[Advaita-l] Paul Hacker's erroneous view

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste,

On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 7:51 PM, D Gayatri via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> On 3 September 2016 at 19:27, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l
> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > In addition to Padmapadacharya, Sureshvaracharya and Totakacharya also
> > refer to Shankaracharya as Lord Shiva himself in their works.
> >
> > 4.76 of Naishkarmya Siddhi
> > विष्णोः पादानुगाम् यां निखिलभवनुदं शंकरो$वाप योगात् ।
> > सर्वज्ञं ब्रह्मसंस्थं मुनिगणसहितं सम्यग् अभ्यर्च्य भक्त्या ।
> > विद्यां गंगाम् इवाहम् प्रवरगुणनिधेः प्राप्य वेदान्त दीप्तं ।
> > कारुण्यात् ताम्  अवोचं जनिमृतिनिवहध्वस्तये दुःखितेभ्य: ।
> ...
>
> 2. This is an upamAna and not an incarnation theory. If you believe
> this is an incarnation theory, then Sureshwara would be the
> incarnation of Bhagiratha!
>

Here's a flaw. The argument of upamAna cuts both ways. If this is an
upamAna which cannot be used to prove that Sureshvaracharya considers
Bhagavatpadacharya as Shiva avatAra, then a similar upamAna of
Padmapadacharya cannot be use to prove that he rejects Shankaracharya as
Shiva avatara. Moreover it could also be said that it is incorrect to say
that Shankara is only compared to Shiva because it lacks the word iva the
way it is used with Ganga. The argument of Bhagiratha avatAra doesn't hold
water since the verse itself doesn't mention Bhagiratha, let alone the
author comparing his doing with what Bhagiratha did.


>
> Sureshwara describes Shankara as bearing the name of Shiva in his
> Taittiriya vartika (bhava-nAma-bhRto-yateh, 3.10.48-49, reference,
> Life and work of Shankaracharya, by Govind Chandra Pande). There is no
> mention that Shankara is the incarnation of Shiva. Once again, there
> is only a mention of similarity of names, but not identity.
>

Again, let me point out the common mistake I talk of, viz. lack of mention
of identity doesn't mean mention of lack of identity! There seems to be
this unfounded expectation that everything must be mentioned the way one
thinks it should be for their conviction. Be it Pande, Hacker, or anyone
else, all the same.

--praveen