pUrNamadah pUrNamidam... authorship of Viveka chudamani!

[Guest guest]

our beloved Harshaji comments ...

 

"As I vaguely recall, in a discussion of this nature, one scholar

claimed on the list some years ago that Vivekachudamani (which speaks

of nirvikalpa samadhi) is not really the work of Sri Shankra."

 

This came as a 'shock' to me.

 

I have heard such allegations with reference to the Authorship of

Saundarya Lahari that it was not the work of Sri Shankara.

 

but, i am sorry i am not willing to believe any such allegation.

 

It is well known that Adi Shankara was not only a brahma-jnani , he

was also a poet and a scholar and he was very fluent in the Sanskrit

language . IF one reads Saundarya Lahari , one knows beyond a shadow

of doubt that It is Adi Shankara who has authored those verses- The

similies, metaphors, the Alliteration, used in this great treatise

unmistakbly point to one fact- It is Adi shankara Bhagvadapada ...

his style is unique and he has this capacity to convey spiritual

truths in a very appealing manner !

 

but our beloved Shankara Bhagavadapada is so Humble that he says in

the last sloka of saundarya lahari

 

pradiipa jvAlAbhir divasakara niirAjana vidhiH

sudhA sUteshvandropala jala lavair arghya ghaTanA |

svakiiyair ambhobhiH salila nidhi sauhityakataNaM

tvadiiyAbhir vAgbhis tava janani vAcAM stutiriyam ||

 

 

TRANSLATION

 

Just as doing Nirajana ( light waving ceremony ) to the sun is only

the offering of his own light to him; just as making an offering of

Arghya to the moon with the water that oozes out of the moon-stone in

contact with moon light, is only to give back what belongs to the

moon, and just as making water-offering ( Tarpana ) to the ocean is

to return what belongs to it - so is, O, Source of all Learning,*

this hymn addressed to Thee composed of words that are already Thine.*

 

Here, our Acharya HUMBLY CONFESSES that It was Abaal herself who

spoke through him , he was just the instrument !

 

Great people like him never claim authorship or ownership of

aanything ! For adi shankara is beyond name and fame!

 

In another Sloka Bhawani Twam DASE Mayi , adi shankara sings thus...

 

bhavAni tvam dAse mayi vitara dR^ishtiM sakaruNAM

iti stotum vA~nchan kathayati bhavAni tvamiti yaH |

tadaiva tvam tasmai dishasi nijasAyujya-padavIM

mukunda-brahmendra-sphuta-makuTa-nIrAjita-padAM ||

 

Meaning:

One who desiring to pray to thee in terms like "Oh BhavAni, bestow

Thy gracious glance on me, Your servant", even before he

completes 'BhavAni tvam' (May I) become Thou, You bestow on him the

status of oneness with you, at whose feet Divinities like viShNu,

Brahma and Indra with their sparkling attires are prostrating.

 

This shows that our devotion to Her is certainly not intense enough.

May that compassionate Mother grant us such great devotion !!

 

(COURTESY-ambaal.org)

 

and in the very first verse of Viveka chudamani, adi shankara paya

tribute to both Govinda (god) and his Guru Govindapada !

 

So to even suggest remotely that Adi shankara did not 'author' the

great treatise of 'viveka chudamani' (crest jewel of discrimination)

is PREPOSTEROUS ( I FELT SAD ON READING THAT)

 

tHIS IS NOT THE SAME THING LIKE SAYING SHAKESPEARE DID NOT WRITE

THOSE PLAYS ! whether shakespeare authored those plays or not, Those

plays are of great literary value.

 

our shankara bhagvadapada is God-incarnate himself, and it is our

good fortune that he was born in India to spread the word of Adwaita!

 

Shankara:

 

"Talk as much philosophy as you please, worship as many gods as you

like, observe all ceremonies, sing devoted praises to any number of

divine beings -- liberation never comes, even at the end of a hundred

aeons, without the realization of the Oneness of Self."

 

--Crest Jewel of Discrimination

 

Hari Aum!

[Guest guest]

Smt. Adiji wrote:

 

> and in the very first verse of Viveka chudamani, adi shankara

paya

> tribute to both Govinda (god) and his Guru Govindapada !

>

> So to even suggest remotely that Adi shankara did not 'author'

the

> great treatise of 'viveka chudamani' (crest jewel of

discrimination)

> is PREPOSTEROUS ( I FELT SAD ON READING THAT)

>

 

 

Dear Adiji,

 

I´m afraid I´m one of those who makes such preposterous claims,

but I think I have good reasons to do so. This topic has been

discussed before on this list, and two years ago I wrote the

following here:

 

 

***********************************************

Although one of the very popular books within the Advaita

tradition, Vivekachudamani was most likely not composed by Adi

Shankara. There are numerous facts that indicate this. Dr. A. J.

Alston says the following in the notes to his translation of the

work:

 

"On grounds of style and terminology, it is thought today to have

been composed by some outstanding Advaitic author who lived some

centuries after the great Shankara of the commentaries. The last

verse [of Vivekachudamani], which attributes the work to

"Shankara", can hardly have been composed by Shankara himself, as

it was not his practice elsewhere to name himself at the

conclusion of a work. Amongst the considerable number of terms

used in the work that are not found in Shankara´s commentaries,

we might refer to the "powers of concealment and projection"

attributed to Ignorance (verses 110 to 117), the latter conceived

as a kind of entity wielding them, a conception found in

Shankara´s contemporary Mandana Mishra, but not found in his own

commentaries.

In Shankara´s one independent work of known authenticity, the

Upadesha Sahasri, the terminology does not stray beyond that

found in the commentaries. The tone is fully as lofty as that of

the Viveka-Chudamani, but cooler: references to the "bliss" of

the Absolute, which occur in nearly a fifth of the verses of the

Viveka-Chudamani, are sparse [...] The proliferation of different

metres in which the Vivieka-Chudamani is composed is

uncharacteristic of Shankara and his contemporaries, recalling

rather Sarvajnatma Muni or the logican Udayana, who belonged to a

later age. The date and authorship of the Viveka-Chudamani are in

fact not known, but the style and flavour of the work often

recall the Yoga Vashistha. Verse 431 is manifestly a quotation of

verse 3.9.12 of that work. The Yoga Vasishta is known from its

references to kings of Kashmir to have been composed towards the

end of the tenth century." (The Crest Jewel of Wisdom attributed

to Shri Shankaracharya, commentary by Hari Prasad Shastri,

translated by A J Alston, p.297).

 

Natalia Isayeva apparently came to the same conclusions. In her

book Shankara and Indian Philosophy she claims that while

Shankara´s authorship of Upadesha Sahasri is firmly established,

this is not the case regarding some other works. Isayeva writes:

"Far less probable is Sankara´s authorship of other short

treatises: Viveka-cudamani, Atma-bodha [...]". (p.98)

 

Moreover, in the introduction to his book on Vivekacudamani,

Swami Dayananda Saraswati says: "Even though the modern scholars

have difficulty in accepting the authorship of Sankara for this

book, in the teaching tradition of Sankara the book is used as a

text for initial study. I don´t think we lose anything even if

the authorship is attributed to any other Sankaracarya of one of

the various Sankara-mathas." (Swami Dayananda, Vivekacudamani:

Talks on 108 selected verses, p.1.) Swami Dayananda´s doubts

regarding the authorship are shared and emphazised by his

disciple, Dr Michael Comans. In The Method of Early Advaita

Vedanta, Comans says the follwing regarding his book: "I have not

relied at all on any works where there is considerable

uncertainity concerning authorship, such as the popular, but

post-Sankara, Vivekacudamani." (p.xii)

 

The authorship of Vivekachudamani is discussed also by Swami

Satchidanandendra Saraswati in his monumental work The Method of

Vedanta. Swami Satchidanandendra clearly refutes the idea that

Vivekachudamani is a work of Sankara, and he even have made an

attempt to identify the actual author. Swami Satchidanandendra

writes: "It [Vivekachudamani] follows a different poetical style

from that of the revered Commentator [sankara]. It frequently

uses technical expressions not found in the Upanishads, Brahma

Sutras and Gita, expressions which only became common in

post-Sankara works. It quotes as authoritative works such as the

Yoga Vasistha and Suta Samhita, which are nowhere quoted by the

revered Commentator [sankara]. All this shows that it was not a

work of Bhagavatpada / .../ it follows the Gita Tatparyabodhini

in style and all other points, and is a work of Sri

Sankarananda." (p.22)

 

Some further information: Sankarananda lived sometime in the

13th-14th centuries and was not, by the way, a Sankaracarya of

any of the four mathas.

**********************************************************

 

So, this is what I wrote two years ago. Moreover, Swami

Satchidanandendra Saraswati has discussed the authorship of

Vivekacudamani in detail in his introduction to the Kannada work

Prakarana Grantha Series-3. Some time back the member of this

list Sri Y.R. Bhaskarji translated this part into English and

posted it on Advaita-L. Personally, I find Satchidanandendra

Swamij´s points most convincing, and the authorship of

Vivekacudamani can hardly be ascribed to Adi Shankara before

these points (and several similar arguments presented by other

Vedantins and scholars) have been succesfully refuted. I hereby

take the liberty to reproduce Sri Bhaskarji´s posting in full:

********************************************************

 

praNAm prabhujis

Hare Krishna

 

Further to Sri Stig prabhuji's comments, this is my humble

attempt to

present Sri Swamiji's observations in his own words on VC (in his

kannada

translation) as presented in introduction , the prakaraNa Grantha

Series

-3, Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya, HN Pur.

 

(I) Source Text of VC

 

Many verses of VC can be found in upanishads like

adhyAtmOpanishad,

kuNdikOpanishad, AtmOpanishad. Particularly AtmOpanishad draws

heavily

from VC. If we remove the VC verses from Atmopanishad (swamiji

thinks that

these upanishads are later addtion based on VC verses) very few

verses will

remain in this upanishad.

 

(II) Who is the author of VC

 

It is widespread acceptance that VC is the genuine work of Sri

Shankara.

In the opening verse the author offer praNAms to his teacher (

gOvindaM

paramAnandam sadgurum praNatOsmyahaM) & at the end author says

*EShA

Shankara bhArati vijayatE nirvANa saMdAyini* All these at the

face value

prove that this has been written by the author whose name was

shankara.

But it is very difficult to believe that this shankara (author of

VC) is

prasthAna trayi bhAshyakAra. I have following observation to

strengthen my

claims :

 

(a) There is substantial difference in style of writing between

shankara's Upadesha Sahasri (US) & VC. (as said earlier, swamiji

says, US

is the genuine work of bhAshyakAra & it is in complete harmony

with

purports of prasthAna trayi bhAshya & Shri Shankara

Bhagavadpada's direct

desciple Sri SureshwarAchAya quotes verses from US considering it

as an

authoritative work from the pen of his guru Sri Shankara &

vArtikakAra

hardly quotes any verse from VC.

 

(b) The general usage of words & connotations in VC are

conspicuously

absent in US & prasthAna trayi bhAshya. Some specific words used

to

illustrate the contextual meaning is completely contradictory to

US &

prasthana trayi (PT) usage.

 

© Some of the referencial sentences (pramANa vachana/vAkya-s)

quoted in

VC cannot be found in US & PT. The quoted reference can only be

found in

some minor upanishads, vAsistha ramAyaNa, sUta saMhita &

bhagavatam. &

more importantly, the opnions embedded in VC mainly drawn from

grantha

called *paramArtha sAra* which is comparitively recent advaitic

work.

 

(d) The philosophical stand in VC is not in line with shuddha

shAnkara

siddhAnta ( I've given the doctrinal differences already & some

more to

follow)

 

After considering the above, I have searched for the author who

used to

this style of writing, who quotes these pramANa vAkyas, who

upholds VC's

philosophical stand. Finally, I found out one name *Sri

Shankarananda* who

wrote *vruttis* in the name of *dIpika* to upanishads & vEdanta

sUtras &

also written an elaborate vyAkyAna to gIta in the name of *gIta

tAtparya

bOdhini*(GTB). One can easily find that there is lot of

similarities

between GTB & VC in its writing style, purports, philosophy etc.

It is

also believed that Sri shankarananda was incarnation of shankara

(

shankarAmsha saMbhUta). & in GTP mangala shlOka Sri shankarananda

salutes

his teacher Sri AnandAtma saraswati who was also well known as

*vidyAshankara*. With this we can assume that Sri Shankarananda

might have

saluted his guru AnandAtma as govinda swarUpa & at conclusion

*ESha

shankara bhArati* can be interpreted as his guru's

(vidyAshankara) words.

(Swamiji requests here the historians to do more in-depth

research work on

his assumptions to arrive at the credible conclusions).

 

(III) Similarities between Gita Tatparya Bodhini & VC :

 

(a) Style of writing (bhAShA shaili) is same in both VC & GTB

 

(b) Actual reproduction of generic usage of words, referential

pramANa

vAkyas in VC from GTB. (swamiji gives elaborated list of such

words &

sentences at the end of the book which are not found in PT & US)

 

© Minor upanishads quoted in VC such as amrutabindOpanishad,

amrutanAda,

nrusimhOttaratApanIya, kaivalya have not been quoted by shankara

in PT

bhAshyas.

 

(d) sUta saMhita, vAsiShta ramAyaNa & paramArtha sAra have not at

all been

quoted by shankara anywhere in bhashya traya. Whereas, in VC you

can find

a plenty of quotes. Moreover, author of VC seems to be highly

influenced

by the style of sUta saMhita & vAsiShta ramAyaNa & it is clear

that he

tried to imitate this style in VC. You can find lot of quotes

from these

works in Shankarananda's GTB also.

 

(e) It is quite evident that the main philosophical theme in both

GTB & VC

is one & the same. & at the same time one can find

dis-similarities

between VC & PT or US.

 

(IV) Difference in philosophical stand between Shankara's

prasthAna traya

bhAShya & VC

 

( I have already quoted some of them in my previous mail. Here

are some

more )

 

(a) Identification of kAraNa sharira with mAyA shakti: Apart from

stula &

sUkShma sharirA-s VC admits avyaktA kAraNa sharira (verse

119-120) in

sushupti & has AvaraNa & vikShepa shakti (110-112). This is not

strictly

in line with purports of PT bhAShya.

 

(b) After realising jagatkAraNa sat-chit-ananda brahman through

shruti

mahA vAkya shravaNa of tattvamasi etc. realised soul has to do

vAsanA tyAga

etc. is very near to mandana mishra's brahma siddhi purports

which is

evidently absent in shankara's PT bhAshya.

 

© *brahma satya - jagan mithya* which has been clearly

established in

shankara's avasthAtraya prakriya is not at all found place in VC.

Instead,

in one place VC says (Verse No.232) in sushupti there is no world

as such,

but in another place (verse No.120) it accepts existence of

kAraNa sharira

with avaraNAdi shakti is not only self-contradictory but also

harmful to

prapancha mithyatva vAda.

 

(d) VC advocates vidEha, punarjanma rahita mukti after attaining

nirvikalpa samAdhi, but shankara's stand is one can realise his

true nature

in this janma itself i.e. sadyO mukti.

 

Kindly pardon me for too much sanskrit words & bear with me if

there is any

grammatical errors. I've tried to translate swamiji's comments

from

kannada book.

 

As I said earlier, swamiji openly admits that more research work

needs to

be done by historians/scholars to determine whether all prakarana

granthas

from the pen of bhAshyakAra before accepting them blindly as

shankara's

work. More details can be had from swamiji's books in sanskrit

brahma

vidyA rahasya vivrutti & vedanta prakriya pratyabhigna.

 

I also request list members to kindly study in detail Sri

Atmachaitanya

prabhuji's mails in Advaitin list on mulAvidyA (under the subject

heading

*whence adhyAsa* & *upanishads are the only means of knowledge*.

In these

mails he has comprehensively discussed all these issues based on

shankara's

bhAshya.

 

While on the subject, I also humbly request list members to throw

more

light on points which up-holds the claim that VC is shankara

bhagavadpada's

work. So that we can have parallel views of other scholars from

the

tradition.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

PS : By the way, His Holiness Paramahamsa Sri Sri

SacchidAnandEndra

Saraswathi swamiji is founder of Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya in

HN Pur &

Bangalore & author of over 200 reputed works on advaita in

kannada,

sanskrit & english blessed the earth with his presence for 96

useful & rich

years (1880-1975). The revered swamiji carried out research for

over six

decades with a profound sense of dedication so as to cleanse

advaita

vedanta of the dross & distortions that it has acquired in the

post

shankara era. All though the swamiji has authored nearly 20 odd

books in

english & over 25 books in sanskrit, many of his masterpieces

were written

in kannada. Swamiji took sanyAsa at the age of 68 since then he

led his

life with strict ascetic descipline. His mahAsamAdhi is in HN

Pur, Hassan

Dist. Karnataka, India.

 

******************************************************'

 

 

Warmest regards

Stig Lundgren

[Guest guest]

Respected Stig-ji !

 

Wow! You did go to great lengths to prove that 'viveka chudamani' was

not authored by Adi Shankara.

 

" The proliferation of different metres in which the Vivieka-

Chudamani is composed is uncharacteristic of Shankara and his

contemporaries, recalling rather Sarvajnatma Muni or the logican

Udayana, who belonged to a later age. The date and authorship of the

Viveka-Chudamani are in fact not known, but the style and flavour of

the work often recall the Yoga Vashistha."

 

in a sense, you are righr ! It is because Sivananda Lahari and

Saundarya Lahari are identical in style and composition !

 

but , if you read Viveka-chudamani closely, you will find that it has

SHANKARA written all over it!!!! '

 

read the follwing verses ...

 

-Except for the medicine of the knowledge of God, what use are Vedas,

scriptures, mantras and such medicines when you have been bitten by

the *snake of ignorance*? 61

 

*God is the Truth and the world is unreal."* It is this realisation

that is considered discrimination between the permanent and the

impermanent. 20

 

*Deer, elephant, moth, fish and wasp,* these five have all died from

attachment by their own volition to one of the five senses, sound

etc., so what about the man who is attached to all five! 76

 

The ignorant see the *reflection of the sun in the water of a jar*

and think it is the sun itself. In the same way the fool sees the

reflection of consciousness in its associated qualities and

mistakenly identifies himself with it. 218

 

 

*A pot made of clay *is nothing other than clay, and its true reality

is always simply clay. The pot is no more than the shape of a pot,

and is just a mistake of imagination based on the name. 228

 

 

The treasure of the bliss of God is coiled round by the very

powerful, terrible *snake of doership *which guards it with its three

fierce heads consisting of the three qualities (dullness, passion and

purity) but the wise man can enjoy this bliss-imparting treasure by

cutting off the snake's three heads with the great sword of

understanding of the scriptures. 302

 

The *fire of the knowledge* of the oneness of above and below burns

up completely the tangled forest of ignorance. What seed of samsara

could there still be for such a person who has achieved non-duality?

346

 

Just as *waves, foam, whirlpool and bubbles are all in reality just

water*, so consciousness is all this from the body to the sense of

doership. Everything is just the one pure consciousness. 390

 

These are a few example i have used here to show that phrases like

 

1_) snake of ignorance

 

2) God is Truth and the world is unreal

 

3) deer, moth, fish, elephant, wasp

 

4)reflection of sun in the water of a jar

 

5) a pot of clay

 

6) snake of doership

 

7)fire of knowledge

 

8) waves, foam, whirlpool and bubbles

 

THESE ARE ALL TYPICAL SIMILIES AND METAPHORS AND EPITHETS that

shankara bhagvadapada loves to use!!! especailly the 'snake' and

reflection of 'sun' !!!

 

also, viveka chudamani is more a treatise on the philosophy of

vedanta ; it is not a poem of 'bhakti' like shabkara's other

compositions like Saundarya lahari, sivananda lahari, baja govindam

etc

 

Style and flavor differ according to the subject matter and also the

Audience!

 

and as far as a verse resembling Yoga Vasistha - that is not an

argument at all!

 

in fact , if you read Shri Ramana's works, you will see lot of verses

resembling ashtavakra gita, yoga vasishta etc...

 

and even if you read ashtavkra gita, avadhuta gita and yoga vasishta-

there are many similarities even though authored by different people!

 

as far as the last verse is considered,

 

 

(For those who are suffering in samsara from the heat of the

threefold forms of pain, and wandering in delusion in a desert

thirsting for water, may these words of *Shankara* which secure

nirvana and excel all others, procure for them the ocean of nectar

close by in the form of the non-dual God. 580)

 

and Pray what does this word Shankara mean?

 

yes, it can refer to Shankara bhagvadapada, the author of these

verses.

 

but "Shankara" IS A COMBINATION OF TWO WORDS

"shanka" and "hara". "Shanka" means doubt and "hara" means

destroyer. Thus the word "Shankara" means, He who destroys or CLEARS

doubt.

 

SHANKARA MEANS DISPELLER OF DOUBTS.

 

yes, our beloved Bhagvadapada was an embodiment of Humility - he will

never loudly declare that 'i wrote this or that' - HE DOES NOT NEED

TO! HE IS NOT A COPYRIGHT ATTORNEY OR AN ADVOCATE OF PATENT LAWS!

anyday, i will believe my own instinct than some A.j. alston!

 

and stigji, now you are annoying me more and more! Sigh! sigh!

 

you write ..

 

Isayeva writes:

> "Far less probable is Sankara´s authorship of other short

> treatises: Viveka-cudamani, Atma-bodha [...]". (p.98)

 

 

that is adding insult to injury!

 

now, you are including Atma -bodha too?

 

TO BE HONEST, to me it matters least whether Shankara authored these

or not! ALL I CARE ABOUT IS THE GEMS THAT MAKE THE NECKLACE (TRUTHS

IN THESE BOOKS) NOT WHO MADE THE NECKLACE!

 

sorry!

 

LOVE ALWAYS

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Adiji,

 

 

You wrote:

************************************************

Wow! You did go to great lengths to prove that 'viveka chudamani'

was

not authored by Adi Shankara.

************************************************

 

 

My answer: Well, there are several further points that could have

been added, actually.

 

 

 

You wrote:

*****************************************************

THESE ARE ALL TYPICAL SIMILIES AND METAPHORS AND EPITHETS that

shankara bhagvadapada loves to use!!! especailly the 'snake' and

reflection of 'sun' !!!

********************************************************

 

 

My answer: Vivekacudamani was under any circumstances written by

some brilliant acharya within the post-Shankara tradition, and

some metaphors have been utilised by many authors within the

tradition. Even today many teachers of traditional Vedanta are

using these metaphors and similies when explaining the philosophy

of Vedanta. So it´s rather natural that you will find such

passages in works written by post-Shankara authors.

 

 

 

You wrote:

********************************************

TO! HE IS NOT A COPYRIGHT ATTORNEY OR AN ADVOCATE OF PATENT LAWS!

anyday, i will believe my own instinct than some A.j. alston!

and stigji, now you are annoying me more and more! Sigh! sigh!

******************************************************

 

 

My answer: Of course, you are perfectly free to follow your

instinct if you like. Personally I think the ascribed authorship

of religious and philosophical texts would be best defended or

refuted by rational argumentation rather than emotional

outbursts.

 

 

 

**************************************

TO BE HONEST, to me it matters least whether Shankara authored

these

or not! ALL I CARE ABOUT IS THE GEMS THAT MAKE THE NECKLACE

(TRUTHS

IN THESE BOOKS) NOT WHO MADE THE NECKLACE!

*************************************

 

 

My answer: If it doesn´t matter, then why getting so upset when

the authorship is questioned? By the way, No one is questioning

that VC is a brilliant treatise on Vedanta.

 

In your mail prior to my first response, you said that even

remotely claiming the authorship of VC is preposperious. Well,

since I do find it reasonable to assume that it was written by

someone else than Adi Shankara, I thought I should show you the

reasons for doing so. I am sorry if you consider it a personal

insult. That was most certainly not my intention.

 

 

Warmest regards

Stig Lundgren

[Guest guest]

dear heart,

 

You did not insult me ! what i meant was to claim that 'atma bhoda'

was also not authored by shankara was stretching the 'truth' too far!

 

stigji, ADi shankara was a Genius ... no wonder, everyone likes

to 'imitate' him .. we should all 'emulate' him (his example) rather

than imitate him! HE is my atma Guru! ' SO I AM NATURALLY 'SENSITIVE'

to any kind of attacks on him! call it emotional or whatever! in

matters of loyalty , women tend to be emotional!

 

what bothers me most is people are always arguing about the least

important things in spirituality...

 

1) whether Shankara attained 'samadhi' in Kedarnath in kashmir or in

Kanchi in tamilnadu.

 

2) then there is the perennial feeling of competition between Kanchi

mutt and Sringeri mutt vying with each other to claim one is

more 'authentic' than the other in the Shankara tradition! where is

the comparison? one is a snyasa peetham and the other is a Raja

peetham

 

3) you must have already heard about how thee gawdiya vaishnavites

accuse of him being a 'mayavadi.'

 

4)then all these neo-vedantins trying to put their own spin on the

Adwaitha philosophy!

 

5)It is hard to understand shankara's original bhasya or commentary ;

add to that the many commentators who have emerged from Nikhilanada

to Gambirananda trying to explain the 'in explicable' ... no pun

intended!

 

6)east or west, shankara is best! ALL HIS WORKS ARE WORKS OF ART ,

PHILOSOPHY, POETRY ... there is none to equal him ! SO no wonder, you

find Vc to be work of gret merit...

 

Dear heart, i have even heard people claim adi shankara was a

buddhist ' and the tirupathi temple was a shaivite shrine to begin

with! before you know it, people will say Jesus christ wrote the

Vedas and the upanishads ! where is an end to this line of thinking!

 

"In God (shankara) we trust, all others we virus scan."

 

 

love and blessings

[Guest guest]

Namaste Stig-ji,

 

Your list of reasons against Shankara's authorship of the

Vivekachudamani is quite impressive. I must say that if I were on a

jury, I would have to vote against direct authorship.

 

All this makes me quite happy! Why? Because it proves a point I

(and others) have tried to make in the context of our discussion of

Buddhism. It is the SPIRIT and not the authorship of a scripture

which matters. And Vivekachudamani is full of the true Advaitin

spirit.

 

That is why it is taught every week in satsangh by my Swamiji, who is

a direct disciple of Swami Chinmayanada. That is authentic enough

for me! There is no doubt that it accurately expresses the Advaitic

wisdom, regardless of which hand actually scribbled the words.

 

And I am glad to hear of similarities with the Yoga Vasistha, another

favorite of mine.

 

We are not lawyers trying to prove guilt with bullets and smoking

guns. The 'hard evidence' of direct authorship by Shankara is NOT

essential. What matters is that it has become a traditional

expression of the true Advaitin tradition, as practiced by

generations of respected gurus and their disciples. Advaitins may

study this beloved text with complete confidence.

 

This is not to deny that there may be some stylistic and even

conceptual differences with, say, the Upadesa Sahasra, or other

rock-solid texts of Shankara. In the context of academic discussion,

such differences are inevitable. In fact, they may arise when the

SAME guru speaks to different people, each according to his need.

Ramana is a clear example of this.

 

Still, from a purely scholarly point of view, all that you said was

very interesting.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Adiji,

 

You said:

 

"Dear heart, i have even heard people claim adi shankara was a

buddhist ' and the tirupathi temple was a shaivite shrine to begin

with! before you know it, people will say Jesus christ wrote the

Vedas and the upanishads ! where is an end to this line of thinking!"

 

 

It is quite impossible that Jesus wrote the Vedas, for historical

reasons. But it is quite possible that the Vedas and Upanishads

influenced Jesus, via Buddhism. Without entering into a scholarly

discussion, please allow me to voice my opinion that the Upanishads

clearly influenced Buddha, and Buddhist ideas undoubtedly reached the

Middle East via trade routes.

 

So Vedantic Hindus can be quite proud that they started it all. But

please don't be too proud to allow for feedback loops, especially via

Buddhism. It is in the nature of samsara to grow and decay.

Different traditions may decay after a period of growth, and they may

then have to be reinvigorated by other traditions who learned from

them in the first place. Centuries later, the debt may be repaid

when the other tradition becomes decadent in turn. All of this

cross-fertilization of wisdom can only be beneficial, as long as the

gurus in question are true gurus with true wisdom.

 

Don't worry about labels but rather about the wisdom and realization

of the guru. If our aspiration is sincere, we will be attracted to

the guru who is appropriate for us, even if that guru manifests as a

book. And if our intention is malicious, we will fall into the

clutches of a false guru. Hitler was a kind of guru to his

followers, who were clearly hypnotized by him. Same with Khomeini,

Osama, Jim Jones and the rest of them.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Dear Adiji,

 

 

> You did not insult me !

 

 

Dear Adiji, I am happy to know that. My reasons for participating

in this list is certainly not to upset anyone.

 

 

 

what i meant was to claim that 'atma bhoda'

> was also not authored by shankara was stretching the 'truth'

too far!

>

 

 

Can truth actually be streched too far here (if it really is the

truth)?

 

 

> stigji, ADi shankara was a Genius ... no wonder, everyone likes

> to 'imitate' him .. we should all 'emulate' him (his example)

rather

> than imitate him! HE is my atma Guru!

 

 

Well, he´s my atma guru too! And that is why I consider it an

important thing to find out which works where actually written by

him, and which works where actually written by later authors,

although later on ascribed to Adi Shankara. From his bhashyas, it

is fairly obvious that he would have himself refuted several of

the teachings that have been ascribed to him in more recent

times. Many of the works ascribed to him contain teachings

contradicting his bhashyas on prasthana traya and also his

Upadesha Sahasri.

 

 

' SO I AM NATURALLY 'SENSITIVE'

> to any kind of attacks on him!

 

 

I am most certainly NOT attacking Adi Shankara. On the contrary,

I would like to defend him from being subject to wrong

interpretations due to works wrongly ascribed to him.

 

 

> what bothers me most is people are always arguing about the

least

> important things in spirituality...

>

> 1) whether Shankara attained 'samadhi' in Kedarnath in kashmir

or in

> Kanchi in tamilnadu.

>

> 2) then there is the perennial feeling of competition between

Kanchi

> mutt and Sringeri mutt vying with each other to claim one is

> more 'authentic' than the other in the Shankara tradition!

where is

> the comparison? one is a snyasa peetham and the other is a Raja

> peetham

>

> 3) you must have already heard about how thee gawdiya

vaishnavites

> accuse of him being a 'mayavadi.'

 

 

 

I agree such discussions has little or nothing to do with the

content of Adi Shankara´s teachings, although they might be

interesting and important for other reasons. And, yes, I know a

lot about the nonsensical Gaudiya Vaishnava accusations!

 

 

>

> 4)then all these neo-vedantins trying to put their own spin on

the

> Adwaitha philosophy!

 

 

 

Yes, I agree. And that is one of the reasons that makes it so

important to keep Shankara´s actual teachings aside from later

teachings ascribed to him.

 

>

> 5)It is hard to understand shankara's original bhasya or

commentary ;

> add to that the many commentators who have emerged from

Nikhilanada

> to Gambirananda trying to explain the 'in explicable' ... no

pun

> intended!

>

 

 

Do you consider Shankara´s teachings inexplicable? In what sense?

 

 

> 6)east or west, shankara is best!

 

 

 

I absolutely agree.

 

 

>

> "In God (shankara) we trust, all others we virus scan."

 

 

I agree 108% :-))

 

 

 

Warmest regards

Stig Lundgren

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjamin-ji,

 

> We are not lawyers trying to prove guilt with bullets and

smoking

> guns. The 'hard evidence' of direct authorship by Shankara is

NOT

> essential. What matters is that it has become a traditional

> expression of the true Advaitin tradition, as practiced by

> generations of respected gurus and their disciples.

 

 

I think it is important, and not for academical reasons. There

where numerous different interpretations of Advaita already in

Shankara´s own lifetime, and he is careful to refute them all

(except from the tradition of Gaudapada) as wrong and misleading.

And those different interpretations are not deviating more from

Adi Shankara than all those different post-Shankara doctrines

sometimes actually ascribed to Shankara himself! It is obvious

that Shankara did consider it very important to follow the

correct advaitic interpretation, and to point out the wrong

assumptions in other doctrines. If we are to follow "the true

Advaitin tradition", it is a valid question to ask what are the

teachings actually propagated by Adi Shankara.

 

Regarding Vivekacudamani and the Advaita tradition: It is a

fairly recent opinion that Adi Shankara is the author of this

book. You will not find any older references to this work as a

work from Shankara´s pen. It has not played any role in the

earlier Advaita tradition, at least not within the first 500

years or so after Adi Shankara´s lifetime (probaly even

considerably more recent than that).

 

 

> In the context of academic discussion,

> such differences are inevitable. In fact, they may arise when

the

> SAME guru speaks to different people, each according to his

need.

 

 

That is true, and such differences are there in Shankara´s works.

But he never contradicts himself, and some doctrines prevalent in

the Vivekacudamani are actually contradicting Shankara´s bhashyas

on prasthana traya and Upadesha Sahasri. These contraditions are

not merely of an academical interest.

 

However, I fully agree that Vivekacudamani is a truly wonderful

work. Just because it was (most probably) written during

post-Shankara times doesn´t make it in any way useless. The

post-Shankara doctrines prevalent in some parts of the book, are

not going to confuse if one is aware that they are actually

post-Shankaran. Instead, one can fully enjoy this outstanding and

precious work.

 

Warmest regards

Stig Lundgren