Skip to main content

The Reliability of Hacker’s Criteria for Determining Śaṅkara’s Authorship


This paper discusses the reliability of the criteria for determining Śaṅkara’s authorship established by Paul Hacker. His analysis of terminological peculiarities is based on only one of Śaṅkara’s works—the commentary on the Brahma-Sūtras. Therefore, doubt arises as to whether these criteria also apply to other works that we can claim to be authentic. First, it will be argued that the commentaries on the Bṛhadāraṇyaka- and Taittirīya-Upaniṣad are works that can be—with reasonable certainty—considered authentic. When applied to these two works, Hacker’s criteria work remarkably well, and the commentaries on the Taittirīya- and Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad share the same terminological and conceptual features with the Brahma-Sūtra-Bhāṣya. Moreover, in most cases, it is possible to distinguish the usage of some terms and concepts from Sureśvara and Padmapāda. On the other hand, Sureśvara and Padmapāda use some of these terms in a quite similar way as Śaṅkara, but differently than the later Advaitins, indicating that a sharp line between Śaṅkara on the one hand and Sureśvara and Padmapāda on the other cannot be drawn in many cases. Also, the writings of these authors—especially Padmapāda—represent a transitional phase in the development of certain Advaita Vedānta concepts although the outlines of some peculiarities by which the later Advaita Vedānta differs from Śaṅkara can already be found sketched by Śaṅkara himself.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. In 1948 Subbaraya (1880–1975), as he refers to himself in his autobiography, adopted the monastic name Svāmī Saccidānandendra under which he became famous.

  2. Translated by A.J. Alston under the title The Heart of Śaṅkara. London: Shanti Sadan, 1993.

  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.

  5. In addition to Hacker’s criteria, Andrijanić (2020) subjected ĪUBh and KaUBh to the state-of-art computer statistical-stylometric method, the General Imposters Framework. This method measures the statistical distance of the word frequencies of the disputed text (ĪUBh and KaUBh) in relation to the candidate texts (undisputed Śaṅkara’s texts such as BSBh) and impostors, works that are certainly not the work of the candidate author. Positive result is obtained if in some number of iterations disputed text is closer to candidate texts. The method proved to be very reliable in correctly identifying the authors of known texts.

  6. The usage of the term māyā together with the unusually high frequency of its appearance in ŚvUBh together with the late term sac-cid-ānanda speak against Śaṅkara’s authorship. Quotations from Bhṛgu-Saṃhitā dated much later than Śaṅkara provide further evidence against Śaṅkara’s authorship.

  7. According to Belvalkar’s (1930, p. 241) estimation made according to Aufrecht’s Catalogus Catalogorum and Reports and Descriptive Catalogues of the Government Library in Madras, 435 works are ascribed to Śaṅkara in manuscript colophons.

  8. BĀUBhV 6.5.25.

  9. For a study of the title bhagavat-(-pūjya-[-pāda-]) and its association with the author of BSBh, see Hacker 1978.

  10. Käthe Marschner (1933) systematically compared quotations from BĀUBh in BSBh with commentaries on the same passages in BĀUBh. Marschner noted remarkable similarities in meaning and expression, which is why she concludes that there is no doubt about the traditional attribution of BĀUBh to Śaṅkara.

  11. There is external evidence that Upadeśasāhasrī was also authored by Śaṅkara, because Bhāskara refutes Śaṅkara by referring to Upad in his Gītābhāṣya (Raghavan 1967; Mayeda [I]: pp. 50–51), while many verses from Upad are cited by Sureśvara in NaiṣS (Mayeda [I]: pp. 44–49). Mayeda also subjects Upad to Hacker’s criteria and concludes that Upad shares terminological and conceptual peculiarities with BSBh (cf. Mayeda 2006 [I], p. 22–44).

  12. BĀUBh: introduction (adhyāropa, adhyāropita); 1.1.1. (adhyāropaṇa); 1.4.7 (adhyāropaṇa, adhyāropita); 1.4.10 (adhyāropaṇa, adhyāropita); 1.4.17 (adhyāropa); 2.1.15 (adhyāropita); 2.1.17–18 (adhyāropita); 2.3.1 (adhyāropyamāṇa); 2.3.6 (adhyāropita); 2.4.5 (adhyāropita); 3.5.1 (adhyāropita); 3.9.28 (adhyāropita); 4.3.1 (adhyāropaṇa); 4.3.7 (adhyāropya); 4.3.19 (adhyāropita); 4.3.34 (adhyāropaṇa); 4.4.1 (adhyāropyate); 4.4.19 (adhyāropaṇa, adhyāropayati) and 4.4.25 (adhyāropaṇa, adhyāropita).

  13. TaittUBh 2.8.5 (adhyāropita); 2.9.1 (adhyāropya). Padmapāda uses only adhyāsa, while Sureśvara uses interchangeably adhyāsa (e.g. NaiṣS 1.115–1.116; TaittUBhV 2.252; 2.286; BĀUBhV 2.1.382; 4.3.484; 4.4.1343–1344) and adhyāropa(ṇa) and related verbal forms interchangeably (e.g. NaiṣS 1.60; 1.100; BĀUBhV 1.4.1217), although adhyāsa appears much more often.

  14. BĀUBh 4.3.34, p. 904, line 6: arthād avidyāyāḥ satattvaṃ nirdhāritam ataddharmādhyāropaṇarūpatvam anātmadharmatvaṃ ca | “As a matter of fact, the nature of ignorance has been determined as having the form of superimposition of qualities other than that, and as having a quality of the non-self.”.

  15. PañcP, p. 4, line 20: mithyā ca tadajñānaṃ ca mithyājñānam | mithyeti anirvacanīyatā ucyate ajñānam iti ca jaḍātmikā avidyāśaktiḥ jñānaparyudāsenocyate | “That which is both mithyā and ajñāna is mithyājñāna. The word mithyā means ‘inexpressible’, and the word ajñāna means ‘power of ignorance’ that consists of insentience and is a negation of knowledge.”.

  16. See also BĀUBhV 1.4.479.

  17. E.g. in BĀUBhV 1.3.93 avidyā appears once with rāga and dveṣa as a citation from Śaṅkara’s BĀUBh 1.3.1.

  18. BĀUBh 1.1.1; 1.3.2; 1.4.7; 1.5.2; 1.5.23; 1.6.3; 2.1.1; 2.1.14; 2.1.20; 2.4.1; 2.4.10; 3.5.1; 4.3.32; 4.5.15.

  19. Padmapāda (PañcP, p. 31, line 2ff) mentions avidyāvadviṣaya once when he cites Śaṅkara.

  20. Even in BSBh vijṛmbhita appears only twice (with mithyājñāna), and avidyādhyasta appears only once, in BSBh 3.2.21.

  21. Cf. BSBh 2.3.31 and 2.1.14.

  22. Sundaresan (2002, pp. 9–10) argues that Śaṅkara already leans toward material causation of avidyā; therefore, it is expected that his successors will also strive for a greater materialization of ignorance.

  23. PañcP p. 4 line 20: ajñānam iti ca jaḍātmikā avidyāśaktiḥ jñānaparyudāsenocyate | tannimittaḥ tadupādāna ity arthaḥ || “And the word ajñāna means ‘power of ignorance’ that consists of insentience and is a negation of knowledge. Tannimitta means ‘having that (ajñāna) as the material cause’.”.

  24. In Sarvajñātman’s Saṃkṣepaśarīraka 1.20 two powers of ignorance are mentioned: āvaraṇa-śakti “concealing power” and vibhrama-śakti “dispersing power”. Cf. Saṃkṣepaśarīraka 2.165–170 where ignorance (ajñāna) is characterized as jaḍa “insentient”. The terms āvaraṇa-ś. and vikṣepa-ś. appear in Vedāntasāra 10 (p. 13).

  25. The term āvaraṇa does not appear in NaiṣS and in TaittUBhV. In BĀUBhV it does not appear in passages where Sureśvara comments on BĀUBh 1.3.28 and 2.1.12 (BĀUBhV 1.3.345–377 and 2.1.79).

  26. Thrasher (1993, pp. 70–71) points out that the doctrine of two śaktis appear in Maṇḍana Miśra’s Brahmasiddhi. However, terms śakti and āvaraṇa do not appear in Brahmasiddhi (as Thrasher 1993, p. 71 already noticed). instead of āvaraṇa, Maṇḍana Miśra uses agrahaṇa.

  27. BĀUBh intro.; 1.2.4; 1.3.10; 3.1.3; 3.1.4; 3.2.1; 3.5.1; 4.3.20; 5.1.1.

  28. PañcP, p. 15, line 1; p. 16, line 13; p. 20, line 15; p. 75, line 3, where avidyā is called anirvacanīya “inexpressible”.

  29. It has become commonplace to translate āśraya as “locus”; Hacker translates it as “Träger” and Halbfass as “bearer”.

  30. Cf. Vācaspati’s Bhamatī ad BSBh 1,1.4 (p. 80) nāvidyā brahmāśrayā, kiṃ tu jīve … “ignorance is not located in Brahman, but in the individual soul…”. Maṇḍana Miśra’s Brahmasiddhi, p. 10–11 (Thrasher 1993: 4–6; 62).

  31. In BĀUBhV 1.4.1218, avidyā is explicitly placed into the “highest pervader” (pare bhūmni), who can be understood as the highest brahman.

  32. Cf. Vimuktātman’s detailed discussion in the sixth chapter of the Iṣṭasiddhi; chapter 49 of Jñānaghana’s Tattvaśuddhi. In Prakāśātman’s Vivaraṇa on Pañcapādikā and Sarvajñātman’s Saṃkṣepaśārīraka (e.g. 1.20–22; 2.139ff; 2.172–174 etc.), there are numerous direct statements about brahman or the highest Self as bearers of ignorance.

  33. The word constitutes around 1.054% of the BSBh word inventory. The word count of Śaṅkara’s works is calculated using texts segmented by Jacek Bąkowski, whom I would like to thank. He used the method of segmentation developed by Hellwig & Nehrdich (2018).

  34. In BĀUBh 1.4.7, avyākṛta appears with nāmarūpa twice, but both times as a citation from BĀU.

  35. BĀUBh 1.4.7 p. 655, line 4: idam iti vyākṛtanāmarūpātmakaṃ sādhyasādhanalakṣaṇaṃ yathāvarṇitam abhidhīyate | “‘idam’ refers to (the universe) consisting of evolved name and form, characterized by object and means of accomplishment, as described.”.

  36. BĀUBh 3.3.1, p. 798, line 16: vyākṛtanāmarūpāspadatvāt karmaṇas tatphalasya ca | “…because work and its fruit are confined to the evolved name and form.”.

  37. TaittUBh 2.7.1, p. 302, line 14: asad iti vyākṛtanāmarūpaviśeṣaviparītarūpam avikṛtaṃ brahmocyate | “‘asat’ is said to be unevolved brahman whose form is opposite to distinctions of evolved name and form.”.

  38. BĀUBh twice in the intro, 1,5.7; 1,6.1; 2,1.41; 2,1.20; 2,3.6; 2,4.1; 2,4.10; 3,9.9; 3,9.24–25; 4,1.7; 5,3.1.

  39. PraśUBh 6.3, p. 136, line 10f: avidyākṛtanāmarūpopādhikṛto hi viśeṣo’bhyupagamyate … “It is admitted that the distinction is made by the limiting adjuncts of name and form which in turn were made by ignorance …”. See also line p. 137, line 27.

  40. BĀU 2.5.19 …rūpaṃ rūpaṃ pratirūpo babhūva tad asya rūpaṃ praticakṣaṇāya… (Tr. Olivelle 1998, p. 74).

  41. Māyā as an object of comparison expressed with the word upamā actually appears in Gauḍapādīya-Kārikā 4.58, where the birth of dharmas is compared to illusion (māyā). The expression māyopama also appears in Gauḍapādīya-Kārikā-Bhāṣya 4.58. Mayeda (1967–1968) confirms Śaṅkara’s authorship of GKBh.

  42. Indrajāla in BhGBh 15.4 (p. 495, line 8); 18.12 (p. 562, line 8); marīcy-udaka in 15.3 (p. 494, line 8).

  43. Svapna “dream” appears alongside māyā in BĀUBh 2.4.12; 3.5.1 and 4.9.3 and in BhGBh 15.3; marīcī- “mirage” appears in BĀUBh 1.5.2; 3.5.1 and in BhGBh 15.3. Gandharva-nagara “city of celestials” appears in BhGBh 15.3.

  44. A notable exception might be GKBh, which uses the term more often and in a much more elaborate sense. However, this phenomenon should be attributed to the relatively prominent role of māyā in GK.

  45. Cf. TaittUBh 2.5.1, p. 294: ānanda iti paraṃ brahma; TaittUBh 3.6.1.

  46. The same as in his second interpretation of ānandamaya that appears at the end of his commentary on BS 1.1.19 (see Andrijanić 2016, p. 317–319 and 2017, p. 119–126).

  47. TaittU 2.5.1 ānanda ātmā | brahma pucchaṃ pratiṣṭhā | TaittU 3.6.1 ānando brahmeti vyajānāt |

  48. TaittUBhV 2.338 brahmatānandarūpasya kena vā pratiṣidhyate | nirastāśeṣabhedasya rūpaṃ tatparamātmanaḥ || “What can prevent (that) which is of the nature of bliss from being Brahman? This is the nature of the highest Self, free from all differences.” (Tr. van Boetzelaer 1971: 112) TaittUBhV 2.347 ānandaḥ para evātmā bhedasaṃsargavarjitaḥ | “The ‘Self,’ free from separation and contact, is the highest bliss.” (Tr. van Boetzelaer 1971: 114).

  49. PañcP p. 81, line 20: sarvajñaṃ sarvaśaktisamanvitaṃ paramānandaṃ brahmeti

  50. TaittUBhV 2.401: apraviṣṭasvabhāvasya praveśas tena kalpyate | kṣetrajñeśvarahānena hy aikātmyaṃ syāt kathaṃ tv iti || “Therefore the entering of something which has the nature of something non-entered is due to mental construction. For oneness of the Self is (possible) by getting rid of (the notion of differnece between) God and the Soul (according to the text) ‘But how’.” (Tr. van Boetzelaer 1971: 123) cf. also 2.530: kṣetrajñeśvarabhedena hy abhinnaṃ vastvavidyayā | tasmāt taddhānataś caikyaṃ ghaṭetarakhayor iva || “The udivided reality (is split) by ignorance, (i.e.) by the difference between souls and God. Therefore: oneness (is established) by the destruction of that (ignorance), like (the oneness of) a pot and the space.” The same concept with the same opposition kṣetrajña-īśvara appears regularly in Sureśvara's BĀUBhV. See BĀUBhV 2.1.238; 2.4.444; 3.4.10; 5.1.20–21. However, in BĀUBhV 2.1.456, the illusory opposition is between īśa and saṃsārin. Śaṅkara uses the word saṃsārin very often in BSBh. Sureśvara uses īśa instead of īśvara very often, most probably for metrical reasons.

  51. BĀUBh 2.5.19, p. 980, lines 15f: sa eva hi parameśvaro nāmarūpe vyākurvāṇorūpaṃ rūpaṃ pratirūpo babhūva” (BĀU 2.5.19) | “The same highest Lord, while expounding name and form, ‘assumed the likeness of every form’.”.

  52. BAUBh 3.8.12, p. 832, line 18: nityaniratiśayajñānaśaktyupādhir ātmāntaryāmīśvara ucyate | “With the limiting adjunct of power of eternal unsurpassed knowledge, the Self is called Inner ruler or īśvara.”.

  53. E.g. BĀUBhV 1.4.376: sarvajñaḥ sarvaśaktiś ca sarvātmā sarvago dhruvaḥ | jagajjanisthitidhvaṃsahetur eṣa sadīśvaraḥ || “This Lord is ever omniscient, omnipotent, self of all, present in all, immovable, and the cause of origin, sustenance and destruction of the world.” (Tr. Jog & Hino, 1993, p. 125) This same verse appears as BĀUBhV 3.7.44.

  54. There is, however, a significant conceptual difference between BSBh and BĀUBh regarding antaryāmin. In BSBh 1.2.18 antaryāmin is the Supreme Self in its primary sense (mukhye paramātmana upapadyete), while in BĀUBh 3.8.12, antaryāmin, who is called īśvara is limited with adjuncts of the power of unsurpassed and eternal knowledge (nityaniratiśayajñānaśaktyupādhi). In this sense antaryāmin is in BSBh highest brahman, in BĀUBh lower brahman (cf. Andrijanić 2016, p. 313–316).

  55. BĀUBh 3.7.3, p. 822, lines 6f: ya īdṛgīśvaro nārāyaṇākhyaḥ pṛthivīṃ pṛthivīdevatāṃ yamayati niyamayati svavyāpārentarobhyantaras tiṣṭhann eṣa ta ātmā | te tava mama ca sarvabhūtānāṃ cety upalakṣaṇārtham etad antaryāmī … | “Such an īśvara, called Nārāyaṇa, who controls the earth—the deity of the earth, he restricts it to its own performance while standing inwards, your Self, mine, as well as of all beings—this is the inner Ruler about whom you have asked.”.

  56. BĀUBh 1.3.1, p. 625, lines 24f: tasmād yathābhūtān evātmeśvaradevatādīn grāhayaty upāsanārthaṃ śāstram | “Therefore, the scripture presents, for the purpose of devout meditation, the Self, īśvara, deities and so on, as real.”.

  57. E.g. PañcP, p. 50, lines 13f.

  58. In BĀUBhV 1.4.780, ātman is an object of meditation (dhyāna). In TaittUBhV 1.92, the object of meditation (upāsana) is ātman in the form of vyāhṛtis (bhūr “earth”, bhuvas “intermediate region” and svar “heaven”). Conditioned brahman is for Sureśvara the object of meditation, but he does not use the term īśvara.

  59. BĀUBhV 1.5.255: iti śrutyaiva nirdiṣṭaṃ nopāsyaṃ brahma tena naḥ | “It is declared by śruti itself …. the Brahman cannot be for us an object of meditation” (Tr. Hino & Jog, 1995, p. 92).

  60. BĀUBh 1.5.20, p. 709, lines 20f: tatheśvarasyāpy aparicchinnātmano mamatavatādiduḥkhanimittamithyājñānādidoṣābhāvāt naiva duḥkham upajāyate | “Similarly, īśvara, whose Self is without division, is not affected by suffering because there are no defects of false knowledge and others like notions of ‘mine’ and ‘yours’ that are the cause of suffering.”.

  61. TaittUBh 2.7.1, p. 304, lines 6f: tadbrahma … bhedadṛṣṭam īśvarākhyaṃ … “That very brahman … seen as differentiated is called īśvara.”.

  62. TaittUBh 2.8.5, p. 309, line 26 yeṣāṃ punar īśvaro’nya ātmanaḥ kāryaṃ cānyat teṣāṃ bhayānivṛttiḥ …

    “Still for those for whom īśvara is distinct from the ātman, and creation is distinct from both, for them there is no elimination of fear…”.

  63. BĀUBhV 1.1.157: sūkṣmasthūlaśarīrābhyāṃ cidābhābhyām avidyayā | saṃvṛtaḥ parameśo’pi trailokyātmāgnir ucyate || 157 || “The highest Lord, the self of the three worlds though he is, is called Agni, since he is wrapped by ignorance and by the two-fold bodies, viz. the subtle and the gross, which have the appearance of Sentience.” (Tr. Hino & Jog, 1990, p. 70). Cf. also BĀUBhV 1.2.8–9, where īśvara is called mṛtyu “death”; in BĀUBh 1.4.491, maheśvara is ignorant of his own nature (svātmatattva) and becomes the cause of the creation of name and form; in 4.3.403, īśvara is gradually associated with avidyā. In NaiṣS 2.111, highest brahman should be known as “I am him” (tam asmi), not as īśvara; in NaiṣS 4.44, īśvara has only one limiting adjunct (upādhi)—that of ignorance—which makes him the witness of “I” and others (ahamādidṛś).

  64. BĀUBhV 3.7.44: sarvajñaḥ sarvaśaktiś ca sarvātmā sarvago dhruvaḥ | jagajjanisthitidhvaṃsahetur eṣa sarveśvaraḥ || 44 || “This is the Lord who is ever omniscient, omnipotent, true self of all, omnipresent, immovable, the cause of the origin, sustenance and merger of the universe.” (Hino & Jog, 1999, p. 283) This same verse appears as BĀUBhV 1.4.376.





Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad-Bhāṣya, Ten Principal Upaniṣads with Śaṅkarabhāṣya, Works of Śaṅkarācārya in original Sanskrt, vol. 1, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2007 (first edition 1964).


Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad-Bhāṣya-Vārtika (Sureśvara


Brahmasūtra-Śāṅkarabhāṣyam with the commentaries: Bhāṣyaratnaprabhā of Govindānanda, Bhamatī of Vācaspati Miśra, Nyāyanirṇaya of Ānandagiri. Ed. by J.L. Shastri. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1980.

BhGBh :

Bhagavad-Gītā-Bhāṣya, Śrīmad Bhagavad Gītā Bhāṣya of Śrī Śaṅkarācārya with Text and English Translation. Ed. & Tr. by Krishna Warrier, A.D. Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math, 2007.

Brahmasiddhi :

Brahmasiddhi by Ācārya Maṇḍanamiśra with commentary by Śaṅkhapāni. Ed. by Kuppuswami Sastri. Madras: Government oriental manuscript Series No. 4, 1937.

BSBh :

Brahma-Sūtra-Bhāṣya, Brahmasūtra with Śaṅkarabhāṣya, Works of Śaṅkarācārya in original Sanskrt, vol. III., Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2007 (first edition 1965).

GK :


GKBh :


ĪUBh :




NaiṣS :


PañcP :

Pañcapādikā, The Pañcapādikā of Padmapāda, Vol. II. Part I. Sanskrit Text. Ed. Rāmaśāstrī Bhāgavatāchārya. The Vizianagram Sanskrit Series No.3. Benares: E.J. Lazarus & Co. 1891.

TaittUBh :

Taittirīya-Upaniṣad-Bhāṣya, Ten Principal Upaniṣads with Śaṅkarabhāṣya, Works of Śaṅkarācārya in original Sanskrt, vol. 1, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2007 (first edition 1964).

TaittUBhV :

Taittirīya-Upaniṣad-Bhāṣya-Vārtika (Sureśvara)

Upad :


Vedāntasāra :

Vedāntasāra of Sadānanda, together with the commentaries of Nṛsiṃhasarasvatī and Rāmatīrtha. Ed. by Colonel G.A. Jacob. Bombay: Pāndurag Jāwajī, 1934 (first edition Nirṇaya Sāgar Press, 1893).

PraśUBh :



  • Andrijanić, I. (2016). Towards a relative chronology of Śaṅkara’s works. Asiatische Studien, 70(2), 311–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrijanić, I. (2019). Śaṅkara and the authorship of Śvetāśvataropaniṣad-Bhāṣya. The Journal of Hindu Studies, 12(3), 273–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrijanić, I. (2020). Śaṅkara and the authorship of the Īśopaniṣad- and Kaṭhopaniṣad-Bhāṣya. International Journal of Hindu Studies, 24, 257–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belvalkar, S. K. (1930). An authentic but unpublished work of Śaṅkarācārya. Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 6, 241–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, Paul (1950). Eigentümlichkeiten der Lehre und Terminologie Śaṅkaras: Avidyā, Nāmarūpa, Māyā, Īśvara. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 100, 246–286. Reprinted in Kleine Schriften, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 69–109 (1978).

  • Hacker, Paul. (1978). Śaṅkarācārya and Śaṅkarabhagavatpāda Preliminary remarks concerning the authorship problem (Korrigierte Neufassung) Kleine Schriften Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag 41–59. Originally published in New Indian Antiquary, 9(1947), 175–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harimoto, Kengo (2014). God, reason, and yoga: A critical edition and translation of the commentary ascribed to Śaṅkara on Pātañjalayogaśāstra 1.23–28. Hamburg: Department of Indian and Tibetan Studies.

  • Hellwig, O., & Nehrdich, S. (2018). Sanskrit word segmentation using character-level recurrent and convolutional neural networks. Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: 2754–2763. Brussels: Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Hino, S., & Jog, K. P. (1990). Sureśvara’s Vārtika on Aśva and Aśvamedha Brāhmaṇa. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

  • Hino, S., & Jog, K. P. (1995). Sureśvara’s Vārtika on Saptānna Brāhmaṇa. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

  • Hino, S., & Jog, K. P. (1999). Sureśvara’s Vārtika on Yājñavalkya’s Dialogue with Ārtabhāga and Others. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

  • Jog, K. P., & Hino, S. (1993). Sureśvara’s Vārtika on Puruṣavidha Brāhmaṇa. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

  • Marschner, K. (1933). Zur Verfasserfrage des dem Śaṅkarācārya zugeschriebenen Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad-Bhāṣya. Alfred Lindner Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayeda, S. (1965a). The authenticity of the Bhagavadgītābhāṣya ascribed to Śaṅkara. Wiener Zeitschrift Für Die Kunde Südasiens Und Archiv Für Indische Philosophie, 9, 155–197.

  • Mayeda, S. (1965b). The authenticity of the Upadeśasāhasrī Ascribed to Śaṅkara. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 85(2), 178–196.

  • Mayeda, S. (1967). On Śaṅkara’s authorship of the Kenopaniṣadbhāṣya. Indo-Iranian Journal, 10(1), 33–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayeda, Sengaku (1967–1968). On the author of the Māṇḍūkyopaniṣad and the Gauḍapādīyabhāṣya. Adyar Library Bulletin, 31–32, 73–94.

  • Mayeda, Sengaku (2006). Śaṅkara’s Upadeśasāhasrī, Vols. I and II. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. First edition Tokyu: Hokuseido Press, 1973.

  • Pande, G.C. (1994). Life and thought of Śaṅkarācārya. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

  • Rukmani, T.S. (2001). Yogasūtrabhāṣyavivaraṇa of Śaṅkara, Vivaraṇa text with English Translation, and critical notes along with text and English translation by Patañjali’s Yogasūtras and Vyāsabhāṣya, vols. 1 and 2. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.

  • Sundaresan, V. (2002). What determines Śaṅkara’s authorship? The case of the Pañcīkaraṇa. Philosophy East and West, 52(1), 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raghavan, V. (1967). The Upadeśasāhasrī of Śaṅkarācārya and the mutual chronology of Śaṅkarācārya and Bhāskara. Wiener Zeitschrift Für Die Kunde Süd- Und Ostasiens, 11, 137–139.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivan Andrijanić.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Andrijanić, I. The Reliability of Hacker’s Criteria for Determining Śaṅkara’s Authorship. DHARM 5, 83–105 (2022).

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Authorship
  • Advaita Vedānta
  • Śaṅkara
  • Authenticity
  • Sureśvara
  • Padmapāda