[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Paper on Kenopanishad

[H S Chandramouli]

Namaste Sri Sunil Ji,



Reg  << Several scholars such as Belvalkar, Bhattacharya and
Saccidanandendra Sarasvati have asserted that only the PBh is S's authentic
work while the VBh is spurious. >>,



You mention that this is an abstract of  a paper by Mayeda. The abstract is
wrong ( I do not know about the paper itself ) at least in respect of Sri
SSS. I am quoting from the book on Kenopanishad by Sri SSS.  He has NOT
repeat NOT expressed any opinion on whether the two bhashyas pada bhashya
and vAkya bhashya are both by Sri Bhagavatpada or not. He covers both the
bhashyas separately  in his translation to kannada. What he pointsout is
that the names “pada bhashya” and “vakya bhashya” were coined by the
commentator Sri Anandagiri who has also advanced his own reason for
considering both the bhashyas to have been written by Sri Bhagavatpada.
Also Sri SSS observes that such a view has been accepted by some earlier
commentators based on the work “नारायणविरचितकेनोपनिषद्दीपिका ‘
(nArAyaNavirachitakenopaniShaddIpikA) in which the following concluding
verse is found



<< नारायणेन रचिता शङ्करोत्युपजीविना । अस्पष्टपदवाक्यानाम् केनेषितप्रदीपिका ॥
>>



(nArAyaNena rachitA sha~NkarotyupajIvinA | aspaShTapadavAkyAnAm
keneShitapradIpikA |)



Translation by Sri SSS  ( translation from kannada to english is mine) << Based
on Sri Shankaracharya’s bhashya Narayana has compiled for the “keneshitam”
Upanishad this dipika to clarify the meaning of unclear pada and vAkyas.>>.



Sri SSS observes that this dipika includes quotes from both the pada
bhashya and vakya bhashya.



On the otherhand Sri SSS also pointsout some differences between the two
bhashyas which make it difficult to conclude that the two could be from the
same author.



Having said this much, he hopes that these observations could be of some
use for those who would like to consider this issue in greater depth. Apart
from this Sri SSS does not offer any opinion of his own on the issue.



Regards