Badarayana and his Brahma Sutra

[The Crimson Universe]

Was Badarayana an Advaitin?

Was Badarayana's text, Brahma Sutra, non-dualistic in nature?

I'm not talking about Shankara's bhasya or commentaries on the brahma sutras that came much later, but the original work of Badarayana that predated Shankara which systematizes and summarizes the philosophical and spiritual ideas of the Upanishads.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Here is a short and sweet translation of Brahma Sutras for anyone interested:
Brahma Sutra Dipika Jagannatha Tirtha DR VR Panchamukhi 2002 OCR : Makarand Joshi : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
IMHO, Brahma Sutras are not my thing. I went through it (with Swami Krishnanada's comments). but they do not ring the bell.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Was Badarayana an Advaitin?

No. Technically, Advaita does not start until Gaudapada.

Was Badarayana's text, Brahma Sutra, non-dualistic in nature?

There is general agreement (modern scholarship) that the Brahmasutras are written from a bhedabheda (oneness-difference) perspective. In today's world, this is closest to the Vishishtadvaita philosophy.

When Shankara wrote an Advaitic commentary, he was criticized by his contemporaries for departing from the tradition of Bhedabheda interpretation and attempting to interpret the sutras from a Buddhist perspective.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

@shivsomashekhar
Interesting.
The Upanishads on the other hand are non-dualistic, is it not?
There are many Upanishadic verses that says you and brahman are one and the same and that there's no difference whatsoever (exactly what advaita preaches).
Then, how come Badarayana moved away from the original non-dualistic teachings of the upanishads, and wrote a text from a bhedabheda perspective, claiming his interpretation to be the message of the upanishads, when it is not.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

@shivsomashekhar
Interesting.
The Upanishads on the other hand are non-dualistic, is it not?

No.

1. Without an Advaita commentary, you will be hard pressed to find Upanishads that claim the Universe is an illusion or the two-level truths or that Jivas lose their identities (effect of merging) on Moksha. If the Upanishads are Advaitic, you should see several such statements. But you never find such statements* in Upanishads or the Sutras or the Gita. You only find them in Advaita texts. And the two level truths come from Mahayana Buddhism.

2. Advaita has to interpret the various dualistic Upanishads to mean something other than what they say

3. All non-dualistic Upanishads are accepted by dualistic philosophies too and they interpret them in a manner consistent with their doctrines.

On the other hand, if you read the Upanishads (and the Gita) from a oneness-difference perspective, you need very little interpretation. Jivas are real, the world is real, Jivas can find Moksha, their identities persist after Moksha and they are always fully dependent on Ishwara. Like Sunlight and the Sun...and hence, oneness-difference.

There are many Upanishadic verses that says you and brahman are one and the same and that there's no difference whatsoever (exactly what advaita preaches).

Every one of those statements is equally accepted by Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita too - consistent with their doctrines. Therefore, these are not exclusive to Advaita.

*The last couple of Brhadaranyka verses are an exception which sound very Buddhist.

Two truths doctrine - Wikipedia

 

[The Crimson Universe]

And the two level truths come from Mahayana Buddhism.

By two level truths, do you mean brahman and maya?
Was this concept of maya borrowed from buddhism and then added to the upanishads?

*The last couple of Brhadaranyka verses are an exception which sound very Buddhist.

So are you saying that some upanishads have been interpolated with buddhist doctrines? (...that not all upanishads are divine revelations recieved by the rishis but contains man-made ideas)?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

By two level truths, do you mean brahman and maya?
Was this concept of maya borrowed from buddhism and then added to the upanishads?

The two truth concept (Paramartha and Vyvahara) comes from Mahayana Buddhism and was later borrowed by Advaita. You will have difficulty finding this concept in Upanishads - not without a lot of interpretation.

So are you saying that some upanishads have been interpolated with buddhist doctrines? (...that not all upanishads are divine revelations recieved by the rishis but contains man-made ideas)?

The Brihadaranyaka (at least, most of it) predates Buddhism, but it has a strange ending. As Yajnavalkya concludes his talk with his wife Maitreyi, he tells her -

As a lump of salt has neither inside nor outside and is altogether a homogeneous mass of taste, even so this Self, my dear, has neither inside nor outside and is altogether a homogeneous mass of Intelligence. This Self comes out as a separate entity from the elements and with their destruction this separate existence is also destroyed. After attaining this oneness it has no more consciousness. This is what I say, my dear." BU 4.5.13

This view is a lot more closer to Buddhism than any flavor of Vedanta.

 

[mangalavara]

Was Badarayana's text, Brahma Sutra, non-dualistic in nature?

Different ācāryas have different interpretations of the Brahma Sūtras.

The Upanishads on the other hand are non-dualistic, is it not?

There are many ways to interpret them.

There are many Upanishadic verses that says you and brahman are one and the same and that there's no difference whatsoever (exactly what advaita preaches).

There is more than one meaning of tat tvam asi.

What's really important is that you subscribe to a particular subschool of Vedānta that you think is the most consistent with the Brahma Sūtras, Mukhya Upaniṣads, and Bhagavad Gītā. Your personal spiritual experiences could also influence what subschool you subscribe to. Its philosophy will be useful in your journey toward enlightenment and liberation. As Hindus, we can leave the absolutist stuff about scriptures to our Abrahamic friends.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

The Brihadaranyaka (at least, most of it) predates Buddhism, but it has a strange ending. As Yajnavalkya concludes his talk with his wife Maitreyi, he tells her -
... Self comes out as a separate entity from the elements and with their destruction this separate existence is also destroyed. After attaining this oneness it has no more consciousness. This is what I say, my dear." BU 4.5.13

This view is a lot more closer to Buddhism than any flavor of Vedanta.

Maybe he was talking about the two types of Selves in the same passage.

When he said "the Self comes out as a separate entity from the elements" he no doubt was speaking of the higher Self (Atman).
But when he said "it is destroyed with the elements and has no more consciousness upon attaining oneness", he probably was talking about the lower/impure/reflected consciousness of the jiva (the ego), which is impermanent and prone to destruction.

(i.e. once the oneness is attained, one no longer retains the consciousness of a separate limited individual.)

I'm just speculating here.
Who knows what Yajnavalkya actually meant in his passage.