ADVAITA-L Digest - help locating source

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

>         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 it is mainly Sangku Mayeda who has analyzed upadeSasAhasrI, using
Hacker's criteria. He finds it consistent with Hacker's 4 steps, and so
affirms it as a genuine work of Sankara's.

Personally, I feel point 1 is based on solid grounds, although Hacker is
overstating its importance. Any vedAntin who wants to make a mark writes
a commentary to the brahmasUtra bhAshya. Besides, as there is confusion
regarding the genuine works of SankarAcArya, the only solution is to define
the SankarAcArya of advaita tradition as the author of the bhAshya. This is
quite in keeping with the traditional use of the word "bhAshyakAra" itself.
When advaitins say "bhAshyakAra", they mean Sankara exclusively.

However, it is somewhat of a stretch to say that all other works are to be
taken as spurious provisionally. It is okay to say that the other works have
to be tested, to see if they are genuine or not. It is one thing to suspend
judgement about a work; it is quite another to declare every other work
spurious and admit it as genuine only if it meets his other criteria.

Point 2 will be contested by those who believe that no works on SrIvidyA were
ever composed by the bhAshyakAra. Thus, for example, Douglas Renfrew Brooks
who has written a couple of books about the tripurA rahasya, SrIcakra upAsanA
etc. seems to make a distinction between Sankara bhagavatpAda, the author of
SrIvidyA works and SankarAcArya, the author of advaita bhAshyas. This is the
reverse of Hacker's criterion 2. What is surprising is that all Western
researchers neglect or choose to ignore the fact that there is an undeniable
connection between SrI vidyA worship and advaita institutions, especially in
the south.

Point 3 is well-taken, but is of very limited use. sureSvara comments on the
bhAshyas to the taittirIya and br.hadAraNyaka upanishads, so we can be sure
of these two. padmapAda's pancapAdikA is on the brahmasUtra bhAshya. There
are no other works by padmapAda, so that his testimony is superfluous by
point 1, i.e. by definition. And toTaka's only compositions are the
 toTakAshTakam and the SrutisArasamuddhAraNa. The first proves that he was
 Sankara's direct
disciple. The second is an independent work and stands on its own merit. Unless
some specific statement in this work is shown to be from one of the other
works of Sankara, toTaka's testimony is also of limited use.

However, this will always be a tendentious point among those who doubt. For
example, there is the dakshiNAmUrti stotram of Sankara's, with a commentary
titled mAnasollAsa by sureSvara. However, even sureSvara's testimony is not
sufficient to prove Sankara's authorship in this case, for many people. Now,
unless there is a fifth criterion saying "the above four criteria apply only
to bhAshyas and prakaraNa granthas, not to Slokas and stotrams", it is seen
that Hacker's criteria are not always followed.

Point 4 is the most problematic. I agree with Ramakrishnan in that this cannot
be urged as the only reason for doubting Sankara's authorship of a work.
There might be other reasons - a work attributed to Sankara may contain a
reference to someone from the 16th century, in which case we can be 100% sure
that the attribution is mistaken. But saying that one work talks of ajAtivAda
or of avidyA in a slightly different sense from the brahmasUtra bhAshya, is
not reason enough to declare that work to be falsely attributed.

Finally, Hacker's contention that Sankara was a vaishNava is the only
one that can be criticized as being out of touch with Indian realities. It is
as possible to say that Sankara is a Saiva or a yogin, as to say that he is
vaishNava. However, Hacker's criteria do play a small role in establishing
that so and so work is genuinely Sankara's. This helps in gathering internal
evidence for other purposes, e.g. dating Sankara. Given that at the very least,
the bhAshyas on the brahmasUtra, the two yajurveda upanishads and the gItA
are undoubtedly Sankara's, one can date Sankara relative to other historical
personalities. Thus, it is clear that Sankara is posterior in time, to people
like Kalidasa, Hsiuen-Tsang, Dingnaga and Dharmakirti, and that he is before
Vacaspati Misra and Sarvagnatman. Beyond these historical considerations,
Hacker's steps are not very helpful. Thus, it is not possible to say that
Sankara lived in the 5th cent. BCE, on the strength of one of the minor
works, when this is clearly contradicted by internal evidence from the authentic
bhAshyas themselves.

S. Vidyasankar