[Advaita-l] Vivekachudamani Vs Bhashyas
ani at ee.washington.edu
Wed Jul 30 13:38:41 CDT 2003
> Also if the tradition indiscriminately named as the author
> of several texts as Shankara (as would be the implication
> behind the allegation), why was not the same principle
> applied to other vital texts on the subject? Why is the
> bhaamati or the khandanakhandakhaadya not ascribed to
Because they were not written by "Sankaracharya"s. The main
cause of confusion is the existence of texts written by
heads of the Sankara maths from later times who were also
called Sankaracharyas. However, for a serious aspirant who
believes in the fidelity of the advaita tradition, it
shouldn't matter too much whether Bhagavatpada or a later
Sankaracharya authored it.
> Writing style can differ in the same person due to various
> causes - passage of time, shift on emphasis in worldview
> etc (for example Ishvara Krishna, the author of the
> Saamkya Kaarikaas, is identified with the great Sanskrit
> poet Kaalidaasa by some traditions - though the writing
> style is obviously different). That a young firebrand
> dialectician/philosopher at a later point in time got
> down to the brass tacks is not unusual.
This would not be a valid argument as per the advaita
tradition. Passage of time or change in attitude is not
applicable to a jivanmukta. I do agree that the same author
can write in different styles.
> For the serious Advaitin such questions are irrelevant.
I Agree. Considering the fact that Chandrashekhara Bharati
Swamigal has written a commentary to the VC, it should be
considered an extremely important text. Has Swamigal
referred to the authorship of the VC by Bhagavatpada in the
And BTW, does anyone know if the VC was included in the
"Complete Works of Sankara" series?
Sruti smRti purANAnAm Alayam karuNAlayam
namAmi bhagavatpAda Sam.karam lokaSam.karam
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list