In preparing his own commentary on the Brahma-sutras, Sri Ramanujacharya wished to study Bodhayana’s Vritti, which at that time was. Ramanuja is following Bodhayana Vrutti because he is saying that in > the Sri Bhashya. Then is it true Bodhayana Vrutti is agreeing with. Visistadvaitis are mistaking Upavarsha and saying he is same as Bodhayana. They are saying his Vrutti is Bodhayana Vrutti. In Ramanuja.

Author: Taushicage Kagagal
Country: Greece
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Science
Published (Last): 22 May 2017
Pages: 482
PDF File Size: 20.37 Mb
ePub File Size: 1.79 Mb
ISBN: 902-6-39958-385-3
Downloads: 71929
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Taugar

Continued from Part Two. The Outlook of Bodhayana. It is, somehow, presumed that both the Acharyas refer to one and the same Vrttikara, that is, Bodhayana. But, the difference is that whenever Sri Sankara quotes the commentator vrttikara he does not mention his name, and he also does not quote him fully.

He usually summarizes and adduces them as being the differing theories or the stand of the opponent Purva-paksha. And, whenever Sri Britti cites Upavarsha, he mentions the Vrttikara by his name addressing him with great respect rvitti Bhagavan the revered and treats him as the elder of his own tradition. But, he treats Bodhayana with great respect addressing him as Bhagavadthe Divine. And, he quotes the views of Bodhayana from the fragments of Bodhayana Vrtti as the authority.

He reckons Bodhayana as the foremost among his Purva-charyas the revered Masters of his tradition. And, they wonder vrihti the Acharyas could be referring to different Vrttikaras.!.?

It is also said that, over a long period, since many scholars went by the name of Baudhayana or Bodhayana, the Vrttikara Bodhayana quoted by Sri Ramanuja could be quite different from the Bodhayana to whom Sri Sankara is presumed to have referred. Since Bodhayana is often addressed as Vrttikara, the commentator sometimes without mentioning his nameit is evident that his authority was accepted by the later generations of Vedanta Schools. Generally, the views of Bodhayana are believed to go along with that of Brahma sutra.

Accordingly, the Sri Vaishnava tradition reveres the commentary of Bodhayana as almost the Scripture. Bodhayana, no doubt, was a faithful commentator Vrttikara of the Sutras. He tried to stay close to the words of the Brahma Sutra; and, did not seem to come up with original or fresh theories of his own. His comments are cogent and stay close to the point. Bodhayana appears to have been essentially a theist; and, his views, generally, were closer to those of Sri Ramanuja and Sri Bhaskara.

He emphasized the absolute sacredness of the Vedas. According to him, the scriptures are not open to criticism of human speculation. But, it is only in Smrti, that which is remembered or the works authored by humans, there is a possibility of offering varied interpretations. To revere and explain the scriptures was, for him, the highest duty. He thought that each word and each phrase of the scripture merited study with complete attention. Accordingly, his special area was commenting on the scriptures.

Since commenting necessarily involves taking a certain intellectual stand and adopting a certain philosophical view, there is a particular world-view running through his commentaries. His views, generally, differ from that of Sri Sankara; but, are closer to that of Sri Ramanuja. And, Sri Ramanuja paid greater respect to his views; and, cited them as authorities. Bodhayana, as reflected in his explanations quoted by Sri Ramanuja, laid equal importance of Jnana and Karma Kanda-s of the Mimamsa.

bodhayaan According to him, the two segments — Purva and Uttara — of the Mimamsa together constituted the doctrinal system Shastraikatva. And, because of that, perhaps, he wrote commentaries on both the Purva and Uttara Mimamsa. He held the view that directly after completing the rituals one should take up the investigation into Brahman, which is the study of Vedanta.


His position was coined by the later Vedanta Schools as jnana-karma-samucchaya-vada, the doctrine that synthesizes Jnana and Karma. Sri Ramanuja too was a votary of Samucchaya-vada. Sri Sankara who did obdhayana accord much significance to rituals, naturally, tended to differ from Bodhayana.

Besides, Bodhayana does not discuss or even mention the concept of Maya.

He strongly refuted the Vijnanavada theory which reduces the objects of the material world merely to the status of dream experiences. As regards his views on the God, Bodhayana appears to have been a theist. For him, the individual soul Jiva and God were not exactly identical.

God godhayana him is the infinity Bhuman for which the individual soul aspires. And, the importance of Bhakthi as service and as absolute surrender to God was stressed by him. It is the source, the womb of all matter bhuta yoni.

Thus, Brahman, besides bohayana the personified God, is also the cause sarva-vikara-karana from which everything evolves parinama paksha.

It is also the Atman of all things; the God that dwells within everything sarva-bhutha-antaratmancontrolling and directing them. Sri Ramanuja extended it further; and said that Brahman has all the spiritual and physical existence as his body. Bodhayana, bodhatana, does not seem to attribute Brahman with a body vigrahavat. But, somehow, he appeared to believe in the Upanishad description of Brahman with four feet chatush paada. It is not clear in which sense he understood it.

As regards the individual self JivaBodhayana thought that it has two aspects. One is the gross body sthulam sariram which we experience ordinarily, and which perishes at its death.

And the other is the subtle body sukshmam bodhayan composed of obdhayana fine elements, and which is not visible to naked eye. At the death of the physical body, the subtle body that was hitherto enwrapped in it moves and eventually sets up the bodhayzna gross body.

That is to say, sukshmam sariram is the seed of the body that manifests. Thus, subtle body is un-manifest a-vyaktawhile the gross body is manifest vyakta. According to Bodhayana, in state of deep sleep the individual self is united with Brahman as existence, Sat ; and, on waking it gets separated. This seems nearer to the explanation offered by Uddalaka Aruni Chandogya Upanishad: This, in a way, is closer to the Samkhya view of Purusha; but, it markedly differed from the view taken by Brahma sutra.

Bodhaayna for the final release, Bodhayana believed that bodhatana individual self eventually unites with Brahman.

But, the release comes in stages. And, even after full release Mokshathe individual self retains its identity but without the false sense of ego; and, does not entirely merge with Brahman.

And, even after attaining Moksha, it does not acquire the power to create, to preserve and to withdraw the manifest world. Therefore, even in the state of final release, the individual self and the Supreme self are not entirely identical. Following that, Sri Ramanuja explained Moksha as a state of blessedness in the company of the Highest Being Paramatman. Sri Ramanuja emphasized the importance of Bhakthiabsolute vriyti, and Parapatti complete surrender to the will of the Supreme, making oneself worthy of His grace, as the bodhaynaa means to attain salvation.

Sri Sankara and Sri Ramanuja apart from their doctrinal differences on the question of Duality and Non-duality also seemed to differ in their approach to Brahma Sutra and in treatment of the Purva and Uttara Mimamsa of the Vedanta School.

He also seemed to support the view that the Purva and Uttara Mimamsa together formed one text. And that he believed in the coordinated union of Jana and Karma.

The approach of Sri Sankara to the Upanishads in general and to the Brahma Sutra in particular presents a very interesting and a striking contrast. He defines the Upanishads as the texts that lead the aspirants close to the highest reality.

  ISO 19712 PDF

He said, the primary meaning of the word Upanishad was knowledge, while the nodhayana meaning was the text itself. While doing so, he isolates Upanishad portion of the Vedic lore from the rest and narrows down the scriptural authority to ten or twelve ancient Upanishads.

He also recognized that the study of Upanishads is not absolutely necessary or is it a pre-condition for attainment of Moksha.

The function bodhatana knowledge as expounded in the Upanishads, he said, is the removal of obstacles; but, it has vvritti own limitations.

Question on Bodhayana and Upavarsha Vruttis of Brahma Sutras

As regards the limitations of textual knowledge, he explained: Moksha is not the fruit or the effect of knowledge jnana. Liberation being identical with Brahman is ever present, eternal and is beyond the subject-object relations. The texts can only contribute to causing the discovery of truth; leaving the truth to assert itself svapramanya. He also says that Vedic authority is not binding after one attains the goal. He declared that all beings are Brahman, and therefore the question of discrimination did not arise.

Sri Sankara did not seem to regard Brahma Sutra as a latter part of the same text. He maintained that the two systems are addressed to different class of persons. But, he argues, liberation is not a product or a thing to be achieved.

Bodhayana the Vrttikara – Part Two | sreenivasarao’s blogs

Vriitti, Jnana-kandain contrast, is about Brahman that already exists; it pertains to the ultimate purpose which is true knowledge of Self, fritti it is addressed to one who is intent on liberation.

Each section of Veda is valid in its own sphere; but, the two sections cannot logically be bound together. Vishaya subject ; Adhikara qualifications for the aspirant ; Phala end result or the objective ; and, Sambhanda related-ness. Mimasakas hold the view that the real purport of the scriptures was to provide injunctions vidhi and prohibitions nishedha.

Re: Bodhayana Mahrishi

Sri Sankara said, the subject of Jnana-kanda is Brahman. Sri Sankara averred the true intent of the scriptures was to describe the Reality as it is. Sri Sankara rejected the Mimamsa view and argued that scripture were not mandatory in character, at least where it concerned pursuit of wisdom. Upanishads, he remarked, dealt with Brahman and that Brahman could not be a subject matter Vishaya of injunction and prohibitions.

Aspirant in the Karma-kanda has limited ambitions; and, is yet to understand the limitations of the results achieved by Karman. The aspirant of the Jnana-kanda, however, is well aware of the limits of the results achieved by Karman; and, there about foreseeks the limitless Brahman. Nitya-anitya-vastu- viveka capacity to discriminate the real from the transitory ; Vairagya Dispassion ; Samadi Shatka Sampatti Six virtues of the mind: Karma-kanda aspires for worldly prosperity and heavenly pleasures.

The aim of Jnana-kanda, he said, is liberation Moksha. Further, he pointed out that Brahma Sutra says 3. The Upanishads jnana-kandaon the other hand, reveal to us knowledge of the ever present entity — Brahman. He pointed out that rituals could in no way bring about wisdom, much less Moksha. He asserted, while the rewards phala of the rituals were not matter of direct experience, wisdom which is the fruit of Vedanta is based on immediate and personal experience; one need not have to wait for the reward nor one be in doubt whether the reward would or would not come.

This was in sharp contrast to the position taken by Mimamsakas who believed that rituals alone would lead one to higher levels of attainment.