ADVAITA-L Digest - help locating source

[Giri]

> I have read a book by shrii Aurobindo on the mahaabhaarata, where he says that
> the mahaabhaarata consisted originally of only 8000 verses and the rest were
> added by some one else. Here he makes a case of examining the work based on
> "poetry" style, which he claims is a very good indicator. Prose, he says, is
> very misleading. He cites reasons and examples to back up his statements. I
> have not read the arguments for examining shaMkara's works by the westerners.

        The problem of which works can be attributed to Shankara was
raised by Paul Hacker. He published an article in New Indian Antiquary in
1947 and he has four steps

1. Only Brahmasutra bhasya is real. all others are taken to be spurious
provisionally.

2. Mention of name : Shankara or Shankaracharya is not enough, but a more
reliable attribution is made if there is a mention of bhagvavatpada and
bhagavatpujjyapada.

3. Evidence from the works of Padmapada, suresvara and totaka.

4. Analysis of content (which should not contradict Brahma-sutra bhasya) and
the meticulous attention to the terms maya, avidya, and namarupa

[Ref : Shankara and Indian Philosophy by Natalia Isayeva].

        I don't how using (4) he concludes that upadesasahasri is
considered genuine. But, let us remember that though Hacker was
highly regarded by Indologists {though articles supporting and refuting
the above analysis has appeared), he was also of the thought that
Shankara was a Vishnuite and more of a theistic. I think Natalia Isayeva
herself says that this attitude of Hacker towards Shankara is due to the
Judeo-Christian beliefs and the difficulty of an alien religion and
philosophical system. But, she herself, makes remarks that Gaudapada and
Shankara differed in their philosophy while this is said not to be case
by Advaitains like Ramana [Talks with Ramana].
        One also wonders whether these Indologists have any real interest
in understanding the philosophy behind Shankara's works, or whether they
are interested only in getting a doctorate and publishing books {though
there are certainly a few indologists who practice advaita}.

        Regarding the svapna debate, I have a question based on lucid
dreaming. Most of the times when I dream, I am aware that I am dreaming.
That is, if I see myself being attacked by a tiger, I know that it is not
real and that I am sleeping on the mattress and nothing will happen to my
body. This is mostly consistent with the term lucid dreaming { i heard of
this term only recently, so don't ask me too much about it, except that I
read the FAQ on it :-)}. Do vedantic philosophers handle this type of
dream ? In my opinion, GYAnis regard the waking state as a dream and
perecive it to be not real, while being established in the SELF, while in
lucid dreams one is able to perceive that a dream is not real, while
being established in the mattress :-)

Giri

PS : I am aware that lucid dreams spoil the fun of dreaming to a certain
extent :-)