[Advaita-l] [advaitin] The Bhashyas of Adi Shankara
Venkatraghavan S
agnimile at gmail.com
Tue Jan 10 00:30:10 CST 2017
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-vedanta.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