[Advaita-l] Is Badarayana same as Vyasa?

[V Subrahmanian]

Vyasa-Badarayana identity in Padmapurana in the Shiva Gita :

https://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_giitaa/shivagiitaa.html?lang=sa

सनत्कुमारः प्रोवाच व्यासाय मुनिसत्तमाः .
मह्यं कृपातिरेकेण प्रददौ बादरायणः [5]
Subsequently, that Sanat Kumara preached the same to Vyasa। That sage Vyasa
became graceful on me and transferred that knowledge to me.

In the above verse the names vyasa and badarayana are used for the same
individual.

अथ पृष्टो मया विप्रा भगवान्बादरायणः .
भगवन्देवताः सर्वाः किं क्षुभ्यन्ति शपन्ति च [7]
तासामत्रास्ति का हानिर्यया कुप्यन्ति देवताः .
पाराशर्योऽथ मामाह यत्पृष्टं शृणु वत्स तत [8]
Hearing this i said, “Hey Muni! how are you speaking like this? What harm
would Gods face if someone tells this Shiva Geeta to others? Why would they
become angry? Why would they curse?” When i questioned him, VedaVyasa
showered his affection on me and explained me like this.

The above verse, a continuation of the previous one, mentions Badarayana
and the other name for Vyasa 'Paaraasharya' (parashara's son, which is very
well known).

The Shiva Gita is commented upon by HH Sri Abhinava Nrisimhabharati
Swaminhah of Sringeri (1599 - 1622 AD) and he brings out the purport of the
above verses.  The first verse:  'If Sanatkumara had preached this teaching
to  Vyasa, how come you, Suuta, know about this? For this question, the
reply is: Badarayana conveyed this to me out of great compassion.

In the second verse cited above: the question is asked to Badarayana. The
answer is given to the questioner by Paaraasharya, Vyasa.

Therefore the non-different identity of Badarayana-Vyasa-Paaraasharya is
established beyond doubt by Vyasa himself in the Padmapurana. The other
name of Vyasa,  'Krishna Dvaiipayana' , is stated by Shankara in the
Bhashya.

regards






On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 12:45 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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
>>
>
>