ADVAITA-L Digest - criteria for judging shankara's works

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

Giri wrote:

>         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.

Thanks for posting these criteria. This should tell us something about these
guy's methods!

The shaMkara maTas and the tradition hold the brahma suutra bhaashhya in very
high regard. However, I don't think even they would agree with this
hypothesis.

> 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.

Well, I can see the logic here somewhat.

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

Cool. Hopefully later authors did not attribute their works to the disciples.
So how is the work of the disciples judged? :-)

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

This is also quite vague, I mean the "should not contradict" part.

>         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

Vishnuite as in vaishnava? How is that? And what is his explanation for the
maTas somehow becoming shakti+shiva oriented later?

> 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].

They did differ in the kaarikaa and the suutra bhaashhya. However, shaMkara has
shown himself to be an ajaata vaadin in the upadeshasaahasrii. Ofcourse, he
does not emphasize the fact as much as in the kaarikaa bhaashhya. Not that it
matters anyway. It is quite possible that he was trying to teach different
grades of aspirants.

Now, I have a question here. The paJNchaaksharii stotraM has a bhaashhya by
padmapaada. Can it be considered a genuine work of shaMkara? By the criteria
above it will probably be rejected. However, this would be like comparing
uLLathu naaRpathu (reality in forty verses) and the akshara maNamaalai (marital
garland of letters) of shrii ramaNa and concluding that the latter is not a
genuine work of shrii ramaNa.

> in understanding the philosophy behind Shankara's works, or whether they
> are interested only in getting a doctorate and publishing books {though

I have this doubt also.

Ramakrishnan.
--
Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said, "The flag is moving." The other
said, "The wind is moving." The sixth patriarch happened to be passing by. He
told them, "Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving." - The Gateless Gate