[Advaita-l] Paul Hacker's erroneous view

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Sat Sep 3 14:42:11 CDT 2016

On p.28, P makes another error: He thinks Shankara - Shiva identity first
came about by Vidyaranya's work.  While Padmapada and Sureshwara had
clearly agreed on that and Amalananda had clearly stated that explicitly. P
goes on to conclude 'vidyaranya's was a mere fantasy..' giving the go by to
the firm tradition that had flowed from the times of Shankara himself.

On p.29, P confesses to his view on the Sringeri Maṭha as a mere
hypothesis. Hence, no importance need be given to this.  He himself could
not prove with evidence his thesis.  Asking for evidence from others is
only unfair. Above all, he could not establish that 1. there was no maṭha
before Vidyaranya and 2. that Vidyaranya was the one who started it. And to
expect documentary evidence for a period that far is also only foolish. On
p.34 P makes a wild guess: If one is an incarnation of Shiva, one should
display Shaivite favoritism!! How erroneous is he, with no basis for such
an imagination!!  On the one hand he says 'unifying gods was not Shankara's
vision' but on the other wonders why 'Shankara makes no mention of maṭhas
in his works'!! He also reasons? 'the name Shiva is not used in his sutra
bhashya' but did not take notice of the 'Sarvajna Ishwara' in the
Kenopanishad bhashya!!

On an aside it becomes very clear that Clark in his book has been heavily
influenced by Hacker.

On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 5:06 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>

> On p.27 of the book 'Philology and Confrontation' P makes a bold
> statement:
> //Shankara's direct disciples Sureshwara and Padmapada show no awareness
> of Shankara's Shiva incarnation.//
> But the fact of Padmapada's invocation to the Panchapadika disproves P's
> claim.
> P's view that Shankara came from a Vaishnava background and the reasons he
> gives for that also smacks of his poor understanding of the Bhashyas in a
> global perspective. With such prejudiced and imperfect understanding of the
> Advaita Bhashya, P does not rise to be the figure that he is made out to
> be. Any traditional scholar of Advaita bhashyas with a proper study thereof
> can easily prove P's ideas/conclusions wrong.
> The above are just samples.
> regards
> vs

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list