[Advaita-l] Paul Hacker's erroneous view
dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com
Sat Sep 3 11:46:08 CDT 2016
Padmapada's invocation is not upamAna. It is double entendre. I don't know
what this is called in Sanskrit, but it is a brilliant device employed to
differentiate Shankara from Shiva. It also conclusively proves that
Shankara did not don bhasma.
Regarding Bhagiratha, he is implied in the verse of Sureshwara, so your
argument does not hold any water.
On Saturday, 3 September 2016, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com>
> On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 7:51 PM, D Gayatri via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
>> On 3 September 2016 at 19:27, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l
>> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
>> > In addition to Padmapadacharya, Sureshvaracharya and Totakacharya also
>> > refer to Shankaracharya as Lord Shiva himself in their works.
>> > 4.76 of Naishkarmya Siddhi
>> > विष्णोः पादानुगाम् यां निखिलभवनुदं शंकरो$वाप योगात् ।
>> > सर्वज्ञं ब्रह्मसंस्थं मुनिगणसहितं सम्यग् अभ्यर्च्य भक्त्या ।
>> > विद्यां गंगाम् इवाहम् प्रवरगुणनिधेः प्राप्य वेदान्त दीप्तं ।
>> > कारुण्यात् ताम् अवोचं जनिमृतिनिवहध्वस्तये दुःखितेभ्य: ।
>> 2. This is an upamAna and not an incarnation theory. If you believe
>> this is an incarnation theory, then Sureshwara would be the
>> incarnation of Bhagiratha!
> Here's a flaw. The argument of upamAna cuts both ways. If this is an
> upamAna which cannot be used to prove that Sureshvaracharya considers
> Bhagavatpadacharya as Shiva avatAra, then a similar upamAna of
> Padmapadacharya cannot be use to prove that he rejects Shankaracharya as
> Shiva avatara. Moreover it could also be said that it is incorrect to say
> that Shankara is only compared to Shiva because it lacks the word iva the
> way it is used with Ganga. The argument of Bhagiratha avatAra doesn't hold
> water since the verse itself doesn't mention Bhagiratha, let alone the
> author comparing his doing with what Bhagiratha did.
>> Sureshwara describes Shankara as bearing the name of Shiva in his
>> Taittiriya vartika (bhava-nAma-bhRto-yateh, 3.10.48-49, reference,
>> Life and work of Shankaracharya, by Govind Chandra Pande). There is no
>> mention that Shankara is the incarnation of Shiva. Once again, there
>> is only a mention of similarity of names, but not identity.
> Again, let me point out the common mistake I talk of, viz. lack of mention
> of identity doesn't mean mention of lack of identity! There seems to be
> this unfounded expectation that everything must be mentioned the way one
> thinks it should be for their conviction. Be it Pande, Hacker, or anyone
> else, all the same.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list