About the works of Adi Sankara

[sadasivamurty rani]

Respected Scholars,

Pranams to all.

A grand list of works are popular in the name of Adi Sankara. In my personal collection I have most of the following works (more than 100 works)  which are popularly known to be of Sri Sankara Bhagavatpada. Here my request to all is: Can any one help me in finding the authentic source to distinguish between the real works of Adi Sankara and and which are popular in his name and not written by him?

1. Bhashyas or Commentaries 2. Prakarana works 3. Stotra works and 4. Tantra Works

1.      Bhashyas (23)

Sankara wrote elaborate commentaries on Brahma Sutras, Bhagavadgita and the 12 Upanishads: Isha, Kena, Katha, Prashna, Mundaka, Mandukya, Taittiriya, Aitareya, Chandogya, Brhadaranyaka, Svetasvatara and Nrsimha Tapini Upanishads. Besides the above writings his commentaries on Mandukya Karikas, Vishnu Sahasra Nama Stotra, Sanat Sujatiya, Lalitha Trishati, Hastamalakiya, Apastambiya Dharmasutra, Sankhyakarika, Yogasutra and Gayatri Mantraartha are also very popular in the scholarly world.

2.      Prakarana Works (54)

There are nearly 54 Prakarana written by Him advocating various elements of Vedanta philosophy through many worldly examples presented in a very lucid language.

1. Ajµ¡nab°dhin¢gadyam, 2. Advait¡nubh£ti:, 3. Ën¡tmavigarha¸am 4. Ëpar°kÀ¡nubh£ti:, 5. Amaru¿atakam, 6. D¤gd¤¿yaviv®ka:, 7. ËtmaÀa¶kam, 8. Ëtmap£j¡ 9. Upad®¿as¡hasr¢ 10. Ëtmab°dha: 11. Ëtm¡n¡tmaviv®ka:, 12. Óka¿l°k¢ 13. K®val°'ham 14. Kaup¢napaµcakam 15. æurvaÀ¶akam 16. Carpa¶apaµjarik¡, 17. J¢vanmukt¡nandalahar¢ Athav¡ Anubhav¡nandalahar¢ 18. Jµ¡naga´g¡¿atakam 19. Tattv°pad®¿a: 20. Dhany¡À¶akam 21. Nirv¡¸aÀa¶kam 22. Dasa¿l°k¢ 23. Nirv¡¸amaµjar¢ 24. Nirgu¸am¡nasap£j¡ 25. Paµc¢kara¸am 26. Prab°dhasudh¡karam, 27. Pra¿n°ttaratnam¡lik¡ 28. Pr¡ta:Smara¸ast°tram 29. Prau·h¡nubh£ti: 30. Brahmajµ¡n¡va½¢m¡l¡ 31. Advaitapaµcakam 32. Brahm¡nucintanam Athav¡ Ëtm¡nucintanam 33. Ma¸iratnam¡l¡ 34. Man¢À¡paµcakam 35. M¡y¡paµcakam 36. M°hamudgar¡ 37. Ma¶h¡mn¡ya: 38. Y°gat¡r¡va½¢ 39. Laghuv¡kyav¤tti:, 40. V¡kyav¤tti:,

41. V¡kyasudh¡ 42. Vijµ¡nanauk¡ 43. Viv®kac£·¡ma¸i: 44. V®d¡ntak®sar¢ 45. B°dhas¡ra: 46. áa´karasm¤ti:, 47. Sad¡c¡rasandh¡nam 48. Sany¡sapaddhati: 49. Sarvav®d¡ntasiddh¡ntas¡rasa´graha: 50. Sarvasiddh¡ntasa´graha: 51. Upad®¿apaµcakam 52. S¡ratattv°pad®¿a: 53. Sv¡tmanir£pa¸am and 54. Sv¡tmaprak¡¿ik¡

3. Stotra Works

Adi Sankara wrote many Stotras in praise of Shiva, Vishnu, Ganesha, Shakti, Krishna, Ganga and other Gods and Goddesses nearly 175 in number. All these Stotras are very important both from the point of view of literature and philosophy. As he promoted the worship of all these Gods and Goddesses he is popularly known as Shanmata Sthapaka Acharya.

 

4. Works on Tantra

Saundarya Lahari and Prapancha Sara Tantnra were the two popular Tantra writings of Adi Sankara.

 With warm regards,

Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Well the works of Shankara are not beyond dispute. Please see several publications to fix the works of done over the past 100 years on it JSTOR will give you several articles and there are many books written on it. I can give a detailed Bibliography if needed. I don't think any one scholar can accept all the works are written by Shankarcharya if by Shankaracharya you mean the one who has written the bhashya on Brahma Sutras.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sadasivamurty rani]

Thank you Ajit Ji. 

I have the works of Sankara published by SAMATA Publications, Orient Book Agency of Pune and of Sadhana Grantha Mandali of Tenali. All these publications accept the authorship of Sankaracharya. 

Yes. I shall be thankful if you can give me the detailed Bibliography of his work.

I request you further to help me in understanding the following statements  of your mail.

"Well the works of Shankara are not beyond dispute. ............... I don't think any one scholar can accept all the works are written by Shankarcharya if by Shankaracharya you mean the one who has written the bhashya on Brahma Sutras."

With warm regards,

Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Samata Publication which is reprint of the original  20 volumes Sri Vanai Vilas press edition.. The other publications which you mention  are a compilation of works ascribed to be written by Shankaracharya and not written by by him. It would have been impossible for a person who had a 32 year life span ( If one were to believe in the hagiographical works ) to have written so much even if he were to write day in and day out. The printed edition of Shankaras complete works ascribed to be wriiten by runs to over thousands of pages.

All successors of Shankara matas call themselves as Shankaracharya so many works may not be the work work Adi Shankara the commentator on Brahma Sutra Bhasya, Gita Bhashya, 10 principal Upanishads. though other upanishad commentaries and Gita commentary .

It is unlikely he would have written many of the prakarna granthas for the philosophical points dealt in many of them is in variance with Brahma Sutra Bhashya.  It is very unlikely he wrote a commentaries on predominantly Tantrik works such as Prapancha Sara, Saudrya Lahari, Lalita Trisati Bhashya etc. Very often a Bhashya Sanatsujatiya is ascribed to him.

See also the controversy on Yoga Sutra Bhashya Vivivarna leggets edition and translation and the Madras edition

Among the Prakarnas Viveka chudamani is generally accepted to be written by Shankarcharya and some scholars would want include Upadesa sahasri.

Paul Hacker has done a lot of interesting studies to determine which of his works are genuine.

For Bibliography please refer to Paul Hacker , Hajime Nakumara, Encyclopedia of India Philosophy Bibliography  edited Kar Potter Volum1 and Volume 2. and the several many books and articles written on this subject

Please Note: I am not saying any thing new all this has been discussed thread bare with no decisive verdict for more than a hundred years in all major Indological journals and also in may specialized books.

I will try to send a detailed Bibliography by a mail off the list as time permits

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[sadasivamurty rani]

Ajit ji!

Thanks for your concern by giving a word to mail me the bibliography the research works available on Sri Adi Sankara. 

I also thank you for your detailed mail drafted by you with lot of patience in response to my previous questions.

At the same time I have again a few questions over your latest mail.

1. What you said about the SAMATA BOOKS is agreeable. 

I agree that you might have seen even The works of Sankara published in the year 1937 by Oriental Book Agency, Pune. 

But have you seen the complete works of Adi Sankara published by Sadhana Grantha Mandali of Tenali in the name Sankara Grantha Ratnavali? In how many volumes have they published Sankara's works? I am curiously asking you because I am still in the process of collecting them all. Those series of books were first published by them in the early fifties and sixties as far as I observed. 

I believe that you must have seen them all as you have made a statement  "The other publications which you mention  are a compilation of works ascribed to be written by Shankaracharya and not written by by him. " 

Otherwise could it be possible to state so firmly. So I request you  to  give the source where all those books of Sadhana Grantha Mandali are available. They are not available as a complete set even in Sadhana Grantha Mandali of Tenali at present. Hence I ask you. 

2. In your previous mail there is a statement about the ability of Adi Sankara to write that number of Works depending on his short span of life.

"It would have been impossible for a person who had a 32 year life span ( If one were to believe in the hagiographical works ) to have written so much even if he were to write day in and day out." 

Could the age of a person be mark of once efficiency of producing volumes of writings? In our contemporary times we have living examples with us who wrote several hundreds books even at their young age. 

I state here a few examples from just our previous generations:

1. Krishna Murthy Sastry of Sripada family, lived between 1866 – 1960, was a native of Devarapalli of West Godavari district. He was the first poet laureate of Andhra Pradesh.

Maha Mahopadyaya, Kala Prapurna, Kavi Raju, Kavi Sarvabhouma, Kavi Brahma, Andhra Vyasa, Abhinava Srinatha, Veda Vidya Visarada, Prasanna Valmiki and Viswa Kavi were his Titles. 

He is a famous poet in Andhra Pradesh, and is the first Asthana Kavi of Andhra. He is the first person who translated all the three main scriptures Ramayana, Mahabharat, and Bhagavatham into telugu (He made verse to verse translation of these three noble works from Sanskrit to Telugu), and he wrote more than 100 books in both Telugu and Sanskrit. 

2. Bellamkonda Ramaraya kavi (1875-1914 AD)

 Sri Rama Raya Kavi,   to VishishTaadvaita sampradaya was a HayagrIva Upaasaka.  It seems when he was about 16 years Lord Hayagriva first appeared in a dream and asked him to take a mantra and yantra from a
 particular person/place.  Following this,
Rama Raya Kavi did the japa/upasana for some years and again, this time, got a pratyaksha sAkShAtkAra of Lord Hayagriva.  In one of his works he writes that the Lord Hayagriva is seated beside him and he is only writing what the Lord is saying to him.

The Kavi wrote about 148 illustrious works in his very short life  and the family is bringing out in a phased manner the available works.  They are also on the move to collect the works which they suspect are available with many sources.

3. KAVI SAMRAT Viswanadha Satyanarayana

 (10 September 1895 – 18 October 1976) 

Viswanatha's literary works includes 30 poems, 20 plays, 60 novels, 10 critical estimates, 200 Khand kavyas, 35 short stories, three playlets, 70 essays, 50 radio plays, 10 essays in English, 10 works is Sanskrit, three translations, 100 introductions and forewords as well as radio talks. Some of his poems and novels have been translated into English, Hindi, Tamil, Malayalam, Urdu and Sanskrit.

There are hundreds of poets and scholars of this kind through out India. 

HERE MY QUESTION IS: Should the "Span of Life" be a criterion to decide the FACULTY OF IMAGINATION (PRATIBHA) OF a poet?

When all the above poets are able to produce
 hundreds of literary writings in their single life time could it be difficult to Adi Sankara to write that number of works?

I am much and much tired having seen such  Sankara's Life Span based assumptions of modern scholars in doubting his ability of writing such a large number of writings. 

I SINCERELY APPRECIATE AND THANK YOU FOR ONE OF YOUR STATEMENTS :

"It is unlikely he would have written many of the prakarna granthas for the philosophical points dealt in many of them is in variance with Brahma Sutra Bhashya." 

It is really a worthy observation with good research value. If any text maintains variance from the other popular writings of an author it can be concluded that it would not have been written by that author. I agree with you. Such observations will surely help in research pursuits. 

With warm regards, 

Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Apart from Brahma Sutra Bhasya, Gita Bhashya, 10 principal Upanishads Adi Shankara is said to have written four more bhashyas. Three out of the remaining four are very likely on Lalita trishati, Vishnusahasranama and Sanatsujatiya. The last one could be  the Nrsimhatapani or on the Svetasvatara upanishad,

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

I have read you mail completely. One quick remark poetry is different from serious  philosophical writing. Why will the same author change his view, style of writing, language and tenor in different works if it is written by the same author?

Bellamkonda Ramaraya kavi and Kavi samrat have not gives different shades of their own views in their different works. They write in a style by which one can know all the works are from the same pen.

I have already said  in my earlier mail all these issues have been discussed thread bear in various Indological journals and books published over the past hundred years you may please consult them and I have already given you references from where any can possibly start the search

PS

​

Sadhana Grantha Mandali books are available as parts in different libraries i have not seen the complete set I agree. Others I have them and have compared their contents.

Best,

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[sadasivamurty rani]

Thank you Ajit ji and Sunil Ji for the valuable information you extended. 

What about the popular stotras like Bhaja govindam, Sivanadna Lahari and Kanaka Dhara stava ?

What is the historic value of calling him Shanmata Sthapakacharya? 

Should we conclude that he hasn't praised the Gods like Ganesha, Siva, Vishnu and others?

 

Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

He could have praised Gods but  is there any serious history that backs making Shankra a Shanmata sthapakcharya except for hagiographical works if you want to call them as history.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[sadasivamurty rani]

My question also is to know about the historicity of calling him Shanmata Sthapaka Acharya.

 

Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Except the Digvijayas composed in the 16 century and the traditions based on beleif there is other history or historical records to call Shankra a Shanmata sthapakcharya.

PS: This is my personal view I am expressing it with the hope it will not create any further controversy. This statement of mine is also not free from controversy either.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

This is slightly dated book but you may consult conference proceedings of 1969 conference Shankara and Shanmata held at Madras

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

Ajit seems to be too scared of the controversy !! He is taking extra care not to tread on the 'prohibited path' !!

I am just joking. No offence intended.

Ganesan

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Dear Dr Ganesh,

Thanks for your joke. There is no need to create controversy when the controversies surrounding it is well know to scholars unless I have something new to tell. I can be controversial but time is the essence due to pressing work I have in hand.........

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

--

[Nityanand Misra]

 

Refer

 

Chapter 3 titled Biography of Śaṅkara and his main works in Shankara and Indian Philosophy, SUNY series in religious studies, 1993, N. V. Isaeva, ISBN 9780791412817.
 
Paul Hacker's article Śaṅkarācārya and Śaṅkarabhagavatpāda. 1947. New Indian Antiquary. This was revised by the author and a later edition is available as Chapter 3 of Philology and Confrontation: Paul Hacker on Traditional and Modern Vedanta, SUNY Press, 1995, ISBN 9780791425824.

 

for some perspectives on this.

 

There is nothing new or unusual in postulating that many works composed in the name of Śaṅkarācārya are of later authors and not Śaṅkarā, especially when hundreds of such works are available and many historical persons have used the title Śaṅkarācārya. The last aspect is also seen in compositions of Sikh Gurus almost all of whom have composed the name Nānaka (name of the first Guru) in the Guru Grantha Sahib. Many works are available in the name of Kālidāsa (e.g. the "full" Kumārasambhava with seventeen cantos, Śrutabodha, etc), Tulasīdāsa (e.g. Hanumān Aṣṭaka) and other authors whose authorship has been put into question.

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Dear Prof. Rani,

 

At the outset, let me state a broad principle (my personal opinion) that a traditional approach to this question cannot and should not rule out the possibility that all that is attributed to "Sankaracharya" is not due to "Adi Sankaracharya." The very reason he is "Adi" is that there have been other Sankaracharya-s later, and it stands to reason that many of them also composed bhAshya-s, vivaraNa-s, prakaraNa grantha-s and stotra-s. The article by Paul Hacker, which Sri Nityanand Misra referenced, explicitly draws attention to the fact that later titular Sankaracharya-s could have been the authors of many of these texts. Hacker also postulates that it was vidyAraNya who created the institution of titular Sankaracharyas, but more on that at the end of this post.

 

In the following, I apologize for citing two of my own papers below, but it is in the interest of aiding a discussion. It is not my intention to toot my own horn here.

 

1. A good comprehensive review of the authorship issue may be found in Sengaku Mayeda's introduction to his translation of the upadeSasAhasri. Indeed, in my estimation, Prof. Mayeda is the only scholar in the world who has consistently applied the criteria proposed by Hacker to judge the attribution of various texts to Adi Sankara. For example, he has examined the pada and vAkya bhAshyas on kenopanishat and found both to be authentic.

 

2. The Vani Vilas series, and therefore the derivative Samata edition, do not include the SvetASvatara bhAshya. There is a tradition about SankarAnanda, counted among one of the gurus of vidyAraNya, that he chose to comment upon key upanishat texts for which Adi Sankara had not written bhAshya-s, starting with kaushItakI and SvetASvatara. Therefore, the SvetASvatara bhAshya that is currently available can be seen as having an internal traditional argument against its attribution to Adi Sankara. Similarly, the yogasUtra bhAshya vivaraNa seems quite unknown to the tradition that has transmitted the various advaita works of Adi Sankara, although Paul Hacker accepts it as probably authentic. It has been argued that this text could actually have been written by someone from the noteworthy Nambudiri family of Payyur Mana in northern Kerala. Please see notes in the translation of this text by Dr T S Rukmani (Munshiram Manoharlal, 2001) and the PhD dissertation of Kengo Harimoto (U Penn, 1999) that has a critical edition of the commentary on the first pada of the yogasUtra. Kengo Harimoto is working on publishing this and his continuing work on this text as a book.

 

3. Also, from within the advaita vedAnta tradition, Sri SaccidAnandendra sarasvatI of Holenarsipur (Adhyatma Prakasha Karyalaya) has argued that only the bhAshya-s on the prasthAna traya and upadeSasAhasrI were written by Adi Sankara. Please note that many of the traditional paNDita-s from Mattur consider themselves disciples of this Swami and his subsequent lineage. Please also note that his stance is not derivative of recent Western scholarship. It could rather be the other way round, as Hacker's paper specifically quotes his pUrvASrama name and work, under a section titled Pandita-sammati.

 

4. Please also see my paper in the journal Philosophy East and West, titled What Determines Sankara's Authorship? The Case of the Pancikarana, 2002, 52(1), 1-35. If you do not have library access to this journal and would like a copy of this article, please let me know. In brief, I have argued that Hacker's criteria for determining authorship need to be revisited and updated in a more nuanced manner, because (a) they have been selectively applied so far, against all texts outside the ones listed in the above point, and (b) they do not lead to unambiguous conclusions. When you consider various discussions from scholars like Tilmann Vetter, Madelaine Biardeau, Daniel Ingalls, Kunjunni Raja and G C Pande, it becomes obvious that better ways are needed to address this problem. And I have outlined one possible alternative method, by considering the arguments for and against attributing the prakaraNa grantha called pancIkaraNa to Adi Sankara.

 

5. Regarding the title shaNmata sthApanAcArya, please note that this title is not even present in any of the traditional birudAvalI-s of the SankarAcArya pITha-s. There is a "shaD-darSana-sthApanAcarya" title given to vidyAraNya, and by extension, to his lineage successors in various institutions in the southern part of India, but this refers to the standard list of six darSana-s and has nothing to do with the shaN-mata of Saiva, vaishNava etc.

 

6. Regarding the 1969 conference proceedings that Sri Ajit Gargeshwari cited: My personal opinion, for whatever it is worth, is that beyond a feel-good factor for some groups, this publication will not add scholarly value to any discussion. There are numerous Sankaravijaya texts available and people often say that descriptions of shaNmata sthApana come from these texts. However, this is not true, because the reality is that almost all these texts say nothing about shaNmata. The only one that could be seen as coming close is the Sankaravijaya of anantAnandagiri, which happens to be the most contentious such text within the tradition. First printed from Calcutta in the 1870s, it has always been rejected by Sringeri authorities, for numerous reasons. The chapters where it describes shaNmata sthApana are full of fanciful and ahistorical accounts and have been accused, by various scholars, of having been heavily tampered with. Surprisingly, this text includes not the kaumAra, but the kApAlika mata, as the sixth tradition that was accepted by Adi Sankara. Interestingly enough, while Saiva, SAkta, gANapatya, saura and kApAlika mata-s get one leader each, all of them supposedly direct disciples of Adi Sankara, the vaishNava mata alone gets two such leaders, but with a narrowly south Indian focus. anantAnandagiri says that Sankara sent out one disciple named lakshmaNa, an amSAvatAra of AdiSesha, to Kanchipuram in the east, and another called hastAmalaka, an amSa of vAyu, to rajatapITha, i.e. Udupi, in the west, in order to teach vaishNava modes of worship, including UrdhvapuNDra/gopIcandana dhAraNa, SaraNAgati and tapta-mudrA dhAraNa. It should be obvious to even a casual reader that this "lakshmaNa" is really rAmAnujAcArya and this "hastAmalaka" is really madhvAcArya.

 

Dr. Veezhinathan, editor of the 1970 edition from U Madras, has a footnote which theorizes that perhaps some "tAntrika vaishNava-s" have interpolated these descriptions into these chapters, but I, for one, fail to see why any vaishNava would have wanted to subordinate rAmAnuja and madhva to Sankara in this manner. It seems far more likely to me that any possible text-tampering had to have been done not by a vaishNava but by some self-described and short-sighted follower of Sankara. The entire description in this text really comes across as clumsy polemics from one group of south Indian smArta-s against SrIvaishNava-s and mAdhva-s, through an anachronistic story of how Adi Sankara was directly the guru of the leaders of both these vaishNava traditions. In either case, it follows that a shAnmata sthApana description is most probably alien to the original version of this Sankaravijaya text as well. If that is the case, then we have to conclude that there is not even one Sankaravijaya that can provide solid textual support for connecting Adi Sankara with shaNmata sthApana. It is just something that has got established in the popular imagination through repetition by kathAkAra-s, with no basis even in the hagiographic texts. This is akin to how in the Garhwal region they say that Adi Sankara fought against Buddhists using both Sastra and SAstra. It makes for nice alliteration and we all know that Sankara definitely used SAstra, but it is anybody's guess what Sastra he may have used. For a more detailed discussion, please see my paper in the International Journal of Hindu Studies, Conflicting hagiographies and history: the place of Śaṅkaravijaya texts in Advaita tradition, 2000, 4(2), 109-184.

 

7. With respect to the stotra-s attributed to Adi Sankara, there has been at least one genuine academic attempt to analyze their authorship. A 1976 paper by Robert Gussner in the Journal of the American Oriental Society concludes, if I remember right, that the dakshiNAmUrti stotra (viSvaM darpaNadRSyamAna nagarItulyaM ...) is the only one that could be authentic, based on stylistic comparison with the verse chapters of upadeSasAhasrI. To me, this is an interesting conclusion because there is no SArdUlavikrIDita usage in all of upadeSasAhasrI, so although Gussner's paper has the word stylometric in its title, it is not quite about the poetic meter. However, for a critique of Gussner's methodology, results and rejection of some other important stotra-s, please see G C Pande's book, Life and Thought of Śaṅkarācārya, (Motilal Banarsidass, 1998, latest reprint 2011).

 

8. Finally, please note that kalpataru, amalAnanda's commentary on vAcaspati miSra's bhAmatI, cites at least two verses that are found only in prapancasAra, attributing them to the "AcArya." amalAnanda had to have lived in the 13th century, as he mentions Krishna (Kannara) and Mahadeva, the Yadava kings of Devagiri (later Daulatabad), as his patrons. I only offer these details here because scholars who research tAntrika texts and traditions, like Andre Padoux, Alexis Sanderson and Paul Mueller-Ortega, as also many from India who often cite these Western scholars, seem to be totally unaware of this reference. I can dig up the exact details if necessary, but that will take some time. When I last made a note of it, it was more than a decade ago. What I would like to emphasize here is that a "tAntrika" text attributed to Adi Sankara has been cited in an early sub-commentary on the brahmasUtra bhAshya, and that such internal textual references have not been adequately accounted for in the academic debate so far. For example, if one were to argue that amalAnanda's citation proves only that prapancasAra was known in the 13th century as a composition of "Sankaracharya," one would have to accept that there were titular "Sankaracharya-s" in India before the 13th century, certainly much before vidyAraNya supposedly created such a tradition (a la Hacker's thesis). And if titular Sankaracharya-s existed before the 13th century, then one would also have to presume the existence of institutions specializing in the study and teaching of advaita vedAnta, i.e. something akin to what we know today as pITha-s/maTha-s, again a century before the earliest tangible material evidence emerges for any maTha-s in the advaita vedAnta sampradAya.

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

[sunil bhattacharjya]

One Mr. Pathak found some manuscript in the 19th century, which mentioned about one Nava-Shankara, who took birth in 788 CE and Pathak published a paper on that. That was approved by Prof. Max Muller, who identified Nava-Shankara with Adi Shankara. Kanchi Kamakoti Pitha probably calls this Nava-Shankara as Abhinava-Shankara and thinks that he was a great scholar, born much later than Adi Shankara. If we accept this view it is quite possible that this Nava-Shankara could have written quite a number of works, which are now being attributed to Adi Shankara.

--

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Dear Sunilji,

 

I was wondering when Mr. abhinava Sankara would raise his head and sure enough, here he is!

 

Firstly, the paper by Pathak in Indian Antiquary gives details of a manuscript found in southern Maharashtra, which talks only about *Adi* Sankara. There is nothing in it to indicate that it is about some "nava" Sankara. Just as I've asked Dr. Ganesan to share details of inscriptions about kAlAmukha-s from the vidyASankara temple, I will now ask you to provide details about "nava" Sankara, this manuscript and Pathak's paper, in order to substantiate your point and prove me wrong. When it comes to Sankara's date and the history of the maTha-s, the amount of disinformation that floats around is extremely vexing. Some of this is deliberate; some of it is like Chinese whispers. It can get very confusing for those who are not careful to go back to original sources. Please do not repeat second-hand and third-hand.

 

Secondly, if one were to take this argument about nava/abhinava Sankara to its logical conclusion, then the author of bhAshya-s, starting with the brahmasUtra bhAshya, is not Adi Sankara, but this so-called "nava" Sankara. This argument has indeed been made by some who have found it impossible to contradict the internal evidence that allows us to roughly date these texts but would still like to maintain that the date of Adi Sankara and the date of origin of their favorite institutions should be in the 5th century BCE. I would like you to impartially judge the merits of such conclusions. To me, this sounds like wanting to have the cake and eat it too.

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Dear Sunilji,

 

I was wondering when Mr. abhinava Sankara would raise his head and sure enough, here he is!

 

Firstly, the paper by Pathak in Indian Antiquary gives details of a manuscript found in southern Maharashtra, which talks only about *Adi* Sankara. There is nothing in it to indicate that it is about some "nava" Sankara. Just as I've asked Dr. Ganesan to share details of inscriptions about kAlAmukha-s from the vidyASankara temple, I will now ask you to provide details about "nava" Sankara, this manuscript and Pathak's paper, in order to substantiate your point and prove me wrong. When it comes to Sankara's date and the history of the maTha-s, the amount of disinformation that floats around is extremely vexing. Some of this is deliberate; some of it is like Chinese whispers. It can get very confusing for those who are not careful to go back to original sources. Please do not repeat second-hand and third-hand.

 

Secondly, if one were to take this argument about nava/abhinava Sankara to its logical conclusion, then the author of bhAshya-s, starting with the brahmasUtra bhAshya, is not Adi Sankara, but this so-called "nava" Sankara. This argument has indeed been made by some who have found it impossible to contradict the internal evidence that allows us to roughly date these texts but would still like to maintain that the date of Adi Sankara and the date of origin of their favorite institutions should be in the 5th century BCE. I would like you to impartially judge the merits of such conclusions. To me, this sounds like wanting to have the cake and eat it too.

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

 

On Monday, July 21, 2014 10:54:09 PM UTC-4, Gitarthi wrote:

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

​The dates of Shankra are exhaustively discussed in the book A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy Hajime Nakumara Volume 1 All important papers and publications till the date the books was written has been discussed exhaustively. One may accept or reject his conclusion.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Vidyasankarji,

As desiref by you I am attaching the paper of Mr. Pathak regarding the Nava avatara of Shankara.

However I would like to clarify that my intention is not to attempt to prove you wrong. As Pathak says he was aware of the 8th century date of Shankara from the works of Weber and that could also mean that in Pathak's time the Shringeri Math did not take the stand of the 8th century date of Shankara.

Further in the Shankara-vijaya,  Shri Vidyaranayai included the name of Sudhnava as a king, contemporary to Shankara and it will be nice if scholars try to fins out if there was a king called Sudhanva in the 8th century CE. It will also be nice if the time of the king Amaruka can also be found.

Regards,

Sunil KB

Regards,

Sunil KB

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Dear Sunilji,

The term navAvatAra does not have to be taken as indicating a person called nava/abhinava Sankara, who was born later than Adi Sankara. Please note, the same verse also describes him as the bhAshyakAra on the SArIraka, i.e. author of the brahmasUtra bhAshya, who is the only Sankara one needs to worry about in these discussions.

Also, please note, within living memory, followers of the famous karapAtrI swAmI of Kashi used to call him abhinava Sankara. And there was a 15th-16th century author of a commentary on the rudrAdhyAya, who was also called abhinava Sankara. Thus, there have been many abhinava Sankaras in history, but only one Adi Sankara who wrote a brahmasUtra bhAshya.

As far as discussing authorship is concerned, there is no need to complicate the picture by talking of one or the other abhinava Sankara and bringing the question of dates.

Thanks,
Vidyasankar

[Nityanand Misra]

On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 9:04:52 PM UTC+8, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

Dear Sunilji,

 

This argument has indeed been made by some who have found it impossible to contradict the internal evidence that allows us to roughly date these texts but would still like to maintain that the date of Adi Sankara and the date of origin of their favorite institutions should be in the 5th century BCE. I would like you to impartially judge the merits of such conclusions. To me, this sounds like wanting to have the cake and eat it too.

 

 

Firstly, for Sunil Ji, it would not be a good idea to mix traditional beliefs and modern historical studies. If somebody as per traditional beliefs places Śaṅkara in 5^th century BCE and discount modern history, that is completely fine. However, as per the history [agreed upon today], Śaṅkara certainly came after Nāgārjuna (second and third century CE), Vasubandhu (fouth century CE) and Dignāga (fifth and sixth century CE).

Secdondly, for Vidyasankar Ji, more than the internal evidence, there is ample external evidence which contradicts claims placing Śaṅkara before Nāgārjuna and Vasubandhu. That external evidence is the widely held position by historical scholars from most traditional Indian philosphical schools (not including Advaita for obvious reasons) – and a position which John Grimes calls "undeniable" – that the works of Gauḍapāda and Śaṅkara have elements “borrowed from” those of Nāgārjuna, Vasubandhu and Dignāga.

Disclaimer: This is nothing new or controversial, and my Advaitin friends are requested to not burn me at the stake for stating what has been published many times over.

Whether one agrees with this position or not is a completely different thing, but one cannot deny the fact that right from Bhāskara to Yāmuna to Vallabha to Vijñānabhikṣu down to modern writers like Surendranath Dasgupta, Richard King, Hajime Nakamura, Eliot Deutsch, TMP Mahadvan, John Grimes etc have held that Gauḍapāda and Śaṅkara lived after Nāgārjuna, Vasubandhu and Dignāga. Nakamura even cites the use of the phrase Mahāyānikapakṣa (p. 121 of A History of Early Vedānta Philosophy, 1990, ISBN 9788120806511) by Padmapāda, a direct disciple of Śaṅkara, essentially proving that the Mahāyāna system was an established principle at the time of Śaṅkara.

Numerous references can be cited on this, I will limit myself to one –

Here is Surendranath Dasgupta on page 418 of A History of Indian Philosophy (Volume 1) –

“About the period 780 A.D. Gauḍapāda revived the monistic teaching of the Upaniṣads by his commentary on the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad in verse called Māndūkyakārikā. His disciple Govinda was the teacher of Śaṅkara (788 — 820 A.D.).”

And here is Dasgupta again on pages 493-494:

“Śaṅkara and his followers borrowed much of their dialectic form of criticism from the Buddhists. His Brahman was very much like the śūnya of Nāgārjuna … The debts of Śaṅkara to the self-luminosity of the Vijñānavāda Buddhism can hardly be overestimated … I am led to think that Śaṅkara’s philosophy is largely a compound of Vijñānavāda and Śūnyavāda Buddhism with the Upaniṣad notion of the permanence of self superadded.”

I do not know of any modern historian or author who places Śaṅkara before Nāgārjuna, Vasubandhu, or Dignāga.

 

 

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Numerous references can be cited on this, I will limit myself to one –

Here is Surendranath Dasgupta on page 418 of A History of Indian Philosophy (Volume 1) –

“About the period 780 A.D. Gauḍapāda revived the monistic teaching of the Upaniṣads by his commentary on the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad in verse called Māndūkyakārikā. His disciple Govinda was the teacher of Śaṅkara (788 — 820 A.D.).”

 

 

​With due respect to Prof Dasgupta, in his History of Indian Philosophy Volume1, There is no discussion on the date of Shankar at all. He places Shankara between 7888-820 for the reasons he knows the best. He doesn't even mention that a relative chronology is the best guide and his date is not fixed or beyond controversy. The same is repeated by Prof S. Radhakrishnan in his book.

Many other authors who blindly take quotations from the above books without reading the originals repeat what these authors have said.​

 

​ Even their treatment of Advaita is it Adavaita as from Brahma Sutra Bhashya they write or  is it their version of Advaita? Prof Radhakrishna uses high sounding words which the original texts when read don't have any of those words.  I am sure at least on Sankhya Prof Dasgupta gives his theory of Sankhya. A more balanced text book would be Chandradhar Sharma's book for advaita and Prof. Nakumara dates  and Paul hacker and Mayeda for criteria to determine works of Shankara.

The usual disclaimer these are my personal views and one may not agree with at all

Please note at least Nityananda ji and Vidyashnakara ji have at least given reasons as to why they assign a date. Thats my quick point take away from this thread Thanks

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:22:14 PM UTC+8, ajit.gargeshwari wrote:

Numerous references can be cited on this, I will limit myself to one –

Here is Surendranath Dasgupta on page 418 of A History of Indian Philosophy (Volume 1) –

“About the period 780 A.D. Gauḍapāda revived the monistic teaching of the Upaniṣads by his commentary on the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad in verse called Māndūkyakārikā. His disciple Govinda was the teacher of Śaṅkara (788 — 820 A.D.).”

 

 

​With due respect to Prof Dasgupta, in his History of Indian Philosophy Volume1, There is no discussion on the date of Shankar at all. He places Shankara between 7888-820 for the reasons he knows the best. He doesn't even mention that a relative chronology is the best guide and his date is not fixed or beyond controversy. The same is repeated by Prof S. Radhakrishnan in his book.

 

Dear Dr. Ajit Ji

 

Actually Dasgupta does mention why he chose the date, but five pages after the first mention of his preferred date. He also gives a reference.

 

See page 423

“There is some dispute about the date of Śaṅkara, but accepting the date proposed by Bhaṇḍarkar, Pathak and Deussen, we may consider it to be 788 A.D.,¹³ and suppose that in order to be able to teach Śaṅkara, Gauḍapāda must have been living till at least 800 A.D.”

 

The citation in the endnote is Ānandāśrama edition of Śaṅkara’s bhāsya on Gauḍapāda’s kārikā, p. 21.

 

The above extract suggests that Dasgupta went through the sources claiming different dates for Śaṅkara, acknowledged the dispute and agreed with one of the sources which I find is enough treatment given the aim of compiling his magnum opus was to cover all aspects of Indian philosophical history: the controversy regarding date of Śaṅkara is but a little drop in this ocean.

 

Also note the dates he gives for the Buddhist philosophers in Chapter V –

 

page 119

“Vasubandhu (420 A.D.— 500 A.D.) wrote a work on the Vaibhāṣika …”

 

page 128

“The most powerful exponent of this doctrine was Nāgārjuna (100 A.D.), a brief account of whose system will be given in its proper place. Nāgārjuna’s kārikās (verses) were commented upon by Aryyadeva, a disciple of his, Kumārajlva (383 A.D.), Buddhapālita and Candrakīrtti (550 A.D.).”

 

The whole work is available online here –

http://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/a-history-of-indian-philosophy-volume-1/index.html

 

 

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

My question is how did he arrive at the magical number 788 A.D.? He could have said 750-800 AD as per his view.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

--

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

23.07.2014
Dear Colleagues,

I do not know if the following information will be appreciated or not. Late Tillman Vetter (c.1928-2010), an unassuming admirer of Indian philosophy argued anew on the date of the philosopher. Himself uncompromisingly idealist, Vetter shunned Dasgupta in favour of Radhakrishnan. I can give bibliographical details later.
Another point is being stated with humility. In 1978 I tried to show the influence of the Vasubandhu-Maitryeyanatha Yogaacaara thought on the Maanduukya-Upanishad and kaarikaas, on Gaudapaada and the structure of post-Maanduujkya Vedaanta. This partly agreed with Dasgupota's views. But I found Dasgupta too mechanical as he depended more on terminology than on ontology.

Both B.K.Matilal and Vetter accepted my point of view. I shall be glad if this information helped on the tricky issue.  

Best

Dipak Bhattacharya

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:58:34 PM UTC+8, ajit.gargeshwari wrote:

My question is how did he arrive at the magical number 788 A.D.? He could have said 750-800 AD as per his view.

 

Given that an inline endnote citation follows just after the number, my guess is the number was proposed by Bhaṇḍarkar, Pathak and Deussen and not Dasgupta. One would have to trace the citation and see how they arrived at the number (if they did at all).

 

 

 

[Nityanand Misra]

 

Dear Prof. Bhattacharya

 

This is very much appreciated! Please share the details of Tillman Vetter's work when you have the time.

 

It would be great if you could also share the details of your 1978 publication.

 

Thanks, Nityananda

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

Thanks, Nityanandaji! Please give me time as I am heavily engaged for a few days. Vetter is on shelf as I left that study long ago. But I shall come back. It may take some time to scan the monographs
Unfortunately it is impossible for me to renew the study as Sunilji requests.I welcome new research but personally for me it is a closed chapter. 

Best

DB

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Numerous references can be cited on this, I will limit myself to one –

Here is Surendranath Dasgupta on page 418 of A History of Indian Philosophy (Volume 1) –

“About the period 780 A.D. Gauḍapāda revived the monistic teaching of the Upaniṣads by his commentary on the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad in verse called Māndūkyakārikā. His disciple Govinda was the teacher of Śaṅkara (788 — 820 A.D.).”

 

 

Many other authors who blindly take quotations from the above books without reading the originals repeat what these authors have said.​

 

​ Even their treatment of Advaita is it Adavaita as from Brahma Sutra Bhashya they write or  is it their version of Advaita?

It is true that those 'historians' have only given their views without caring to study the bhāṣya.  Here are just a few of innumerable instances from the shānkara bhāṣya where the idea of 'the buddhist or any other no-ātman or shūnya' is explicitly denied:

• श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम् । त्रयोदशोऽध्यायः । श्लोक २ - भाष्यम्

ननु ‘स्वर्गकामो यजेत’ (?) ‘न कलञ्जं भक्षयेत्’ (?) इत्यादौ आत्मव्यतिरेकदर्शिनाम् अप्रवृत्तौ, केवलदेहाद्यात्मदृष्टीनां च; अतः कर्तुः अभावात् शास्त्रानर्थक्यमिति चेत्, न; यथाप्रसिद्धित एव प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्त्युपपत्तेः । ईश्वरक्षेत्रज्ञैकत्वदर्शी ब्रह्मवित् तावत् न प्रवर्तते । तथा नैरात्म्यवाद्यपि नास्ति परलोकः इति न प्रवर्तते । यथाप्रसिद्धितस्तु विधिप्रतिषेधशास्त्रश्रवणान्यथानुपपत्त्या अनुमितात्मास्तित्वः आत्मविशेषानभिज्ञः कर्मफलसंजाततृष्णः श्रद्दधानतया च प्रवर्तते । इति सर्वेषां नः प्रत्यक्षम् । अतः न शास्त्रानर्थक्यम् ॥

• नवमोऽध्यायः । श्लोक ४ - भाष्यम्  - न हि निरात्मकं किञ्चित् भूतं व्यवहाराय अवकल्पते । अतः मत्स्थानि मया आत्मना आत्मवत्त्वेन स्थितानि, अतः मयि स्थितानि इति उच्यन्ते ।
• दशमोऽध्यायः । श्लोक ३९ - भाष्यम् -  न तत् अस्ति भूतं चराचरं चरम् अचरं वा, मया विना यत् स्यात् भवेत् । मया अपकृष्टं परित्यक्तं निरात्मकं शून्यं हि तत् स्यात् । अतः मदात्मकं सर्वमित्यर्थः ॥
• ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । प्रथमः अध्यायः । चतुर्थः पादः । कारणत्वाधिकरणम् । सूत्रम् १५ - भाष्यम्
  ‘असद्वा इदमग्र आसीत्’ (तै. उ. २-७-१) इति नात्रासन्निरात्मकं कारणत्वेन श्राव्यते ; यतः ‘असन्नेव स भवति । असद्ब्रह्मेति वेद चेत् । अस्ति ब्रह्मेति चेद्वेद । सन्तमेनं ततो विदुः’ (तै. उ. २-६-१) इत्यसद्वादापवादेनास्तित्वलक्षणं ब्रह्मान्नमयादिकोशपरम्परया प्रत्यगात्मानं निर्धार्य, ‘सोऽकामयत’ इति तमेव प्रकृतं समाकृष्य, सप्रपञ्चां सृष्टिं तस्माच्छ्रावयित्वा, ‘तत्सत्यमित्याचक्षते’ इति चोपसंहृत्य,
• रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । द्वितीयः अध्यायः । प्रथमः पादः । आरम्भणाधिकरणम् । सूत्रम् १८ - भाष्यम्  - प्रागुत्पत्तेश्च कार्यस्यासत्त्वे, उत्पत्तिरकर्तृका निरात्मिका च स्यात् ;
• रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । द्वितीयः अध्यायः । तृतीयः पादः । असम्भवाधिकरणम्  । सूत्रम् ९ - भाष्यम्  -   सामान्याद्धि विशेषा उत्पद्यमाना दृश्यन्ते ; मृदादेर्घटादयः, न तु विशेषेभ्यः सामान्यम् ; नाप्यसतः, निरात्मकत्वात् ; ‘कथमसतः सज्जायेत’ (छा. उ. ८-७-१) इति च आक्षेपश्रवणात् ।
• तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । ब्रह्मानन्दवल्ली । षष्ठोऽनुवाकः । मन्त्रः १ - भाष्यम्  - असतश्चेन्नामरूपादि कार्यम्, निरात्मकत्वान्नोपलभ्येत; उपलभ्यते तु ; तस्मादस्ति ब्रह्म । असतश्चेत्कार्यं गृह्यमाणमपि असदन्वितमेव स्यात् ; न चैवम् ; तस्मादस्ति ब्रह्म । तत्र ‘कथमसतः सज्जायेत’ (छा. उ. ६-२-२) इति श्रुत्यन्तरमसतः सज्जन्मासंभवमन्वाचष्टे न्यायतः । तस्मात्सदेव ब्रह्मेति युक्तम्
• केनोपनिषत् पदभाष्य​म् । द्वितीयः खण्डः । मन्त्रः ४ - भाष्यम्
  बौद्धपक्षे स्वसंवेद्यतायां तु क्षणभङ्गुरत्वं निरात्मकत्वं च विज्ञानस्य स्यात् ; ‘न हि विज्ञातुर्विज्ञातेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यतेऽविनाशित्वात्’ (बृ. उ. ४-३-३०) ‘नित्यं विभुं सर्वगतम्’ (मु. उ. १-१-६) ‘स वा एष महानज आत्माजरोऽमरोऽमृतोऽभयः’ (बृ. उ. ४-४-२५) इत्याद्याः श्रुतयो बाध्येरन् ।
• Here both the Gauḍapāda kārikā (ch.2) and the shānkara bhāṣya thereon rebut the buddhistic stand:
  
  उभयोरपि वैतथ्यं भेदानां स्थानयोर्यदि ।
  क एतान्बुध्यते भेदान्को वै तेषां विकल्पकः ॥ ११ ॥

  भाष्यम्

  चोदक आह — स्वप्नजाग्रत्स्थानयोर्भेदानां यदि वैतथ्यम्, क एतानन्तर्बहिश्चेतःकल्पितान्बुध्यते । को वै तेषां विकल्पकः ; स्मृतिज्ञानयोः क आलम्बनमित्यभिप्रायः ; न चेन्निरात्मवाद इष्टः ॥
  कल्पयत्यात्मनात्मानमात्मा देवः स्वमायया ।
  स एव बुध्यते भेदानिति वेदान्तनिश्चयः ॥ १२ ॥

  भाष्यम्

  स्वयं स्वमायया स्वमात्मानमात्मा देवः आत्मन्येव बक्ष्यमाणं भेदाकारं कल्पयति रज्ज्वादाविव सर्पादीन्, स्वयमेव च तान्बुध्यते भेदान्, तद्वदेवेत्येवं वेदान्तनिश्चयः । नान्योऽस्ति ज्ञानस्मृत्याश्रयः । न च निरास्पदे एव ज्ञानस्मृती वैनाशिकानामिवेत्यभिप्रायः ॥
• छान्दोग्योपनिषद्भाष्यम् । षष्ठोऽध्यायः । द्वितीयः खण्डः । मन्त्रः २ - भाष्यम्
  न तु असद्वादिनां दृष्टान्तोऽस्ति असतः सदुत्पत्तेः । मृत्पिण्डाद्घटोत्पत्तिर्दृश्यते सद्वादिनाम्, तद्भावे भावात्तदभावे चाभावात् । यद्यभावादेव घट उत्पद्येत, घटार्थिना मृत्पिण्डो नोपादीयेत, अभावशब्दबुद्ध्यनुवृत्तिश्च घटादौ प्रसज्येत ; न त्वेतदस्ति ; अतः नासतः सदुत्पत्तिः । .... ‘वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’ (छा. उ. ६-१-४) एवं सदेव सत्यम् — इति श्रुतेः ।
• Chandogya up. 6.2.1 -  असत्त्वमात्राभ्युपगमोऽप्ययुक्त एव, अभ्युपगन्तुरनभ्युपगमानुपपत्तेः ।
• For the kārikā 4th ch. क्रमते न हि बुद्धस्य ज्ञानं धर्मेषु तायिनः ।
  सर्वे धर्मास्तथा ज्ञानं नैतद्बुद्धेन भाषितम् ॥ ९९ ॥  the bhāṣyam ---तथा धर्मा इति आकाशमिव अचलमविक्रियं निरवयवं नित्यमद्वितीयमसङ्गमदृश्यमग्राह्यमशनायाद्यतीतं ब्रह्मात्मतत्त्वम्, ‘न हि द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यते’ (बृ. उ. ४-३-२३) इति श्रुतेः । ज्ञानज्ञेयज्ञातृभेदरहितं परमार्थतत्त्वमद्वयमेतन्न बुद्धेन भाषितम् । यद्यपि बाह्यार्थनिराकरणं ज्ञानमात्रकल्पना च अद्वयवस्तुसामीप्यमुक्तम् । इदं तु परमार्थतत्त्वमद्वैतं वेदान्तेष्वेव विज्ञेयमित्यर्थः ॥ 
  
• बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । प्रथमोऽध्यायः । चतुर्थं ब्राह्मणम् । मन्त्रः १० - भाष्यम् -- तया अविपरिलुप्तया नित्यया दृष्ट्या स्वरूपभूतया स्वयंज्योतिःसमाख्यया इतरामनित्यां दृष्टिं स्वप्नान्तबुद्धान्तयोर्वासनाप्रत्ययरूपां नित्यमेव पश्यन्दृष्टेर्द्रष्टा भवति ।
•  चतुर्थोऽध्यायः । तृतीयं ब्राह्मणम् । मन्त्रः ७ - भाष्यम्-- विविक्तेन स्वेन आत्मज्योतिषा स्वप्नात्मिकां धीवृत्तिमवभासयन्नवतिष्ठते यस्मात् — तस्मात् स्वयंज्योतिःस्वभाव एवासौ,
• चतुर्थोऽध्यायः । तृतीयं ब्राह्मणम् । मन्त्रः २१ - भाष्यम्-- तत् वै अस्य आत्मनः स्वयंज्योतिःस्वभावस्य एतत् रूपम्
• The phrase ’अत्रायं पुरुषः स्वयं ज्योतिर्भवति’ occurs in the Br.up. 4.3.14.
• ’नासतो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सतः’ भ. गी. २.१६
  

One can see from the above sample that those who have alleged that

 //That external evidence is the widely held position by historical scholars from most traditional Indian philosओphical schools (not including Advaita for obvious reasons) – and a position which John Grimes calls "undeniable" – that the works of Gauḍapāda and Śaṅkara have elements “borrowed from” those of Nāgārjuna, Vasubandhu and Dignāga.// and //

And here is Dasgupta again on pages 493-494:

“Śaṅkara and his followers borrowed much of their dialectic form of criticism from the Buddhists. His Brahman was very much like the śūnya of Nāgārjuna … The debts of Śaṅkara to the self-luminosity of the Vijñānavāda Buddhism can hardly be overestimated … I am led to think that Śaṅkara’s philosophy is largely a compound of Vijñānavāda and Śūnyavāda Buddhism with the Upaniṣad notion of the permanence of self superadded.” //

are so oblivious to not just the statements so contrary (to the above allegations)  in the kārikā and the other bhāṣya-s of Shankaracharya but even in the very upanishads (for example the nityatva and the svayam jyotiḥ svabhāva of the Atman/brahman. Why indeed should one 'borrow' the concept of self-luminosity from the bauddha when it is so very much available in the upanishad? ).  By not grasping the purport of the bhāṣyam and the upaniṣads these 'scholars', both of the Indian traditional non-advaitic and the other historians both Indian and non-Indian have gone on to make statements by which others are carried away without caring to verify their veracity from the upaniṣads, kārikā-s and bhāṣyas. 

Just because those 'historians' have given their opinion, here I am presenting another such opinion:

In the Kannada Book 'mata traya samīkṣā' authored by Dr.A.V.Nagasampige, a renowned contemporary scholar of Dvaita Vedanta, under the section devoted for Advaita, in pages 51 to 57  where the distinction between the buddhistic tenets and advaita have been discussed with citations from works of both the systems:

p.51:  Is Advaita darshana the same as Bauddha darshana?

p.56:  ಬ್ರಹ್ಮವೆಂದು ಹೇಳಿದಾಗ ವಿಧಿಯು ಕಾಣುತ್ತದೆ. ಶೂನ್ಯವೆಂದು ಹೇಳಿದಾಗ  ನಿಷೇಧವು ತೋರುತ್ತದೆ .  ಬ್ರಹ್ಮವು ಸತ್ಯ (ಭಾವ) ವಾಗಿದೆ.  ಶೂನ್ಯವು ಅಭಾವರೂಪವಾಗಿದೆ.  ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಪರತತ್ತ್ವದಲ್ಲಿ   ಶೂನ್ಯವಾದಿಗಳಿಗೂ ಅದ್ವೈತವಾದಿಗಳಿಗೂ ವೈಲಕ್ಷಣ್ಯವಿದೆ. 

P.57: conclusion:  ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ವೇದದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ನಿರ್ವಿಶೇಷ ಚೈತನ್ಯದ ಪರಿಕಲ್ಪನೆಯನ್ನು ರೂಪಾಂತರದಿಂದ ಒಪ್ಪಿದ ಬೌದ್ಧರು ’ಪ್ರಚ್ಛನ್ನವೈದಿಕರು.’

The above, translated is:

// ’ब्रह्म’ इत्युक्ते विधिरवगम्यते । ’शून्यम्’ इत्युच्चारणे निषेधः प्रतीयते । ब्रह्म सत्यं (विद्यमानरूपम्) भवति । शून्यं  तु  अभावरूपं भवति   ।    एवं च परतत्त्वविषये  शून्यवाद्यद्वैतवादिनोर्वैलक्षण्यमस्ति ।  .......

तस्माद्वेदे विद्यमाननिर्विशेषचैतन्यं रूपान्तरेणाभ्युपगच्छन्तो बौद्धाः ’प्रच्छन्नवैदिकाः’ । 

The word 'shūnya' is a popular purāṇic one:  The Viṣṇu sahasranāma has this word/name.  वीरहा विषमः शून्यो...

The word 'shūnya' is listed as one of the names of Brahman by Sri Paramashivendra 
Saraswati (the preceptor of Sri Sadashivendra Saraswati of Nerur) in his work:


वेदान्तनामरत्नसहस्त्रम्’ [a book of a thousand names of Brahman culled out from the Vedanta']
:
शून्यम् - पारतत्त्र्यादिदोषरहितं निर्विशेषं वा ।  तदुक्तं वासिष्ठे -


शून्यं तत् प्रकृतिर्माया ब्रह्म विज्ञानमित्यपि ।
शिवः पुरुष ईशानो नित्यमात्मेति कथ्यते ॥ इति ।

स्वप्रकाशमानन्दघनं शून्यमभवत् इति श्रुतिः ।  उक्तं च पाद्मे पुराणे - 
यं दृष्ट्वा योगिनो नित्यं सन्तृप्ताः स्वात्मसंस्थितम् ।
अक्षरं सदसच्छून्यं परमात्मानमीश्वरम्॥ इति ।  

regards
subrahmanian.v

        

 

Prof Radhakrishna uses high sounding words which the original texts when read don't have any of those words.  I am sure at least on Sankhya Prof Dasgupta gives his theory of Sankhya. A more balanced text book would be Chandradhar Sharma's book for advaita and Prof. Nakumara dates  and Paul hacker and Mayeda for criteria to determine works of Shankara.

The usual disclaimer these are my personal views and one may not agree with at all

Please note at least Nityananda ji and Vidyashnakara ji have at least given reasons as to why they assign a date. Thats my quick point take away from this thread Thanks

--

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

It will be kind of you if you can make available the details of your paper / book, where we can get the details of your 1978 work, which  showed the influence of the Vasubandhu-Maitryeyanatha Yogaacaara thought on the Maanduukya-Upanishad and kaarikaas, on Gaudapaada and the structure of post-Maanduujkya Vedaanta. I would request you kindly to attach the same in case any of these is in pdf form.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[Nityanand Misra]

My guess turned out to be correct - it was Pathak who concluded the date was 788 to 820 CE based on a manuscript he found in 1882. Here is the attached paper. The citation is

K. B. Pathak (1882). The Date of Śaṁkarācārya. Indian Antiquary, Volume 11, 1882, pp 174-175.

Dasgupta's first volume came out in 1922, and it is likely the date given by Pathak'a manuscript was agreed upon by historian then.

Nakamura wrote more than half a century after Dasgupta. He begins his 40-page treatment of the date in Part Two (The dates of Śaṅkara and contemporary Philosphers) of Chapter Two (The Chronological Divisions of Early Vedānta Philosphy) with Pathak's article. Nakamura writes that as the birth year tallied with that given in the works Āryavidyāsudhākara and Śaṁkaramandārasaurabha, and hence was probably accepted as standard. Nakamura's conclusion is eight century and a much longer life span than the 32 year span available in traditional accounts. For more details one may refer pages 48 to 90 of A History of Early Vedānta Philosophy (MLBD, 1990 edition, ISBN 9788120806511).

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 8:59:54 PM UTC-4, Nityanand Misra wrote:

On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 9:04:52 PM UTC+8, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

Dear Sunilji,

 

This argument has indeed been made by some who have found it impossible to contradict the internal evidence that allows us to roughly date these texts but would still like to maintain that the date of Adi Sankara and the date of origin of their favorite institutions should be in the 5th century BCE. I would like you to impartially judge the merits of such conclusions. To me, this sounds like wanting to have the cake and eat it too.

 

 

Firstly, for Sunil Ji, it would not be a good idea to mix traditional beliefs and modern historical studies. If somebody as per traditional beliefs places Śaṅkara in 5^th century BCE and discount modern history, that is completely fine. However, as per the history [agreed upon today], Śaṅkara certainly came after Nāgārjuna (second and third century CE), Vasubandhu (fouth century CE) and Dignāga (fifth and sixth century CE).

Secdondly, for Vidyasankar Ji, more than the internal evidence, there is ample external evidence which contradicts claims placing Śaṅkara before Nāgārjuna and Vasubandhu. That external evidence is the widely held position by historical scholars from most traditional Indian philosphical schools (not including Advaita for obvious reasons) – and a position which John Grimes calls "undeniable" – that the works of Gauḍapāda and Śaṅkara have elements “borrowed from” those of Nāgārjuna, Vasubandhu and Dignāga.

 

Just to clarify, in case it is not obvious, I have absolutely no disagreement with placing the date of Sankara post-Nagarjuna. Actually, it should also be post-Dharmakirti and post-Kumarila Bhatta. Such a conclusion does not have depend upon what one makes of the interaction between madhyamaka or vijnAnavAda bauddha-s and vedAntins in the times of gauDapAda and Sankara.

 

The date 788 CE comes, as was noted in later posts, from one native tradition recounted in a text called AryavidyAsudhAkara (I forget the name of the author at the moment) and in the Sankara-mandAra-saurabha and SankarAbhyudaya, which were hagiographic texts written by one Kerala author called Nilakantha. G C Pande reports a similar reference in a Hindi text called darSana-prakASa, written by niScaladAsa of the udAsIna sampradAya, who lived in the north. The mss reported by Pathak in the Indian Antiquary is quite in consonance with these. Obviously, these diverse authors were reporting whatever tradition they had received about the matter. They can be held to be completely innocent of such complications as political equations between various SAnkara maTha-s, or a desire to date key historical people before Christ, or even any particular interest in history and chronology in the European sense, which we Indians have inherited today.

 

As such, it is not only misleading, but completely wrong, to project it as if 5th century BCE is the *only* "traditional" date for Sankara. Rather, it is the other way round. Those like Kota Venkatachalam and T S Narayana Sastri, who proposed a 5th cent BCE date for Sankara, did so in the 19th century, as a reaction to what they saw as a British colonial attempt to downgrade ancient Indian traditions to more recent origins. In my opinion, this is an over-reaction, as the date of Sankara has absolutely nothing to do with debates about Indo-Aryan origins. "Belief" in any date, especially in a 5th century BC date, is actually a quite newly minted tradition.

 

Please note that I distinguish between concrete dates as recounted today and the traditionally presented paramparA lists of the various maTha-s as presented a couple of centuries ago. The latter most often only give names for earlier AcArya-s. The dates have been retrofitted to the names, within the last 100-150 years. They are not etched in stone.

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

                   

[Nagaraj Paturi]

This is not connected to the date of Adi-S'ankarAchArya.

 

This is with regard to Advaita Vedanta vis-à-vis Buddhism which occurred in course of the date discussion.

 

 Pūjya Nityananda Misraji brought Dasgupta into discussion:

 

Here is Surendranath Dasgupta on page 418 of A History of Indian Philosophy (Volume 1) –

“About the period 780 A.D. Gauḍapāda revived the monistic teaching of the Upaniṣads by his commentary on the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad in verse called Māndūkyakārikā. His disciple Govinda was the teacher of Śaṅkara (788 — 820 A.D.).”

And here is Dasgupta again on pages 493-494:

“Śaṅkara and his followers borrowed much of their dialectic form of criticism from the Buddhists. His Brahman was very much like the śūnya of Nāgārjuna … The debts of Śaṅkara to the self-luminosity of the Vijñānavāda Buddhism can hardly be overestimated … I am led to think that Śaṅkara’s philosophy is largely a compound of Vijñānavāda and Śūnyavāda Buddhism with the Upaniṣad notion of the permanence of self superadded.”

I know that the context is only the date of Adi-S'ankara  and not the Dasgupta's opinion on the S'ankara's learning from the Buddhists expressed in the expressions of his times such as

 "The debts of Śaṅkara to the self-luminosity of the Vijñānavāda Buddhism can hardly be overestimated"

Though not quoted here, Dasgupta's opinion is that even Gaudapada was influenced by Buddhism. (pp 423-424 of the same book.)

He goes to the extent of saying that

 " there is sufficient evidence in the Karikas for thinking that he was possibly himself a Buddhist or...."

This opinion of Dasgupta and a similar one by Vidhus'ekhara Bhattacharya were thoroughly countered by Raghunatha Damodara Karmarkar in his Introduction to the BORI publication of gauḍapāda kārikā (1953).

Apart from that, let me share the following information. The inscriptions of śātavāhana times and the archeological information from Vijayapuri now relocated to be saved from the Nagarjuna Sagar water shows a very close co-existence of Vedic and Buddhist traditions. The śātavāhana kings are described as the performers of 100 Vājapēya Yāgas and women members of their family are described as the followers of Buddhabhagavān in the same inscription. A structure identified by archeologists as a Vedic temple and another as a Buddhist vidyālaya are found side by side in the same complex. nāgārjuna was a product of this milieu. gauḍapāda can also be imagined to be part of such milieu only. So is it not a good idea to look at the continuities and discontinuities between the Buddhist and Vedic traditions from this perspective?

Regards,

Nagaraj 

    

 

--

निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Ganesh R]

Dear Sirs,

Regarding the differences between Buddhism and Shankara-vEdaanta, the great Saint Sri SacchidaanandEndra-sarasvati has written a wonderful book in Sanskrit by name "Saankara-prakriyaabhaaskaraH" and recently its Kannada translation is done by Sri AdvayaanandEndra-sarasvasti.

To establish the Vedic roots of Buddhism, one can refer to the books of Ananda K.Koomaraswamy (Hinduism and Buddhism, The gospel of Buddha), BladEva upaadhyaaya (Bauddha-darshan),G. C.Pande ( Bauddhadharma ka itihaas) etc.,

regards

ganesh

--

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:29:08 PM UTC+8, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

 

Just to clarify, in case it is not obvious, I have absolutely no disagreement with placing the date of Sankara post-Nagarjuna. Actually, it should also be post-Dharmakirti and post-Kumarila Bhatta. Such a conclusion does not have depend upon what one makes of the interaction between madhyamaka or vijnAnavAda bauddha-s and vedAntins in the times of gauDapAda and Sankara.

 

While the exact historical date of Śaṅkara may not depend on the debate on whether (and to what extent) Buddhist works impacted Advaita works, there is a relation between the two. To the best of my information, both sides of the debate take it for granted that Gauḍapāda and Śaṅkara were later in time compared to the Buddhist writers (Nāgarjuna, Vasubandhu, Dignāga, etc).

 

Hence what we have is a 1200-year old assumption (since the time of Bhāskara) of the terminus post quem for Gauḍapāda and Śaṅkara.

 

For if Śaṅkara (and by implication Gauḍapāda) preceded Nāgarjuna and others, the debate does not arise at all.

 

Hence, a proposed date for Śaṅkara before Nāgarjuna goes against a 1200 year old belief. Therefore, the date has to be not only be backed by indisputable evidence, but also has to explain why for more than 1200 years most people assumed/thought otherwise.

 

 

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

On 21-07-2014 23:26, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

5. Regarding the title shaNmata sthApanAcArya, please note that this title is not even present in any of the traditional birudAvalI-s of the SankarAcArya pITha-s. There is a "shaD-darSana-sthApanAcarya" title given to vidyAraNya, and by extension, to his lineage successors in various institutions in the southern part of India, but this refers to the standard list of six darSana-s and has nothing to do with the shaN-mata of Saiva, vaishNava etc.

 

6. Regarding the 1969 conference proceedings that Sri Ajit Gargeshwari cited: My personal opinion, for whatever it is worth, is that beyond a feel-good factor for some groups, this publication will not add scholarly value to any discussion. There are numerous Sankaravijaya texts available and people often say that descriptions of shaNmata sthApana come from these texts. However, this is not true, because the reality is that almost all these texts say nothing about shaNmata. The only one that could be seen as coming close is the Sankaravijaya of anantAnandagiri, which happens to be the most contentious such text within the tradition. First printed from Calcutta in the 1870s, it has always been rejected by Sringeri authorities, for numerous reasons. The chapters where it describes shaNmata sthApana are full of fanciful and ahistorical accounts and have been accused, by various scholars, of having been heavily tampered with. Surprisingly, this text includes not the kaumAra, but the kApAlika mata, as the sixth tradition that was accepted by Adi Sankara. Interestingly enough, while Saiva, SAkta, gANapatya, saura and kApAlika mata-s get one leader each, all of them supposedly direct disciples of Adi Sankara, the vaishNava mata alone gets two such leaders, but with a narrowly south Indian focus. anantAnandagiri says that Sankara sent out one disciple named lakshmaNa, an amSAvatAra of AdiSesha, to Kanchipuram in the east, and another called hastAmalaka, an amSa of vAyu, to rajatapITha, i.e. Udupi, in the west, in order to teach vaishNava modes of worship, including UrdhvapuNDra/gopIcandana dhAraNa, SaraNAgati and tapta-mudrA dhAraNa. It should be obvious to even a casual reader that this "lakshmaNa" is really rAmAnujAcArya and this "hastAmalaka" is really madhvAcArya.

 

Dr. Veezhinathan, editor of the 1970 edition from U Madras, has a footnote which theorizes that perhaps some "tAntrika vaishNava-s" have interpolated these descriptions into these chapters, but I, for one, fail to see why any vaishNava would have wanted to subordinate rAmAnuja and madhva to Sankara in this manner. It seems far more likely to me that any possible text-tampering had to have been done not by a vaishNava but by some self-described and short-sighted follower of Sankara. The entire description in this text really comes across as clumsy polemics from one group of south Indian smArta-s against SrIvaishNava-s and mAdhva-s, through an anachronistic story of how Adi Sankara was directly the guru of the leaders of both these vaishNava traditions. In either case, it follows that a shAnmata sthApana description is most probably alien to the original version of this Sankaravijaya text as well. If that is the case, then we have to conclude that there is not even one Sankaravijaya that can provide solid textual support for connecting Adi Sankara with shaNmata sthApana. It is just something that has got established in the popular imagination through repetition by kathAkAra-s, with no basis even in the hagiographic texts. This is akin to how in the Garhwal region they say that Adi Sankara fought against Buddhists using both Sastra and SAstra. It makes for nice alliteration and we all know that Sankara definitely used SAstra, but it is anybody's guess what Sastra he may have used. For a more detailed discussion, please see my paper in the International Journal of Hindu Studies, Conflicting hagiographies and history: the place of Śaṅkaravijaya texts in Advaita tradition, 2000, 4(2), 109-184.

Not to omit here another such Sankaravijayam, which recounts that Sankara had defeated both Abhinavagupta and NIlakaNTha in debate !!!
I wonder What purpose these most irrational texts presenting themselves as worse than Fairy Tales, have served ?
 Is it not now the time that Advaita VedAnta adherents who swear by Sankara and marvel at his uncompromising logic and devotion to truth, throw these books overboard by not citing from them and much still, not wasting their scholarship & energy in editing and translating them ??

 

7. With respect to the stotra-s attributed to Adi Sankara, there has been at least one genuine academic attempt to analyze their authorship. A 1976 paper by Robert Gussner in the Journal of the American Oriental Society concludes, if I remember right, that the dakshiNAmUrti stotra (viSvaM darpaNadRSyamAna nagarItulyaM ...) is the only one that could be authentic, based on stylistic comparison with the verse chapters of upadeSasAhasrI.

I just want to draw the attention in this context, to SaundaryalaharI.
NIlakaNThadIkshita cites the very first verse, शिवः शक्त्या युकतो ....... in his elaborate commentary SIVATATTVARAHASYAM on the SivAShTottaraSatanAmastotra, while commenting the name वामदेवाय नमः.
He  just prefaces it by saying यथोक्तमभियुक्तैः and does not even say आचार्यैः. In the same way, AppayadIkShita (who follows Sankara's views and his bhAshhya to the very letter) also just says तदुक्तमभियुक्तैः while citing a passage from the SaundaryalaharI in one of his works, I think, in his auto commentary on the Brahmatarkastava (if I remember correctly ). So it is clear that even upto 17th century, staunch followers of SankarAdvaita did not consider SaundaryalaharI as the work of Sankara.
But alas !! how much "story" is delineated in all the Sankaravijayam-s about Sankara's composition of this text, his going to KailAsa for this, etc. etc.,,,,


Ganesan

 

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

On Thursday, July 24, 2014 2:59:22 AM UTC-4, Ganesan wrote:

On 21-07-2014 23:26, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:
 

... It is just something that has got established in the popular imagination through repetition by kathAkAra-s, with no basis even in the hagiographic texts. This is akin to how in the Garhwal region they say that Adi Sankara fought against Buddhists using both Sastra and SAstra. It makes for nice alliteration and we all know that Sankara definitely used SAstra, but it is anybody's guess what Sastra he may have used. For a more detailed discussion, please see my paper in the International Journal of Hindu Studies, Conflicting hagiographies and history: the place of Śaṅkaravijaya texts in Advaita tradition, 2000, 4(2), 109-184.

Not to omit here another such Sankaravijayam, which recounts that Sankara had defeated both Abhinavagupta and NIlakaNTha in debate !!!

 

Please read the paper. I have not omitted any of the major Sankaravijaya texts from analysis. Also, please note, the said text does not refer to Abhinavagupta of the Kashmir Saiva tradition. It talks of one navagupta whom it places in Kamarupa, i.e. Assam. Needless to say, no historical value for the purposes of chronology can be attached to such descriptions, no matter what text they occur in.

 

I wonder What purpose these most irrational texts presenting themselves as worse than Fairy Tales, have served ?

Dr. Ganesan, this really takes the cake. Please point to one "rational" text among the loads of hagiographies the world over. Have you considered that there is always a lot of fantastic and non-historical details in traditional accounts of the lives of *all* religious figures, no matter what religion they represent? For example, would you like to ask the same question about rationality and fairy tales with respect to Tamil texts like Sekkizhar's Periyapuranam or Paranjyotiyar's Tiruvilaiyadal Puranam? Unlike you, however, I will not ask Tamil Saiva siddhAntin-s to throw these books overboard!

 

For that matter, step outside the hagiographical genre and look at various origin stories across the world. Would you like to talk about the irrationality that is embedded in accounts of the parting of the Red Sea, or the birth of a son of god from a virgin, or the origins of Tibetan royalty from a one-footed creature with webbed feet and a long tongue, or the Japanese royalty from the sun goddess, or our own Indian royal dynasties from the sun and the moon? What purpose have such fairy tales served? I have one answer - they have anchored entire civilizations, ordered vast collections of human beings across great distances, given birth to wonderful art, the list goes on.

 

 Is it not now the time that Advaita VedAnta adherents who swear by Sankara and marvel at his uncompromising logic and devotion to truth, throw these books overboard by not citing from them and much still, not wasting their scholarship & energy in editing and translating them ??

 

Since when did this discussion about the works attributed to Sankara's authorship transform itself into polemic against texts that seek to glorify Sankara, according to the conventions of their times? Do save a thought for the fact that your suggestion reveals nothing more than your own prejudice against the Sankaran tradition as also the conventions of the times you live in. You expect texts written in India, several centuries ago, to be biographies and histories as understood in the 20th and 21st century.

 

If you want to start throwing texts overboard, please start with cleaning out your own backyard. Again, sorry to be so blunt, but you leave me no choice. My apologies to others who are reading this thread. 

 

7. With respect to the stotra-s attributed to Adi Sankara, there has been at least one genuine academic attempt to analyze their authorship. A 1976 paper by Robert Gussner in the Journal of the American Oriental Society concludes, if I remember right, that the dakshiNAmUrti stotra (viSvaM darpaNadRSyamAna nagarItulyaM ...) is the only one that could be authentic, based on stylistic comparison with the verse chapters of upadeSasAhasrI.
         

I just want to draw the attention in this context, to SaundaryalaharI.
NIlakaNThadIkshita cites the very first verse, शिवः शक्त्या युकतो ....... in his elaborate commentary SIVATATTVARAHASYAM on the SivAShTottaraSatanAmastotra, while commenting the name वामदेवाय नमः.
He  just prefaces it by saying यथोक्तमभियुक्तैः and does not even say आचार्यैः. In the same way, AppayadIkShita (who follows Sankara's views and his bhAshhya to the very letter) also just says तदुक्तमभियुक्तैः while citing a passage from the SaundaryalaharI in one of his works, I think, in his auto commentary on the Brahmatarkastava (if I remember correctly ). So it is clear that even upto 17th century, staunch followers of SankarAdvaita did not consider SaundaryalaharI as the work of Sankara.
But alas !! how much "story" is delineated in all the Sankaravijayam-s about Sankara's composition of this text, his going to KailAsa for this, etc. etc.,,,

 

Just one question. So what?

 

Story spinning and myth making is an ongoing process. It happens every second of every day. If you would like to criticize specific people for this, that is a different story. Do not project a false picture of the entire spectrum of admirers of Sankara and followers of advaita vedAnta.

 

Vidyasankar

                   

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

On Thursday, July 24, 2014 2:21:31 AM UTC-4, Nityanand Misra wrote:

 

Hence, a proposed date for Śaṅkara before Nāgarjuna goes against a 1200 year old belief. Therefore, the date has to be not only be backed by indisputable evidence, but also has to explain why for more than 1200 years most people assumed/thought otherwise.

 

Ah, those who would like to date Sankara to the 5th century BCE would also like to date gautama the buddha to the 17th or 18th century BCE, with nAgArjuna placed at some other time in between. I don't agree with any of these proposed dates, because I think this leads to many more huge problems for dates in Indian history. However I have to grant that, under this scenario, the limited problem of dating Sankara before nAgArjuna does not arise!

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

         

[Nityanand Misra]

Let us not forget we need to accomodate Pāṇini also before Śaṅkara. While there are places in his works where Śaṅkarācārya chooses a non-Pāṇinian interpretation over a Pāṇinian interpretation – for example on BS 2.3.19 jño'ta eva he ignores PS 3.1.135 igupadhājñāprīkiraḥ kaḥ which ordains kaḥ in the sense of agent and not in the sense of verbal action (Natalia Isayeva discusses this example in Shankara and Indian Philosophy, SUNY Press, ISBN 9780791412817 on page 225, along with the interpretation of Rāmānuja and Nimbārka of the same aphorism), Śaṅkara does show that he knows of Pāṇini's work – for example he cites PS 5.4.21 tatprakṛtavacane mayaṭ verbatim in his commentary on BS 1.1.13 vikāraśabdānneti cenna prācuryāt. Pāṇini's time is currently believed to be 4th century BC. If we push back Śaṅkara to 5th century BCE we have to accomodate Pāṇini many years before him also: in short we are looking at new chronologies for many pre-Śaṅkara authors.

 

 

        

[Dr.BVK Sastry (G-Mail-pop)]

Namaste Dr.T.Ganesan

 

The ‘ interesting and intriguing discussion’   is almost moving to a phase of animosity, in case the moderators have not noticed the language style. And may be it is time to see the facts clearly apart from fiction!

 

Here are my questions on  the points raised in the deliberation here. ( The paper by Dr.Sunil KB, in a separate post,  on dotted record of history and a different frame of time lines would be a subject for a different post.)

 

 

1. The first point  requested for clarification:   What is the correct position and word  < Mata = Opinion  > OR <Darshana =  System of analytics to interpret and construct Vedic tradition as Prasthana Traya > ?  Assuming this claim was made by ‘ only Advaita-Shankara maTha schools’?   What was the ‘social and institutional  response of the post SriVaishnava / Vaishnava institutions > ??

 

              The relevance of this question stands out in the backdrop of ‘ ‘Vaishnava schools’ specifically ‘ accommodating Buddha as the ‘avatar’ of Vishnu, with the authority of ‘ Sri Madhvacharya’. ! The same ‘Buddha, the anti-Vedic tradition ’ whose teachings were supposed to have been couched differently  by ‘ Acharya Shankara!  The charge of  ‘ Pracchnna Bauddha / Maayaa vaadi ’ in the polemical debates ?? is a clear pointer to note. What was the goal of ‘ accommodating Buddha’ inside of  ‘Vaishnava –Dwaita –mata’ ??

 

Whether it is  < Shan-mata-Sthapancharya> or < Shad-Darshana – Sthapana-acharya> : These references are post 1300 A.D which ever way one goes ! And this is speaking about the work of Acharya who was separated by at least  six hundred years of memory –faith influences. In this intermediary period < 700 A.D to 1300 A.D > three important issues need to be noticed:   a)  Acharya Shankara has attained a larger than life public image in this period. (b ) Acharya Shankara’s teachings have undergone < intra- advaita modifications> as well as < Special flavors  of  Sri Vaishnava / Saiva interpretations>.  (c ) The foundation for Vaishnava – Dwaita – Udupi  schools is already set and seeds are brewing.

 

2.  About   < clumsy polemics -  irrational Texts >  and < kaThaakaara’s with no basis even in the hagiographic texts> , Why is this issue being singled out to pin down the ‘Shankara Vijayam Textual tradition ’ ??  Would some one go on board to say the same about Sumadhva Vijaya and other such texts ??  Selective targeting is not a fair forum decorum.

 

 All the three schools of Vedanta unequivocally anchor  the authoritative  blessings received  by  ‘  Badarayana  Veda-Vyasa of Brahma –Sutra tradition ( alluded in Gita: 13^th chapter- 4^th sloka: ‘Brahma-Sutra-padaischiava ; Gita   dated to  3100 C.E circa ?!) ’. Each school swears that  each individual Acharya was blessed by Badarayana Veda-Vyasa, for their commendable work of commenting  on  ‘Brahma sutra’ .  The  <hagiography> seed  of  ‘ unquestionable faith’ of all Vedanta  schools is in the time frame of 600 A D to 1300 A D;  and ALL later writings depend upon this narrative !  

 

3.  About <Saundarya lahari –Acharya Shankaras work authenticity> ??  Who are these < staunch followers of Shankara-advaita who did not consider Saundaryalahari as the work of Shankara> ??  An Acharya, who is acknowledged to have established a Shaarada Peetha at Kashmir and many Shakti-Peetha’s across India  with main one at Kanchi, why should one doubt his capacity to compose a beautiful poem like Saundarya lahari, where Sri-Vidya, the <Vedanta-Tantra  - samucchaya and  samanvaya has taken place ? >  The deep connection of Vedanta –Adviata and SriVidya – Srichakra Pooja paddhati is an esoteric practice, not meant for free for all forum debate.

 

    The debated word in Saundarya lahari  < Dramida Shishu>: which is used as an argument to denounce the authorship of Saundarya lahari to Shankara by some writers:   Who gave the  understanding -meaning of the word   <Dramida > as < specific south Indian state with Aryan-Dravidian race division  >??  

   When the vocabulary –meaning shifts for technical words  are ported across historic time lines in < un-scholarly mode and translation>, the results are disastrous. The meaning of the  < Vedic /Word  dramida> also found  in Mahabharata  has been highly debated . In one school, Dramida-bhahsaa means: < five Dravidian languages of South India (Pancha- Bhasha, are Tulu, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam). In some other school, <Dramida> is Malayalam only (? -  http://joshuaproject.net/people_groups/20218/IN ) ?? . So what is  <dramida –shishu> ?? And in what way the < dramida shishu > status brings down the association of  authorship of Saundarya lahari with Shankara ?  The nirguna brahma avaita end ? The same Acharya has provided many Saguna –brahma upaasanaa margas also !

 

Much obliged if the scholars help to clarify the above points.

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7903 - Release Date: 07/22/14

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

On 24-07-2014 20:13, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

On Thursday, July 24, 2014 2:59:22 AM UTC-4, Ganesan wrote:

On 21-07-2014 23:26, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:
 

Dr. Ganesan, this really takes the cake. Please point to one "rational" text among the loads of hagiographies the world over. Have you considered that there is always a lot of fantastic and non-historical details in traditional accounts of the lives of *all* religious figures, no matter what religion they represent? For example, would you like to ask the same question about rationality and fairy tales with respect to Tamil texts like Sekkizhar's Periyapuranam or Paranjyotiyar's Tiruvilaiyadal Puranam? Unlike you, however, I will not ask Tamil Saiva siddhAntin-s to throw these books overboard!

Mr. Vidyasankar,
 I am so sorry for your total ignorance about Sekkizhar's Periyapuranam or Paranjyotiyar's Tiruvilaiyadal Puranam.
It is much clear that you have not taken care to read anything about the origin of the Sekkizhar's Periyapuranam. He being the Prime minister of the Chola king in in the 12th century, first of all collected himself the facts about the lives of the NAyanmAr-s from the various places they had visited and after due verification, then started composing the PeriyapurANam. In that narration of the lives of NAyanmAr-s there is absolutely no contardition at least with regard to the various historical figures, or any irrationality or incongruous depiction or distortion of facts or events or personages. So much research and studies on this text focussing on the social situations, contemporary customs, Bhakti, behaviour and conducts of Saiva devotees among themselves and in the society at large, etc., etc., have been done. I would suggest you to read some of the books written by Sri. T. N. Ramachandran (known as TNR) of Thanjavur who had translated the entire text into English verse and who have got many facts about PeriyapurANam as a text and its origin. If you find out any such contradictory fact after due research then show me.
As a tit for tat reaction to my post, you have placed the PeriyapurANam on par with the Sankaravijayam-s. But, alas ! in the process please do not miss the good fortune of reading the PeriyapurANam and thereby denying yourself the great benefits just because I have criticised the irrationality of the Sankaravijayam-s. Both these texts can never be compared among themselves as each one is of entirely different kind--both in their contents and the methods of delineation. One can go on bringing out so many such dissimilarities between these two texts. One such outstanding dissimilarity among them is: The fundamental aim and purpose of the PeriyapurANam is the glorification of SIVABHAKTI through depicting the hallowed lives of the great Sivabhakta-s whereas, the Sankaravijayam-s' main aim is only to speak the greatness of Sankara alone without any declared motive of instilling Bhakti towards any form of God or to His devotees.
How do you bring in Paranjyotiyar's Tiruvilaiyadal Puranam here ?  It is not at all a hagiography in the first place which basic fact you seem to be ignorant of. It is the depiction of 64 divine lIlA-s of Siva at Madurai, and it is like any other purANam which genre of literature all the sincere followers of SanAtana dhrama are proud of.
Your response typifies the attitude of SankarAdvaita adherents towards any fact or view or text other than Advaita vedAnta, and that too towards anything Saiva expounded in Tamil or any other language.

For that matter, step outside the hagiographical genre and look at various origin stories across the world. Would you like to talk about the irrationality that is embedded in accounts of the parting of the Red Sea, or the birth of a son of god from a virgin, or the origins of Tibetan royalty from a one-footed creature with webbed feet and a long tongue, or the Japanese royalty from the sun goddess, or our own Indian royal dynasties from the sun and the moon? What purpose have such fairy tales served? I have one answer - they have anchored entire civilizations, ordered vast collections of human beings across great distances, given birth to wonderful art, the list goes on.

Since when did this discussion about the works/time of Sankara transform itself into a comparison of various texts among the loads of hagiographies the world over ?

 

 

Since when did this discussion about the works attributed to Sankara's authorship transform itself into polemic against texts that seek to glorify Sankara, according to the conventions of their times? Do save a thought for the fact that your suggestion reveals nothing more than your own prejudice against the Sankaran tradition as also the conventions of the times you live in. You expect texts written in India, several centuries ago, to be biographies and histories as understood in the 20th and 21st century.

 It is you in your very response in the earlier discussion brought in Sankaravijayam (which I have put in italics in my earlier response) and now you start complaining when the same Sankaravijayam-s are criticised.  Be aware of the fact that these Sankaravijayam-s were not composed several centuries ago, but were composed only after the 16th century.

 

If you want to start throwing texts overboard, please start with cleaning out your own backyard. Again, sorry to be so blunt, but you leave me no choice. My apologies to others who are reading this thread.

Fortunately, unlike you I DO  NOT HAVE ANY SUCH TEXT to throw overboard in my esteemed book shelf which I keep in my study room and not in the backyard.
Objectivity and refraining from personal attack are the two important qualifications of a good researcher, which qualities are fully lacking in you. If otherwise, you would not have taken my remark addressed in general to the Advaita VedAnta adherents as a personal one and responded in the way as you have done above.

 

7. With respect to the stotra-s attributed to Adi Sankara, there has been at least one genuine academic attempt to analyze their authorship. A 1976 paper by Robert Gussner in the Journal of the American Oriental Society concludes, if I remember right, that the dakshiNAmUrti stotra (viSvaM darpaNadRSyamAna nagarItulyaM ...) is the only one that could be authentic, based on stylistic comparison with the verse chapters of upadeSasAhasrI.
         

I just want to draw the attention in this context, to SaundaryalaharI.
NIlakaNThadIkshita cites the very first verse, शिवः शक्त्या युकतो ....... in his elaborate commentary SIVATATTVARAHASYAM on the SivAShTottaraSatanAmastotra, while commenting the name वामदेवाय नमः.
He  just prefaces it by saying यथोक्तमभियुक्तैः and does not even say आचार्यैः. In the same way, AppayadIkShita (who follows Sankara's views and his bhAshhya to the very letter) also just says तदुक्तमभियुक्तैः while citing a passage from the SaundaryalaharI in one of his works, I think, in his auto commentary on the Brahmatarkastava (if I remember correctly ). So it is clear that even upto 17th century, staunch followers of SankarAdvaita did not consider SaundaryalaharI as the work of Sankara.
But alas !! how much "story" is delineated in all the Sankaravijayam-s about Sankara's composition of this text, his going to KailAsa for this, etc. etc.,,,

 

Just one question. So what?

 

Story spinning and myth making is an ongoing process. It happens every second of every day. If you would like to criticize specific people for this, that is a different story. Do not project a false picture of the entire spectrum of admirers of Sankara and followers of advaita vedAnta.

Vidyasankar

So what ..... ? Read my remark contained in the above passage for some more time.
I am questioning the very same attitude of the SankarAdvaita followers which at one breath adores the uncompromising logic and rationality of Sankara and in the next breath, tolerates the spinning around of incongruous stories in the form of Sankaravijayam-s abounding in myth-mongering !
The Sankara Myth is so big and strong and wide spread that anybody who questions the very logicality of any of the Advaita concepts or of Sankara's interpretation of certain Upanishadic passages or the historicity of the now existing Sankara maTha-s, is shouted out in the form of personal attack or by attributing motives to his questioning.
So much about their avowed adherence to truth and logical facts. !!!

Ganesan

                   

--

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

On 25-07-2014 08:28, Dr.BVK Sastry (G-Mail-pop) wrote:

 

2.  About   < clumsy polemics -  irrational Texts >  and < kaThaakaara’s with no basis even in the hagiographic texts> , Why is this issue being singled out to pin down the ‘Shankara Vijayam Textual tradition ’ ??  Would some one go on board to say the same about Sumadhva Vijaya and other such texts ??  Selective targeting is not a fair forum decorum.

 

 All the three schools of Vedanta unequivocally anchor  the authoritative  blessings received  by  ‘  Badarayana  Veda-Vyasa of Brahma –Sutra tradition ( alluded in Gita: 13^th chapter- 4^th sloka: ‘Brahma-Sutra-padaischiava ; Gita   dated to  3100 C.E circa ?!) ’. Each school swears that  each individual Acharya was blessed by Badarayana Veda-Vyasa, for their commendable work of commenting  on  ‘Brahma sutra’ .  The  <hagiography> seed  of  ‘ unquestionable faith’ of all Vedanta  schools is in the time frame of 600 A D to 1300 A D;  and ALL later writings depend upon this narrative ! 

Mr. Sastry,
My citing the case of sankaravijayam is only as an instance. As you have rightly said, the other texts of the "vijayam" category do not fare any better. In fact I would say that one of the many inspirations and influences that Sankaravijayam-s have contributed in the domain of irrational and incongruous hagiography is that under its inspiration, these hagiographies on RAmAnuja and the suMadhvavijayam have been composed.

 

3.  About <Saundarya lahari –Acharya Shankaras work authenticity> ??  Who are these < staunch followers of Shankara-advaita who did not consider Saundaryalahari as the work of Shankara> ??  An Acharya, who is acknowledged to have established a Shaarada Peetha at Kashmir and many Shakti-Peetha’s across India  with main one at Kanchi, why should one doubt his capacity to compose a beautiful poem like Saundarya lahari, where Sri-Vidya, the <Vedanta-Tantra  - samucchaya and  samanvaya has taken place ? >  The deep connection of Vedanta –Adviata and SriVidya – Srichakra Pooja paddhati is an esoteric practice, not meant for free for all forum debate.

You seem to repeat again the very same views such as Sankara's establishing the various maTha-s, the SrIcakrapUjA, etc., etc., whose veracity and rationality or otherwise we are now discussing and wondering whether there is any textual authority or inscriptional record.
It appears from your response that there is no such question at all and it is a fully accepted fact and about which none can question !!!

 

    The debated word in Saundarya lahari  < Dramida Shishu>: which is used as an argument to denounce the authorship of Saundarya lahari to Shankara by some writers:   Who gave the  understanding -meaning of the word   <Dramida > as < specific south Indian state with Aryan-Dravidian race division  >??  

   When the vocabulary –meaning shifts for technical words  are ported across historic time lines in < un-scholarly mode and translation>, the results are disastrous. The meaning of the  < Vedic /Word  dramida> also found  in Mahabharata  has been highly debated . In one school, Dramida-bhahsaa means: < five Dravidian languages of South India (Pancha- Bhasha, are Tulu, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam). In some other school, <Dramida> is Malayalam only (? -  http://joshuaproject.net/people_groups/20218/IN ) ?? . So what is  <dramida –shishu> ?? And in what way the < dramida shishu > status brings down the association of  authorship of Saundarya lahari with Shankara ?  The nirguna brahma avaita end ? The same Acharya has provided many Saguna –brahma upaasanaa margas also !

 

Much obliged if the scholars help to clarify the above points.

 

Dear Sastry, in my post regarding the SaundaryalaharI, I have not referred to the dramiDashishu view at all. I had just mentioned that even in the 17th century SaundaryalaharI was not considered, by great SankarAdvaita followers such as NIlakaNThadIkshhita, to be a genuine work of Adi Sankara.

Ganesan

[V Subrahmanian]

On Friday, July 25, 2014 12:14:24 PM UTC+5:30, Ganesan wrote:

On 25-07-2014 08:28, Dr.BVK Sastry (G-Mail-pop) wrote:

 

Mr. Sastry,
My citing the case of sankaravijayam is only as an instance. As you have rightly said, the other texts of the "vijayam" category do not fare any better. In fact I would say that one of the many inspirations and influences that Sankaravijayam-s have contributed in the domain of irrational and incongruous hagiography is that under its inspiration, these hagiographies on RAmAnuja and the suMadhvavijayam have been composed.

Dear Sri Ganesan,

In your reply to Sri Vidyasankar you say:

//Be aware of the fact that these Sankaravijayam-s were not composed several centuries ago, but were composed only after the 16th century.//

And in the above reply to Sri Sastry you say that the sumadhvavijaya is inspired by the Sankaravijayam!!  Evidently, you are unaware of the fact that according to the Madhvas, the sumadhvavijaya was composed by a contemporary of Madhva, Sri Narayana Pandita.  And Madhva's period is generally agreed to be 1238 - 1317/8 AD.

 http://srivyasaraja.org/articles/apr11/AcharyaMadhvaAndHisImmediateDisciples_1.pdf

Also, it is believed that the mādhavīya shankaravijaya is only an abridged version of a pre-existing, now not extant, elaborate work.  Each chapter of the existing work says that it is a chapter in the 'सङ्क्षेपजये’...

regards
subrahmanian.v   

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Dr.BVK Sastry (G-Mail-pop) <sastr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Dr.T.Ganesan

 

 

 

3.  About <Saundarya lahari –Acharya Shankaras work authenticity> ??  Who are these < staunch followers of Shankara-advaita who did not consider Saundaryalahari as the work of Shankara> ??  An Acharya, who is acknowledged to have established a Shaarada Peetha at Kashmir and many Shakti-Peetha’s across India  with main one at Kanchi, why should one doubt his capacity to compose a beautiful poem like Saundarya lahari, where Sri-Vidya, the <Vedanta-Tantra  - samucchaya and  samanvaya has taken place ? >  The deep connection of Vedanta –Adviata and SriVidya – Srichakra Pooja paddhati is an esoteric practice, not meant for free for all forum debate.

There are innumerable advaita-friendly nāma-s in the Sri Lalitāsahasranama: mithyājagadadhiṣṭhānā, nirdvaitā dvaitavarjitā, nirbhedā bhedanāśinī and so on.  

 

    The debated word in Saundarya lahari  < Dramida Shishu>: which is used as an argument to denounce the authorship of Saundarya lahari to Shankara by some writers:   Who gave the  understanding -meaning of the word   <Dramida > as < specific south Indian state with Aryan-Dravidian race division  >??  

It would be interesting to note the usage of Sureshwaracharya in the Naiṣkarmyasiddhi:

तथा भगवत्पादीयमुदाहरणम् .
"सुषुप्ताख्यं तमोऽज्ञानं बीजं स्वप्नप्रबोधयोः .
आत्मबोधप्रदग्धं स्याद्बीजं दग्धं यथाभवम् "..
४३..
एवं गौडैर्द्राविडैर्नः पूज्यैरयमर्थः प्रभाषितः .
अज्ञानमात्रोपाधिस्सन्नहमादिदृगीश्वरः .. ४४..  

He refers to Shankara as 'Bhagavatpāda' and also as 'drāviḍa'.  It is significant that he implies two 'deśa-s', countries, gauḍa (for gauḍapāda) and drāviḍa (for shankara), in the respectful plural and also as pūjya to him. 

regards
subrahmanian.v

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

Thanks for the suggestion.
My point here is all these 'vijayam' texts belonging to these VedAnta schools are the same in portraying irrational and incongruous stories.

Ganesan

On 25-07-2014 15:25, V Subrahmanian wrote:

Dear Sri Ganesan,

In your reply to Sri Vidyasankar you say:

//Be aware of the fact that these Sankaravijayam-s were not composed several centuries ago, but were composed only after the 16th century.//

And in the above reply to Sri Sastry you say that the sumadhvavijaya is inspired by the Sankaravijayam!!  Evidently, you are unaware of the fact that according to the Madhvas, the sumadhvavijaya was composed by a contemporary of Madhva, Sri Narayana Pandita.  And Madhva's period is generally agreed to be 1238 - 1317/8 AD.

 http://srivyasaraja.org/articles/apr11/AcharyaMadhvaAndHisImmediateDisciples_1.pdf

Also, it is believed that the mādhavīya shankaravijaya is only an abridged version of a pre-existing, now not extant, elaborate work.  Each chapter of the existing work says that it is a chapter in the 'सङ्क्षेपजये’...

regards
subrahmanian.v   

 

3.  About <Saundarya lahari –Acharya Shankaras work authenticity> ??  Who are these < staunch followers of Shankara-advaita who did not consider Saundaryalahari as the work of Shankara> ??  An Acharya, who is acknowledged to have established a Shaarada Peetha at Kashmir and many Shakti-Peetha’s across India  with main one at Kanchi, why should one doubt his capacity to compose a beautiful poem like Saundarya lahari, where Sri-Vidya, the <Vedanta-Tantra  - samucchaya and  samanvaya has taken place ? >  The deep connection of Vedanta –Adviata and SriVidya – Srichakra Pooja paddhati is an esoteric practice, not meant for free for all forum debate.

You seem to repeat again the very same views such as Sankara's establishing the various maTha-s, the SrIcakrapUjA, etc., etc., whose veracity and rationality or otherwise we are now discussing and wondering whether there is any textual authority or inscriptional record.
It appears from your response that there is no such question at all and it is a fully accepted fact and about which none can question !!!

 

  Dear Sastry, in my post regarding the SaundaryalaharI, I have not referred to the dramiDashishu view at all. I had just mentioned that even in the 17th century SaundaryalaharI was not considered, by great SankarAdvaita followers such as NIlakaNThadIkshhita, to be a genuine work of Adi Sankara

[Nagaraj Paturi]

1. Should all the inscriptions in which miracles are described be thrown overboard, with their translation, research etc., being stopped? Should  records of British Gazetteers , for example, the one in which Sir Thomas Munroe describes miracles 'seen' by him be thrown overboard

 2. Throughout , the pro-śankara contributors have been calling śankaravijayams as hagiographic texts only. By using that word, they were already conveying that their view of śankaravijayams was that those are compilations of legends only and need not necessarily be true accounts of the past. Then who is being countered through the argument that śankaravijayams have 'fairy tales' ?

 

3. ‘Fairy tale’ is not the right word in this context. ‘Legend’ is the right word. A ‘legend’ is by definition a narrative which has apparently unbelievable content and content in it  that may not stand a historical scrutiny. It would be historical ignorance to construe legends as history. At the same time it would be cultural anthropological ignorance to dismiss legends as not worthy of study at all.

 

Regards,

 

Nagaraj

 

--

निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

On Friday, July 25, 2014 2:32:35 AM UTC-4, Ganesan wrote:

   
Mr. Vidyasankar,
 I am so sorry for your total ignorance about Sekkizhar's Periyapuranam or Paranjyotiyar's Tiruvilaiyadal Puranam.
It is much clear that you have not taken care to read anything about the origin of the Sekkizhar's Periyapuranam. He being the Prime minister of the Chola king in in the 12th century, first of all collected himself the facts about the lives of the NAyanmAr-s from the various places they had visited and after due verification, then started composing the PeriyapurANam. In that narration of the lives of NAyanmAr-s there is absolutely no contardition at least with regard to the various historical figures, or any irrationality or incongruous depiction or distortion of facts or events or personages. So much research and studies on this text focussing on the social situations, contemporary customs, Bhakti, behaviour and conducts of Saiva devotees among themselves and in the society at large, etc., etc., have been done. I would suggest you to read some of the books written by Sri. T. N. Ramachandran (known as TNR) of Thanjavur who had translated the entire text into English verse and who have got many facts about PeriyapurANam as a text and its origin. If you find out any such contradictory fact after due research then show me.
As a tit for tat reaction to my post, you have placed the PeriyapurANam on par with the Sankaravijayam-s. But, alas ! in the process please do not miss the good fortune of reading the PeriyapurANam and thereby denying yourself the great benefits just because I have criticised the irrationality of the Sankaravijayam-s. Both these texts can never be compared among themselves as each one is of entirely different kind--both in their contents and the methods of delineation. One can go on bringing out so many such dissimilarities between these two texts. One such outstanding dissimilarity among them is: The fundamental aim and purpose of the PeriyapurANam is the glorification of SIVABHAKTI through depicting the hallowed lives of the great Sivabhakta-s whereas, the Sankaravijayam-s' main aim is only to speak the greatness of Sankara alone without any declared motive of instilling Bhakti towards any form of God or to His devotees.
How do you bring in Paranjyotiyar's Tiruvilaiyadal Puranam here ?  It is not at all a hagiography in the first place which basic fact you seem to be ignorant of. It is the depiction of 64 divine lIlA-s of Siva at Madurai, and it is like any other purANam which genre of literature all the sincere followers of SanAtana dhrama are proud of.
Your response typifies the attitude of SankarAdvaita adherents towards any fact or view or text other than Advaita vedAnta, and that too towards anything Saiva expounded in Tamil or any other language.

 

Dear Dr. Ganesan,

 

I got the expected reaction from you. You see, for every group of adherents, accounts of miracles, the supernatural, the fantastic and the anachronistic, are "authentic" in their own favorite texts, but "irrational" in other's texts. That was the point I wished to make by talking of the two Tamil texts and your response proves my stance admirably well. So, thank you!

 

Please don't worry, I have indeed read sufficiently detailed accounts from these texts about the lives of the Saiva nAyanmAr-s and about Siva's lIlA-s involving a number of human beings in the city of Madurai. And I have read them in the Tamil language too, not in English translation. I could easily point to a lot in these legends (or fairy tales, to borrow your colourful expression), which would appear "irrational" to non-Saiva eyes and which would easily defy any attempt at reading history and chronology into them.

 

I could enumerate many specifics, if at all I had any wish to embark upon an anti-Saiva rant, which I don't, so I won't. As I said earlier, I will not ask you or other Tamil Saiva siddhAntin adherents to throw these texts overboard, unlike your "considered" reaction to the Sankaravijaya texts. I have a good amount of respect for both sets of texts, in themselves, and both sets of traditions that they describe and represent, again quite unlike your attitude towards adherents of SAnkara vedAnta.

 

Obviously, it is not worth the time and effort to continue these lines of discussion with you. This is perhaps a belated realization on my part, seeing as how others who attempted to contribute reasonably to a genuine discussion in the past two weeks have since decided to keep silent. I will join their ranks.

 

Goodbye,

Vidyasankar

                     

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Ganeshanji,

You said

Quote

I am questioning the very same attitude of the SankarAdvaita followers which at one breath adores the uncompromising logic and rationality of Sankara and in the next breath, tolerates the spinning around of incongruous stories in the form of Sankaravijayam-s abounding in myth-mongering !

Unquote

If you are referring to the story of the "parakayapravesha", it has to be interpreted in the proper perspective. Leaving ones own body and travelling with the astral body is possible for the Yogis and such stories are there in the Mahabharata, when Lord Krishna took Arjuna to Lord Shiva and also when Jayadratha received boons from Lord Shiva in his dreams. Adi Shankara went into samadhi and his body was left behind and protected by his disciples. He revived the dead king by his yogic powers and later on when his disciples, in a yogic way contacted him, he returned to his body in time. If you do not believe in the yogic state and its possibilities you have to state it directly without casting any aspersion on the Advaitins in general.

As regards the prejudice you are attributing to the Advitins, it is not there. For the advaitins there is no difference between Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva at all in the advaitic sense, even though  they may not shout that from the roof-top, whereas that is not so in case of the non-advaitic vedantins.

Regards,

Sunil KB

--

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

The brahmins are broadly of two categories : the Pancha-Gaudas and the Pancha-Dravidas. This verse could have referred to that also. Sureshwara himself belonged to the Sauda-brahmin category by virtue of being a Maithil brahmin.

Regards,

Sunil KB