[Advaita-l] Paul Hacker's erroneous view

[D Gayatri]

Look at how beautifully the Narayanastra blog explains the meaning of
Padmapada's verse -

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_3.html

namAmyabhogiparivArasampadaM nirastabhUtiM anumArddhavigrahaM
anugraM unmR^iditakAlalA~ncanaM vinAvinAyakaM apUrvashaN^karaM

The above sanskrit verse is a double entendre. Each word/sentence can
be interpreted in two ways:

apUrva shaMkaraM namAmi = I salute the new Shankara who is different
from the commonly known Shankara (Shiva)
abhogiparivAra sampadaM = He is surrounded by sages (abogi-s or those
who do not indulge in “bhoga” or enjoyments) / he is not surrounded by
snakes (bhogi-s)
nirasta bhUtiM = He has got no material wealth (bhUti) (as he is a
sannyasi) / he is devoid of ashes (bhUti)
anumArdha vigrahaM = He has logic (anumA) as his other half / he does
not have Uma as his other half
anugraM = He is not fierce
unmR^idita kAla lA~ncanaM = He has surpassed the mark of time (ie.,
samsara, as he is a jIvanmukta)/ he is devoid of the black-mark (on
the throat)
vinA vinAyakaM = He is not accompanied by vinAyaka


On 3 September 2016 at 19:03, D Gayatri <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The very comparison by Padmapada arises only because of the fact that he
>> believed that Shankara was Shiva avatara. Otherwise there is no reason to
>> make that comparison for the mere name being Shankara.
>
>
> PadmapAda's comparison is in fact differentiating Shankara from Shiva.
> Therefore Padmapada most certainly does not consider Shankara as an
> incarnation of Shiva, because (Adi) Shankara is without bhasma,
> without Uma, without Vinayaka, without snakes etc. PadmapAda's verses
> can be interpreted to have two meanings.
>
> Almost exactly the same interpretation that is given in the
> Narayanastra blog is also given in the book "Life and thought of
> Shankaracharya" written by Govind Chandra Pande. page 92, note 7,
> which considers this as double entendre.
>
> Thus, the purpose of PadmapAda's verse is to differentiate Adi
> Shankara from Shiva, who is Umapati.  Therefore, to say that Padmapada
> considers Shankara as an incarnation of Shiva is incorrect.
>
>
>>
>> The above conclusion about bhasma is wrong: (Your smearing remark is quite
>> mischievous, though):
>
>
> The conclusion is correct because the original Shankara (Shiva) dons
> the bhasma, while Adi Shankara does not don the bhasma (nirasta
> bhUtim). Padmapada is differentiating the original Shankara from his
> guru who is also a Shankara.
>
>
>
>>
>> The commentators are some five centuries later than Padmapada. While the
>> first one gives the meaning bhasma rahitam first, not satisfied with that,
>> gives the second meaning: without the aishwaryam that Shiva has.
>
>
> The commentary gives two meanings because Padmapada has employed
> double entendre! Thus the commentary is doing exactly what it is
> supposed to do.
>
>
>  The second
>> commentator does not make any mention about bhasma at all with reference to
>> Shankara.
>
>
> I have not verified it. Give me link where I can find this.
>
>>
>> Do not try to deceive your reader. I have also seen the original of the
>> commentaries the blog cites. The blogger's affirmation that //The
>> commentaries "Ruju Vivarana" (by Vishnu Bhatta) and "Tattva Dipana" (by
>> Akhandananda Muni) conform to this interpretation. // is also aimed at
>> misleading the gullible reader, for only one commentator says about bhasma,
>> that too, alternatively only.
>
>
> It is alternative meaning, because the verse of padmapAda is
> deliberately intended to have two meanings! I am not trying to deceive
> anybody. So relax with your accusations!
>
>
>>
>> Neither of the commentators succeeded in proving that Shankara was not
>> donning the bhasma. In fact, Amalananda, whom the bloggers hailed as a
>> vaishnava and was favourable to them has explicitly stated that Shankara was
>> Shiva avatara.
>
> By your own logic this does not matter since Amalananda was hundreds
> of years after Shankara!