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

[Venkatraghavan S]

In the interests of an objective review of facts, it must be noted that
Pathak quotes the guru parampara in slokas 1 to 4 and slokas 9 to 10 (which
refer to Ramanuja and Madhva respectively). Pathak also refers to Shankara
being called as kUShmANDa jAta in the mss., but that reference doesn't
appear in the slokas quoted in the paper. Incidentally, while Pathak says
that the reasons why AchArya is called so are well known, frankly I do not
know what they are.

In any case, it is reasonable to suppose that slokas 5 to 8, which are not
quoted, are likely to be guru parampara slokas. We need to examine these to
see if there is anything in there which supports an interpretation of
navAvatAra as referring to another individual.

Whether Adi Shankara or another, nava Shankara, is the subject of the mss.,
the point that the mss. considers that individual as the author of the
brahma sUtra bhAshya remains in either case.

Does someone have a copy of / Has someone seen the manuscript in question?

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan <
rama.balasubramanian at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Exactly! If this is supposedly abhinava shankara, according to pathak, he
>
> a. wrote the brahma-sutra-bhashya
> b. was the person in the line shiva-vishnu-brahmA-
> vashiShTha-shakti-parAshara-vyAsa-shuka-gauDapAda-govinda-guru
> (traditional line as per regular lists)
>
> where is this supposed adi-shankara, different from this supposed
> nava-shankara in the line? Before shiva? And what was his role - wrote no
> bhAshyas? In any case, Venkatraghavan is completely correct, Pathak is not
> talking about any nava-shankara, he is talking about shankara and agrees
> with the 7 - 9th century dates.
>
> Rama
>
>
>