dakSiNAmUrti stotra, and Tamil and Kashmir zaivisms

[Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan]

I apologize for the length of this post. On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, In a posting
entitled, "Re: Two questions - Taranatha and Robert Gussner", David Dargie
wrote:

>Only the DakShiNAmUrti stotra passes as authentic due to the
>non-occurrence of these words.

In the article "dakSiNAmUrti stotra and mAnasollAsa" in Mm. Professor
Kuppuswami Sastri Birth Centenary Commemoration Volume Part 2, 1985, p.89-98,
C. Markandeya Sastry begins with a quotation of  Prof. Kuppuswami Sastri on
mAnasollAsa (Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, April-June, 1932) :

"It must be remembered that zrI zankara was the greatest of the teachers who
inherited the philosophical heritage of an old type of zaivAdvaita which was
represented in the Upanishadic period by basic texts like zvetAzvarOpanishad
and in the post-Upanishadic period by authoritative works like sundara
paNDya-vArttika and zankara's own bhASyas and devotional hymns. The
parallelism between pratyabhijJA literature and dakSiNAmUrti-stotra which the
author of this article points out, will show, if pursued further, that the
pratyabhijJA philosophy itself is a by-product of the blend of zankara's
advaita and upanishadic zaivism."

Markandeya Sastry concludes the article by saying:
"As a result of this discussion, one has two alternatives thrown up with
regard to the authorship of mAnasollAsa, --

(1) The author is not surezvara since the views of pratyabhijJA system of
philosophy and the concomitant zaiva school are predominant in it, or -
(2) surezvara is the author but he tried to effect a compromise between the
zankara-advaita and the pratyabhijJA school.

It is however to be noted that the pratyabhijJA as a system did not develop
but as Prof. Kuppuswamy Sastry observed, there are seeds of the same in
upanishads like zvetAzvara and zaiva siddhAnta in the Vedas. Perhaps
zurezvara, after his perceptor, came across some propounders of this system,
in a way of organized opposition to the pure Advaitic tenets of zrI zankara
because the latter may end in discarding a personal God. Indeed the
zankarites are also alleged to be 'pracchanna bauddhas'. To meet this
contingency and especially in view of the mass appeal, the personal God
philosophy generally has, surezvara tried to accomodate the theories of
zaivAgama and also the pratyabhijJA system to a certain extent while
commenting on the dakSiNAmUrti stotra; or perhaps he chose to comment on this
stotra only for this purpose. He might have termed the chapters as ullAsas in
the fashion of Agama works just to attract the attention of advocates of a
personal God as Supreme, to their philosophical moorings that lie in Advaita
only."

C. Sivaramamurti has also noted ziva's dakSiNAmUrti form is south Indian and
LakulIza form is north Indian. Given the earliest attestation in CT and later
widespread popularity of dakSiNAmUrti cult in the Tamil region as discussed
in earlier postings, I have some questions.

Was the authorship of the only genuine(?) stotra of zankara due to the need
to counter the ziva dakSiNAmUrti devotional cult of the Tamil country?

Why did madhurAja yogin, a disciple of abhinavagupta say in the dhyAnazloka,
"May the glorious god dakSiNAmUrti (abhinavagupta), who is an incarnation of
ziva protect us"?

Can one say that the compromise between the zaivism of the Tamil country and
zankara's advaita leads to pratyabhijJA ?

Where was sundara pANDya-vArttika written and by whom?

Thanks in advance for comments and answers.

Regards
S. Palaniappan