Interpretation of the life of Shankara

[subbudu1]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Friends I know that discussions on Shankara are often repeated. Here my desire is to focus on the historical aspects of his life( less on advaita as we already have many threads on that) not only in terms of when he lived ( which has been sufficiently argued I understand from past threads ) but also on what impression does it give up about his personality. What made me start this thread.
I would think that we should discuss not only Shankara but his subsequent representatives

Though discussions on Shankara's date are repeated quite often something interesting came up worthy of discussion.

It is this site which prompted me to start this thread
Vedic Date of Adi Shankara (3 April 509 BCE)
Here is a new information I found there

Mandukya Upanishad bhashya of Adi Shankara refers to the circulation
of kaarshaapana (kaarshaapana has four component units unlike the four
paadas of a cow), this reference to kaarshaapana establishes the date
of Adi Shankara as 6th century BCE until which period the currency was
in vogue.

 

[DrBarani]

I am not confident that the date given as 509 BCE (Before Common Era, a new term introduced by Jewish Orthodoxy to reject the notion that Christ was born 2011 years ago) is valid. There are no archeological records of anything significant to religion even at 2300 years ago (300 BCE), the earliest period when some semblance of religion was found (those roadside stones with snake idols).

As per records, Shankara defeated Jain at Kanchipuram around 8th Century (1300 years ago), and that is when Jains moved out of there towards SriLanka and other places. The brahmins had always hounded Jains from 3rd Century. Jains were driven out from North and they migrated towards west (one group) and another towards South (to Karnataka). Brahmins also chased Buddhists...challenging them on their "soonyata" (null set) argument to declare God exists. All these happened between 3rd century and 8th century.

However, Shankara's role was primarily a result of the Emegence of Church and Christianity. Coincidence of his crusade and emergency of Christianity around the world might imply that he was more worried about alien religious invasion. In that process other religions also get knocked out, in his attempt to strengthen Hinduism.

 

[subbudu1]

Let me post some information on Kaarshapana. Please refer to the following links

British Museum - Silver karshapana of the Mauryan Empire
Read the ebook Lectures on ancient Indian numismatics by Devadatta Ramakrishna Bhandarkar

I had occasion to make mention of
a class of coins called Karshapanas, which is
frequently referred to in the Jataka literature,
and far more frequently than the classes of gold
coins, such as Nishka, Suvarna and so on. The
Jataka stories, at any rate such of them as
contain references to coins, give us the impres-
sion that this Karshapana was of three varities,
according as it was of gold, silver and copper.
Gold Karshapana, however, appears to be sel-
dom referred to, the common types being either
silver or copper. The different divisions of this
coin standard are Karshapana, Ardha-Karshapana,
Pada-Karshapana, Chatur-Mashaka, Tri-Masha-
ka, Dvi-Mashaka, Eka-Mashata, Ardha-Mashaka
and Kakanika.

but from the pre-
Mauryan down to the Gupta times no gold or
silver coins were picked up except one solitary
silver coin of Gautamlputra Yajna Sri-Satakarni,
all the coins obtained being copper Karshapanas
and constituting the currency of the tow

Manu, we have
seen, says this about the copper Karshapana only,
but Amarasimha gives this to be the weight of
all the three classes of Karshapana.

The above articles seem to suggest that Karshapana was know even in Buddhist times much before Shankara in any case, and in mauryan and gupta times. Manu has also made a reference to it.
Question is whether it was used in 7 century AD. Possible thought it may need to be proved. But if we accept this as a basis for 5 th century BC, then Manu is also fixed to a recent era of around Buddha time. Is this acceptable to the traditionalists?

 

[sangom]

Friends I know that discussions on Shankara are often repeated. Here my desire is to focus on the historical aspects of his life( less on advaita as we already have many threads on that) not only in terms of when he lived ( which has been sufficiently argued I understand from past threads ) but also on what impression does it give up about his personality. What made me start this thread.
I would think that we should discuss not only Shankara but his subsequent representatives

Though discussions on Shankara's date are repeated quite often something interesting came up worthy of discussion.

It is this site which prompted me to start this thread
Vedic Date of Adi Shankara (3 April 509 BCE)
Here is a new information I found there

Sankara's commentary on Mandukyopanishad refers to karṣapaṇa not as a coin in the real sense but as an example of something that can be sub-divided. The actual context is as follows:

so:'yamātmoṅkārābhidheyaḥ parāparatvena vyavasthitaścatuṣpātkārṣāpaṇavanna gaurivetiti|
(This Self as such, denoted by Om and existing as the higher and lower (brahman), is possessed of four quarters like a kārṣapaṇa but not like the cow.)

Here Sankara tries to say that the word catuṣpāt should be understood as in the sense of kārṣapaṇa which could be made up of four quarter kārṣapaṇas, and that the self is not a catuṣpāt in the sense of a cow, a four-legged animal which will be maimed if one leg is removed and the removed leg will not be a cow, any more.

We should note that the coinage with the name kārṣapaṇa seems to have continued till the 8th. century CE (see this). Hence, the use of that word alone cannot be taken to push Sankara's life-time backwards by a millenium or more. Of course Kanchi mutt has done this, though it copied the Guruparampara almost fully from Sringeri. But kanchi mutt and Chandrasekhara Saraswati had some purpose in so doing. We need not be influenced by that.

 

[sangom]

Sankara's commentary on Mandukyopanishad refers to karṣapaṇa not as a coin in the real sense but as an example of something that can be sub-divided. The actual context is as follows: so:'yamātmoṅkārābhidheyaḥ parāparatvena vyavasthitaścatuṣpātkārṣāpaṇavanna gaurivetiti| (This Self as such, denoted by Om and existing as the higher and lower (brahman), is possessed of four quarters like a kārṣapaṇa but not like the cow.) Here Sankara tries to say that the word catuṣpāt should be understood as in the sense of kārṣapaṇa which could be made up of four quarter kārṣapaṇas, and that the self is not a catuṣpāt in the sense of a cow, a four-legged animal which will be maimed if one leg is removed and the removed leg will not be a cow, any more. We should note that the coinage with the name kārṣapaṇa seems to have continued till the 8th. century CE (see this). Hence, the use of that word alone cannot be taken to push Sankara's life-time backwards by a millenium or more. Of course Kanchi mutt has done this, though it copied the Guruparampara almost fully from Sringeri. But kanchi mutt and Chandrasekhara Saraswati had some purpose in so doing. We need not be influenced by that.

 

[subbudu1]

Sankara's commentary on Mandukyopanishad refers to karṣapaṇa not as a coin in the real sense but as an example of something that can be sub-divided. The actual context is as follows: so:'yamātmoṅkārābhidheyaḥ parāparatvena vyavasthitaścatuṣpātkārṣāpaṇavanna gaurivetiti| (This Self as such, denoted by Om and existing as the higher and lower (brahman), is possessed of four quarters like a kārṣapaṇa but not like the cow.) Here Sankara tries to say that the word catuṣpāt should be understood as in the sense of kārṣapaṇa which could be made up of four quarter kārṣapaṇas, and that the self is not a catuṣpāt in the sense of a cow, a four-legged animal which will be maimed if one leg is removed and the removed leg will not be a cow, any more. We should note that the coinage with the name kārṣapaṇa seems to have continued till the 8th. century CE (see this). Hence, the use of that word alone cannot be taken to push Sankara's life-time backwards by a millenium or more. Of course Kanchi mutt has done this, though it copied the Guruparampara almost fully from Sringeri. But kanchi mutt and Chandrasekhara Saraswati had some purpose in so doing. We need not be influenced by that.

That is a good explanation. There is one another thing , one need not suppose that a coinage is in currency based on the above translation, even if it is a direct reference to a coin. Since we still discuss things which are seldom in use and which have ended up as mere poetic metaphors.

I referred to the site above. however nothing much is there which indicates how they arrived at the date of 300-700 AD while the others sites specify a relation to Maurayan empire. Further why would somebody use a greek symbol after 500 years?
The important thing to understand is that if Manu talked about this coin , will the mutts accept that Manu must belong to that age.

I just checked this reference which also talks about Karshapana in the later periods.
Let me quote the same from the same book by D.R.Bhandarkar
Lectures on Ancient Indian Numismatics - Google Books

The tradition of the Karshapana and its token money prevalent in the early buddhist period was thus preserved so late as the 6 th or 7 th century AD as we find from Katyayana

But here also my doubt is it true that Katyayana lived in the 7 th century AD? That would be important for this account to be accepted true.
I tried to google Karshapana and most of the concrete references to karshapana seem to be much earlier to 7 AD and as far as Buddha Jataka , the smrithis , the Ashtadhyayi and coins with greek influence. Bhandarkar refers to Katyayana and this is my source of doubt for subscribing a later continuance of this coin.