[Advaita-l] Paul Hacker's erroneous view

[D Gayatri]

Explanation given by Govind Chandra Pande -

"Padmapada's verse uses double entendre brilliantly.......I bow to the
new Shankara (Shiva) who does not have the rich entourage of snakes
(or worldlings),  who does not smear ashes (but who has extinguished
the cycle of rebirth), whose other half is not Uma (but logical
inference), who is not fierce, who has eradicated the stigma of time,
and who is without Ganesha (or who has set aside the Buddhists)"


So it is clear that Shankara did not smear ashes! (no mischief here,
the words are from the book, which you can verify). Nor was he
considered the same as Shiva, since he is without Uma, ashes, Ganesha.

On 3 September 2016 at 19:07, D Gayatri <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Look at how beautifully the Narayanastra blog explains the meaning of
> Padmapada's verse -
>
> http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_3.html
>
> namAmyabhogiparivArasampadaM nirastabhUtiM anumArddhavigrahaM
> anugraM unmR^iditakAlalA~ncanaM vinAvinAyakaM apUrvashaN^karaM
>
> The above sanskrit verse is a double entendre. Each word/sentence can
> be interpreted in two ways:
>
> apUrva shaMkaraM namAmi = I salute the new Shankara who is different
> from the commonly known Shankara (Shiva)
> abhogiparivAra sampadaM = He is surrounded by sages (abogi-s or those
> who do not indulge in “bhoga” or enjoyments) / he is not surrounded by
> snakes (bhogi-s)
> nirasta bhUtiM = He has got no material wealth (bhUti) (as he is a
> sannyasi) / he is devoid of ashes (bhUti)
> anumArdha vigrahaM = He has logic (anumA) as his other half / he does
> not have Uma as his other half
> anugraM = He is not fierce
> unmR^idita kAla lA~ncanaM = He has surpassed the mark of time (ie.,
> samsara, as he is a jIvanmukta)/ he is devoid of the black-mark (on
> the throat)
> vinA vinAyakaM = He is not accompanied by vinAyaka
>
>
> On 3 September 2016 at 19:03, D Gayatri <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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!