You are here: Sri Vaishnava Home Page : Bhakti List : Archives : February 2001

Re: Badarayana

From: K. Sadananda (sada_at_anvil.nrl.navy.mil)
Date: Fri Feb 23 2001 - 04:54:07 PST

Fantastic!  Vishal thanks - Now I know where I should turn to for all 
my questions!


>I have seen a passage in Padma Purana which gives Badarayana as a synonym of
>Vyasa (do not have the text with me right now).

Interesting - Shree Madhva quotes extensively from padma puraaNa. 
Most of the puraaNa-s are also attributed to Vyaasa, sometimes to 
upgrade them as valid pramaaNa-s.

I also have question about Shreemad Bhaagavatam  which is also 
attributed to Vyaasa- As I understand Shankara Bagavat paada has not 
quoted any thing from Bhaagavatam. Is that text from post Shankara 
period?  Reference to Kapila is there in B. Giita - Ch.10. I assumed 
this Kapila is the daarshanika of sankhya.  Lord Krishna, listing his 
vibhuuti-s,  says I am kapila muni.  But again there is  Bhagavaan 
Kapila as the incarnation of Lord MahavishhNu in Bhaagavatam, 
teaching sankhya to his mother.  Vishal, as you might have noticed in 
my notes on Brahmasuutra in adviata list, I differentiated these two 
kapila-s - that does not mean I am clear on these.  Any help in 
sorting out these. 

>
>VA: . Infact,
>if you will recall, I had shown on the Advaita list how Sutras 2.1.1-2.1.3
>themselves can be interpreted easily so that there is no reference to Samkhya
>and Yoga as such.

Yes I followed that discussion.   I am aware of Shankara's 
interpretation.  If I recall, Shree Madhva also assumes those 
suutra-s refer to sankya and yoga only.  I have not yet studied Shree 
Bhaashya to see how Bhagavaan Ramaanuja interpreted the suutra-s. 
You presented an interesting thoughts in your postings.  I may refer 
to them when my notes on the suutra-s reach that point.

>
>VA: There could have been more than one Brahmasutras. Infact, the references
>to specific views of the Acharyas mentioned in the Brahmasutras in other
>texts as well forces us to draw this conclusion.

Very interesting - more than one Brahmasuutra-s!  Is this conclusion 
supported by traditional logicians?
>
>VA:Incidently, Sri Vedantadeshika quotes an older interpretation of 
>the relevant
>Gita shloka according to which the words 'Brahmasutra padaschaiva' refer to a
>text on Samkhya by Panchashikha. (See the epilogue of his subcommentary on
>Sri Ramanuja's Bhashya on the Gita). In my opinion, the reference is to the
commentary on Gita by Yadavaprakasha.

Vishal I am  little confused -  text on Sankhya of Panchashikha - I 
am not aware of Panchashikha - is this sankhya used in a general 
sense as Vedantic knowledge or used as sankhya as darshhana of Kapila 
or completely different from these two.  Shree Krishan Kalale in his 
last telephone B.Giita class referred to Shree Deshika's 
subcommentary on Geeta Bhaashya of Shree Ramanuja.  He motivated me 
to get hold of  these books to study.

>Sincerely,
>
>Vishal

Hari OM!
Sadanadna
-- 
K. Sadananda
Code 6323
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington D.C. 20375
Voice (202)767-2117
Fax:(202)767-2623


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


--------------------------------------------------------------
           - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
To Post a message, send it to:   bhakti-list@yahoogroups.com
 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 





>