Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
kaisersose

Shankara's Works

By kaisersose, in Spiritual Discussions

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

kaisersose    0

kaisersose
Posted

Some jokers have been traipsing around this forum claiming that Shankara authored a worked named Prabhoda Sudhakara. Here is the official list of Shankara's works and guess what? No Prabhoda Sudhakara! Hopefully, these "scholars" will desist misquoting Shankara hereafter?

 

Treatises

 

Vivekachudamani

Upadhesha Sahasri

Satasloki

Dasasloki

Ekasloki

Pancikarara

Atma bodha

Aparokshanubhuti

Sadhana Pañcaka

Nirvana Sataka

Manisha Pancaka

Yati Pancaka

Vakyasudha

Tattva bodha

Vakya vrtti

Siddhanta Tattva Vindu

Nirguna Manasa Puja

 

Devotional Poetry

 

Bhaja Govindaa

Sivanandalahari

Saundaryalahari

Śri LakshniNarasimha Karavalamba Stotra

Sharada Bhujanga

Kanakadhara Stotra

Bhavani Ashtaka

Siva Manasa Puja

Pandurangashtakam

 

Commentaries

 

Sutra Bhashya

Aitareya Upanishad (Rigveda)

Brhadaranyaka Upanishad (Yajurveda)

Isa Upanishad (Yajurveda)

Taittiriya Upanishad (Yajurveda)

Katha Upanishad (Yajurveda)

Chandogya Upanishad (samaveda)

Mandukya Upanishad (Atharvaveda) and Gaudapada Karika

Mundaka Upanishad (Atharvaveda)

Prashna Upanishad (Atharvaveda)

Bhagavadgīta (Mahabharata)

Vishnu Sahasranama (Mahabharata)

Gayatri Mantra

 

Cheers

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

ranjeetmore    0

ranjeetmore
Posted

The Complete Works of Shankaracharya

 

This list is based on the works included in the Vani Vilasa edition of the complete works of Shankaracharya, republished by Samata Books. The number in square brackets after some works indicates its length in shlokas.

Prasthana Trayi Commentaries

 

 

  • Aitereyopanishad Bhashya
  • Bhagavadgita Bhashya
    PDF
  • Brahmasutra Bhashya
    HTML
  • Brhadaranyakopanishad Bhashya
  • Chandogyopanishad Bhashya
  • Ishopanishad Bhashya
  • Kathopanishad Bhashya
    PDF
  • Kenopanishad Bhashya
  • Prashnopanishad Bhashua
  • Mandukyopanishad Karika Bhashya
  • Mundakopanishad Bhashya
  • Taittiriyopanishad Bhashya

Other Commentaries

 

 

  • Adhyatma Patala Bhashya
  • Hastamalakiya Bhashya
  • Lalita Trishati Bhashya
  • Nrsimha Purvatapanyupanishad Bhashya
  • Sanatsujatiya Bhashya
  • Vishnu Sahasranama Stotra Bhashya

Longer Philosophical Works

 

 

Shorter Philosophical Works

 

 

In Praise of Ganesha

 

 

In Praise of Shiva

 

 

In Praise of Shakti

 

 

In Praise of Vishnu and His Avatars

 

 

In Praise of Other Deities and Tirths

 

 

 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

ranjeetmore    0

ranjeetmore
Posted

not only is there prabodha sudhakara but also there is a commentary of Nrsimha poorva tapaniya upanishad.(the same one where Shankara ACCEPTS that Nrsimha is Saguna Saakar Brahm,Who is worshippable by EVERYONE.)

 

Besides do you think we'll buy whatevr YOU say ???

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kali_Upasaka    1

Kali_Upasaka
Posted

Please do understand that all the works attributed to Sankaracharya are not by Adi Sankara the proponent of Advaita. His followers attribute everything under the sun to him. But many of the works were authored by different Sankaracharyas who were head of the four Sankara Matams.

 

In addition there were independent Sannyasis with the name Sankaracharya. Right now there are more than 50 Sankaracharyas in India.

 

This is only for the information of the members.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

ranjeetmore    0

ranjeetmore
Posted

kali upasaka....this is just another way to say,"Adi Shankara CAN NEVER ACCPET SRI KRSNA AS SAGUNA BRAHM."

 

But the more popular works...Visnu sasranama bhasya and Bhagavad Gita Bhasya establish the opposite.

 

It is very clear that NO FOLLOWER OF ADVAITA will accept even the existence of Saguna saakar Brahm,much less accept Sri Krsna to be the same.This is precisely why they join the sampradaya in the first place.They do not accept saguna brahm.Period.

 

So,how can anyone propose that Adi Shankara's disciples have written the said work ???

 

 

And this prabodha shudhakara relates the incident where Sri Shankaracharya gives the knowledge of Sri Krsna bhakti tattva to his mother.

 

This is confirmed historically,as it is known he established a Deity of Sri Krsna right next to his mother's tomb in kaladi.

 

He gave bhakti upadesh to his mother and himself resorted to bhakti in the end.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kali_Upasaka    1

Kali_Upasaka
Posted

What I stated was from the academic's point of view. When you study Hinduism and its history in an academic institution, you learn some little known facts.

 

Vyasa was the designation or a title given to a Compiler. There were many Vyasas or compilers who compiles all our scriptures. But the popular belief attributes all the compilation to one person.

 

How do we find these? The Sanskrit language has undergone a lot of change over a period of time. We can date a work by the language and many other factors. Just to quote an example:

 

In one of the slokas the author talks about praying to GOD for a long time and says he is more than 85 years old. But this sloka is attributed to Adi Sankara.

 

None of these academicians are interested in proving the superiority of any doctrine. These are purely academic research. It is upto you to believe it or not to believe it.

 

The academicians have dated the Vedas. But the believers have their own dates.

 

We have dated the Vedas to be around 3500 B.C. But do all the Hindus believe it?

 

This post was to give information. Not to prove any thing.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

kaisersose    0

kaisersose
Posted

 

not only is there prabodha sudhakara but also there is a commentary of Nrsimha poorva tapaniya upanishad.(the same one where Shankara ACCEPTS that Nrsimha is Saguna Saakar Brahm,Who is worshippable by EVERYONE.)

Besides do you think we'll buy whatevr YOU say ???

 

Thanks for posting your list. And NO, you do not have to buy anything I say. Instead of buying internet posts, it would be more beneficial to examine facts.

 

My list comes from authentic sources. But do not take my word for it. Check with Shankaracharya.org and Advaita-Vedanta.org and you will see what I mean. Back in 1930 or so, the Sringeri Mutt published a complete list of Shankara's works. That is the main source for the list I posted.

 

At some point in time, Shankara became a title - similar to Vyasa - resulting in numerous works attributed to Shankara. But we are only interested in the Shankara who was the main proponent of the Advaita system. How do we identify this Shankara? He is identified as the author of the Brahma sutra Bhashya of the tradition.

 

The Tapani Upanishads - oft used by Gaudiyas - were not even around during the time of Shankara, which is the final nail on your list. Major Vaishnava Gurus like Madhva and Ramanuja have nothing to say about the Tapanis. About Upanishad Bhashyas by Shankara - the Shvetashwatara ( a main Upanishad) Bhashya is not by the original, as it has a very diferent literary style and quotes a number of Puranas, which is a clear departure as Shankara quoted only the Vishnu Purana and that too infrequently. Some scholars doubt the authorship of the popular Viveka Chudamani too.

 

Here is something on the Tapanis for those who are interested

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopala_Tapani_Upanishad

 

I've no idea where you got the weird "Krshna cannot be Saguna Brahman" idea from. Saguna Brahman is a symbol of the Nirguna Brahman. It can be Shiva, Ganapathi, Sharada, Krishna, Ambaal...your choice. They are all equal in a Smartha world.

 

Cheers

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

kaisersose    0

kaisersose
Posted

 

what your saying is true...but can you prove P.S. is not authored by Aadi Shankara on this basis ???

 

No. I do not have absolute proof. I can only weigh all the facts available to me and make a decision. That is all anyone can do.

 

In testing a work of dubious authorship, the most obvious thing to look for is alignment with other texts by the author and his message in general. If there is a conflict, then the chances are it is written by a different person with a different set of beliefs.

 

Cheers

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kali_Upasaka    1

Kali_Upasaka
Posted

But what most people do not realize is that the Smartas are not one monolithic bloc. They were originally classified as Smarta Vaishnava, Smarta Shaiva, and Smarta Sakta. Bengal has mostly Smarta Saktas. South India has a predominance of Smarta Saiva and Smarta Vaishnava. The vast majority are Smarta Vaishnava. They believe that Vishnu and his avatars are the supreme deity. But they also accept the other Gods/Goddesses as equal.

 

It does look strange when you see a Smarta reciting Rudram in praise of Shiva and then at the end dedicating it to Narayana. "kayenavacha ... narayanethi samarpayami."

 

The Smarta religion came into being basically for reviving Vaidic Hinduism. The Smarta movement was formed by people from all the sects who wanted to unify Hindu religion and free it from sectarian conflicts. It predates Adi Sankaracharya.

 

Smartas are not all followers of Advaita also. Everyone has their own interpretation of Advaita. Smarta Advaita, Saiva Advaita, pure Advaita are some of the Advaita schools. Smartas are Shad Dharsana.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

sambya    0

sambya
Posted

 

It does look strange when you see a Smarta reciting Rudram in praise of Shiva and then at the end dedicating it to Narayana. "kayenavacha ... narayanethi samarpayami."

 

quite so . in the much hyped durga puja of bengal after five days of rigorous worship and after singing the highest of praises to her , entire festival is dedicated to vishnu - a typical smarta ritual .

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

sambya    0

sambya
Posted

there was this sankaracharya in bengal who wrote satyanarayan puja paddhati and satyanarayan panchali -- the guide to satyanarayana puja and ode to satyanarayan in medieval poetic bengali !!!! :P

 

by ranjeets theory we have to count him as a authentic shankacharya .

 

 

 

 

 

It is very clear that NO FOLLOWER OF ADVAITA will accept even the existence of Saguna saakar Brahm

 

ho ho ! saguna brahman itself is an advaitic concept . you tell me , how can it be a dvaitic concept ?? if there is no nirguna brahman according to dvaitists then wherefrom the saguna word comes in ??

 

one just needs logic to see that !!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

ranjeetmore    0

ranjeetmore
Posted

 

 

Thanks for posting your list. And NO, you do not have to buy anything I say. Instead of buying internet posts, it would be more beneficial to examine facts.

 

My list comes from authentic sources. But do not take my word for it. Check with Shankaracharya.org and Advaita-Vedanta.org and you will see what I mean. Back in 1930 or so, the Sringeri Mutt published a complete list of Shankara's works. That is the main source for the list I posted.

 

At some point in time, Shankara became a title - similar to Vyasa - resulting in numerous works attributed to Shankara. But we are only interested in the Shankara who was the main proponent of the Advaita system. How do we identify this Shankara? He is identified as the author of the Brahma sutra Bhashya of the tradition.

 

 

 

then i can firmly conclude that advaita vedantists lie...

 

lets see...Swami Chinmayananda,for eg??

 

he provided a list of shankaracharya's works in 1988.

 

so he lied AND Swami Chinamayananda is DEFINITELY a lesser scholar than Kaisersose can ever be.

 

 

 

The Tapani Upanishads - oft used by Gaudiyas - were not even around during the time of Shankara, which is the final nail on your list. Major Vaishnava Gurus like Madhva and Ramanuja have nothing to say about the Tapanis. About Upanishad Bhashyas by Shankara - the Shvetashwatara ( a main Upanishad) Bhashya is not by the original, as it has a very diferent literary style and quotes a number of Puranas, which is a clear departure as Shankara quoted only the Vishnu Purana and that too infrequently. Some scholars doubt the authorship of the popular Viveka Chudamani too.

 

Here is something on the Tapanis for those who are interested

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopala_Tapani_Upanishad

 

 

 

 

you posted a link of wikipedia...but it seems that you haven't seen the what it says about Nrsimha poorva tapaniya upanishad..A commentary has been attributed of the same to Adi Shankaracharya or Gaudapada even(better still,he being his guru).Going by your process,we should accept what wikipedia says.

 

 

 

 

***

 

and you know what Gandhians did when they read gandhi's autobiography ??

They were completely aghast.I have a thourough gandhian as an aqcuaintance..He REFUSED TO BELIEVE IT WAS HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHY.He flipped.

I can see ignorant disciples of Shankaracharya doing the same when they read the prabodha sudhakara.

 

except,you see,during Gandhiji's time,there was press and they was mass media.Gandhi himself authenticated his autobiography.

 

But during shankara;s time,there was nothing of the sort...

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kali_Upasaka    1

Kali_Upasaka
Posted

The believers would like to believe. The followers of Vyasa who claim that all the scriptures attributed to Vyasa was written by one and the same person fall in the same category as Sankaracharya's followers.

 

So as the saying goes "People in glass houses.... "

 

The main reason that this field of research was not vigorously followed was that it does not make an iota of difference to the devotee. The only result would be the generation of a controversy.

 

Many subjects in Hinduism are not being researched for the same reason.

 

Anyway the believers would never accept the findings of any research.

 

Thank you kaisersose and ranjeetmore for the comprehensive list which would be useful to all devotees.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

sambya    0

sambya
Posted

 

Nrsimha poorva tapaniya upanishad..A commentary has been attributed of the same to Adi Shankaracharya

 

being attributed and being conclusively accepted are not the same thing ! hope you can understand that . if someone attributes chaintanya upanishad to early vedic age it is evidently not accceptable(from historical prespective and not religious sentiments) . it has to be accepted by a majority of researchers and scholars .

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

ranjeetmore    0

ranjeetmore
Posted

but you'll are not getting it properly...

 

The muktkopanishad conforms with the vedic sastras.There's basically Brahm,Jeeva Maya splattered all over the vedas.

 

There is either descriptions of relationship between the three,the ways to attain brahm and so on...

 

If a puny scholar cannot comprehend the dates/authenticity of a text,doesn't mean it is always bogus.If the sastra conforms with the established siddhanta,it has to be accepted.

 

And the Supreme nature,relationship between brahm Jeeva maya,means to attain brahm etc is described in the P.S. as it should be described in a exalted Vaishnavacharya's work.It is not a work of an ordinary sentimental lay man,much less the work of a gyani.

 

There is zero probability that an outsider Vaishnavacharya composed P.S. and left in the current of Shankara's works and his disciples simply stood by and watched.

 

How naive would it be to imagine a Gyani(who is taught in shankar sampradaya that naam,rupa,guna,leela CANNOT be the attributes of Brahm.) composing something that reeks with the most intimate details of bhakti(prema bhakti that too.) ????

 

Yes it would indeed be naive.

 

And considering the Visnu sahasranama bhasya,it is imperative that we accept P.S.

 

 

Note: IT is very amusing that Aadi Shankaracharya quoted,"Harer nama Harer nama harer nama Kaivalam..." in vishnu sahasranama bhasya.

"Only Hari's name Only Hari's name Only Hari's name..."

 

Not once.Not twice.He said it thrice.

 

Fine.This is atleast something which the vaishnavas uphold.

 

BUT.

he further writes as bhasya,"Even WITHOUT SHRADDHA,if you chant Hari's name you will cross samsara."

 

This is something very interesting for

 

1) Mayavadis shun names and forms of God,saying that Rama/Krsna were in sattva guna..their names,activities,etc were in sattva guna and here we are,looking up at the original culprit declaring such a bold statement.

 

2) Even exalted Vaishnavascharyas have maintained that SHRADDHA and LOVING SENTIMENTS ARE A MUST if the sadhaka has to even purify his mind.

Gauranga Mahaprabhu-"Manera smarana Praan."

"Remembrance is the life breath of sadhana bhakti."

 

This is just an observation and not a provocation.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

ranjeetmore    0

ranjeetmore
Posted

 

The believers would like to believe. The followers of Vyasa who claim that all the scriptures attributed to Vyasa was written by one and the same person fall in the same category as Sankaracharya's followers.

 

quote]

 

an earnest question...What can be said about the devi bhagvatam ??

 

Is it authored by vyasa or no ?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kali_Upasaka    1

Kali_Upasaka
Posted

I am not that familiar with Devi Bhagavatham. I am more familiar with Bhagavatham.

 

As a Bhaktha it matters two hoots to me who has written the scriptures.

 

Yesterday I made a posting about Bhanumathi, Duryodana's wife in one of the threads. But then I learnt from the net that she is not mentioned at all in the standard Mahabharata. But then I remember this story of her devotion to Krishna.

 

I learnt the stories of Bhagavatham and Devi Bhagavatham from my grand mother when I was a toddler.

 

Devi as Mother and Krishna as a friend. Gopal, Gobinda.

 

That is what they are to me.

 

BTW K.M. Munshi had written a 10 volume series called Krishna Avatara. Published by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. Kulapathi Munshi told us how he has depicted Krishna as the ideal man and asked us to read it. Excellent reading for Krishna Bhakthas.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

sambya    0

sambya
Posted

 

If a puny scholar cannot comprehend the dates/authenticity of a text,doesn't mean it is always bogus.

i didnt say it would be bogus . saying bogus would mean that any text of later period is misleading and it is antiquity that determines the genunity of the scripture . thats not true .

 

however one cannot use it as a means to refute standard accepted upanishads or vedas or claim that they are authentic 'vedic' . it might be called veda-dharmi meaning that which accepts and follows the authority of the vedas , but not vedic itself .

 

you cannot conclusively determine the character of shankaracharya from texts which are of doubius origins .

 

since shakharacharya used the same praises for other dieties like devi or shiva tell me what do you think of that ???

 

and sankaracharya showing symptoms of bhakti doesnt prove he was a krishna-bhakta . firstly because what are accepted as symptoms of bhakti today was broadly symptoms of any sadhana at his time when bhakti rules were not codified .

secondly if we go by common logic he showed more monistic traits then dualistic traits . so should a prudent man go with the majority or the insignificant minority ??

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

ranjeetmore    0

ranjeetmore
Posted

 

 

 

 

you cannot conclusively determine the character of shankaracharya from texts which are of doubius origins .

 

since shakharacharya used the same praises for other dieties like devi or shiva tell me what do you think of that ?????

 

he certainly did not comment of Siva sahasranama and lalita sahasranama or either of those geetas.

 

He used the same praises ?? where ? shiva manasa puja and soundarya lahiri ??

Why accept those texts if prabodha sudhakara is not???

 

 

 

and sankaracharya showing symptoms of bhakti doesnt prove he was a krishna-bhakta . firstly because what are accepted as symptoms of bhakti today was broadly symptoms of any sadhana at his time when bhakti rules were not codified .

 

 

Certainly not.There are no prema bhaktas of Naryana even,let alone Shankara or Devi.

 

But some krsna bhaktas in the past have been known to glorify Uma-mahesvara(tulsidasa),Ganesha(Nyaneshvara),even Narada extols Sadashiva as The Brahm beyond maya in bhagavatam.

 

However,the bhakti text...from bhagavatam to shandilya bhakti sutras to narada bhakti sutras...they all assert Sri Krsna and Lord Visnu in general to be the object of Bhakti.

 

Some cases could be pointed out,where devotees worshipped Devi and Shankara not even for moksa or svarga...but the bhagavata dharma reserves the rights to the rules of bhakti to any form of God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

secondly if we go by common logic he showed more monistic traits then dualistic traits . so should a prudent man go with the majority or the insignificant minority ??

 

This is where the padma purana comes in...

 

It is described that the Supreme Lord told Lord Shankara to do whatever Sri Shankaracharya did.

 

You won't accept it,eventhough it couldn't be more clear.But certainly,the Vaishnavas can conclude that Shankaracharya did Sri Krsna bhakti and is none other than the great Lord Mahesvara,who served the Supreme Lord.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

ranjeetmore    0

ranjeetmore
Posted

conclusion is: The vaishnavas have every right to believe that Shankaracharya performed Krsna bhakti..for his life events and his works reflect the Padma Purana revelation.

 

 

it depends now from person to person...if he accepts or no...

 

 

anyways..i was reflecting...and i realised...I'm just fighting in futility.

 

The Lord says and so do His mahatmas: Even out of crores of actual muktas,hardly one can attain to that prema bhakti...

 

so it is no suprise that even those who understand and accept the theoretical siddhanta of Sri Krsna bhakti and prema is very very less.

 

(I'm not talking about those who ask money or those who sing,"taar do,taar do"/"deliver me,deliver me" to bhagavan.)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kali_Upasaka    1

Kali_Upasaka
Posted

Who was the real Sankaracharya?

 

1. The proponent of Advaita.

 

2. A Saktha Tantrik who wrote Soundarya Lahari and who established Sri Chakra worship as per the Sri Vidya tradittion in many temples.

 

3. A Shiva Bhakta?

 

4. A Vishnu/Krishna Bhakta?

 

5. A Devi Bhakta?

 

6. A Purva Mimansa follower?

 

According to the Smartas he was all the above. Ask them. They say "we know." That is all .

 

So take your pick.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Go To Topic Listing

Support the Ashram

Join WhatsApp Group

IndiaDivine WhatsApp Group


×
×
  • Create New...