[Advaita-l] (no subject)

Michael Chandra Cohen michaelchandra108 at gmail.com
Wed Feb 21 16:50:18 EST 2024

A recent paper on Sankara's authorship distinguished from later Vedanta.

footnotes 3 & 4 confirms Hacker's observations and lends etic consensus to
Sri Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati//SSSS's observations. Please, no ad
hominem attacks on Prof Hacker or reference to any other studies of his
not directly relevant.

3 Although it is obvious that Hacker finds confirmation (and inspiration?)
of his research into Śaṅkara’s peculiarities in Saccidānandendra’s work, he
emphasizes that Saccidānandendra’s goal is not to determine Śaṅkara
historically and individually, but to single out the features of genuine
Vedānta. Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to deal with this in
more detail, it should be pointed out that a careful study of
Saccidānandendra’s works should be conducted in future. While Hacker may be
right when he claims that Saccidānandendra may not have had only historical
goals in mind, there are many sharp observations in his work that can be a
stimulus for both doctrinal and historical research. 4 Usages of avidyā,
īśvara and vyāsa meet the criteria. Also, the lack of the terms jaḍa,
sphuraṇa, sva(yam)-prakāśa(māna) also point towards Śaṅkara’s authorship.
Harimoto (2014, p. 247) interestingly concludes that if the author is not
Śaṅkara, it should be concluded that the author is a good philologist
familiar with Śaṅkara’s terminology who did not allow any notion or concept
of the later Advaita Vedānta to creep in. Arguments against Śaṅkara’s
authorship, which were presented by T.S. Rukmani in three articles
(arguments also presented in Rukmani 2001: ix–xxxi), can also be mentioned
here. Apart from the objections to the style and the fact that Śaṅkara did
not comment on the commentaries (Pātañjalayogaśāstra is a commentary on the
Yoga-sūtra), the most important are Rukmani’s claims that the author of
Pātañjalayogaśāstra-Vivāraṇa referred to Vācaspati Miśra, who lived after
Śaṅkara. Harimoto (2014: 230– 241), however, extensively reviewed on
philological grounds all the passages cited by Rukmani, showing how
difficult (or impossible) it is to unambiguously link these references to
Vācaspati Miśra.


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list