Page:Sacred Books of the East - Volume 15.djvu/16

 It is more difficult to determine which of the Upanishads were chosen by Saṅkara or deserving the honour of a special commentary. We possess his commentaries on the eleven Upanishads mentioned before, with the exception of the Kaushîtaki -upanishad. We likewise possess his commentary on the Mândûkya-upanishad, but we do not know for certain whether he left commentaries on any of the other Upanishads. Some more or less authoritative statements have been made that he wrote commentaries on some of the minor Upanishads, such as the Atharvasiras, Atharva-sikhâ, and the Nrisimhatâpanî. But as, besides Saṅkarâkârya, the disciple of Govinda, there is Saṅkarânanda, the disciple of Ânandâtman, another writer of commentaries on the Upanishads, it is possible that the two names may have been confounded by less careful copyists.

With regard to the Nrisimhatâpanî all uncertainty might seem to be removed, after Professor Râmamaya Tarkaratna has actually published its text with the commentary of Saṅkarâkârya in the Bibliotheca Indica, Calcutta, 1871. But some uncertainty still remains. While at the end of each Khanda of the Nrisimha-pûrvatâpanî we read that the Bhâshya was the work of the Paramahamsa-parivrâ-gakâkârya Srî-Saṅkara, the pupil of Govinda, we have no such information for the Nrisimha--uttaratâpanî, but are told on the contrary that the words Srî-Govindabhagavat &c. have been added at the end by the editor, because he thought fit to do so. This is, to say the least, very suspicious, and we must wait for further confirmation. There is another commentary on this Upanishad by Nârâyanabhatta, the son of Bhatta Ratnâkara, who is well known as the author of Dîpikâs on several Upanishads.