[Advaita-l] Is Badarayana same as Vyasa?

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:36 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 3:15 AM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Why do you differentiate the list based on apourusheya vs. pourusheya?
> The context of quoted passage is about what happens at the time of creation
> and how things are 're-instantitated' in the new kalpa.
>

The context is not lost sight of.

>
>
>
>> This is because, the above passage says:  all those items in that list
>> have come from Brahman.
>>
>
> This can be still true when one consider all pourusheya texts are
> pravahataH nitya and pravahI anitya. All pourushEya texts as such will be
> there in all kalpas, but the content (pravahi) will be different. This is
> the same idea when one says I bathe in the same river as I did yesterday.
> The 'sameness' corresponds to river as pravaha, but the pravahi water is
> changed (anitya).
>

Only with regard to the Veda one can say it is pravahanitya, not with
regard to itihasa, purana, etc. This is because, the Veda alone is brought
out just as it was in the earlier kalpa.  While there is the need to
compose the smriti texts anew, there is no such need for the veda to be
composed anew. It is only in this sense that pravaha nityatva is said for
veda. Nowhere do we see that Valmiki authored the 'same' Ramayana or Vyasa
composed the 'same' MB. Also, there is a term ' उपनिषदः ' in that list. Is
it that Upanishads are paurusheya and their content will be different in
each kalpa?

Shankara says there at the end of the explanation of each of those
items:  एवमष्टविधं
ब्राह्मणम् । एवं मन्त्रब्राह्मणयोरेव ग्रहणम् ; नियतरचनावतो विद्यमानस्यैव
वेदस्याभिव्यक्तिः पुरुषनिश्वासवत् , न च पुरुषबुद्धिप्रयत्नपूर्वकः ; अतः
प्रमाणं निरपेक्ष एव स्वार्थे |  [In the list of items in the original
mantra:  दृग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः सामवेदोऽथर्वाङ्गिरस इतिहासः पुराणं विद्या
उपनिषदः श्लोकाः सूत्राण्यनुव्याख्यानानि व्याख्यानान्य   the first four, rg,
yajus, sama and atharva are mantras and the rest eight items itihasa, etc.
are brahmana. Thus, the two mantra and brahmana constitute the whole corpus
of what Brahman brought out at the beginning of the kalpa. Shankara calls
the eight items: ashTavidham braahmanam.

On a search of what the 'eight-fold brahmanam' is, I landed on this page:
http://muhaz.org/salutation-to-holy-ga-ea.html?page=3       where it is
stated in detail and said:  // This kind of eight-fold Brāhmana is found in
all the Vedas (i.e. Vedic traditions).  //

It appears that this is a part of nirukta, purva mimamsa etc.

>
>
>>
>>
> Else, itihasa, purana, sutra, etc. will have to be apaurusheya.  This is
>> not the way all of us see these.
>>
>
> As said above, there is no need to divide the list of texts on those two
> categories of apaurusheya vs. pourusheya.
>

That is not a list of texts.

>
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> This is strawman's argument. No one argued that way. Refuting an
> non-existing argument is a flaw in the vAda you know.
>

Not so. In a vada we also find statements like this:  ......ityevam yadi
uchyeta...[in case it is stated thus....]   tarhi idam samaadhanam [then
this would be our reply].  The siddhantin conceives of an argument the
purvapakshin might bring up and himself raises that and settles the
question.    This is a sample from the BSB:   यदि पुनः
प्रधानमेवात्मीयत्वात्स्वशब्देनैवोच्येत, एवमपि चेतनोऽचेतनमप्येतीति
विरुद्धमापद्येत ।
vs

>
> /sv
>
>