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

Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
Tue Jan 10 14:32:17 CST 2017

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. 
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.  
He will try to  find the king Amaru who died around 800 CE
He will  try to find the  King Sudhanva around 800 CE, who was a contemporary of Adi Shankara. 
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.
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.
He will try to find if and when the Nepal king  Vrishadeva was ruling during Adi Shankara's visit to Nepal.
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 :
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.
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.  

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. 
 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.
 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. 
 On 10 Jan 2017 4:00 a.m.,
 "Vidyasankar Sundaresan" <svidyasankar at gmail.com>
 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.
 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
 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
 Sunil KB
 ------------------------------ --------------
 Mon, 1/9/17, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at gmail.com>
  Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] The Bhashyas of Adi
  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
  Pathak's paper
  says he has seen a manuscript from a private collection.
  quotes a verse that describes Sri Sankaracharya as a
  nava-avatAra. Of whom? Obviously, Siva. For, the
  verse says, Adau Sivas, tato vishNuH etc. The sense is
  Siva was the first guru and that Sankaracharya is his
  avatAra in the Kali age. There is NOTHING there about Adi
  Nava Sankara, NOTHINGabout birth in Chidambaram,
 about one person being the author of commentaries
  and another being the founder of maThas, etc etc. As
  Pathak's reference to Anandagiri, I have no idea
  text me is really quoting from here. 
  Please, I entreat you, please learn
  to read journal papers and original quotations as per
  original contexts. Please resist the temptation to force
  your own contexts and interpretations to the bare facts.
  don't know what else to tell you. We have been over
  these same details at least five or six or times in the
  On Jan 9, 2017 1:55 PM,
  "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
  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
  have read ?
   person  as the "Anandagiri". If you think
  are the same person. Ccan you please let me know the
  of your information?
  Sunil KB
  ----------------------------- - --------------
  On Sun, 1/8/17, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
  > wrote:
   Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] The Bhashyas of
   To: "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
  >, "Vidyasankar Sundaresan" <svidyasankar at gmail.com>
   Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita
  <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?
   Sunil KB
   ---------------------------- -- --------------
   On Sun, 1/8/17, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] The Bhashyas of
    To: "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
    Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita
  <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
   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
    Advaita-l" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
    vedanta.org> wrote:
    > Dear Subbuji,
    > I think Sri  Nava Shankara was indeed a great
    and if I remember correctly the manuscript, which
    found and on that basis he (Pathak) wrote a paper,
    (Abhinava) Shankara was born  in 788 CE in
    This Nava Shankara is reported to have also written
    texts including bhashyas and had gone to Kashmoir as
    to Kailash.
    Dear Sunilji,
    I have read Pathak's paper in the Indian
    Antiquary. It says nothing about Nava Shankara or
    Chidambaram. The paper attributes the date 788 CE to
    Shankara and nobody else. You cannot cite Pathak in
    of this fanciful theory of an 8th century Nava
    There might have some confusion in the past as the
    both Adi Shankara and the Nava Shankara was
    appears that Anantaanandagiri  had written a
    Nava Shanaka.  Antarkar had done some work on the
    shankaravijayas  as part of his PhD work but did
    continue that work to sort out all confusions
    Sorry, anantAnandagiri also says nothing about
    Nava Shankara. His text claims to be an account only
    Shankara. However, it is an extremely problematic
    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
    Sankaravijaya texts. I have sent this by email to
    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
    but I hope that whoever does it adopts sound
    methodology and works towards clarifying matters
    confusing them even further. Regards, Vidyasankar
    > May be there is scope for more research
    and hope some university or some organization will
    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
    Adi Shankara
    >  To: "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com>,
    "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta"
  <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
    >  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-
    >  wrote:
    >  > Namaste Sri
    >  Vidyasankar,
    >  > The number of the works
    >  that are called bhAshya in the mAdhavIya
    >  > vijaya (I sent the references earlier)
    >  when read in conjunction with the
    >  >
    >  DiNDima appear to be 16 in number. The next
    >  Sankara vijaya
    >  > says that Adi Sankara
    >  wrote innumerable granthAs such as upadeSa
    >  > so these are apparently classified in a
    >  different category compared to
    >  >
    >  bhAShyas.
    >  >
    >  There is also a text called
    >  'hastāmalaka-bhāṣyam' which is
    >  the
    >  tradition to be a commentary penned by
    >  Shankara on the verses given out by
    >  the
    >  disciple Hastamalaka. This text is also
    >  Vani Vilas
    >  Press, Srirangam.
    >  regards
    >  vs
    >  >
    >  _____________________________
    >  Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.
    >  http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.
    >  To unsubscribe or change your
    >  options:
    >  http://lists.advaita-vedanta.
    >  For assistance, contact:
    >  listmaster at advaita-vedanta.
    > ______________________________
    > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.
    > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.
    > To unsubscribe or change your options:
    > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.
    > For assistance, contact:
    > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list