[Advaita-l] [advaitin] The Bhashyas of Adi Shankara

Venkatraghavan S agnimile at gmail.com
Wed Jan 11 02:14:40 CST 2017


OK, thank you. I have said all I want to say on the topic. I wish you good
luck in your search.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On 11 Jan 2017 7:24 a.m., "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <
sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dear Sri Venkataraghavan,
>
> It seems you do not read all mails. One member of the Advaita group wrote
> that according to the guru-parampara of the Kanchi kamakoti math,  Abhinava
> Shankara who was born in Chidambaram, was a pontiff of the Kanchi Kamakoti
> math.  It is thus clear that  Pathak thought the Sringeri to have been
> established by this Abhinava Shankara, because the Sringeri math also
> claims that it was established in 788 CE.
>
> It seems that you have not read Karmarkar's paper in full, otherwise you
> would have seen under what condition,according to Karkmarkar, the Bhagavad
> gita bhashya could have been composed by Adi Shankara. I have also
> mentioned in my book why Adi Shankara could not have written the bjashya on
> the Original Bhagavad Gita and that he had to write the bhashya on the
> vulgate version.
>
> Regards,
> SKB
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Tue, 1/10/17, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] The Bhashyas of Adi Shankara
>  To: "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
>  Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
> vedanta.org>, "yahoogroups" <advaitin at yahoogroups.com>, "Vidyasankar
> Sundaresan" <svidyasankar at gmail.com>, "V Subrahmanian" <
> v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
>  Date: Tuesday, January 10, 2017, 10:22 PM
>
>  Dear Sri
>  Sunil,
>  Thank you. Contrary to your
>  view that I am convinced that abhinava Sankara was not born
>  in 788 AD in Chidambaram  - I am not convinced by the
>  evidence presented in favour of his birth in 788AD (I have
>  no views on his birth in Chidambaram). That is, the quality
>  of evidence presented thus far cannot support that
>  conclusion. Evidence has to lead to conclusions and not the
>  other way round. If the evidence changes, the conclusion
>  changes.
>  The basic
>  problem of the date of Sankara is only of interest to me to
>  the extent that the authorship of the bhAShya is linked to
>  it. Even that is secondary to the study of the bhAShya, for
>  me.
>  So, once I have
>  completed the above in the order of priority which appears
>  correct to me, I would be happy to take up the problem and
>  use the methodology you have provided below. We all have
>  finite resources that we must allocate
>  appropriately.
>  Thanks
>  for the discussion and the spirit in which it was conducted.
>  It was enjoyable and informative.
>  Regards,Venkatraghavan
>
>  On 10 Jan 2017 8:35 p.m.,
>  "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
>  wrote:
>  Dear
>  frieds,
>
>
>
>  Shri Venkatraghavan has great zeal and he is is fully
>  convinced that Nava Shankara was not born in Chidambaram in
>  788 CE and it was Adi , who was born in 788 CE.
>
>
>
>  The following question arises and hope a critical person
>  like Shri Venkatraghavan will look at these and work towards
>  finding the date of Adi Shankara.
>
>  1)
>
>  Hope he will try to find the king Vikramaditya, whose reign
>  started from 765 CE, as according to the information from a
>  mathadhipati of the Sringeri math, Adi Shankara was born on
>  the 14th year of the reign of Vikramaditya.
>
>  2)
>
>  He will try to  find the king Amaru who died around 800
>  CE
>
>  3)
>
>  He will  try to find the  King Sudhanva around 800 CE, who
>  was a contemporary of Adi Shankara.
>
>  4)
>
>  He  will try to find the  evidence relating the king who
>  was ruling Kerala around 800 CE as Adi  Shankara was born
>  Kaladi in Kerala.
>
>  5)
>
>  Let us also hope that he will also find the astronomical
>  matching of the time of AdiShankara, taking the details from
>  the Shankaravijaya published by the Srngeri Matha or any
>  other Shankaravijaya, which he think is the most
>  relaible.
>
>  6)
>
>  He will try to find if and when the Nepal king  Vrishadeva
>  was ruling during Adi Shankara's visit to Nepal.
>
>  7)
>
>  He will also try to find  from the historical sources like
>  Rajatarangini, if and when Adi Shankara visited Kashmir.
>
>
>
>
>
>  I await the intelligent people who are really highly
>  concerned with the date of  Adi Shankara  to debunk the
>  several datings of Adi Shankara. If he was really born in
>  788 CE , it should hot be able to prove a date about 1200
>  years ago, using the seven historical tips I suggested
>  above. May be the other scholars would be able to suggest
>  more tips. If however, the 788 CE date cannot be proved one
>  should have an open mind to look for the BCE dates.  There
>  have been curious situations in the past, such as follows
>  :
>
>  A)
>
>  B Rice Lewis claims in an issue of the Mysore Gazette that
>  the Sringeri math had given him the succession of Sringeri
>  gurus, according to which the first guru Shankaracharya was
>  consecrated in that math in 745 CE and he passed away in 769
>  CE. If Adi Shankara lived for 32 years he must have been
>  born in 737 CE.
>
>  B)
>
>  Further at one time the  Sringeri math also published a
>  guruparampara list according to which Adi Shankara was born
>  in 44 BCE, and the guruparampara list was blank for 700
>  years.
>
>
>
>  My interest has not been to criticize other people's
>  views just to win any debate but to find the date of Adi
>  Shankara. Pathak's paper at best shows that there could
>  have been one Nava Shnakar, who was born in 788 CE.
>
>
>
>  Regards,
>
>  Sunil KB
>
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------ --------------
>
>  On Mon, 1/9/17,
>  Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
>  wrote:
>
>
>
>   Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] The Bhashyas of Adi
>  Shankara
>
>   To: "Vidyasankar Sundaresan" <svidyasankar at gmail.com>
>
>   Cc: "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
>  >, "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta"
>  <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
>  vedanta.org>, "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
>
>   Date: Monday, January 9, 2017, 10:30 PM
>
>
>
>   Pathak claims this
>
>   is Adi Shankara only. If Sri Sunil wants to claim the
>
>   manuscript refers to a navashankara then so be it -
>  however
>
>   that is his opinion, not Pathak's.
>
>   Even then, one should note that the
>
>   manuscript says that the very same Shankara (the one
>  that
>
>   Sri Sunil claims is Nava Shankara) is also the author of
>  the
>
>   shaAriraka bhAshya - which is the brahmasUtra bhAshya. So
>  if
>
>   Sri Sunil insists that this person is Nava Shankara
>  here,
>
>   who is different from Adi Shankara, then he must be
>  prepared
>
>   to admit, it is Nava Shankara that wrote the Brahma
>  sUtra
>
>   bhAshya also.
>
>   The
>
>   other reason why the mss. must refer to Adi Shankara
>  only,
>
>   is that the guru parampara given there is from Shiva
>
>   onwards, down to Gaudapada, GovindapAda and Shankara.
>  If
>
>   Nava Shankara was meant, why would it stop at
>  GovindapAda
>
>   sishya Shankara, it would go all the way to Nava
>  Shankara.
>
>   Failing which, it would at least give the immediate guru
>  of
>
>   Nava Shankara. But it apparently does not, for Pathak
>  does
>
>   not mention it.
>
>   The
>
>   other thing to be noted is that the manuscript refers
>  to
>
>   rAmanuja and madhva, which reveals that the author of
>  the
>
>   manuscript wrote it after their time, which leaves a gap
>  of
>
>   500 years from Shankara's time, not much better than
>  the
>
>   Shankara vijayams.
>
>   Regards,Venkatraghavan
>
>   On 10 Jan 2017 4:00 a.m.,
>
>   "Vidyasankar Sundaresan" <svidyasankar at gmail.com>
>
>   wrote:
>
>   Dear Sunilji,
>
>   Have you read the paper carefully?
>
>   How do you explain the word schApita, which occurs twice,
>  in
>
>   two verses that refer to Ramanuja and Madhva? It could
>  be
>
>   emended to sthApita, but that only means that we should
>  be
>
>   very careful in interpreting these things. There are
>
>   obviously editorial issues with either the manuscript
>  or
>
>   with Pathak's reading of it.
>
>   The mss that Pathak reports talks of
>
>   ONE Sankaracharya, who wrote commentaries, who
>  established
>
>   maThas, who was the disciple of govindapAda and grand
>
>   disciple of gauDapAda, and who was born in the year 788
>
>   (nidhi nAga ibha vahni abda of Kaliyuga). There is no
>
>   reference whatsoever to Chidambaram. There is no
>  reference
>
>   to a theory that there were five reincarnations of
>
>   Sankaracharya or even just to Nava Sankara In the
>  verses
>
>   quoted in the paper.
>
>   Further, Pathak refers to
>
>   Anandagiri, not to anantAnandagiri. Please read his
>  paper
>
>   again. Carefully. It is amusing that you accuse me of
>  taking
>
>   the two to be the same. When you look at the published
>
>   literature on the Sankaravijaya texts, my paper is
>  perhaps
>
>   the only one which vociferously argues against making
>  such
>
>   an equation.
>
>   Finally, Pathak is concerned with
>
>   the date of Adi Sankaracharya, nobody else, as is
>  evident
>
>   from his introductory paragraph. Those whom he quotes
>  as
>
>   assigning dates ranging from the 7th to 9th centuries
>  were
>
>   also concerned only with Adi Sankara. You cannot
>  project
>
>   your own opinions about Adi vs Nava Sankaracharya-s,
>
>   backwards in time, on to writers who lived more than a
>
>   century ago.
>
>   Vidyasankar
>
>
>
>   On Jan 9,
>
>   2017 8:11 PM, "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
>
>   > wrote:
>
>   Dear Vidyashankarji,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   ShankarAcharyanavAvatara
>  means  the new avatara of
>
>   Shankaracharya. It is according to shashthi tatpurusha
>
>   samasa. You can ask anybody who knows Sanskrit. This is
>  not
>
>   as you interpret. There is no alankara needed for
>  Shankara,
>
>   but only the
>  differentiation that this Nava Shankara was a
>
>   later Shankara regarded as an avatara of Adi Shankara, as
>  he
>
>   was as
>  versatile as Adi Shankara,  .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   Secondly, I was talkng of Anantanandagiri and not
>
>   Anandagiri. You took Anantanandagiri to be the same as
>
>   Anandagiri
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   No entreaties please.  Pathak was concerned with the
>  date
>
>   of this Nava shankara and he quoted what he thought
>  served
>
>   that purpose. He omitted most of the paper. That does
>  not
>
>   mean thaton onecan look up whether there was any Nava
>
>   Shankara or not, and if there was any, where he was
>  born
>
>   etc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   Regards,
>
>
>
>   Sunil KB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   ------------------------------ --------------
>
>
>
>   On
>
>   Mon, 1/9/17, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at gmail.com>
>
>   wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] The Bhashyas of
>  Adi
>
>   Shankara
>
>
>
>    To: "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
>
>   >
>
>
>
>    Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita
>
>   Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedan
>
>   ta.org>, "Venkatraghavan
>  S" <agnimile at gmail.com>,
>
>   "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
>
>
>
>    Date: Monday, January 9, 2017, 3:51 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    Dear
>
>
>
>    Sunilji,
>
>
>
>    Pathak's paper
>
>
>
>    says he has seen a manuscript from a private
>  collection.
>
>   He
>
>
>
>    quotes a verse that describes Sri Sankaracharya as a
>
>
>
>    nava-avatAra. Of whom? Obviously, Siva. For, the
>
>   adjacent
>
>
>
>    verse says, Adau Sivas, tato vishNuH etc. The sense
>  is
>
>   that
>
>
>
>    Siva was the first guru and that Sankaracharya is his
>
>   new
>
>
>
>    avatAra in the Kali age. There is NOTHING there about
>  Adi
>
>   vs
>
>
>
>    Nava Sankara, NOTHINGabout birth in Chidambaram,
>
>
>
>    NOTHING
>
>   about one person being the author of commentaries
>
>
>
>    and another being the founder of maThas, etc etc. As
>
>   for
>
>
>
>    Pathak's reference to Anandagiri, I have no idea
>
>   which
>
>
>
>    text me is really quoting from here.
>
>
>
>    Please, I entreat you, please learn
>
>
>
>    to read journal papers and original quotations as per
>
>   their
>
>
>
>    original contexts. Please resist the temptation to
>  force
>
>   fit
>
>
>
>    your own contexts and interpretations to the bare
>  facts.
>
>   I
>
>
>
>    don't know what else to tell you. We have been
>  over
>
>
>
>    these same details at least five or six or times in
>  the
>
>
>
>    past!
>
>
>
>    Vidyasankar
>
>
>
>    On Jan 9, 2017 1:55 PM,
>
>
>
>    "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
>
>   >
>
>
>
>    wrote:
>
>
>
>    Dear
>
>
>
>    Vidyasankarji,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    The paper of Pathak, which I read, clearly mentions
>
>
>
>    "Nava Shankara" and not Adi Shankara. Can
>  you
>
>
>
>    please send me the paper of Pathak, which  you claim
>
>   to
>
>
>
>    have read ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     person  as the "Anandagiri". If you
>  think
>
>   they
>
>
>
>    are the same person. Ccan you please let me know the
>
>   source
>
>
>
>    of your information?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    Sunil KB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    ----------------------------- - --------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    On Sun, 1/8/17, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
>
>
>
>    > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] The Bhashyas of
>
>   Adi
>
>
>
>    Shankara
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     To: "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
>
>
>
>    >, "Vidyasankar Sundaresan" <svidyasankar at gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita
>
>   Vedanta"
>
>
>
>    <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
>
>
>
>    vedanta.org>, advaitin at yahoogroups.com,
>
>
>
>    "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>,
>
>
>
>    "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     Date: Sunday, January 8, 2017, 11:14 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     Dear Vidyasanarji,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     Can you please attach the paper of Pathak?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     Sunil KB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     ---------------------------- --
>  --------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     On Sun, 1/8/17, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] The Bhashyas
>  of
>
>
>
>    Adi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     Shankara
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      To: "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
>
>
>
>    >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita
>
>   Vedanta"
>
>
>
>    <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
>
>
>
>    vedanta.org>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     advaitin at yahoogroups.com,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      Date: Sunday, January 8, 2017, 1:11 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      On Jan 6, 2017 11:03 PM, "Sunil Bhattacharjya
>
>   via
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      Advaita-l" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      > Dear Subbuji,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      > I think Sri  Nava Shankara was indeed a
>  great
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     scholar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      and if I remember correctly the manuscript, which
>
>
>
>    Pathak
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      found and on that basis he (Pathak) wrote a paper,
>
>
>
>    Nava
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      (Abhinava) Shankara was born  in 788 CE in
>
>
>
>    Chidambaram.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      This Nava Shankara is reported to have also
>  written
>
>
>
>    many
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      texts including bhashyas and had gone to Kashmoir
>  as
>
>
>
>    well
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     as
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      to Kailash.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      Dear Sunilji,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      I have read Pathak's paper in the Indian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      Antiquary. It says nothing about Nava Shankara or
>
>
>
>    about
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      Chidambaram. The paper attributes the date 788 CE
>  to
>
>
>
>    Adi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      Shankara and nobody else. You cannot cite Pathak
>  in
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     support
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      of this fanciful theory of an 8th century Nava
>
>
>
>    Shankara.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      There might have some confusion in the past as the
>
>   name
>
>
>
>    of
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      both Adi Shankara and the Nava Shankara was
>
>   Shankara.
>
>
>
>    It
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      appears that Anantaanandagiri  had written a
>
>   biography
>
>
>
>    of
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      Nava Shanaka.  Antarkar had done some work on the
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      shankaravijayas  as part of his PhD work but did
>
>   not
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      continue that work to sort out all confusions
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      Sorry, anantAnandagiri also says nothing about
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      Nava Shankara. His text claims to be an account
>  only
>
>
>
>    of
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     Adi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      Shankara. However, it is an extremely problematic
>
>
>
>    text.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      At the risk of sounding like I'm doing
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      self-promotion, please note that I have published
>  an
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      extensive paper in the year 2000, published in The
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      International Journal of Hindu Studies, examining
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      Antarkar's papers as well as many of the
>
>   original
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      Sankaravijaya texts. I have sent this by email to
>
>   you
>
>
>
>    as
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      well. I am only mentioning this here so that
>  others
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      following this thread are aware of it. I
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      too hope that further research is taken up on
>  these
>
>
>
>    texts,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      but I hope that whoever does it adopts sound
>
>   research
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      methodology and works towards clarifying matters
>
>
>
>    rather
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     than
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      confusing them even
>  further. Regards, Vidyasankar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      > May be there is scope for more research
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      and hope some university or some organization will
>
>
>
>    sponsor
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      PhD level research in this area.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      > Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      > Sunil KB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      > ------------------------------ --------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      > On Fri, 1/6/17, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l
>
>
>
>    <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] The
>
>   Bhashyas
>
>
>
>    of
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      Adi Shankara
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  To: "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta"
>
>
>
>    <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      vedanta.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  Date: Friday, January 6, 2017, 1:39 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  On
>  Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  1:56 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l
>  <
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  advaita-l at lists.advaita-
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      vedanta.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  > Namaste Sri
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  Vidyasankar,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  > The number of the works
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  that are called bhAshya in the mAdhavIya
>
>
>
>    Sankara
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  > vijaya (I sent the references earlier)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  when read in conjunction with the
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  DiNDima appear to be 16 in number. The next
>
>
>
>    verse
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     in
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      the
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  Sankara vijaya
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  > says that Adi Sankara
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  wrote innumerable granthAs such as upadeSa
>
>
>
>    sAhasri,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  > so these are apparently classified in
>  a
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  different category compared to
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  bhAShyas.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  There is also a text called
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  'hastāmalaka-bhāṣyam' which is
>
>
>
>    admitted
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      in
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  the
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  tradition to be a commentary penned by
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  Shankara on the verses given out by
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  the
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  disciple Hastamalaka. This text is also
>
>
>
>    published
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     by
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      the
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  Vani Vilas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  Press, Srirangam.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  regards
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  vs
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >
>   _____________________________
>
>
>
>    __________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      org/archives/advaita-l/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      culture.religion.advaita
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  To
>  unsubscribe or change your
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  options:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  http://lists.advaita-vedanta.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  For assistance, contact:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >  listmaster at advaita-vedanta.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      > ______________________________
>
>   _________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      org/archives/advaita-l/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      culture.religion.advaita
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      > To
>  unsubscribe or change your options:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      > For assistance, contact:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>      > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list