[Advaita-l] Question on Bodhayana and Upavarsha Vruttis of Brahma Sutras
svidyasankar at hotmail.com
Thu Jun 14 08:15:35 CDT 2012
> Can "Bhartriprapanca" not mean Bhartri's-language or Bhartri's-description, particularly when nothing was known about the existence of a man namede Bhartripranca .?
> Sunil KB
In a hypothetical way, yes. However, we have to note the following.
1. Sankara and sureSvara, to my knowledge, do not name bhartRprapanca
explicitly. The jnAna-karma-samuccaya positions that they cite and refute are
identified only by later commentators as the positions taken by bhartRprapanca.
2. These later commentators are well aware of bhartRhari and vAkyapadIya
as well, and again, to my knowledge, they give no room to take the word
prapanca in a descriptive sense as questioned above. They always use the full
word bhartRprapanca as if it were the name of one author and they also give
no room to believe that this person was the same as bhartRhari.
In order to address these kinds of questions adequately, one has to pay close
attention to words, writing style and use good sense in finding out the intended
meaning. Most importantly, one needs to control a speculative trend in one's
thinking about these issues very tightly and be rigorous in one's analysis.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list