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

Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
Wed Jan 11 01:21:26 CST 2017


Dear Sri Venkataraghavan,

It seems you do not read all mails. One member of the Advaita group wrote that according to the guru-parampara of the Kanchi kamakoti math,  Abhinava Shankara who was born in Chidambaram, was a pontiff of the Kanchi Kamakoti math.  It is thus clear that  Pathak thought the Sringeri to have been established by this Abhinava Shankara, because the Sringeri math also claims that it was established in 788 CE. 

It seems that you have not read Karmarkar's paper in full, otherwise you would have seen under what condition,according to Karkmarkar, the Bhagavad gita bhashya could have been composed by Adi Shankara. I have also mentioned in my book why Adi Shankara could not have written the bjashya on the Original Bhagavad Gita and that he had to write the bhashya on the vulgate version. 

Regards,
SKB


--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 1/10/17, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] The Bhashyas of Adi Shankara
 To: "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
 Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>, "yahoogroups" <advaitin at yahoogroups.com>, "Vidyasankar Sundaresan" <svidyasankar at gmail.com>, "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
 Date: Tuesday, January 10, 2017, 10:22 PM
 
 Dear Sri
 Sunil,
 Thank you. Contrary to your
 view that I am convinced that abhinava Sankara was not born
 in 788 AD in Chidambaram  - I am not convinced by the
 evidence presented in favour of his birth in 788AD (I have
 no views on his birth in Chidambaram). That is, the quality
 of evidence presented thus far cannot support that
 conclusion. Evidence has to lead to conclusions and not the
 other way round. If the evidence changes, the conclusion
 changes.
 The basic
 problem of the date of Sankara is only of interest to me to
 the extent that the authorship of the bhAShya is linked to
 it. Even that is secondary to the study of the bhAShya, for
 me.
 So, once I have
 completed the above in the order of priority which appears
 correct to me, I would be happy to take up the problem and
 use the methodology you have provided below. We all have
 finite resources that we must allocate
 appropriately.
 Thanks
 for the discussion and the spirit in which it was conducted.
 It was enjoyable and informative.
 Regards,Venkatraghavan
 
 On 10 Jan 2017 8:35 p.m.,
 "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
 wrote:
 Dear
 frieds,
 
 
 
 Shri Venkatraghavan has great zeal and he is is fully
 convinced that Nava Shankara was not born in Chidambaram in
 788 CE and it was Adi , who was born in 788 CE.
 
 
 
 The following question arises and hope a critical person
 like Shri Venkatraghavan will look at these and work towards
 finding the date of Adi Shankara.
 
 1)
 
 Hope he will try to find the king Vikramaditya, whose reign
 started from 765 CE, as according to the information from a
 mathadhipati of the Sringeri math, Adi Shankara was born on
 the 14th year of the reign of Vikramaditya.
 
 2)
 
 He will try to  find the king Amaru who died around 800
 CE
 
 3)
 
 He will  try to find the  King Sudhanva around 800 CE, who
 was a contemporary of Adi Shankara.
 
 4)
 
 He  will try to find the  evidence relating the king who
 was ruling Kerala around 800 CE as Adi  Shankara was born
 Kaladi in Kerala.
 
 5)
 
 Let us also hope that he will also find the astronomical
 matching of the time of AdiShankara, taking the details from
 the Shankaravijaya published by the Srngeri Matha or any
 other Shankaravijaya, which he think is the most
 relaible.
 
 6)
 
 He will try to find if and when the Nepal king  Vrishadeva
 was ruling during Adi Shankara's visit to Nepal.
 
 7)
 
 He will also try to find  from the historical sources like
 Rajatarangini, if and when Adi Shankara visited Kashmir.
 
 
 
 
 
 I await the intelligent people who are really highly
 concerned with the date of  Adi Shankara  to debunk the
 several datings of Adi Shankara. If he was really born in
 788 CE , it should hot be able to prove a date about 1200
 years ago, using the seven historical tips I suggested
 above. May be the other scholars would be able to suggest
 more tips. If however, the 788 CE date cannot be proved one
 should have an open mind to look for the BCE dates.  There
 have been curious situations in the past, such as follows
 :
 
 A)
 
 B Rice Lewis claims in an issue of the Mysore Gazette that
 the Sringeri math had given him the succession of Sringeri
 gurus, according to which the first guru Shankaracharya was
 consecrated in that math in 745 CE and he passed away in 769
 CE. If Adi Shankara lived for 32 years he must have been
 born in 737 CE.
 
 B)
 
 Further at one time the  Sringeri math also published a
 guruparampara list according to which Adi Shankara was born
 in 44 BCE, and the guruparampara list was blank for 700
 years.
 
 
 
 My interest has not been to criticize other people's
 views just to win any debate but to find the date of Adi
 Shankara. Pathak's paper at best shows that there could
 have been one Nava Shnakar, who was born in 788 CE.
 
 
 
 Regards,
 
 Sunil KB
 
 
 
 
 
 ------------------------------ --------------
 
 On Mon, 1/9/17,
 Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
 wrote:
 
 
 
  Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] The Bhashyas of Adi
 Shankara
 
  To: "Vidyasankar Sundaresan" <svidyasankar at gmail.com>
 
  Cc: "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
 >, "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta"
 <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
 vedanta.org>, "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
 
  Date: Monday, January 9, 2017, 10:30 PM
 
 
 
  Pathak claims this
 
  is Adi Shankara only. If Sri Sunil wants to claim the
 
  manuscript refers to a navashankara then so be it -
 however
 
  that is his opinion, not Pathak's.
 
  Even then, one should note that the
 
  manuscript says that the very same Shankara (the one
 that
 
  Sri Sunil claims is Nava Shankara) is also the author of
 the
 
  shaAriraka bhAshya - which is the brahmasUtra bhAshya. So
 if
 
  Sri Sunil insists that this person is Nava Shankara
 here,
 
  who is different from Adi Shankara, then he must be
 prepared
 
  to admit, it is Nava Shankara that wrote the Brahma
 sUtra
 
  bhAshya also. 
 
  The
 
  other reason why the mss. must refer to Adi Shankara
 only,
 
  is that the guru parampara given there is from Shiva
 
  onwards, down to Gaudapada, GovindapAda and Shankara.
 If
 
  Nava Shankara was meant, why would it stop at
 GovindapAda
 
  sishya Shankara, it would go all the way to Nava
 Shankara.
 
  Failing which, it would at least give the immediate guru
 of
 
  Nava Shankara. But it apparently does not, for Pathak
 does
 
  not mention it.
 
  The
 
  other thing to be noted is that the manuscript refers
 to
 
  rAmanuja and madhva, which reveals that the author of
 the
 
  manuscript wrote it after their time, which leaves a gap
 of
 
  500 years from Shankara's time, not much better than
 the
 
  Shankara vijayams. 
 
  Regards,Venkatraghavan
 
  On 10 Jan 2017 4:00 a.m.,
 
  "Vidyasankar Sundaresan" <svidyasankar at gmail.com>
 
  wrote:
 
  Dear Sunilji,
 
  Have you read the paper carefully?
 
  How do you explain the word schApita, which occurs twice,
 in
 
  two verses that refer to Ramanuja and Madhva? It could
 be
 
  emended to sthApita, but that only means that we should
 be
 
  very careful in interpreting these things. There are
 
  obviously editorial issues with either the manuscript
 or
 
  with Pathak's reading of it.
 
  The mss that Pathak reports talks of
 
  ONE Sankaracharya, who wrote commentaries, who
 established
 
  maThas, who was the disciple of govindapAda and grand
 
  disciple of gauDapAda, and who was born in the year 788
 
  (nidhi nAga ibha vahni abda of Kaliyuga). There is no
 
  reference whatsoever to Chidambaram. There is no
 reference
 
  to a theory that there were five reincarnations of
 
  Sankaracharya or even just to Nava Sankara In the
 verses
 
  quoted in the paper.
 
  Further, Pathak refers to
 
  Anandagiri, not to anantAnandagiri. Please read his
 paper
 
  again. Carefully. It is amusing that you accuse me of
 taking
 
  the two to be the same. When you look at the published
 
  literature on the Sankaravijaya texts, my paper is
 perhaps
 
  the only one which vociferously argues against making
 such
 
  an equation.  
 
  Finally, Pathak is concerned with
 
  the date of Adi Sankaracharya, nobody else, as is
 evident
 
  from his introductory paragraph. Those whom he quotes
 as
 
  assigning dates ranging from the 7th to 9th centuries
 were
 
  also concerned only with Adi Sankara. You cannot
 project
 
  your own opinions about Adi vs Nava Sankaracharya-s,
 
  backwards in time, on to writers who lived more than a
 
  century ago.
 
  Vidyasankar
 
 
 
  On Jan 9,
 
  2017 8:11 PM, "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
 
  > wrote:
 
  Dear Vidyashankarji,
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  ShankarAcharyanavAvatara
 means  the new avatara of
 
  Shankaracharya. It is according to shashthi tatpurusha
 
  samasa. You can ask anybody who knows Sanskrit. This is
 not
 
  as you interpret. There is no alankara needed for
 Shankara,
 
  but only the
 differentiation that this Nava Shankara was a
 
  later Shankara regarded as an avatara of Adi Shankara, as
 he
 
  was as
 versatile as Adi Shankara,  .
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Secondly, I was talkng of Anantanandagiri and not
 
  Anandagiri. You took Anantanandagiri to be the same as
 
  Anandagiri
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  No entreaties please.  Pathak was concerned with the
 date
 
  of this Nava shankara and he quoted what he thought
 served
 
  that purpose. He omitted most of the paper. That does
 not
 
  mean thaton onecan look up whether there was any Nava
 
  Shankara or not, and if there was any, where he was
 born
 
  etc.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Regards,
 
 
 
  Sunil KB
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  ------------------------------ --------------
 
 
 
  On
 
  Mon, 1/9/17, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at gmail.com>
 
  wrote:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] The Bhashyas of
 Adi
 
  Shankara
 
 
 
   To: "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
 
  >
 
 
 
   Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita
 
  Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedan
 
  ta.org>, "Venkatraghavan
 S" <agnimile at gmail.com>,
 
  "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
 
 
 
   Date: Monday, January 9, 2017, 3:51 PM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   Dear
 
 
 
   Sunilji,
 
 
 
   Pathak's paper
 
 
 
   says he has seen a manuscript from a private
 collection.
 
  He
 
 
 
   quotes a verse that describes Sri Sankaracharya as a
 
 
 
   nava-avatAra. Of whom? Obviously, Siva. For, the
 
  adjacent
 
 
 
   verse says, Adau Sivas, tato vishNuH etc. The sense
 is
 
  that
 
 
 
   Siva was the first guru and that Sankaracharya is his
 
  new
 
 
 
   avatAra in the Kali age. There is NOTHING there about
 Adi
 
  vs
 
 
 
   Nava Sankara, NOTHINGabout birth in Chidambaram,
 
 
 
   NOTHING
 
  about one person being the author of commentaries
 
 
 
   and another being the founder of maThas, etc etc. As
 
  for
 
 
 
   Pathak's reference to Anandagiri, I have no idea
 
  which
 
 
 
   text me is really quoting from here. 
 
 
 
   Please, I entreat you, please learn
 
 
 
   to read journal papers and original quotations as per
 
  their
 
 
 
   original contexts. Please resist the temptation to
 force
 
  fit
 
 
 
   your own contexts and interpretations to the bare
 facts.
 
  I
 
 
 
   don't know what else to tell you. We have been
 over
 
 
 
   these same details at least five or six or times in
 the
 
 
 
   past!
 
 
 
   Vidyasankar
 
 
 
   On Jan 9, 2017 1:55 PM,
 
 
 
   "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
 
  >
 
 
 
   wrote:
 
 
 
   Dear
 
 
 
   Vidyasankarji,
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   The paper of Pathak, which I read, clearly mentions
 
 
 
   "Nava Shankara" and not Adi Shankara. Can
 you
 
 
 
   please send me the paper of Pathak, which  you claim
 
  to
 
 
 
   have read ?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    person  as the "Anandagiri". If you
 think
 
  they
 
 
 
   are the same person. Ccan you please let me know the
 
  source
 
 
 
   of your information?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   Regards,
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   Sunil KB
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   ----------------------------- - --------------
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   On Sun, 1/8/17, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
 
 
 
   > wrote:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] The Bhashyas of
 
  Adi
 
 
 
   Shankara
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    To: "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
 
 
 
   >, "Vidyasankar Sundaresan" <svidyasankar at gmail.com>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita
 
  Vedanta"
 
 
 
   <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
 
 
 
   vedanta.org>, advaitin at yahoogroups.com,
 
 
 
   "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>,
 
 
 
   "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Date: Sunday, January 8, 2017, 11:14 AM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Dear Vidyasanarji,
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Can you please attach the paper of Pathak?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Regards,
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Sunil KB
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    ---------------------------- --
 --------------
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    On Sun, 1/8/17, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at gmail.com>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    wrote:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] The Bhashyas
 of
 
 
 
   Adi
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Shankara
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     To: "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
 
 
 
   >
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita
 
  Vedanta"
 
 
 
   <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
 
 
 
   vedanta.org>,
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    advaitin at yahoogroups.com,
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>,
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     Date: Sunday, January 8, 2017, 1:11 AM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     On Jan 6, 2017 11:03 PM, "Sunil Bhattacharjya
 
  via
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     Advaita-l" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     vedanta.org> wrote:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     > Dear Subbuji,
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     > I think Sri  Nava Shankara was indeed a
 great
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    scholar
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     and if I remember correctly the manuscript, which
 
 
 
   Pathak
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     found and on that basis he (Pathak) wrote a paper,
 
 
 
   Nava
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     (Abhinava) Shankara was born  in 788 CE in
 
 
 
   Chidambaram.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     This Nava Shankara is reported to have also
 written
 
 
 
   many
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     texts including bhashyas and had gone to Kashmoir
 as
 
 
 
   well
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    as
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     to Kailash.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     Dear Sunilji,
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     I have read Pathak's paper in the Indian
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     Antiquary. It says nothing about Nava Shankara or
 
 
 
   about
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     Chidambaram. The paper attributes the date 788 CE
 to
 
 
 
   Adi
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     Shankara and nobody else. You cannot cite Pathak
 in
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    support
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     of this fanciful theory of an 8th century Nava
 
 
 
   Shankara.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     There might have some confusion in the past as the
 
  name
 
 
 
   of
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     both Adi Shankara and the Nava Shankara was
 
  Shankara. 
 
 
 
   It
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     appears that Anantaanandagiri  had written a
 
  biography
 
 
 
   of
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     Nava Shanaka.  Antarkar had done some work on the
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     shankaravijayas  as part of his PhD work but did
 
  not
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     continue that work to sort out all confusions
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     Sorry, anantAnandagiri also says nothing about
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     Nava Shankara. His text claims to be an account
 only
 
 
 
   of
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Adi
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     Shankara. However, it is an extremely problematic
 
 
 
   text.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     At the risk of sounding like I'm doing
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     self-promotion, please note that I have published
 an
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     extensive paper in the year 2000, published in The
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     International Journal of Hindu Studies, examining
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     Antarkar's papers as well as many of the
 
  original
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     Sankaravijaya texts. I have sent this by email to
 
  you
 
 
 
   as
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     well. I am only mentioning this here so that
 others
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     following this thread are aware of it. I
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     too hope that further research is taken up on
 these
 
 
 
   texts,
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     but I hope that whoever does it adopts sound
 
  research
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     methodology and works towards clarifying matters
 
 
 
   rather
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    than
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     confusing them even
 further. Regards, Vidyasankar
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     > May be there is scope for more research
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     and hope some university or some organization will
 
 
 
   sponsor
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     PhD level research in this area.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     > Regards,
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     > Sunil KB
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     > ------------------------------ --------------
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     > On Fri, 1/6/17, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l
 
 
 
   <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     vedanta.org> wrote:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] The
 
  Bhashyas
 
 
 
   of
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     Adi Shankara
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  To: "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com>,
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta"
 
 
 
   <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     vedanta.org>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  Date: Friday, January 6, 2017, 1:39 AM
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  On
 Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  1:56 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l
 <
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  advaita-l at lists.advaita-
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     vedanta.org>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  wrote:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  > Namaste Sri
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  Vidyasankar,
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  > The number of the works
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  that are called bhAshya in the mAdhavIya
 
 
 
   Sankara
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  > vijaya (I sent the references earlier)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  when read in conjunction with the
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  >
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  DiNDima appear to be 16 in number. The next
 
 
 
   verse
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    in
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     the
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  Sankara vijaya
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  > says that Adi Sankara
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  wrote innumerable granthAs such as upadeSa
 
 
 
   sAhasri,
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  > so these are apparently classified in
 a
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  different category compared to
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  >
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  bhAShyas.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  >
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  There is also a text called
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  'hastāmalaka-bhāṣyam' which is
 
 
 
   admitted
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     in
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  the
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  tradition to be a commentary penned by
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  Shankara on the verses given out by
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  the
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  disciple Hastamalaka. This text is also
 
 
 
   published
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    by
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     the
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  Vani Vilas
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  Press, Srirangam.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  regards
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  vs
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  >
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >
  _____________________________
 
 
 
   __________________
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     org/archives/advaita-l/
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     culture.religion.advaita
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  To
 unsubscribe or change your
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  options:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  http://lists.advaita-vedanta.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  For assistance, contact:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >  listmaster at advaita-vedanta.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     org
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     > ______________________________
 
  _________________
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     org/archives/advaita-l/
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     culture.religion.advaita
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     > To
 unsubscribe or change your options:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     >
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     > For assistance, contact:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list