World of Philosophy

Author(s): Christopher Key Chapple, Intaj Malek, Dilip Charan, Sunanda Shastri, Prashant Dave
Publisher: Shanti Prakashan

Page 544

champion of Hindu unity contrary to belief entertained by many a scholar. He draws our attention to the fact that Shankara'energetically attacked the non-Advaitic religions and philosophical systems of Hinduism prevalent in his day; there is no trace of the consciousness of the unity of Hinduism to be noticed there. He then gets us to the authenticity of authorship of works attributed to Shankara. In deciding this issue, Hacker goes into the minutest of the detail philologically and comes up with his own decision as to the authentic works of Shankaracharya. He says: "authorship problem cannot of course be solved by the superficial method of examining colophons; the contents of the work require attention also.” Further he claims that, "on the other hand it will not be difficult to prove the spuriousness of many of the works that pass as Shankaracharya's production or are alternately attributed to the Bhagavat and to the Acharya if the phraseology and doctrines of the Brahmasutrabhashya are taken as a standard of comparison."4 (4) Hacker considers the cases of the Sanatsujatiya Bhashya and the Sarvadarshanasiddhantasangraha in support of the latter point and discards the two as unauthentic works of Shankara. In the fourth essay of the first part, Hacker draws our attention to distinctive features of the doctrine and terminology of Shankara, especially Avidya, Namarupa, Maya and Ishvara. The reason for choosing these four concept- areas is that it is especially with regard to these ideas that the peculiarities of Shankara's thoughts and expressions are evidently recognized by the scholars in the field. Such a study would be a pre-requisite for solution to the problem of authenticity of authorship of the works. Whether one is able to decide the issue conclusively, I cannot say. But I must admire the industry so arduously undertaken and the insights Hacker evinces in studying these specific areas. The whole discussion is illuminating and thought provoking. Consider, for example, what he concludes about 'Avidya'. Shankara does not materialize about 'Avidya'. The adjective 'jada' which is constantly added to 'Avidya' from Padmapada onward is missing in Shankara. Even the epithet 'bhavarupa' is missing. Avidya for Shankara is not something 'insentient and having the form of being. Even the theory, already current among Shankara's contemporaries that Avidya possesses power of dispension (Vikshepashakti) and the power of concealment (avaranashakti) is foreign to Shankarabhashya. Consider again his reflections on ‘Namarupa'. He considers 'Namarupa' as prying matter (avyakrite namarupe), Namarupa' as the phenomenal world (vyakrite namarupe) to be peculiar to Shankara. In respect of 'Anirvacaniyata' also Hacker has to say many new things. Regarding 'Mayavada' which is supposed to be central to Shankara's philosophy, Hacker's findings are unusually distinct and he is not prepared to attribute such a 'Vada' to Shankara. Other Advaitins may talk of 'Mayavada' but not certainly Shankara. He examines the relationship and identification of these terms in depth and concludes that for Shankara, 'Avidya' and 'Maya' are one and the same thin g, coinciding with 'Namarupa' only when they are explicitly referred as the
495