Variants in the ब्रह्मसूत्र शांकरभाष्य or critically edited text

[vasantkumar bhatt]

Respected Scholars,

Namaste.

1. Is there any "critical edition" of the Brahmasutra Shankarabhashya ?, PDF file ?

2. An edition of the Brahmasutra Shankarabhashya which is showing different variants in the footnotes - is it available ?

3. Who has studied about the different variants of the Brahmasutra and Shankarabhashya ? Any book or article ?

Kindly enlighten me.

Regards 

Vasantkumar M Bhatt, Ahmedabad 

9427700064 WhatsApp number. 

Sent from Outlook for Android

[Janakisharan Acharya]

ब्रह्मसूत्रप्रमुखभाष्यपञ्चकसमीक्षणम् 

[Sivasenani Nori]

I am not aware of a critical edition comparing different texts of Sankaracharya's bhashya. I had studied eight translations of the bhashya on Chatussutri for my M. Phil and consulted multiple editions of the Sanskrit text and did not notice any significant differences in the text, except one instance, where the earlier versions contain the word parinama but the later editions vivarta. Unfortunately, I am unable to locate the exact text right now and memory is not strong enough to remember the full sentence. The essence though is that for Sankaracharya (like for Bhartrihari), the words parinama and vivarta could be used interchangeably and the differences labeled as parinamavada and vibartavada were developed later. To be clear Sankara is a vivartavadin; only the terminology developed later. 

Generally, the Vani Vilas edition is considered to be the authentic one (definitely so in terms of printing errors, or lack of those really) and the same has been used for Advaita Sharada, I believ - both being projects being blessed or sponsored by the Sringeri peetha.

If I remember right J L Shastri's edition is the only one which carried the word "parinama", in place of "vivarta" of other editions. 

Swami Gambhirananda's edition is the closest I have seen to a critical edition. For instance he notes the different readings of the sutra 2.2.34 in Ratnaprabha and Bhamati. In another instance, under 3.3.25, where Mu. U. 3.1.3 is quotes, he notes "Some editions quote Mu. III.ii.8). Both mantras are similar, but have a minor difference. 

Also while reading the Ratnaprabha and Bhamati on certain Sutras, I noticed that their readings of the bhashya could have been slightly different but do not recall the details now. At any rate, if there were differences, they were very minor and not noteworthy. 

Finally the remarkable stability of the text of Sankaracharya's bhashya is not surprising as it has been much studied and analyzed, continuously for many centuries.

Regards 

N Siva Senani

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/c2659eff-f1c1-424b-b5a7-b825a2ad50adn%40googlegroups.com.

[Rakesh Joshi]

https://www.amazon.in/Brahma-Sutras-Their-Principal-Commentaries/dp/8121500354

This one nicely analyzes Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya and Madhwacharya commentaries.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAAs%2BaZOUX%2BHRO%3DNvPBcbWtbTQM-Zy3%2B0LCoyczCS1ESUXM9o%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Krishna Kashyap]

namaste, Rakesh Ji,

B.N.K. Sharma's works are well-known and widely respected. He was undoubtedly a formidable scholar who made significant contributions to Madhva studies. His approach is characterized by vigorous polemics in defense of Madhvacharya's positions, often employing strong refutations of alternative schools. His work reflects a particular style of traditional scholarly debate where defending one's own tradition requires systematic critique of others.

In contrast, S.M. Srinivasa Chari's The Philosophy of the Vedanta Sutra offers a critical comparative analysis of the three major commentaries on the Brahma Sutras: Shankara's (Advaita), Ramanuja's (Vishishtadvaita), and Madhva's (Dvaita). While Chari clearly argues for the Vishishtadvaita position, his approach is more measured and comparative in nature, focusing on philosophical analysis rather than polemical refutation.

Both scholars represent valuable but different methodological approaches to defending their respective traditions—one more combative, the other more analytical.

---

In comparison, K.S. Varadachar has attempted to reconcile these three systems in his unpublished book, Satyasiddhi.

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANX3AqHEYNpZm6WzVOfvbmd8uug24VEYHjifX716AMyttV2Qpw%40mail.gmail.com.