[Advaita-l] Is Badarayana same as Vyasa?

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Raghav Kumar Dwivedula via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaste Subbuji
> Thank you for the interesting reference about the 8 fold brahmana division.
> It quotes the Ashvalayana grihya sutra third adhyaya 3rd kanDikA (3.3.1 to
> 3.3.3) where the itihAsa purANas are regarded as part of the Vedas (they
> are not the usual itihASa and purANa) and these Vedic itihAsa-purANa are
> actually used i.e., chanted while offering oblations in to agni. The
> ramAyaNa and bhArata are as far as I know not chanted while offering
> oblation in to agni. So there is a strong mImAmsa basis for interpreting
> itihAsa purANa in the Vedic way in the case of the Br.Up.2.4.10 ,  rather
> than in the usual way of itihAsa denoting the rAmAyaNa etc.
>

Thanks for this reference.  One might consult yaajnika-s to get more
information on the vedic itihasa, etc. chanted in yajna-s.  Or mimamsakas
could clarify.


regards
subbu

>
> AshvalAyana gihya sutra (3.3.1 to 3.3.3)
> 1. He then should recite for himself (the following texts, viz.) the Rikas,
> the Yajus,
> the Sāmans, the Atharvan and Aṅgiras hymns, the Brāhmanas, the Kalpa
> (Sūtras), the
> Gāthās, the (texts in honour of kings and heroes, called) Nārāsamsīs, the
> Itihāsas and
> Purānas.
> 2. In that he recites the Rikas, he thereby satiates the gods with
> oblations of milk — in
> that (he recites) the Yajus, with oblations of ghee — the Sāmans, with
> oblations of
> honey — the Atharvan and Aṅgiras hymns, with oblations of Soma — the
> Brāhmanas, Kalpas, Gāthās, Nārāsamsīs, Itihāsas and Purānas, with oblations
> of
> ambrosia.
> 3. In that he recites the Rikas, rivers of milk flow, as a funeral
> oblation, to his
> Ancestors. In that (he recites) the Yajus, rivers of ghee — the Sāmans,
> rivers of honey
> — the Atharvan and Aṅgiras hymns, rivers of Soma — the Brāhmanas, Kalpas,
> Gāthās, Nārāsamsīs, Itihāsas and Purānas, rivers of ambrosia.
>
> Om
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 12:34 AM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>