Brahma Sutra - apasudradhikaraNa

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Posted on behalf of Ramachander Deekonda as he preferred to not to edit the subject line and replied to BVP Digest he received Thanks

From: ramchander deekonda <ramchande...@gmail.com>
To: "bvpar...@googlegroups.com" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: 
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 18:29:27 +0530
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Digest for bvpar...@googlegroups.com - 12 updates in 8 topics
Re: Brahma Sutra - apasudradhikaraNa

I advise Sriman Jyoti Raj to study the Govinda Bhashya commentary (on Vedanta Sutras) of Srila Baladeva VidyabhushaNa for a dyanamic and broad-minded commentary on this contentious topic. As rightly said, none of the traditionalists mentioned herein looked at the issue as logically as explained in the Govinda Bhashya commentary.  Sriman Jyoti Raj may also consult the works of Shri Dayananda Sarasvati, the founder of Arya Samaj. One may click the  link given below to directly get into the subject:

http://bhaktibooks.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/vedanta-sutra_adhyaya_1-2.pdf

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Swami Shivananda considers the Adhikarana as an interpolation.

It may be a pertinent research problem to see whether this adhikarana fits into the coherence of the argument of the book.

Unless Sriman/Srimati Jyoti Raj makes his/her research question or research problem clear it does not make sense to continue the discussion.

 

Regards,

 

Nagaraj

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

Swami Shivananda considers the Adhikarana as an interpolation.

It may be a pertinent research problem to see whether this adhikarana fits into the coherence of the argument of the book.

Unless Sriman/Srimati Jyoti Raj makes his/her research question or research problem clear it does not make sense to continue the discussion.

 

​That is good advice.

If it is confirmed as interpolation b moder research methods, there is no problem at all. ​Otherwise, she has to collect material first for her research paper and the n consider it for presenting for Thesis.

[V Subrahmanian]

While the adhikaraNa has the gloss of bhAmatI, nyAyanirNaya (of Anandagiri who has commented on the prasthanatraya bhashya of Shankara) and Ratnaprabha and also has been provided with a vRtti by sadAshivendra Saraswati, the theory of interpolation is to be cautiously considered.  The siddhAnta lesha sangraha of Appayya dIkShitA too has included discussion on this adhikaraNa in the third pariccheda.  So, the ancient sampradAya has not raised doubt as to the interpolation of this adhikaraNa.

warm regards

subrahmanian.v

--

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 10:24 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

While the adhikaraNa has the gloss of bhAmatI, nyAyanirNaya (of Anandagiri who has commented on the prasthanatraya bhashya of Shankara) and Ratnaprabha and also has been provided with a vRtti by sadAshivendra Saraswati, the theory of interpolation is to be cautiously considered.  The siddhAnta lesha sangraha of Appayya dIkShitA too has included discussion on this adhikaraNa in the third pariccheda.  So, the ancient sampradAya has not raised doubt as to the interpolation of this adhikaraNa.

​Dear Subrahmanyan,

There is no question of interpolations with the traditional commentator's​ in the Shastra-s and the commentators on other fields, mostly in  साहित्य often raise the authenticity and प्रक्षेप of the readings and some times, of the verses. For example, the commentator Mallinatha, though considering as प्रक्षेप still comment on the texts.  It is in the interest of modern researchers, originality and interpolations are considered based on critical editions based on original manuscripts. I don't know whether the Swamyji had himself critically edited the text of Brahmasutra or written himself a commentary which he has defended the theory of being the AdhikaraNa in question of being interpolation.

[Sivasenani Nori]

Swami Sivananda has translated the Brahmasutras into English, "based" on Sankaracharya's bhashya, available online at http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_0.html. The particular interpolation comment can be found at http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_1/1-3-09.html, where no reason is given. Chronologically, he is the fourth one to translate Sankara's bhashya into English after Rev. K. M. Banerjea (a Christian apologist who says that Jesus is the Vedic Prajapati), George Thibaut and Swami Vireswarananda. The distinguishing aspects of Swami Sivananda's translation are:

a) He edits the material so as to focus on what is relevant to the busy man of 1940s.

b) For translating the various Vedic sentences quoted within the bhashya, he relies on Thibaut - sometimes even when Thibaut is patently incorrect. For instance the sentence "तदेतद् ब्रह्म अपूर्वम् अनपरम् अनन्तरम् अबाह्यम्" Br. Up. 2.5.9, Thibaut translates it as "This is the Brahman without cause and without effect, without anything inside or outside; this Self is Brahman perceiving everything". Swamiji uses the exact same translation. However, as per the commentary of Sankara on the Brihadaranyakopanishad, Brahman is not without anything inside; here anantaram means homogenous, i.e. without any divisions within. If Brahman were without anything inside, how would It be different from Sunya? Thibaut used the translation he did, because he was following the translation of his General Editor, Max Muller. Max Muller was not under any obligation to follow Sankara's views on what the Upanishad sentences mean, but Thibaut himself states in the preface to his translation of Sribhashya, that a translator should translate the Upanishad sentences in line with the views of the original author. So, Thibaut was obliged to follow the views of Sankara while translating Sankara's works, and yet did not. However, his translations were carried over by other translators (not merely Swamiji, but also by V. H. Date and V. M. Apte to varying degrees). In Swami Gambhirananda's works, we find an independent (of Thibaut and Max Muller) translation.

The point is that Swamiji focussed on making the bhashya easily intelligible to the common man and not on critical or scholarly evaluation. Thus, I doubt his comments are based on looking at manuscripts. Further, he does not cite any manuscripts in support of his statement, which itself is speculative in nature: "The whole of this Adhikarana about Sudras together with the preceding one about the Devas appears to be an interpolation of some later author." (emphasis supplied).

Regards

N. Siva Senani

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

Moreover, in the Jaiminiiya Puurvamiimaamsaa suutra-s also there is the apashuudraadhikaraNam. Therefore, there is no clinching evidence to prove that this adhikaraNam is an interpolation.

It is easier to say that those points or parts of texts in our tradition with which we are not comfortable in the modern times, are interpolations. This approach will throw overboard many fundamental concepts and texts. But that view will not hold good in most of the cases.

Ganesan

On 06-04-2014 10:24, V Subrahmanian wrote: