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

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

> > Nevertheless, the sphoTa vAda of bhartRhari is rejected by Sankara in
> > the brahmasUtra bhAshya. vAkyapadIya is a work on grammar and its
> > author, bhartRhari, should not be confusd with bhartRprapanca, a pre-
> > Sankaran vedAntin who held a jnAna-karma-samuccaya view and who
> > has been refuted by Sankara and sureSvara.
> The accurate name for Bhartruhari's Philosophy is Sabda Advaita. It is
> a kind of Advaita only. We have to conclude he belongs to Advaitis
> family only.

Venkatesh,
 
Nobody is disputing that bhartRhari's SabdAdvaita is a kind of advaita. All
I am saying is that it is not advaita *vedAnta*. For that matter, some of the
later bauddha schools are also advaita/advaya in nature, as also one school
of Kashmir Saivism, but that does not make all these equivalent to advaita
*vedAnta* of the SAnkara sampradAya. There are points of similarity and
commonality for sure, but that is not to say 
 
> Sabda Dhatu Samiksha is without any doubt Bhartruhari's work. In that
> there is a Karika. This Karika is referenced in the Nayana Prasidini
> Vyakhyana -
> 
> Suddha Tattvam Prapanchasya Na Heturanivruttitaha |
> Jnanajneyadirupasya Mayaiva Janani Tataha ||

Please share the source from which you make these quotations. Which 
nayanaprasAdinI is this? The commentary on citsukha's tattvapradIpika?
And what is known about Sabda dhAtu samIkshA attributed to bhartRhari?
Does the author of nayanaprasAdinI say that the quotation is from this
text? Or is this an identification made by a modern scholar? The reason 
I'm asking is that in all the twenty years or so that I've been reading up
on these kinds of textual issues, this is the first time I'm hearing of a 
Sabda dhAtu samIkshA by bhartRhari. The "without any doubt" nature 
of the above attribution is not established in my mind.
 
> 
> In this Karika the important Maya is the Mother cause of the World
> with things which are Known and we have Knowledge. But the Suddha
> Tattva is not the Cause.

To my knowledge, mAyA as a philosophical concept akin to what is said by
advaita vedAnta authors does not figure in vAkyapadIya at all. Rather, a lot
of importance is given to kAla (time) as a svatantra Sakti of Sabda brahman.
And yes, bhartRhari does use the word adhyAsa in vAkyapadIya a lot, but
again, what he means by adhyAsa in a grammatical context is not the same
as what is meant by adhyAsa in the wider philosophical context of vedAnta.
 
> 
> We can see Bhatruhari is talking the language of Advaitis. In another
> place in Vakya Padiya also he talking the same language.
> 
> Satyam Vastu Tadakarair Asatyairavadharyate |
> Asatyopadhibhihi Sabdaihi Satyamevabhidhiyate || VP 1-20
> 
> In this he is using the Advaiti word Upadhi. He is saying Satya Vastu
> is signified by Asatya Upadhis the Sabdas.
> 

The word upAdhi is not unique to advaita vedAnta discourse. It is used a 
lot by bhedAbheda vedAntins as well as also by some bauddha schools.
 
> >
> > The vivarta of Sabda-brahman, as delineated in vAkyapadIya, is also not
> > the same as the vivartavAda of advaita vedAnta.
> >
> How? Kindly explain.

That would require a long excursus into the vyAkaraNa tradition embodied
in patanjali's mahAbhAshya and bhartRhari's vAkyapadIya. I would suggest
reading up discussions and references made in S N Dasgupta's volumes on
the history of Indian philosophy or in the volumes of the Encyclopedia of
Indian Philosophies, edited by Karl Potter and a team of scholars (vol 3 is 
on advaita vedAnta, vol 5 is on the grammarian philosophical tradition).
 
We can take it up as a separate thread, if we can agree on the basic terms
of discussion and focus, without being distracted by arbitrary legends, myths
and tales of no historical or philosphical value.
 
Vidyasankar