[Michael Chandra Cohen]

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.  

https://www.academia.edu/79198170/The_Reliability_of_Hacker_s_Criteria_for_Determining_%C5%9Aa%E1%B9%85kara_s_Authorship?uc-g-sw=98005128

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Michael Chandra prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Thanks for sharing this.  But fact remains that (according to tradition / traditionalists) shankara being a ‘jagadguru’ can write differently in different style in different works to cater the needs of different ‘adhikAri-s’ and their respective taste and temperament and we cannot expect him to stick to any particular style and limited terminologies.    So, if the argument takes this direction, you don’t have any other option but to ‘accept whatever believed in tradition’.  Another justification we often hear from them is, bhagavatpAda was like a great musician /composer  and has the absolute control and mastery over various rAga-s and he can sing the same song in different tunes and compose the different songs with same meaning by using his wide range of vocabulary.  And the final claim from sAmpradAyavAdins is,  if any one questions authenticity of authorship of any particular work and that work if commented by any later Jagadguru without raising any doubt about the authorship, then irrespective of any logical arguments,  you have to close the doubt then and there because of the simple fact :   do you (or any western thinkers who hardly have any exposure to orthodox tradition) know something more than these Jagadguru-s?? Have faith in tradition and traditional stand lest get out!! In these scenarios, no meaningful debate is possible on these issues when sentiments sway over the rationality.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Kalyan]

Dear Sri Michael gaaru, Namaskaaram

Thanks for sharing this. 

I have also noticed that AchArya uses the word Ishwara/parameshwara many times in BSB compared to some upanishad bhAshyas. 

The BSB is more theistic compared to upanishad bhAshyas. It could also be due to the nature of the texts. There is very less scope for theism in Brihadaranyaka upanishad, for example.

Best Regards

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

There is very less scope for theism in Brihadaranyaka upanishad, for example.

 

Ø     I doubt this observation, khila kAnda in bruhadAraNyaka is about upAsya brahma or sOpAdhika brahma and upAsana and in madhU kAnda also there are plenty of Adidaivika aspects and its elaboration. 

[Michael Chandra Cohen]

Pranam Bhaskar ji, Thanks for the response - quite disappointingly, yours was the only response from either Advaita-l or Advaitin to this worthy study. 

Traditionalists justifying these findings with deflecting rationales doesn't dismiss the finding itself. None of the three options suggested, diverse teaching to fit the status of the student,  talented linguistic versatility and unassailable authority, address any of the underlying observations of these various studies beginning with SSSS. For a time, the rationales you suggest might suffice for a simple devotee or dogmatist but cannot possibly satisfy a proper adhicari who seeks truth alone. Satya eva jayate.

The issue here can be discussed as differences between emic and etic perspectives on spiritual teachings. I asked Chat GPT about misgivings of each view.
Emic and etic perspectives are terms used in anthropology and cross-cultural studies to describe different approaches to understanding and studying cultures. These perspectives can also be applied to religious dialogue. Here are some misgivings or challenges associated with both emic and etic perspectives in religious dialogue: 

Emic Perspective: 

Cultural Relativism: Emic perspectives emphasize understanding a culture from within, using its own categories and concepts. One challenge is the risk of cultural relativism, where one may become so immersed in the cultural context that they are hesitant to critique or evaluate certain practices or beliefs that may be harmful or oppressive. 

Subjectivity: Emic perspectives heavily rely on the experiences and interpretations of the insiders of a particular religious tradition. This subjectivity can lead to a lack of objectivity and may limit the ability to recognize and appreciate the diversity of beliefs within a given tradition. 

Overlooking Power Dynamics: An emic perspective may not adequately address power imbalances within a religious community. Certain voices or perspectives might be marginalized, and issues related to hierarchy, gender roles, or social injustices may be downplayed or overlooked. 

Etic Perspective: 

Cultural Insensitivity: The etic perspective involves an outsider's analysis, which can sometimes lead to cultural insensitivity or misinterpretation. The risk here is that external observers may impose their own cultural biases and fail to grasp the nuances of the religious beliefs and practices they are studying. 

Oversimplification: Etic perspectives might oversimplify complex religious traditions, reducing them to easily understandable categories or concepts. This oversimplification can lead to misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the richness and diversity within a particular religious context. 

Loss of Context: An etic perspective might strip away the cultural and historical context that is crucial for understanding religious beliefs and practices. This can result in a superficial analysis that fails to capture the

depth of meaning within a given religious tradition. 

In religious dialogue, a balanced approach that incorporates both emic and etic perspectives can be more fruitful. This involves understanding a religious tradition from the insider's point of view while also recognizing and critically analyzing it from an outsider's perspective, taking care to avoid ethnocentrism and cultural bias.

. 

_______________________________________________
Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listm...@advaita-vedanta.org