[Advaita-l] Is Badarayana same as Vyasa?

[Bhaskar YR]

I don’t think that is what Sri SSS has said. While dismissing the surmises
of the western scholars, this is exactly what he has dismissed. From what I
understand of Sri SSS, what he has said is that while there is no mention
of the identity as between Sri Badarayana and Sri Vyasa in the Bhashya
itself, based on the reference in Upadesha Sahasri there can be no
objection to concluding that, according to Sri Bhagavatpada, they (krishna
dvaipAyana vyAsa or bhArata kara vyAsa and sUtrakAra bAdarAyaNa )  are one
and the same. This is my reading of the text by Sri SSS.

praNAms Sri ChandramouLi prabhuji
Hare Krishna

Yesterday I looked at the Kannada introduction in Sri SSS’s BSB commentary.  I don’t know, despite reading the same several times one again,  I am still under the impression that Sri SSS is not conclusive with regard to identity between bAdarAyaNa and veda vyAsa/krishna dvaipAyana.  In all probability I think the first two sentences in that introduction is the opinion of Sri SSS.  If I am right, then Sri SSS saying here sUtra katru is bAdarAyaNa and there is no evidence in shankara’s prasthAna traya bhAshya to conclude that both bAdarAyaNa and vyAsa are one and the same despite the fact that later vyAkhyAnakAra-s and other commentators observed that both are one and the same.  After this observation only Sri SSS quotes the opinions of Western scholars like Windashmann, Telong, Daison etc. (not sure about the spellings of these names as I read these names in Kannada) and says that imaginations of these authors will not withstand if we do the vichAra (vichArada hodetakke nilluvantilla embudu spashtavAgide in Kannada).  Then he quotes US 16-67 (which you quoted already) and clarifies there were multiple vyAsa-s as per purANa therefore no problem in accepting that bAdarAyaNa has another name as vyAsa.  And the clincher here  about the uncertainty of  identity between vyAsa & bAdarAyaNa as per  Sri SSS’s  observation is here :  bAdarAyaNara and gaudapAdara vishayadalli namage nishchitavAgi tiLidiruva ItihAsika saNgatiyu ‘yaavudondu iruvudilla’, vedAnta siddhAntavannu tiLiyuvudakke edara nirNayadinda yAva prayOjanavu Aguvudilla’.  Here he is clear he is unaware anything credible historic information about bAdarAyaNa and gaudapAda to come to any valid conclusion and it is also an useless effort as it has nothing to do with vedAnta siddhAnta.  And the last paragraph in this section, Sri SSS observes that :  From all these reasons, it is impossible to decide who is bAdarAyaNa, what is his date etc. from the source of sUtra-s.  And with regard to this issue, right now WE DON’T HAVE ANY OTHER MEANS OTHER THAN SUTRA,  He concludes.

I don’t think Sri SSS is definitely concluding bhArata karta veda vyAsa = sUtra kAra bAdarAyaNa just based on US reference.  OTOH, in this exact reference only he is talking about multiple vyAsa-s and consequentially agreeing the other name of bAdarAyaNa might be  vyAsa.  And it is not necessarily that it should be  veda vyAsa of mahAbhArata.

Anyway, that is my reading of my mother tongue Kannada in which I have the confidence that I can read and understand well ☺ Now after reading your different perspective on those same lines, this confidence of mine is also on shaky ground ☺

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
Bhaskar

PS :  If possible kindly scan that part of Sri SSS’s observation ( it is only two pages) and upload it somewhere  in web prabhuji as I don’t have that facility / authorization to do it in office,  so that Kannada knowers would draw their own conclusions after reading the original observation of Sri SSS.