[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