[Advaita-l] Paul Hacker's erroneous view

[D Gayatri]

>
> The very comparison by Padmapada arises only because of the fact that he
> believed that Shankara was Shiva avatara. Otherwise there is no reason to
> make that comparison for the mere name being Shankara.


PadmapAda's comparison is in fact differentiating Shankara from Shiva.
Therefore Padmapada most certainly does not consider Shankara as an
incarnation of Shiva, because (Adi) Shankara is without bhasma,
without Uma, without Vinayaka, without snakes etc. PadmapAda's verses
can be interpreted to have two meanings.

Almost exactly the same interpretation that is given in the
Narayanastra blog is also given in the book "Life and thought of
Shankaracharya" written by Govind Chandra Pande. page 92, note 7,
which considers this as double entendre.

Thus, the purpose of PadmapAda's verse is to differentiate Adi
Shankara from Shiva, who is Umapati.  Therefore, to say that Padmapada
considers Shankara as an incarnation of Shiva is incorrect.


>
> The above conclusion about bhasma is wrong: (Your smearing remark is quite
> mischievous, though):


The conclusion is correct because the original Shankara (Shiva) dons
the bhasma, while Adi Shankara does not don the bhasma (nirasta
bhUtim). Padmapada is differentiating the original Shankara from his
guru who is also a Shankara.



>
> The commentators are some five centuries later than Padmapada. While the
> first one gives the meaning bhasma rahitam first, not satisfied with that,
> gives the second meaning: without the aishwaryam that Shiva has.


The commentary gives two meanings because Padmapada has employed
double entendre! Thus the commentary is doing exactly what it is
supposed to do.


 The second
> commentator does not make any mention about bhasma at all with reference to
> Shankara.


I have not verified it. Give me link where I can find this.

>
> Do not try to deceive your reader. I have also seen the original of the
> commentaries the blog cites. The blogger's affirmation that //The
> commentaries "Ruju Vivarana" (by Vishnu Bhatta) and "Tattva Dipana" (by
> Akhandananda Muni) conform to this interpretation. // is also aimed at
> misleading the gullible reader, for only one commentator says about bhasma,
> that too, alternatively only.


It is alternative meaning, because the verse of padmapAda is
deliberately intended to have two meanings! I am not trying to deceive
anybody. So relax with your accusations!


>
> Neither of the commentators succeeded in proving that Shankara was not
> donning the bhasma. In fact, Amalananda, whom the bloggers hailed as a
> vaishnava and was favourable to them has explicitly stated that Shankara was
> Shiva avatara.

By your own logic this does not matter since Amalananda was hundreds
of years after Shankara!