Is Yog Vasistha authentic scripture?

Question

Yoga Vasistha is claimed to be written by Valmiki ji.

The first written copy of Yog Vasistha is estimated around 6th century according to Wikipedia.

But I haven't heard about this text like Bhagavad Gita, Ramayana, etc. So a natural question arises. Is it authentic scripture?

Did there exist oral tradition of Yoga Vasistha in the past and was written down recently like Ramayan? I tried to contact persons who have posted the text on archive.org to research about its origin. I wanted to know from where did they get it from. All the translators are dead except the one for Lagu Yoga Vasistha. I had no luck. Also I'm surprised why such a profound text is just found in archive.org and not in the limelight. Very very few people know about this text. So is it unpopular just by chance or is it a non authentic scripture?

It means whether it has been orally transmitted like Ramayan from Sage Valmiki. If there exist or did exist an oral tradition, then it is authentic. For example Vedas oral tradition is still alive who claim it came from Brahma and is hence authentic. — Lokesh, Feb 10 '19 at 06:01
It is composed at about the same time as most puranas. It is unlikely to have originated from Valmiki. — , Feb 10 '19 at 06:05
There are so many non-Valmiki Ramayanas.Even among diff manuscripts of valmiki ramayan,only about 30% have been found common so fas i know. the critical editions discuss this.in this situation, authenticity of an ancient text has no meaning and secterian beliefs become dominant — , Feb 10 '19 at 08:45
But I haven't heard about this text like Bhagavad Gita, Ramayana, etc. So a natural question arises. Is it authentic scripture? -- Amazing logic .. going by that every other texts' authenticity is doubtful too provided you hv not heard about it.. — Rickross, Feb 10 '19 at 09:27
Your/my hearing/ knowledge of persons you contacted etc. and authenticity.. these are quite different. the two are independent of each other. Ancient knowledge sources exist in spite of our awareness about them as surviving truth sometimes in spite of us. You have to do more research before concluding and exposing your opinion.YV originated in the north and is well known to deep south. Have you checked Benarasi Das, Tirupati archives Saraswathi Mahal and so on. I would be more considerate....to say translators "silent" rather than translators "dead". — Narasimham, Aug 04 '20 at 06:06

Lokesh · Accepted Answer · 2020-07-27T02:38:39.963

I did quite a research on this. According to recent scholars, this scripture is a work of anonymous author and is composed around 8th century.

From experience I have known that work of recent scholars especially Indologists is biased. Many are driven by the agenda to fit all the scriptures within last 1000 years with no concerete evidance. They even go to claim that Ramayan and Mahabharata is not written by their traditionally accepted authors. Therefore I tried to seek opinion of traditional scholars but came across none for years.

Accidentally and luckily recently I came across a book Ramayana Mimamsa by the Dharma Samrat Karpatri Ji Maharaj. In his book he gives his views on Yoga Vasistha:

Since its in Hindi, I will try to give brief summary in English.

Here Karpatri ji Maharaj is saying that the date of YV is claimed around 11th century. This is completely against the views of YV. For a given text, whose creation date has to be decided if its statements are ignored then one can state any date which one finds pleasing. Acording to YV, Shri Valimiki is the author. In this case, whatever period was of Shri Valmiki same is that of YV. Acording to Winternits, YV is a work of followers of Shankaracharya. <Then Karpatri ji Maharaj goes on the explain why this can't be true by giving many facts proving this is not possible>

So, in summary Karpatri ji Maharaj accepts Yoga Vasistha as authentic and he shows this by giving numerous proofs including Adi Shankaracharya quoting from Yoga Vasistha. For more information one can read this on page no 284 and 285.

Kesava Tadipatri · Answer 2 · 2020-11-12T08:12:13.147

3

The doubts raised are genuine as the style of the language points to much after 10th century only. Please show the evidence where Shankaracharya quoted YV. In fact it is other way around. YV uses the points made by Shankaracharya. Further see the funny statement in Wikipedia - YV is a philosophical text attributed to Valmiki, although the real author is VasiShta. That is fishy. What is meant by real author and non-real author? Even there is no evidence if Vidyaranya or Madhusudana Sarasvati quoted YV. Further, there is plenty of evidence that this is neither by Valmiki, nor consistent with Valmiki version of Ramayana. While Valmiki projected Sri Rama in Ayodhya as a very tranquil, and free-from worries personality, YV depicts Sri Rama as a victim of mental dejection. Absolutely unjustified. One can see the plot developing and that too with a base of wrong picture of Sri Rama.

edited Nov 12 '20 at 08:12

answered Nov 12 '20 at 07:53

Kesava Tadipatri

149
4

1

You have no idea what you talking about my friend. Evidence of Shankaracharya quoting YV is mentioned in Shevaashevtaropanishad and Sānatsujātiya bhashya. What do you mean by style of language? It's written in anushtup chanda same as Ramayana. Also what do you mean by real author is Vasistha? Maybe you should do some research before saying something. What you call as mental dejection is regarded as Vairagya by wise people. – Lokesh Nov 12 '20 at 10:25
Welcome to HSE, kindly provide scriptural references in your answer. – Adiyarkku Nov 18 '20 at 13:12
Can you quote it @Lokesh i read your answer i found it to be interesting , would be great if you csn cite where it is mentioned . – Anubhav Singh Dec 27 '20 at 11:11
@Lokesh, not only you should do lot of research, you should also develop some basic concepts before trying to defend YV. Obviously you have not even read YV as mental dejection is a negative quality presented in YV and you think that it is vairAgya, which is positive quality. There is no such thing as Shevaashevtaropanishad. May be you meant Shvetashvataropanishad. It is shruti and is anAdi and much earlier than Shankaracharya and it mentioning the evidence of Shankaracharya quoting YV is completely ridiculous. You have no knowledge of difference between Chandas(prosody) and shaili(style). – Kesava Tadipatri Dec 07 '21 at 21:00
@Anubhav, the logistics of YV is at loggerheads with the logistics of Valmiki Ramayana and both cannot be from the same author. Lokesh will be unable to cite any source where it is mentioned. I don't have to cite any sources as I am only raising the objections. For stating the objections, citing the source is irrelevant. – Kesava Tadipatri Dec 07 '21 at 21:01
@KesavaTadipatri I already mentioned the citations on the same day requested. And regarding your mental dejection theory. Here's the proof - अहो बत कुमारेण कल्याणगुणशालिनी । वागुक्ता परमोदारा वैराग्यरसगर्भिणी ॥ २९ ॥ And the last thing what is the shaili here, please enlighten me. – Lokesh Dec 08 '21 at 03:57
1

@Keshava i have found the source actually, YV indeed is cited by Shankrcharya. I mentioned the sources in my post here -https://teertha.quora.com/Is-Yoga-Vaishta-later-text?ch=10&oid=55595680&share=3ab77b69&srid=ufPSP1&target_type=post – Anubhav Singh Dec 08 '21 at 04:55
@Anubhav Singh, you got to be kidding to claim that the expression "शासनाद्ब्रह्मवादिनः" is a reference to YV. It shows the pathetic level of scholarship of that writer. – Kesava Tadipatri Dec 16 '21 at 05:40
@Lokesh, This author does not know the difference between vairAgya and viShAda. He thinks that who ever has vairAgya, has viShAda. Absurd. VairAgya, a positive quality will remove viShAda. ViShAda is a negative quality. That is common sense and reveals Shaili. This author must have been influenced by the Muslim kings and put Sri Rama and Muslim kings on the same level. It is preposterous to think that all the princes of those times were fooling around with harem girls. It takes volumes to describe the issue. I will put a sample in my Gurukula site and give you a link. Will take some time. – Kesava Tadipatri Dec 16 '21 at 07:16
@Lokesh go thru 10th sarga of VairAgya prakaraNa. you will be shocked. I will take a sample of 4 verses from very first sarga of first prakaraNa and show more than 40 logical errors in them. You can not show one logical error in the entire Valmiki Ramayana. That is the gulf of difference in Shaili. – Kesava Tadipatri Dec 16 '21 at 07:24
@Lokesh - अहो बत कुमारेण कल्याणगुणशालिनी । वागुक्ता परमोदारा वैराग्यरसगर्भिणी ॥ २९ ॥ - not in my version. Which version of YV you have - may be that has even more errors. You may know that there are multiple versions of YV. – Kesava Tadipatri Dec 16 '21 at 08:42
@Keshava you totally ignore the reference mentioned in Shankarbhasya – Anubhav Singh Dec 16 '21 at 16:08
@Anubhav Singh, Shankaracharya wrote Bhashya to the 10 primary upanishads only. Shankara did not write Bhashya for Shvetashvataropanishad. See the wikipedia for more details - The authorshop of Shankara of this Bhasya is disputed. Nakamura concludes that Shankara was not the author, for several reasons. Shankara understood Buddhist thought, while the author of the commentary shows misunderstandings of Buddhist thought. The commentary uses the terms vijnapti and vjnaptimatra, which is "a uniquely Buddhist usage", and does not appear in Shankara's commentary on the Brahma-sutras. – Kesava Tadipatri Dec 16 '21 at 17:12
@Anubhav Singh, find wikipedia on both Shankara and Shvetashvataropanishad - For example, the style, the inconsistencies, the citation method, the colophons in the commentary on Shvetashvatara Upanishad as it survives in modern form, and attributed to Shankara, makes it doubtful that it was written in the surviving form by Shankara. Rather, most scholars[86][87] consider it likely that the Shvetashvatara commentary attributed to Shankara was remodeled and interpolated by one or more later authors. – Kesava Tadipatri Dec 16 '21 at 18:23
Also, pls note that Shankara would not have quoted this, because it was not available. Even if it were, he would still not quote as this work is a blasphemy that projected Sri Raama as a person that fooled around with women prior to his marriage, a totally unacceptable view. Secondly if Shankara quoted even once, there would have been thousands of references by the famous Advaita commentators like Anandagiri and Vachaspati Mishra, et al. because none of Itihasas, Ashtadasha purANas, Pancha Raatras, have Advaita teaching. This work is filled with Advaita teaching, though all-inconsistent. – Kesava Tadipatri Dec 16 '21 at 22:12
1

@KesavaTadipatri "because none of Itihasas, Ashtadasha purANas, Pancha Raatras, have Advaita teaching. This work is filled with Advaita teaching, though all-inconsistent." I think your mind is not right, that you are saying such things without thinking. It seems like the ONLY problem which you have with YV is that it promotes Advaita philosophy. Bhagavad Gita itself promotes Advaita. – Lokesh Dec 17 '21 at 06:01
1

@KesavaTadipatri मया ततमिदं सर्वं जगदव्यक्तमूर्तिना। मत्स्थानि सर्वभूतानि न चाहं तेष्ववस्थितः।।9.4।। Now you will say Bhagavad Gita is also not authentic. – Lokesh Dec 17 '21 at 06:02
@Lokesh, If I have problem with works of Advaita Philosophy, I must have problem with the presence of all the commentaries of Shankaracharya. I have no probem with their existence and right royally, I can methodically criticize them. You are choked with PurvAgraha. I asked you to read 10th chapter and even after reading that you support that, you are also possessed with dislike for the glory of Sri Raama. That is all. – Kesava Tadipatri Dec 18 '21 at 08:34
@Lokesh, whoever, the Advaitin wrote, he could have been honest enough to put his name. Why resort to the cheap method of false attribution? -
Regarding false attribution, see following link -

https://seqlegal.com/blog/false-attribution-the-moral-right

Atleast He should have taken care not to commit logical errors and not show hatred to glory of Sri Raama.
– Kesava Tadipatri Dec 18 '21 at 08:46
@Lokesh, मया ततमिदं सर्वं जगदव्यक्तमूर्तिना। मत्स्थानि सर्वभूतानि न चाहं तेष्ववस्थितः।।9.4।।
If you are stuck with Shankaracharya commentary, you will surely think that Bhagavad Gita is also not authentic.

But if you are well-read, mokShadharma removes thta knot beautifully and gives wonderful reading -

न दृश्यश्चक्षुषा चासौ न स्पृश्यः स्पर्शनेन च
– Kesava Tadipatri Dec 18 '21 at 08:52
@Lokesh, The meaning of Gita shloka with this support is -
This entire universe is pervaded by me. But because I am avyakta, I am not visible to any one.Even though I am present in this universe, it is not supporting me. They are all inside me seeking support from me. I am not seking their support.
– Kesava Tadipatri Dec 18 '21 at 08:52
1

@Kesava Tadipatri You are right. Valmiki ji should have consulted you before writing 10 chapter of Yoga Vasistha. Like I have said multiple times, there's nothing wrong in having vishada. But you can't stop looking with your preconceived notion of good and bad qualities. Avatars weep, they live like normal humans. This scripture is not for you. Kindly leave it and don't incur sin by speaking ill of it without knowing any thing. I will stop replying to your childish accusations. – Lokesh Dec 18 '21 at 12:47
@Lokesh, I never realized that you can't even think. Know the difference between behavior and pretending. No one is complaining about pretending to weep. We are talking about the character. Rama was described as having enjoyment with women until he went for pilgrimage. If you are so blind be it. Are you so dumb as not to get that it was not written by Valmiki. Read thru the link of false attribution I sent. Some Pseudo-Lokesh wrote it and claimed that Valmiki wrote it. – Kesava Tadipatri Dec 20 '21 at 05:30

Is Yog Vasistha authentic scripture?

2 Answers2

Linked