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

Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
Wed Jan 11 01:21:26 CST 2017

Dear Sri Venkataraghavan,

It seems you do not read all mails. One member of the Advaita group wrote that according to the guru-parampara of the Kanchi kamakoti math,  Abhinava Shankara who was born in Chidambaram, was a pontiff of the Kanchi Kamakoti math.  It is thus clear that  Pathak thought the Sringeri to have been established by this Abhinava Shankara, because the Sringeri math also claims that it was established in 788 CE. 

It seems that you have not read Karmarkar's paper in full, otherwise you would have seen under what condition,according to Karkmarkar, the Bhagavad gita bhashya could have been composed by Adi Shankara. I have also mentioned in my book why Adi Shankara could not have written the bjashya on the Original Bhagavad Gita and that he had to write the bhashya on the vulgate version. 


On Tue, 1/10/17, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] The Bhashyas of Adi Shankara
 To: "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
 Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>, "yahoogroups" <advaitin at yahoogroups.com>, "Vidyasankar Sundaresan" <svidyasankar at gmail.com>, "V Subrahmanian" <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
 Date: Tuesday, January 10, 2017, 10:22 PM
 Dear Sri
 Thank you. Contrary to your
 view that I am convinced that abhinava Sankara was not born
 in 788 AD in Chidambaram  - I am not convinced by the
 evidence presented in favour of his birth in 788AD (I have
 no views on his birth in Chidambaram). That is, the quality
 of evidence presented thus far cannot support that
 conclusion. Evidence has to lead to conclusions and not the
 other way round. If the evidence changes, the conclusion
 The basic
 problem of the date of Sankara is only of interest to me to
 the extent that the authorship of the bhAShya is linked to
 it. Even that is secondary to the study of the bhAShya, for
 So, once I have
 completed the above in the order of priority which appears
 correct to me, I would be happy to take up the problem and
 use the methodology you have provided below. We all have
 finite resources that we must allocate
 for the discussion and the spirit in which it was conducted.
 It was enjoyable and informative.
 On 10 Jan 2017 8:35 p.m.,
 "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
 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
 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
 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
 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>
  Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] The Bhashyas of Adi
  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 -
  that is his opinion, not Pathak's.
  Even then, one should note that the
  manuscript says that the very same Shankara (the one
  Sri Sunil claims is Nava Shankara) is also the author of
  shaAriraka bhAshya - which is the brahmasUtra bhAshya. So
  Sri Sunil insists that this person is Nava Shankara
  who is different from Adi Shankara, then he must be
  to admit, it is Nava Shankara that wrote the Brahma
  bhAshya also. 
  other reason why the mss. must refer to Adi Shankara
  is that the guru parampara given there is from Shiva
  onwards, down to Gaudapada, GovindapAda and Shankara.
  Nava Shankara was meant, why would it stop at
  sishya Shankara, it would go all the way to Nava
  Failing which, it would at least give the immediate guru
  Nava Shankara. But it apparently does not, for Pathak
  not mention it.
  other thing to be noted is that the manuscript refers
  rAmanuja and madhva, which reveals that the author of
  manuscript wrote it after their time, which leaves a gap
  500 years from Shankara's time, not much better than
  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,
  two verses that refer to Ramanuja and Madhva? It could
  emended to sthApita, but that only means that we should
  very careful in interpreting these things. There are
  obviously editorial issues with either the manuscript
  with Pathak's reading of it.
  The mss that Pathak reports talks of
  ONE Sankaracharya, who wrote commentaries, who
  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
  to a theory that there were five reincarnations of
  Sankaracharya or even just to Nava Sankara In the
  quoted in the paper.
  Further, Pathak refers to
  Anandagiri, not to anantAnandagiri. Please read his
  again. Carefully. It is amusing that you accuse me of
  the two to be the same. When you look at the published
  literature on the Sankaravijaya texts, my paper is
  the only one which vociferously argues against making
  an equation.  
  Finally, Pathak is concerned with
  the date of Adi Sankaracharya, nobody else, as is
  from his introductory paragraph. Those whom he quotes
  assigning dates ranging from the 7th to 9th centuries
  also concerned only with Adi Sankara. You cannot
  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,
 means  the new avatara of
  Shankaracharya. It is according to shashthi tatpurusha
  samasa. You can ask anybody who knows Sanskrit. This is
  as you interpret. There is no alankara needed for
  but only the
 differentiation that this Nava Shankara was a
  later Shankara regarded as an avatara of Adi Shankara, as
  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
  of this Nava shankara and he quoted what he thought
  that purpose. He omitted most of the paper. That does
  mean thaton onecan look up whether there was any Nava
  Shankara or not, and if there was any, where he was
  Sunil KB
  ------------------------------ --------------
  Mon, 1/9/17, 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
  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
   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
   Siva was the first guru and that Sankaracharya is his
   avatAra in the Kali age. There is NOTHING there about
   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
   your own contexts and interpretations to the bare
   don't know what else to tell you. We have been
   these same details at least five or six or times in
   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
   please send me the paper of Pathak, which  you claim
   have read ?
    person  as the "Anandagiri". If you
   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
     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
     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
     texts including bhashyas and had gone to Kashmoir
     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
     Shankara and nobody else. You cannot cite Pathak
     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
     Shankara. However, it is an extremely problematic
     At the risk of sounding like I'm doing
     self-promotion, please note that I have published
     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
     following this thread are aware of it. I
     too hope that further research is taken up on
     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
     >  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