[Advaita-l] [advaitin] The Bhashyas of Adi Shankara
Sunil Bhattacharjya
sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
Tue Jan 10 14:57:30 CST 2017
Dear Venkatraghavanji,
You took objection to my examining the authorship of Abhinava Shanaka, when my examination of the Authorship of Sri Vidyashankara was not found suitable. A researcher does not given up if one possibility falis, he tries the other possibilities. The researchers have the habit of lateral thinking in search of truths.
Anyway, you seem to argue well and congrats. May be you should take up in earnest. solving the muddle concerning the date Adi Shankara.
Regards,
Sunil KB
--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 1/10/17, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] The Bhashyas of Adi Shankara
To: "Vidyasankar Sundaresan" <svidyasankar at gmail.com>
Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Date: Tuesday, January 10, 2017, 6:44 AM
Namaste Sri
Vidyasankar,
I agree, we
need not get caught up with the number 16. It was merely
an
interesting coincidence - to the extent
that what Sri Sunil said about the
bRhat
Shankara vijayam is verifiable and true, this would be
evidence from
another Sankara vijayam that
corroborates it.
I
certainly don't agree with the view that Adi Sankara did
not write the
gIta bhAShya - the attempts
thus far in this thread to prove otherwise, by
attributing it to various other personalities
have been a bit bizarre.
Sri Sunil first brought up VidyAsankara as an
author of the gIta bhAShya.
However, when it
was pointed that Bhaskara quotes Sankara bhAshya and
therefore VidyASankara cannot be the author,
that theory was abandoned. The
new theory
was to say that Abhinava Sanakara wrote it. When the need
to
postulate a new author in the first place
was raised, Karmarkar's paper was
quoted
to question the authorship of the bhAshya. However, when
the
contents of it were refuted, we did not
get any substantive response to
those
arguments. Instead it was argued that Pathak wrote a paper
alleging
the birth of Abhinava Sankara in
788 AD. However when it was pointed that
Pathak said no such thing in the paper that was
cited, the argument changed
to the
manuscript pointing to a nava Sankara instead. Now that has
been
refuted too. In the interim there was a
brief, pretty arbitrary segue into
an
allocation of bhAShyas to Sankara based on the number 16
from
chitsukhA's Sankara vijayam. I
truly wonder where this will end.
Regards,
Venkatraghavan
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at
12:33 PM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <
svidyasankar at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Dear Sri
Venkataraghavan,
>
> A
late response to your note about the number 16. Yes, if we
go by the
> description in the DiNDimA,
we can add up to that number. However, there is
> no textual source or oral tradition that
says only 16 commentaries were
> written
by Sankara bhagavatpAda. I was wondering if Sri Bhattacharya
had
> some textual source in mind when he
said that he had heard Sankaracharya
>
had composed 16 bhAshyas. It turns out that he is pointing
to a
> bRhacchankaravijaya, a text that
nobody seems to have ever seen. (That can
> be an entirely independent topic of
discussion, by the way.)
>
> The DiNDimA commentary on the mAdhavIya
was written in the year 1798. Just
>
about a century later, we have the printed collection from
Vani vilas
> press. The founder of that
publishing house and general editor,
>
Balasubrahmanya Iyer, took great care in ensuring that the
texts he
> published were traditionally
handed down and accepted by the Sankaracharya
> of his time. We see other commentaries
included in that collection, so in
> my
opinion, we should not get too hung up over the number 16.
Furthermore,
> I really look askance at
Sri Bhattacharya's attempt to remove the
> gitAbhAshya from that list, searching for
other texts instead, to somehow
> make up
16 commentaries, one way or the other. Combined with
fanciful
> assumptions about a mythical
nava Sankara and the historical vidyA Sankara,
> uncertain dates, unavailable texts,
speculative jumping to conclusions, it
>
all results in massive confusion, wouldn't you say?
>
> Best regards,
> Vidyasankar
>
> On Jan 6, 2017 4:51 AM,
"Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>> Namaste
Subbuji,
>>
>>
Agreed. I was pointing this out not to suggest that Adi
Sankara only
>> wrote 16 bhASyas, but
in response to Sri Vidyasankar's question for a
>> source for the number 16.
>>
>> Until Sri
Sunil mentioned it in this thread, I wasn't aware of
tradition
>> attributing 16 bhASyas to
Shankara, but the proposition appears to have
>> some merit.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Venkatraghavan
>>
>> On 6 Jan 2017
9:39 a.m., "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list