Indian Antiquary Vol 62

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 197

OCTOBER, 1933 ]
THE MANDOKYOPANIŞAD AND GAUPAPADA
185
niyoga-paryanuyogánarha bhagavati srutih. Sankara, assuredly, would not be guilty of such sacrilege ; and his carefully-chosen words therefore make it plain that the four-sectioned book that he is going to comment upon is not a śruti text, but the work of a human author.
Compare in this connection the sentences tad idam Gitá bastram samastavedârtha-sárasamgraha-bhutam and vedanta-mimamsá-sástrasya vyácikhyasitasyedam adimam sútram that oocur in the introductions to Sankara's commentaries on the Bhagavad-gîtd and Brahmasutras respectively; and note the use of the word éastra in both sentences and that both these books are written by human authors (i.e., are not śruti). Contrast, on the other hand, the introductions to Sankara's commentaries on the nine 'major 'Upanişads, and note that in not one of them is the word sastra or prakarana used.
It must be observed, however, that Anandagiri interprets the word prakarana-catustayam in Sankara's above-cited sentence as prakarana-catustaya-visistam. That is to say, he dissociates the epithet om-ity-stad-aksaram-ity-adi (after which, according to him, we have to supply the words Mandakyopanisad-atmakam vákya-dvádasakam, or other similar words) from prakarara-catustayam (to which it plainly belongs), and wants us to understand that the discussion about bastra and prakarana is concerned with the four sections of Gaudapada's kärikds and has nothing to do with the Upanişad which begins with the words om ity etad akgaram.
But Sankara's words are quite unequivocal, and the word om-ity-etad-aksaram-ity-adi is plainly an epithet of prakarana-catustayam. If, as Anandagiri implies, Sankara had used it with reference to the 'Mandukyopanişad,' he would without doubt have said om-ity-stadaksaram-ity-adyd Mandalyopanipad, s, for instance, has been said by Narayanâsramin (see below); and hence Anandagiri's explanation is tantamount to saying that Sankara is á clumsy writer and does not know how to write properly.
The fact is, Anandagiri is one of those that believe (see below) that the Måndakya is an upanişad or Sruti : and since the above-cited words of Sankara indicate only too plainly that it is not a fruti, he tries, by means of the above explanation, to reconcile these words with his belief,
The explanation, however, is patently clumsy and can convince no one; it only shows up in greater relief the sharp difference between Sankara and Anandagiri, and also bears testinny that the above-cited words of Sankara indicate unmistakably in the opinion of Ananda in too that the work beginning with the words om ity stad aksaram....is not sruti.
(0) Chat neither the prose sentences nor the verses that comprise the Agama-prakarana were regarded by Sankara as śruti is made plain, further, by some other considerations also that are based on his works, that is, on his commentaries on the nine 'major 'Upanişads, the Bhagavad-gita and the Brahmasútras : for I follow the general consensus of opinton in believing that these are the only undoubtedly genuine works of Sankara.
(a) In the course of his commentary on the Brahma-sâtras, Sankara has had occasion to make hundreds of citations from śruti texts including the Rgveda-samhita, Taittiriyasamhita, V&jasaneya-samhita, Aitareya-brahmana, Satapatha-brahmana, etc., and the upanigads. He has made numerous citations especially from the upanişads, not only from the nine major 'ones (i.e., Isavasya, Kena, Katha, Prasna, Mundaka, Taittiriya, Aitareya, Chåndogya and Brhad-Aranyaka), but also from the Svetåsvatara and Kausitaki upanigads. Even the Jabalopaninad is citod by him more than once; but the Mandokya is not quoted even once, nor is the name Mandakya mentioned by him even once. See in this connection Deussen, Sechzig Upanishada dos Voda (1906), p. 574: "It is remarkable that Sankara has not made any use of the Mandakya Upanişad in his commentary on the Brahma-sútras "; see also the index of quotations given at the end of vol. 38, SBE (Trans. of Sankara's abovenamed commentary).