Yoga sutra bhashya vivarana

[Giri]

On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:

> (or Indological) fundamentalism.  The Vajrasuchi upanishad is not just not
> mainstream it is completely of the radar.  Same with the YSBV.  It may or
> may not be genuine but the fact is it has up till now been ignored.  So it
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        What do you mean ? Are you saying YSBV has never been quoted by
others till it was published in paper in 1931 or so ? If so, you are well
advised to read Leggett's book again.
        Regarding the authencity and tradition, it should be noted that
the colophon of YSBV states the author is Shankara Bhagavat-paadal, and
usually the present day Shankara-acharyas don't call themselves
Bhagavat-paada.

> is intellectually dishonest to present these types of works as being
> authorities when they are not part of our living heritage.

        May I then ask you why His Holiness Abhinava Vidyatirtha of the
Sringeri Math, who is more learned than all of us put together, took much
interest in the translation of YSBV and felt YSBV is of great importance
in the study of Adi Shankara ?
        As I mentioned earlier, if great people like the above are willing
to say that muktika upanishhad (thanks to Rama for the quote) is genuine
and YSBV is an important work, I have absolutely no use of Indologists
(especially people like Hacker who wrote that Shankara was first a yogi,
then meditated on the OM and mandukya upanishhad to become an advaitin,
and finally became a vaishnava).
        Anyway, it is upto the individual to finally decide whether YSBV
or any other work is an authentic work of Shankara. Therefore, this will
be my last post on this subject.

Namaste.