Mimamsa, Vedanta etc.

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

"N. Ganesan" <naga_ganesan at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:

>Art historians have doubted the assertion of C. Sivaramamurti in his
>booklet, Bhagavatpada Sri Sankaracharya (1972) that the Pallava temple
>(Muktesvara (from memory)) sculptures in Kanchi adjoining a
>Dakshinamurti bas-relief panel is Sankara. A team of three saints,
>whom Sivaramamurti identifies them as Jaimini, Vyasa and Sankara.
>Other scholars say that this kind of deification appears to be too
>early and, more likely is Jaimini, Vyasa and Krtakoti. What is the
>standard  academic opinion among vedanta scholars about the Kanchi
>portraits nowadays?

There is no "standard" academic opinion, as far as I am aware. I don't think
any proper critical examination has been made of all the sculptures that
have been claimed to represent Sankara. The intersection set of art
historians and academic vedAnta scholars is probably a null set. In spite of
his impeccable credentials, Sivaramamurti may have only seen what he was
expected (or told?) to see by a higher authority. I, for one, am quite
skeptical about it.

The sculptures range from the times of Narasimhavarman Pallava to
Krishnadevaraya of Vijayanagara. Whatever literature there does exist about
these sculptures seems driven by hidden agendas. N. Veezhinathan has
included pictures of a number of them in his edition of anantAnandagiri's
hagiography of Sankara. K. R. Venkataraman has pointed out that at least
some of the sculptures (notably in the kAyArohaNeSvara temple, but also in
other locations) represent lakUlISa-pASupata ascetics, and that they have
been mistakenly interpreted as ekadaNDI saMnyAsins of the advaita tradition.
And voila, here you have it - the two authors are in opposite camps, and any
discussion has only seen more heat than light.

Vidyasankar
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com