[Advaita-l] Paul Hacker's erroneous view

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 5:17 PM, D Gayatri <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com> wrote:

> //But the fact of Padmapada's invocation to the Panchapadika disproves P's
> claim.//
>
> It does not. Padmapada's invocation is correctly explained here -
>
> http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_3.html?
>
> This also shows that neither was Shankara considered an incarnation of
> Shiva, nor did he smear himself with ashes.
>


The very comparison by Padmapada arises only because of the fact that he
believed that Shankara was Shiva avatara. Otherwise there is no reason to
make that comparison for the mere name being Shankara.

The above conclusion about bhasma is wrong: (Your smearing remark is quite
mischievous, though):

The blog says:

//Ans. The commentaries "Ruju Vivarana" (by Vishnu Bhatta) and "Tattva
Dipana" (by Akhandananda Muni) conform to this interpretation. Both are
13th century works. The former says "nirasta bhUtiM - bhasma-rahitam,
nirasta aishvaryaM vA" [Without ‘bhUti’ = devoid of wealth (or) devoid of
ashes], and the latter says "bhUtiH = bhasitam, tadanuliptagAtraH saH, ayaM
tvaishvaryalakShaNabhUtividhuraH" [He (the other well-known Shankara) has a
body smeared in ashes; This one though, is devoid of wealth.]//

The commentators are some five centuries later than Padmapada. While the
first one gives the meaning bhasma rahitam first, not satisfied with that,
gives the second meaning: without the aishwaryam that Shiva has. The second
commentator does not make any mention about bhasma at all with reference to
Shankara.

Do not try to deceive your reader. I have also seen the original of the
commentaries the blog cites. The blogger's affirmation that //The*
commentaries *"Ruju Vivarana" (by Vishnu Bhatta) and "Tattva Dipana" (by
Akhandananda Muni) conform to this interpretation. // is also aimed at
misleading the gullible reader, for only one commentator says about bhasma,
that too, alternatively only.

Neither of the commentators succeeded in proving that Shankara was not
donning the bhasma. In fact, Amalananda, whom the bloggers hailed as a
vaishnava and was favourable to them has explicitly stated that Shankara
was Shiva avatara. Since you have enthusiastically cited the bloggers for
something that did not help you finally, you are authenticating Amalananda,
who authenticated the Prapancha sara too, ironically, for the bloggers.

>
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday, 3 September 2016, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> On p.27 of the book 'Philology and Confrontation' P makes a bold
>> statement:
>>
>> //Shankara's direct disciples Sureshwara and Padmapada show no awareness
>> of
>> Shankara's Shiva incarnation.//
>>
>> But the fact of Padmapada's invocation to the Panchapadika disproves P's
>> claim.
>>
>> P's view that Shankara came from a Vaishnava background and the reasons he
>> gives for that also smacks of his poor understanding of the Bhashyas in a
>> global perspective. With such prejudiced and imperfect understanding of
>> the
>> Advaita Bhashya, P does not rise to be the figure that he is made out to
>> be. Any traditional scholar of Advaita bhashyas with a proper study
>> thereof
>> can easily prove P's ideas/conclusions wrong.
>>
>> The above are just samples.
>>
>> 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
>>
>