[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Shankaracharya and the Bhagavat Purana
-
To: undisclosed-recipients:;@eskinews.eskimo.com
-
Subject: Re: ARTICLE : Shankaracharya and the Bhagavat Purana
-
From: shrao@nyx.net (Shrisha Rao)
-
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 21:19:22 GMT
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: Sri Krishna Gururaja Seva Samiti
-
References: <ghenE174GL.G3n@netcom.com>
-
Sender: news@eskimo.com (News User Id)
In article <ghenE174GL.G3n@netcom.com>,
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar@braincells.com> wrote:
>Some interest has been raised by my assertion that Shankaracharya has
>quoted from the Bhagavat Purana.
>However today while in the midst of looking for something else, I found a
>more concrete reference. I have a Gujarati translation of the Bhagavata
>Mahapurana by Girijashankar Mayashankar Shastri (who as the name suggests
>was a smarta.) It contains a forward also in Gujarati entitled "Some
>Things You Should Know About the Puranas." by one Manilal N. Dwivedi. One
>of its' sections deals with this very subject. After observing that the
>conventional wisdom is that Shankaracharyas philosophy is opposed to Bhakti
>and that he is an enemy of Vaishnavas, the author makes several arguments
>why this is not so. A notable one is that according to Madhva(!)
>Shankaracharya wrote a commentary on the Bhagavata Purana. No quote is
>given.
Notice that these are different things: whether Shankara _quoted from_
the Bhaagavata is different from whether he _commented upon_ it.
In any event, if I weren't already convinced that the claim is a hoax
I would be now. Madhva does not name Shankara or any scholar from
other Vedantic schools by name (unlike his commentators, for example),
and that claim is patently false. It is of interest in this regard to
note that a bogus text called `Tattva-muktavali' or
`Mayavada-shata-dushani' is falsely attributed to Madhva by the
Gaudiyas; this text contains so many egregious errors of fact and
philosophy, that unlike with some of Shankara's works, etc., there is
no question at all but that this is a hoaxed attribution, esp. since
all of Madhva's works are available in full and studied by his
tradition, and this attribution is only made and accepted by people
outside his lineage and having no tradition of studying his works in
depth. It is possible that your man may have been misled by something
said therein.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>Jaldhar H. Vyas [jaldhar@braincells.com] And the men .-_|\ who hold
