprayena Bhagavan
Bhartruharihi Vivartavadamapi Prasangat Vyudapadayat

One more writer Helaraja has written in Vakyapadiya Vyakhyana-

Padartha Carcavishaye Brahmadarshananayenaiva Sambandhadivicare Vinigamanat

Bhartruhari has accepted the pet theory of Advaitis Vivartavada in Vakyapadiya.

Anadinidhanam Brahma Shabdatattvam Yadaksharam |
Vivarte Arthabhavena Prakriya Jagato Yataha ||  Vakya Padiya 1-1

He has accepted the Shabda Tattva is Brahman. The World is a Vivarta
of Brahman.

 Some people also think Bhatti Kavya is Bhartruhari's work only.

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan
<svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Pranams Sunilji,
>>
>> I believe Bhartrihari exclusively uses the sphota vaada which Acharya
>> refuses. Instead our Acharya follows Varna vaada of Upavarsha who
>> himself firmly rejects Sphota vaada although Upavarsha's period comes
>
> That is right.
>
>> much before that of Bhartrihari. I fail to understand why Bhartrihari,
>> the son of the Guru of our Acharya would be a profound writer in a
>> vaada which his father's prime disciple completely rejects?
>
> The answer is that bhartRhari was almost certainly NOT a son of
> govinda bhagavatpAda. The guru of Sankara, govinda bhagavatpAda,
> was also, almost certainly, NOT the father of the king vikramAditya
> and he was, again almost certainly, NOT married to four wives, one
> from each varNa. He was also, almost certainly, NOT the father of
> bhaTTi and vararuci.
>
> For that matter, bhartRhari, vikramAditya, vararuci and bhaTTi were,
> almost certainly, NOT half-brothers. They belonged to very different
> periods in history. With all due respect to those who quote patanjali
> carita, a poem from the 17th century, mere repetition of a fanciful
> legend that makes no historical sense is not going to make it so!
>
> Best regards,
> Vidyasankar
>



-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh