शङ्कर-कृतयः

प्रस्थानत्रयभाष्यकर्तृत्वं शङ्करकृतम् इति निर्विवादम्।

General considerations

• Lack of temporally proximate citations
• Notoriety of shAnkaras in attributing hundreds of unrelated works to shankara.

Hacker 1947 (1978): 181 provided evidence that all works ascribed to Śamkara Bhagavat are most likely works of the great Vedantin, whereas those attributed to Śamkara Acārya in their colophons are most likely spurious.

कृत्य्-अन्तरम्

श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषद्-भाष्यं शङ्करकृतम् इत्यत्र विश्वासो नास्ति।
एवं नृसिंहतापिन्युपनिषदि।

स्तोत्राणि

Btw, none of the immediate disciples have quoted any stotra of Bhagavadpada. Even the commentary claimed to be written by Suresvara on Dakshinamurthy stotram was first cited only in the 13th century or later and not before. So, there is no solid evidence for Sankara being the author of any of the stotras attributed to him (be it this or Bhaja Govindam or the laharis or bhujangams). There is only a Vishnu stava supposedly written by Sankara to make his mother reach Vaikuntha on her death - which seems to be referred before even 11th century in kerala, the state of his birth. Interestingly this stava is recited by mallu Hindus on the antima dina of pitrkarma post death.

• रविलोचनः

प्रपञ्चसारादि

प्रपञ्चसाराख्यो ग्रन्थः शङ्करविरचित इत्य् आग्रहो हास्यस्थानम्, प्रामाणिकैश् शाङ्करैर् अपि तिरस्कृतः।

The PS, in contrast, presents itself as a discourse delivered by Mahāviṣṇu to Brahmā. Verse 36.62 clearly identifies Mahāviṣṇu as the author of the Tantra.

Misattribution

येन

“यजन्ते पूजयन्ति सात्त्विकाः सत्त्वनिष्ठाः देवान्; यक्षरक्षांसि राजसाः; प्रेतान् भूतगणांश्च सप्तमातृकादींश्च अन्ये यजन्ते तामसाः जनाः॥”

इति गीताभाष्ये स्पष्टं लिखितम्, तेन प्रपञ्चसारो रचित इति मूढो मन्येत।

Arthur Avalon (TW) प्रभृतयो बहुशतमानोभ्योऽनन्तरं वर्तमानानां वचनान्य् अवलम्बतय् इति न तन्-न्याये विश्वासो जायते।
यदि स्वीकृतम्, अन्योक्तरीत्या शङ्करेण भाष्यादि बौद्धादिमोहनाय रचितम्, तस्यान्तरङ्गो ऽभिप्रायो ऽन्यत्र ज्ञेय इति फलति।

References

The PS was most likely written in the tenth century, and it precedes the ŚT, which seems to have been written at the end of the tenth century or during the first half of the eleventh century. The PS is referred to as the Prapanca(ka) or the Prapancasara in the Īsānasivagurudevapaddhati,3 a text assigned to the last …

Raghava Bhaṭṭa (circ 1500s) also quotes reverentially from PS. Hārīta Veṅkaṭanātha (aka kiḍāmbi tozhappar, circ 1400s), the śrīvaiṣṇava nibandhanakāra also quotes from it in his smṛti-ratnākara.

Lakshmidhara(the Soundharya Lahari commentator, lived during Prathaparudra period) and Narayanashrama allegedly make references to it.

नृसिंहपूर्वतपनीयोपनिषत्

नृसिंहपूर्वतपनीयोपनिषत्कारस् त्व् आत्मानं प्रपञ्चसारकर्तारं ख्यापयति।
प्रपञ्चसारश् च न शङ्करकृतः।

विष्णुसहस्रनामभाष्यम्

यो भगवद्गीताभाष्ये न क्वापि तादृशान् विष्णुपारम्यवादनिन्दनश्लोकान् प्रादर्शयत्, स विष्णुसहस्रनामभाष्योपक्रमे तथा चेष्टितुम् आरभत इति किञ्चिद् अविस्रम्भास्पदम्।

“कं जलं रश्मिभिः पिबन् कपिः” इति व्याख्यानं विद्यते।
तद् भट्टभास्करस्यारण्यकभाष्यम् अनुसरति, रामानुज-प्रथितं च।
शङ्करेण च्छान्दोग्योपनिषद्-भाष्ये तद् उपेक्ष्यान्यथैव व्याख्यातम्।

विस्तारः (द्रष्टुं नोद्यम्)

Let’s just be honest - Just list out what S loose or gain if he used kapi = कम् पिबति vs kapi=ape in case of kapyAsa?

The color? Appropriateness? Anything else?

If the answer is that he looses nothing, and gains something; one must wonder why he didn’t use the former option if he was aware of it.
So, it must either be that the sahasranAma commentator was someone else,
or he later became aware of this meaning at a later point in time. If the latter is the case, one must then wonder why he did not edit the kapyAsa meaning to be objectively superior.

This line of reasoning leads us to strongly suspect that the sahasranAma author was someone else.

Statistical attempts

Cosine similarity with trigrams in the Ivan Andrijanić and Jacek Bąkowski paper surprisingly shows high similarity to नृसिंहपूर्वतपनीयोपनिषत्, but does not include Prapañcasāra .