[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Paper on Kenopanishad

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Sunil Bhattacharjya via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Dear Bhaskarji,
>
> Thank you for quoting from memory. So what Mayeda says about SSS's view is
> correct. After going through the details, if you can share more, kindly do.
> I am trying to get a copy of Mayeda's paper, and  If I succeed I shall
> share that with the group(s).
>
> About a couple of years or so  ago I read a passing comment that the
> vakyabhashya was by Sri Vidyashankar, but without any convincing proof I
> don't want to talk more about it, particularly because it seems that no
> information is available about the works of Sri Vidyashanla, if any.
>

Dear Sunilji,

The best approach towards such passing comments is to ignore them. Lots of
people, when they want to deny authorship of a given text by Adi Sankara
bhagavatpAda, like to posit one or the other later Sankara as the putative
author. These things should not be taken seriously. If we keep repeating
such passing comments years after they are made and assuming that they may
have some merit to them, we will be left in a bed of doubts all the time -
saMSayAtmA vinaSyati, thus does bhagavAn teach us in the gItA.

There are many inscriptional records from the earliest vijayanagara period,
which praise SrI vidyASankara, the guru of bhAratI tIrtha and vidyAraNya,
to the skies, with hyperbolic poetic language. Not one of them talks of a
single text that he wrote. Tradition doesn't attribute any of such texts to
his authorship.

There are also many records that likewise praise vidyAraNya, just one
generation later. And we also hear of the texts he composed in them.
Tradition prizes him as the author of many specific texts.

Look at the contrast in evidence within a short 50 year period in history.
When we are specifically told that vidyAraNya wrote such and such a text
and nobody has tried to foist it upon Adi Sankara bhagavatpAda, why should
we give any credence to fanciful notions that vidyASankara may have written
something and that it got attributed, mistakenly or deliberately, to Adi
Sankara instead?

It should be obvious that attempts to foist one or the other bhAshya on
vidyASankara are desperate measures to somehow deny the authorship of Adi
Sankara. Such claims don't stand the most basic of examinations. Mayeda has
made a careful textual analysis, examined the previous objections from
various sources and concluded that the kena vAkyabhAshya is genuinely by
Adi Sankara bhagavatpAda. Unless his analysis can be controverted, and
convincingly so, the matter should be laid to rest.

Best regards,
Vidyasankar