Probably, if somebody explicitly provides references to the sources of given

quotations, everybody can understand these. Nobody denied Śaṅkarācārya's

employment/interpretation of the term māyā as such (to the contrary).

Mayeda’s old investigations of various works ascribed to Śaṅkara being well-known,

yet given that authorship studies often initiate, rather than conclude, the given

issue, I’d rather be interested in learning about more recent studies addressing

the authorship of the Gauḍapādīyabhāṣya particularly with a focus on how

significant technical terms were understood by respectively Gauḍapāda and

the author of this Bhāṣya. That is, beyond Bouy’s unfortunately in some respects

somewhat problematic Gauḍapāda monograph that has received an excellent review

by J. Hanneder (Indo-Iranian Journal 46 [2003]: 161-165), who had to conclude:

“To follow Śaṅkara in sensitive interpretational details is philologically and

historically inadmissible and B’s treatment of Gauḍapāda’s work is in this respect

a step back to the outdated interpretation of Karmarkar”.

The mere differences of understanding technical terms and philosophical intentions

between Gauḍapāda and the Bhāṣyakāra would, however, not necessarily serve to

reject Śaṅkarācārya’s authorship of this Bhāṣya (but then rather throw some interesting

light on Śaṅkara’s hermeneutical relationship to his, traditionally speaking, Guru’s

Guru). Ironically somebody might even assert that twisting the meaning of passages

in texts Śaṅkara comments upon is actually part of his philosophical trademark and,

e.g., refer to V. S. Ghate’s study of the BSBh, often taken as the reference work for

evaluating the authorship of other works ascribed to Śaṅkara.

Ghate (The Vedānta. A Study of the Brahma-sūtras with the Bhāṣyas of Śaṁkara,

Rāmānuja, Nimbārka, Madhva and Vallabha, Poona, 3^rd ed. 1981: 162) stated:

“Thus we are quite justified in arriving at the conclusion that Śaṁkara’s doctrine

is out of count so far as the sūtras are concerned, whatever be its value as a

philosophical system”.

Apparently, Nagaraj Paturi had personal reasons for not at all addressing my questions

to him; no need to pursue this issue. If I remember correctly, even Hacker (relying on

colophons, while deviating from his own proper principles of investigation) accepted

the traditional view (particularly in Śṛṅgeri, cf. hereto Peter Stephan, Erlösung im

Spannungsfeld von aktivem Leben und Entsagung. Eine Studie zu Śaṅkaras Exegese

der Bhagavadgītā. Aachen 2002: 99) of ascribing the authorship of the Vivekacūḍāmaṇi

to Śaṅkara. Otherwise, among others (as referred to), Śrī Saccidānandendrasarasvatī

of Holenarsipur, who considered such an ascription as naïve (avicāraramaṇīyatā; cf.

his Vedanta-Prakriya Pratyabhijna, Holenarsipur 1964: 13), providing good reasons,

and argued for ascribing that work to Śrī Śaṅkarānanda.

Kind regards, Hartmut