is this Shankara bhashya on Svetasvetara authentic?
Krishna Kashyap
Nagaraj Paturi
https://archive.org/download/ShvetaAshvataraUpanishadWithShankarCommSerries171927AnandAshramSeries/Shveta%20Ashvatara%20Upanishad%20with%20Shankar%20Comm%20Serries%20%23%2017%201927%20-%20Anand%20Ashram%20Series.pdf
https://archive.org/download/ShvetaAshvataraUpanishadWithShankarCommSerries171927AnandAshramSeries/Shveta%20Ashvatara%20Upanishad%20with%20Shankar%20Comm%20Serries%20%23%2017%201927%20-%20Anand%20Ashram%20Series_text.pdf
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANkLSMkN-Gdf-eOrUXrpqL0%3D9svT3O-t3LjUozZX4VB9Otz5Lw%40mail.gmail.com.
Krishna Kashyap
Regarding the Svetasvatara Upanishad bhashya: There appears to be scholarly controversy over whether Shankaracharya actually authored this commentary, with some attributing it instead to Neelakantha. What is the evidence on either side of this debate?
Let's break down the evidence on both sides:
Evidence for Śaṅkarācārya's Authorship (Traditional View)
Colophons and Manuscript Tradition:
Many manuscripts of the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad Bhāṣya explicitly state "Śrīmat Paramahaṃsa Parivrājakācārya Śrī Govinda Bhagavatpūjyapādaśiṣya Śrī Śaṅkarācārya viracita" (Composed by Śrī Śaṅkarācārya, disciple of Govinda Bhagavatpāda). This is the standard attribution for all genuine works of the great Śaṅkara.
The traditional lists of Śaṅkara's works often include this commentary.
Śaṅkara's Practice of Commenting on Major Upaniṣads:
It is well-established that Śaṅkara commented on the Daśa Upaniṣads (the ten principal Upaniṣads: Īśa, Kena, Kaṭha, Praśna, Muṇḍaka, Māṇḍūkya, Taittirīya, Aitareya, Chāndogya, Bṛhadāraṇyaka). The Śvetāśvatara is often included in a slightly expanded list of major Upaniṣads (e.g., 11 or 12), and it would be unusual for Śaṅkara to omit such a significant text, especially one that presents challenges to Advaita (with its dualistic-sounding passages).
From a traditional Advaita perspective, commenting on Śvetāśvatara is crucial to demonstrate how its passages can be interpreted to align with non-duality.
Apparent Advaitic Interpretations:
Proponents argue that the commentary, despite the Upaniṣad's theistic and sometimes dualistic-sounding verses, consistently attempts to interpret them through an Advaitic lens, ultimately pointing to the non-dual Brahman. This alignment with Śaṅkara's known philosophical project supports his authorship.
Evidence Against Śaṅkarācārya's Authorship (Scholarly Controversy)
The primary arguments against Śaṅkara's authorship come from a detailed textual and philosophical analysis, often led by scholars like Paul Deussen, Mahamahopadhyaya S. Kuppuswami Sastri, and some contemporary researchers.
Doctrinal Discrepancies:
Emphasis on Śakti: The Śvetāśvatara Bhāṣya shows a significant emphasis on Śakti (divine power/energy) as a creative principle, and even some passages that seem to elevate Śiva (Rudra) in a manner that is not characteristic of Śaṅkara's typical commentaries. While Śaṅkara acknowledges Śakti as Māyā, his primary focus is on the unqualified Brahman. This commentary sometimes seems to treat Śakti as more substantial or active than what is usually found in Śaṅkara's core works.
Acceptance of Difference (Bheda): There are instances where the commentary appears to accept a degree of difference (bheda) between Jīva and Brahman, or between the world and Brahman, which is difficult to reconcile with Śaṅkara's uncompromising non-dualism. While Śaṅkara accepts empirical difference (vyāvahārika bheda), the language in this commentary sometimes leans towards a more fundamental acceptance.
Specific Terminology and Concepts: The use of certain technical terms and the nuanced presentation of concepts (e.g., regarding the relation between Prakṛti and Brahman) sometimes deviate from the established style and content of Śaṅkara's undisputed works (like the Brahmasūtra Bhāṣya).
Linguistic and Stylistic Differences:
Vocabulary and Grammar: Some scholars have pointed out differences in vocabulary, grammatical constructions, and overall stylistic features when compared to Śaṅkara's recognized major bhāṣyas. While subtle, these cumulative differences raise questions.
Absence of Cross-References: Śaṅkara often cross-references his other commentaries or alludes to ideas developed elsewhere. Such explicit connections are less prominent or absent in the Śvetāśvatara Bhāṣya.
Attribution to Nīlakaṇṭha Śivācārya (or other Śaṅkaras):
Nīlakaṇṭha's Known Commentary: Nīlakaṇṭha Śivācārya (a prominent commentator on the Brahma Sūtras from a Śaiva-Viśiṣṭādvaita perspective, distinct from the later Advaitin Nīlakaṇṭha Dīkṣita) did write a commentary on the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad. Some scholars suggest that the commentary traditionally attributed to Śaṅkara is actually Nīlakaṇṭha's, or that elements of Nīlakaṇṭha's work might have become conflated.
Another Śaṅkara: It's also plausible that a different, later Śaṅkarācārya (there were many spiritual leaders and authors named Śaṅkara throughout history) composed this commentary, and it was later assimilated into the corpus of the original Adi Śaṅkara due to the reverence associated with the name.
Absence in Early Advaitic Citations:
Early and authoritative Advaitic texts that frequently cite Śaṅkara's commentaries (like the works of Sureśvarācārya, Maṇḍana Miśra, etc.) do not always, or consistently, cite the Śvetāśvatara Bhāṣya as a work of Śaṅkara. This "argument from silence" can be suggestive, though not conclusive.
Conclusion
The debate is complex and lacks definitive, universally accepted proof on either side.
The traditional view relies heavily on manuscript evidence and the general expectation that Śaṅkara would comment on a major Upaniṣad, interpreted as aligning with Advaita.
The scholarly critique rests on more internal evidence: observed doctrinal, linguistic, and stylistic deviations from Śaṅkara's established style and philosophy in his undisputed works, and the existence of other potential authors like Nīlakaṇṭha.
Many modern scholars, particularly in academic circles, lean towards the view that the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad Bhāṣya is not a genuine work of Ādi Śaṅkarācārya, but rather a product of a different author, possibly Nīlakaṇṭha Śivācārya, or a later Advaitin of the same name. However, within traditional Advaita institutions, it continues to be accepted as Śaṅkara's work.
This debate highlights the challenges in establishing the precise authorship and chronology of ancient Sanskrit texts, especially when traditions of oral transmission and later copying/assimilation are involved.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eZ2KjsWftyoyB0wSRgXA3jH4QCmXY-UsmiF463BCRaO7w%40mail.gmail.com.
V Subrahmanian
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CANkLSMnNkWNSAyUCrES3tH0-aX9%2BkV2rwdm9zVoBtbrFQ3FaJw%40mail.gmail.com.