[Advaita-l] concluding sloka of siddhAnta bindu

[kuntimaddi sadananda]

Sunilji - PraNAms
Here is the discussion I had with Vishal Agarval several years ago. Vishal has  done some research on this.
Hari Om!
Sadananda
----------------------
 
 
>KS:    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



>________________________________
> From: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
>To: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
>Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:29 PM
>Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] concluding sloka of siddhAnta bindu
>  
>
>Namaste,
>
>I think Sama Vidhana Brahmana clearly says that Badarayana Vyasa is different from Vedavyasa. I think Adi Sankara did not equate Vedavyasa with Badarayana Vyasa. The confusion could have occurred later on. Kindly correct me if I am wrong.
>
>
>Regards,
>Sunil KB
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
>To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
>Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:34 AM
>Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] concluding sloka of siddhAnta bindu
>
>
>PraNAms
>Actually the Brahmasuutras are by
>Badarayana - the second chapter dismisses the Buddhist doctrines. Traditionally
>our achaaryas have equated Badarayana with Veda Vyaasa. Apparently there were
>several suutras before Badarayana suutras but many got last after Badarayana
>suutras became prominent.I donot think authorship is different for the first four suutras compared to that of the rest of the suutras. Hari Om!
>Sadananda
> 
>
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Swami Sarvabhutananda <swami.sarvabhutananda at gmail.com>
>>To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
>>Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:14 AM
>>Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] concluding sloka of siddhAnta bindu
>>  
>>
>>OM
>>BrahmasUtrA (ie) chatussUtri is from VEDA VYASA.
>>It is in the form of sUtrAs and the bhAshyA is from ShankarA.
>>    
>_______________________________________________
>Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
>To unsubscribe or change your options:
>http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
>For assistance, contact:
>listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>_______________________________________________
>Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
>To unsubscribe or change your options:
>http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
>For assistance, contact:
>listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
>