[Advaita-l] Is Badarayana same as Vyasa?

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:15 AM, Srinath Vedagarbha via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:29 AM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > According to Shankara's commentary the terms 'sutra, vyakhyana,
> > anuvyakhyana, etc.' do not denote the commonly admitted names. A sutra
> is a
> > crisp expression in the Veda itself and vyakhyana is an explanation the
> > shruti itself gives.
> >
>
> I know he does that. But the question remains that his such position
> renders shruti's enumerating shruti, sUtra among others, renders redundant.
>

No. It does not render the shruti terms of sutra, itihasa, etc. redundant.
The shruti passage is thus:

स यथार्द्रैधाग्नेरभ्याहितात्पृथग्धूमा विनिश्चरन्त्येवं वा अरेऽस्य महतो
भूतस्य निश्वसितमेतद्यदृग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः सामवेदोऽथर्वाङ्गिरस इतिहासः पुराणं
विद्या उपनिषदः श्लोकाः सूत्राण्यनुव्याख्यानानि व्याख्यानान्यस्यैवैतानि
निश्वसितानि ॥ १० ॥

The shruti says that from Brahman, like smoke issuing forth from fire
burning due to wet fuel, from Brahman, the Great Sat, the breath, rigveda,
yajurveda, sama, atharva, itihasa, purana, vidya, upanishad, shloka, sutra,
anuvyakhyana, vyakhyana which are all his breath alone.

All of us agree that the shruti consisting of rig, yajus, sama, atharva is
apaursheya and all other things like itihasa, purana are all paurusheya.
Also, there is the term upanishad in that list. This is not the same as the
popular upanishad, which is part of the veda, apaurusheya.  If  the popular
meaning of itihasa, purana, sutra, etc. is taken, then the difference
between paurusheya and apaurusheya stands nullified.  This is because, the
above passage says:  all those items in that list have come from Brahman.
Hence alone Shankara gives the different meanings for itihasa, purana, etc.
and thereby alone the shruti passage is correctly interpreted. Else,
itihasa, purana, sutra, etc. will have to be apaurusheya.  This is not the
way all of us see these.

It is also wrong to say 'all itihasa, purana,  sutra, etc. are composed by
those munis/rishis only by Brahman's blessings/ability'.  This is a weak
argument.  The blessing of Brahman is there for everything.  Then even a
temple built by someone will have to be apaurusheya.  Surely itiihasa,
purana, etc. have not come out from Brahman as his breath.

vs

>
> /sv
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>