[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Works of Sri Vidyashankara

Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 28 14:18:06 CST 2016

Namaste Venkatraghavanji.

How can you exclude Shankara-bhashyas on the Shvetashvatara upnaishad and the Yogabhashyavivarana, just because the Vaninilas press did not include these two in the list of 16 Shankara-bhashyas. I cannot imagine that Shankara did not look at the Yogasutra and the seshvara-Sankhya.as needed for higher studies on Indian philosophy.  

Secondly,  there is a doubt on the Vakyabhashya being a work of Adi Shankara. There is a paper on that, but I do not recall the detials. Moreover there was some discussion on it  in the "advaita group" as follows:

As regards the book entitled "Shankara And Indian Philosophy" of Natalia Isayeva, it is published by the State University of New York Press. Albany. I read from a library. 

sunil KB

On Wed, 12/28/16, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Works of Sri Vidyashankara
 To: "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
 Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>, "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
 Date: Wednesday, December 28, 2016, 11:30 AM
 Sunilji,I'm replying to both emails
 1) The vANi vilAs Press, which brought out a
 collection of AchArya's works under the aegis of HH Sri
 SacchidAnanda ShivAbhinava Nrsimha BhArati svAminah, lists
 the following as bhAshyas:1)
 Brahmasutra-bhashya2) Isa3) Kena
 pada4) Kena vAkya5) KaTha6)
 7) MuNDaka8) MANDUkya9) Aitareya
 10) Taittiriya11) ChhAndogya
 12) BrihadAraNyaka13) NrisimhapUrvatApani
 14) Bhagavad-GitA-bhAshya
 15) VishNusahasranAma16) SanatsujAtiya
 From the above, the number according to vAni
 vilAs ties in with the number referred to by
 chitsukhAchArya. If there is a bhAshya that is left out from
 the list above which can take the place of the gIta bhAshya,
 please let us know.  2) Can't comment
 on language differences between gIta bhAshya and the rest,
 would have to see specific examples to opine. If you can
 provide instances from Prof. Karmakar's paper to the
 list, we all can take a look. I'm suspicious of
 philological research, but will keep an open
 3) Not having read Nataliya  Isayeva's
 paper, I do not understand in what context the comment about
 adhyAropa apavAda was made. This is a common prakriya across
 all vedAnta shAstra in general, and not something that is
 unique to the gIta bhAshya. Also not sure about the
 sundarapANDya reference. If there is a peculiarity about the
 way it is used in the BGB which is indicative of sundarapANDya's
 work, please share that with the group. Why would
 that rule out Shankara's authorship in any
 4) Please can you point which verse number from
 the GK is supposedly from the expanded gItA, and missing
 from the gItA bhAshya?
 5) On yAdavaprakAsha, you were questioning the
 authorship of the ShAnkara Gita bhAshya based on a
 subsequent bhAshya by yAdavaprakAsha referred to
 by VedAnta deshika. If you do not believe in the first
 instance that yAdavaprakAsha wrote a bhAshya, that question
 of Shankara's authorship on that basis also falls
 On 28 Dec 2016 4:54
 p.m., "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
 > wrote:
 Dear Venkatji,
 According Chitsukhacharya, there were 16 bhashyas written by
 Adi Shankara. Has anybody tried to identify these 16
 bhashyas of Adi Shankara? Can the Bhagavad Gitabhashya fit
 in the 16 Bhashyas?
 Secondly there is the language style of the
 Bhagavadgitabhashya, from which some scholars opined that
 Bhagavadgitabhashya does not appear to a composition of Adi
 Thirdly, why would Adi Shankara write bhashya on the
 Bhagavadgita of 700 verses when the original Bhagavadgita of
 745 verses was available to him, as we can see the inclusion
 of thy ajati ada verse from the Bhagavadgita in the
 Mandukyakarika  by Gaudapadacharya.
 Now coming to Yadavaprakasha, I still have one doubt, about
 his writing the Bhagavadgitabhshya, until some confirmation
 is seen. Just claiming that Yadavaprakasha wrote a bhashya
 on the Bhagavad gita is not worth accepting. 
 Ramanujacharya is believed to have seen the Bodhayana-vritti
 on the Bhagavadgita, which is claimed to be the guide-book
 for Ramanujacharya, but that claim also appears dicey, as
 nowhere any trace of that Bodhayanavriti has been found.
 Swami Vivekananda also tried his best by searching for it
 all over India.
 ------------------------------ --------------
 Wed, 12/28/16, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedan
 ta.org> wrote:
  Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Works of Sri
  To: "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
  Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta"
 <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedan
  Date: Wednesday, December 28, 2016, 6:25 AM
  Thanks Subbuji.
  So yAdavaprakAsha wrote a commentary to the
  Brahma SUtra also, one that was
  referred to
  by Sri RAmanuja.
  clear from this that using yAdavaprakAsha to claim that
  who wrote the Brahma SUtra bhAshya
  is different from the Shankara who wrote
  Bhagavad Gita bhAshya is not with merit - because
  yAdavaprakAsha wrote
  a commentary to the BS
  What applies for the
  Gita, applies for the BS too, so shall we say Shankara
  did not write the bhAshya to BS also?
  On 28
  Dec 2016 1:15 p.m., "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
  > On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 4:43 PM,
  Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
  > wrote:
  >> Namaste Sri Sunil,
  >> Are there extant
  works of yAdavaprakAsha to determine if he was an
  >> advaitin, or if this was simply a
  hagiographical attribution by
  vishiShTAdvaita scholars?
  >> Regards,
  > Dear Sri Venkat
  > Recently there
  was a discussion in the BVP forum where eminent Ramanuja
  > follower-scholars have said that the
  Yadavaprakaśa bhāṣya for the
  Brahmasutras, though not available in its original form,
  cited in
  > Ramanuja's bhāsya. There
  is a proposed project to reconstruct Y's
  > philosophy from the Śrībhāṣya. The
  discussion also gives room to think of
  >  'Śankara's matam' as
  distinct from 'Yādavaprakāśa's
  So, what
  > hue of Advaita was that of the
  latter is not clearly known to us. But the
  > proposed reconstruction, if it happens,
  would bring these aspects to the
  > warm
  > subbu
  Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.o
  To unsubscribe or change your
  For assistance, contact:
  listmaster at advaita-vedanta.or

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list