{"id":602,"date":"2026-10-22T00:35:45","date_gmt":"2026-10-22T00:35:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/leshley.ca\/site\/?p=602"},"modified":"2026-10-19T00:38:56","modified_gmt":"2026-10-19T00:38:56","slug":"introduction-to-badaraya%e1%b9%87a-and-the-vedanta-sutra","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/leshley.ca\/site\/blog\/introduction-to-badaraya%e1%b9%87a-and-the-vedanta-sutra\/","title":{"rendered":"Introduction to B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a and the Ved\u0101nta-S\u016btra"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Badarayana's Vedanta Sutra\" width=\"560\" height=\"315\" src=\"https:\/\/tube.leshley.ca\/videos\/embed\/s7MXFn9J5wpYW59M65j6EV\" allow=\"fullscreen\" sandbox=\"allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-popups allow-forms\" style=\"border: 0px;\"><\/iframe>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Slide 1: Introduction to B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a and the Ved\u0101nta-S\u016btra<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Alright, let&#8217;s talk about one of the most influential\u2014and most misunderstood\u2014texts in Indian philosophy. We&#8217;re diving into B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a&#8217;s Ved\u0101nta-S\u016btra, composed in the fifth century CE. Now, before we go any further, I need you to understand something crucial: this text has more names than a spy with multiple passports. It&#8217;s called the Ved\u0101nta-S\u016btra, the Brahma-S\u016btra, the Uttara-M\u012bm\u0101\u1e43s\u0101-S\u016btra, and the \u015a\u0101r\u012braka-S\u016btra. And here&#8217;s what&#8217;s remarkable\u2014this confusing welter of titles is actually perfect, because the text&#8217;s core mission is to investigate a single source of all things that presents itself in many guises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>That source is brahman.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Ved\u0101nta-S\u016btra asks the big questions: How is brahman the source of everything? What&#8217;s the relationship between our individual selves and this transcendent principle? How can we come to know brahman? And here&#8217;s the payoff\u2014it promises liberation from the karmic consequences of bodily existence if we attain this knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Now, you might be thinking this sounds like a systematic work of cosmology. And you&#8217;d be right to think that. But here&#8217;s the catch\u2014the system is not easy to extract. This text is compressed, cryptic, and downright difficult to understand without help. That&#8217;s where \u015aa\u1e45kara comes in. His eighth-century commentary became so influential that many people today think Ved\u0101nta equals \u015aa\u1e45kara&#8217;s interpretation. But we&#8217;re going to resist that temptation. We&#8217;re going back to the source, to understand what B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a himself was up to before later commentators got their hands on it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Slide 2: The S\u016btra as Exegetical Philosophy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Here&#8217;s where it gets weird. The Ved\u0101nta-S\u016btra is a philosophical treatise that doubles as a work of exegesis\u2014it&#8217;s devoted to interpreting the Upani\u1e63ads, especially the Ch\u0101ndogya Upani\u1e63ad, but also the B\u1e5bhad\u0101ra\u1e47yaka and others. Remember, &#8220;Ved\u0101nta&#8221; probably means &#8220;at the end of the Veda,&#8221; referring to these texts. But here&#8217;s what makes this text so challenging: it reads the Upani\u1e63ads as putting forward a single, coherent doctrine centered on brahman.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Think about that for a second. The Upani\u1e63ads were composed over centuries by different authors with different concerns. And B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a is saying, &#8220;No, there&#8217;s one unified teaching here.&#8221; That&#8217;s a bold interpretive move.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But wait\u2014it gets more interesting. The s\u016btra rarely identifies which passages it&#8217;s interpreting. You need to know the Upani\u1e63ads so intimately that a single keyword triggers recognition of the entire passage. Let me give you an example that perfectly captures this. There&#8217;s a s\u016btra that says simply, &#8220;because of abiding and eating.&#8221; That&#8217;s it. Three words in Sanskrit. Now, if you don&#8217;t know your Upani\u1e63ads, this is completely incomprehensible. But if you do, you immediately recognize the reference to the M\u0101\u1e47\u1e0d\u016bkya Upani\u1e63ad&#8217;s passage about two birds sitting in a tree\u2014one eating, the other just sitting quietly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The eating bird symbolizes the individual soul engaged in worldly action. The bird that just abides represents brahman, unchanging and eternal. See how much philosophy is packed into those three words? This is why the text is nearly impossible to read without commentary. The philosophical battles here are fought on exegetical grounds\u2014the question isn&#8217;t just &#8220;what&#8217;s true?&#8221; but &#8220;what does the sacred text actually teach?&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Slide 3: B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a vs. Jaimini<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Now, let&#8217;s talk about a fascinating rivalry that shapes the entire text. You remember Jaimini from our discussion of P\u016brva M\u012bm\u0101\u1e43s\u0101\u2014the guy obsessed with Vedic ritual? Well, B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a is mentioned in the M\u012bm\u0101\u1e43s\u0101-S\u016btra, and Jaimini is mentioned in the Ved\u0101nta-S\u016btra. Both texts refer to their supposed authors in the third person, which tells us something interesting about how these texts were compiled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But here&#8217;s what really matters: when these two disagree, it&#8217;s B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a&#8217;s view that triumphs in the Ved\u0101nta-S\u016btra. And they disagree about fundamental things.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Jaimini placed all his focus on Vedic ritual\u2014the householder&#8217;s sacrificial duties were everything. B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a? He&#8217;s more interested in liberation through knowledge of brahman. At one point, the text even says that someone with brahman-knowledge can dispense with lighting ritual fires. Can you imagine how radical that would have sounded? The entire Vedic tradition was built on ritual sacrifice, and here&#8217;s B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a saying, &#8220;Yeah, you can skip that part if you&#8217;ve got the knowledge.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This isn&#8217;t just a minor disagreement. B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a emphasizes the superiority of the ascetic life over the householder&#8217;s life. Knowledge of brahman is valued for its own sake, not as a supplement to help us understand ritual. There are other disagreements too. Can gods achieve liberation? B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a says yes. Jaimini restricts this to humans and even denies the existence of gods. Is the Veda eternal with no origin? Both accept this, but B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a also says the Veda has its source in brahman. These tensions run throughout the text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Slide 4: Brahman as Cause<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Okay, time for a reality check. How can we believe that all things were produced by brahman, given that brahman is transcendent above those things? This is the objection that any serious thinker would raise. It seems impossible that a cause could give rise to things utterly unlike it. How does the formless produce form? How does the unchanging produce change?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a&#8217;s response is almost dismissive in its brevity: such things are known to happen. That&#8217;s it. He doesn&#8217;t even bother to provide examples, but \u015aa\u1e45kara&#8217;s commentary fills in what he might have meant. Scorpions spontaneously generated from manure\u2014the living emerging from the dead. Hair and fingernails growing from living bodies\u2014the inanimate coming from what&#8217;s living. Now, we know these examples are scientifically wrong, but that&#8217;s not the point. The philosophical principle is what matters: causes can produce effects unlike themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But the objector persists: Why would brahman even bother to produce the world? And here&#8217;s where B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a gives us one of the most intriguing concepts in the text\u2014l\u012bl\u0101, which means &#8220;play&#8221; or &#8220;sport.&#8221; Brahman creates the world out of mere play. Not out of necessity, not out of need, not out of desire. Just\u2026 play. Think about what that implies. Brahman isn&#8217;t lacking anything that creation would fulfill. There&#8217;s no cosmic loneliness, no need for self-expression. It&#8217;s spontaneous, free, creative activity without purpose beyond itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This is B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a using Aristotelian language\u2014brahman is both the efficient cause (the maker) and the material cause (the stuff things are made from). The universe has great material\u2014the best possible, in fact. Brahman itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Slide 5: The Problem of Evil and Karma<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>But hold on\u2014something doesn&#8217;t add up here. If brahman is the source of all things, isn&#8217;t brahman also responsible for all the suffering and unjust inequality we see in the world? This is the problem of evil, Indian philosophy style. Wouldn&#8217;t brahman have had good reason not to create a world like this?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a concedes the point but deflects the blame. All suffering, he says, is punishment for wicked deeds committed in past lives. Since the cycle of rebirth\u2014sa\u1e43s\u0101ra\u2014has been going on endlessly, any particular case of suffering can always be referred back to earlier actions that justify it. This is crucial: the cycle is beginningless. There&#8217;s no first moment where we could say, &#8220;Aha! That&#8217;s where the injustice started.&#8221; It goes back infinitely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This is actually a point of agreement between M\u012bm\u0101\u1e43s\u0101 and Ved\u0101nta. Both accept that the world has always existed much as it does now, with beginningless karma explaining current circumstances. The difference? B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a insists this eternal world has its source in brahman, whereas for Jaimini, that notion is foreign.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Think about what this means for theodicy\u2014the justification of divine goodness in the face of evil. Brahman isn&#8217;t creating suffering from scratch. Brahman is the ground of a beginningless process where beings create their own suffering through their actions. It&#8217;s a different move than you&#8217;d see in Western philosophy, where you typically have a creation moment and have to explain why God chose to create a world with suffering. Here, there&#8217;s no such moment. The problem is shifted from creation to the eternal cycle itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Slide 6: Cosmological Sequence<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Now let&#8217;s look at how the world actually unfolds from brahman. And here&#8217;s where things get interesting because this sequence is going to remind you of something we saw in the Upani\u1e63ads. Remember when Y\u0101j\u00f1avalkya was challenged by G\u0101rg\u012b to provide the fundamental principle upon which &#8220;all things are woven&#8221;? He eventually satisfied her by saying that principle is &#8220;space.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a accepts this and infers that space is the very first effect of brahman\u2014or at another point, that space is even identical to brahman. From space emerge other principles, and this will probably remind you of Greek cosmology: air, fire, water, and earth, produced one after another with brahman as their ultimate source.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But here&#8217;s what makes this different from Greek philosophy: these elements will eventually return to brahman, dissolving back into it in the reverse order of their generation when the world-cycle finally ends. Earth dissolves into water, water into fire, fire into air, air into space, and space back into brahman. Then the whole cycle starts again. It&#8217;s cosmology as an eternal rhythm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Notice what this tells us about brahman&#8217;s relationship to the world. Brahman is both the moving cause that gives rise to all things and somehow the &#8220;stuff&#8221; out of which things are made. The text says brahman is &#8220;the support of heaven, earth, and all other things.&#8221; Though it takes on the forms of other things\u2014becoming space, air, fire, water, earth, and everything made from them\u2014brahman remains formless in itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Slide 7: The Nature of Brahman<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>So what is brahman like in itself? This is where things get tricky, because brahman is characterized in various ways throughout the Upani\u1e63ads, and the Ved\u0101nta-S\u016btra freely admits this. But many of these characterizations are metaphors, and we need to be careful not to take them literally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The favorite metaphor? Brahman is like the sun or light whose rays fall on and illuminate many things. Think about what this metaphor captures. Light reveals everything without being changed by what it reveals. Light is everywhere present yet remains distinct. Light makes seeing possible but isn&#8217;t itself seen as an object. This metaphor becomes absolutely crucial for later Ved\u0101nta traditions, especially \u015aa\u1e45kara&#8217;s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The sacred texts may occasionally mislead us in trying to describe brahman in ways we can grasp. For instance, when texts suggest brahman has size, B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a says this isn&#8217;t literally true. Brahman has no particular dimensions because nothing other than it exists. It&#8217;s everywhere, pervading all things rather than occupying space the way objects do. It&#8217;s formless in itself, even though it takes on all forms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Here&#8217;s the paradox at the heart of Ved\u0101nta: How do you talk about something that transcends all categories? How do you describe the formless? The Upani\u1e63ads try through metaphor, through negation (&#8220;not this, not this&#8221;), through paradox. And B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a is doing the careful exegetical work of distinguishing literal claims from metaphorical ones, showing us how to read these texts properly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Slide 8: Against S\u0101\u1e43khya Materialism<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Now we need to talk about a serious philosophical dispute, because B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a&#8217;s insistence that brahman is the material cause of all things brings him into direct conflict with another Hindu school\u2014S\u0101\u1e43khya. And this conflict takes up sustained attention in the text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>S\u0101\u1e43khya sees the world as evolving naturally from an underlying material stuff called pradh\u0101na or prak\u1e5bti. This is unintelligent matter that just naturally develops according to its own principles. Though S\u0101\u1e43khya positions itself within the Brahmanical tradition, on this score it&#8217;s diametrically opposed to Ved\u0101nta. Far from recognizing an intelligent, divine creator mind that manifests as all things, S\u0101\u1e43khya has everything generated from unintelligent stuff.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a&#8217;s response? He invokes the most familiar proof for an intelligent creator: the universe&#8217;s striking, apparently providential order. But he doesn&#8217;t use a stock example\u2014he uses a livestock example. Trying to get the world we see out of pradh\u0101na without brahman would be like trying to get milk out of grass without a cow. The grass doesn&#8217;t become milk on its own. You need the living cause\u2014the cow\u2014to transform grass into milk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But here&#8217;s what&#8217;s crucial: this isn&#8217;t just a philosophical dispute. It&#8217;s bound up with an exegetical dispute. B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a wants us to see not just that S\u0101\u1e43khya theory makes no sense, but that it cannot make sense of key Upani\u1e63adic texts. \u015aa\u1e45kara later develops extensive exegesis to show that S\u0101\u1e43khya misinterprets passages from the Ka\u1e6dha Upani\u1e63ad and elsewhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The text also sets its face against more radical forms of materialism. If we rely only on sensation and material causes, we could never attain liberation\u2014which is the whole point. Materialist explanations fail for the world as a whole and for the human individual, because the self is independent of the body.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Slide 9: The Self and Brahman &#8211; The Central Tension<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Alright, here we come to what may be the single most famous\u2014and most contested\u2014teaching of the Ved\u0101nta-S\u016btra. What&#8217;s the relationship between brahman and the individual self?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Now, if you know anything about Indian philosophy, you probably know \u015aa\u1e45kara&#8217;s answer: they&#8217;re identical. Advaita Ved\u0101nta\u2014non-dualism\u2014insists that nothing is real apart from brahman, including every individual self. The apparent fact that each of us is distinct from other things and from the ground of existence is actually an illusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>And \u015aa\u1e45kara can draw on compelling evidence from the Ved\u0101nta-S\u016btra to support this. B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a suggests there&#8217;s ultimately no difference between brahman as cause and the things it creates. He tells us brahman is identical with our vital breath, and instructs us to grasp brahman by meditating on it as our own self.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But\u2014and this is a big but\u2014other passages seem to draw a firm distinction between the individual self and the highest self that is brahman. So which is it? Are we identical to brahman or distinct from it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Here&#8217;s what blew my mind when I really dug into this text: the Ved\u0101nta-S\u016btra deliberately holds this relationship in tension between identity and difference. It&#8217;s not that B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a couldn&#8217;t make up his mind. The ambiguity seems intentional. Look at this passage: brahman relates to individual selves like a snake to its coils. Are the coils the same as the snake or different from it? Both? Neither? The metaphor itself is ambiguous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>We know from the text that earlier scholars\u2014pre-B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a commentators on the Upani\u1e63ads\u2014already had different ideas. Some said brahman is the material constituent of individual selves. Others said selves are distinct from brahman but become identical once liberated from the body. The debate was already raging.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Slide 10: Legacy and Later Interpretations<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>So where does this leave us? The Ved\u0101nta-S\u016btra&#8217;s ambiguity on the self-brahman relationship wasn&#8217;t a bug\u2014it was a feature. This tension allowed multiple interpretive traditions to develop, each claiming to be the true reading of B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u015aa\u1e45kara made the radical move\u2014or at least made it explicit\u2014of declaring that the apparent distinction between self and brahman is pure illusion, m\u0101y\u0101. Only brahman is real. This is outright monism, and it became the most famous interpretation of Ved\u0101nta.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But other schools emerged too. R\u0101m\u0101nuja developed qualified non-dualism\u2014individual selves are real but exist as modes or attributes of brahman. Madhva went even further, arguing for dualism\u2014self and brahman are eternally distinct. All three claimed to be the authentic interpretation of the Ved\u0101nta-S\u016btra.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Later Ved\u0101ntins treated three texts as authoritative sources: the Upani\u1e63ads, the Ved\u0101nta-S\u016btra, and the Bhagavad-G\u012bt\u0101. This became known as the &#8220;triple foundation&#8221;\u2014prasth\u0101natray\u012b. \u015aa\u1e45kara commented on all three, establishing a model that later interpreters followed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Here&#8217;s what&#8217;s remarkable: a single fifth-century text, deliberately ambiguous on key philosophical questions, generated centuries of sophisticated philosophical debate and multiple schools of thought. The Ved\u0101nta-S\u016btra&#8217;s compressed, cryptic style wasn&#8217;t just a literary choice\u2014it created space for interpretation, for commentary, for ongoing philosophical inquiry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>And that brings us full circle to where we started: exegesis as philosophy. The question &#8220;What is real?&#8221; becomes &#8220;What does the text really say?&#8221; The question &#8220;What am I?&#8221; becomes &#8220;How should we interpret these passages about self and brahman?&#8221; Philosophy and interpretation are inseparable in this tradition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Ved\u0101nta-S\u016btra gave Indian philosophy one of its most productive tensions\u2014the relationship between individual self and ultimate reality\u2014and left it deliberately unresolved. That wasn&#8217;t a failure of philosophical clarity. It was an invitation to think, to interpret, to engage. And Indian philosophers have been accepting that invitation for fifteen hundred years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">CONCLUSION<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Ved\u0101nta-S\u016btra stands as a masterpiece of compressed philosophical argumentation and exegetical method. It transformed the Upani\u1e63ads&#8217; diverse teachings into a systematic inquiry into brahman, established liberation through knowledge as superior to ritual, and posed questions about self and ultimate reality that continue to generate philosophical debate today. Its ambiguity wasn&#8217;t weakness\u2014it was the source of its enduring philosophical fertility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Total Lecture Time: ~45 minutes<\/strong><br><strong>Content drawn entirely from Chapter 19, Adamson &amp; Ganeri<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Slide 1: Introduction to B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a and the Ved\u0101nta-S\u016btra Alright, let&#8217;s talk about one of the most influential\u2014and most misunderstood\u2014texts in Indian philosophy. We&#8217;re diving into B\u0101dar\u0101ya\u1e47a&#8217;s Ved\u0101nta-S\u016btra, composed in the fifth century CE. Now, before we go any further, I need you to understand something crucial: this text has more names than a spy with [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"activitypub_content_warning":"","activitypub_content_visibility":"","activitypub_max_image_attachments":4,"activitypub_interaction_policy_quote":"anyone","activitypub_status":"federated","footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[25,226,26,23],"class_list":["post-602","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-education","tag-indian-philosophy","tag-lecture","tag-philosophy"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/leshley.ca\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/602","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/leshley.ca\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/leshley.ca\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/leshley.ca\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/leshley.ca\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=602"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/leshley.ca\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/602\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":603,"href":"https:\/\/leshley.ca\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/602\/revisions\/603"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/leshley.ca\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=602"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/leshley.ca\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=602"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/leshley.ca\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=602"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}