[Advaita-l] Is Badarayana same as Vyasa?

[Praveen R. Bhat]

​Thats a very weak argument trying to support any kind of thinking perhaps
under the garb of being  modern and scientific  to replace sampradAya.
vyAkaraNa, mImAMsA and ​nyAya, all are part of sampradAya! The plain
reading of prayer will tell you that it is a prayer to the Gurus of the
tradition who used these as tools to lead others to the truth as taught in
the sampradAya. Perhaps your sensible man who doesn't accept it is himself
outside the sampradAya, else he would know that Panini also accepts nipAtas
and many words fall under sAdhuprayoga due to that or by bAhulyam,
pRShodarAdIni yathopadiShTam, etc.

The tradition may not be a perfect interpreter since it is trying to convey
the non-conveyable, but it is better than all the self-styled interpreters
out there put together, who couldn't tell head from tail in most cases and
there goal is definitely not mokSha, due to ardhajaratIyanyAya.

​gurupAdukAbhyAm
,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */


On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 4:22 PM D.V.N.Sarma డి.వి.ఎన్.శర్మ <
dvnsarma at gmail.com> wrote:

> Padavaakya pramaanatah.
>
> Therefore the Purvacharyas commented not according to tradition but using
> grammer and logic.
>
> Now let us take the first one pada or grammer. Meanings of words are
> interpreted according to grammatical rules. Which grammer? There were many
> grammers .
> Majority of people opted for PAnini's grammer because of its brevity and
> maximum coverage. It is not perfect. There are many usages in sanskrit that
> are not covered by
> Panini. Example is Magha's Sisupalavadham which contains many apaniniya
> prayogas which were there in usage. Similarly Madhaviya Dhatuvritti seems
> to endorse many apaniniya usages.
> Bhasha pravahini. It is never static. In light of the above what is the
> praamaanya of a commentary which is based on one grammer.. Munitraya
> pramanya is a praudhavada. No sensible man accepts it..
> I hope by now you understand my point that tradiition not a perfect
> interpreter.
>