[Advaita-l] Paul Hacker's erroneous view
Praveen R. Bhat
bhatpraveen at gmail.com
Sat Sep 3 12:00:05 CDT 2016
On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 10:16 PM, D Gayatri <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
There is no saying that Padmapadacharya's cannot be upamAna, because kAvya
style of using multiple possibilities of meanings doesn't rule out use of
upamAna. Else you will have to prove that what you term as "double
entendre" is indeed that and that it cannot include upamAna, just as there
is no saying that Sureshvaracharya's is an upamAna without the use iva in
the same verse which is used once for Ganga.
> Regarding Bhagiratha, he is implied in the verse of Sureshwara, so your
> argument does not hold any water.
Implication is considered secondary, mention is primary. So unmentioned
Bhagiratha has no strength of logic as much as the mentioned Shiva.
Moreover, even with implication there is no mapping on what Bhagiratha
w.r.t. Ganga with what Sureshvaracharya did w.r.t. vidyA. Let that be as it
is hair-splitting; my intention was only to show that the analysis is with
a pre-conceived notion which doesn't consider other possibilities of
(Apologies to the list members, I have more than exceeded my quota of mails
today having responded after long. I shall let the topic rest from my side,
unless it has some new points).
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
[Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list