This question is prompted by the movie Adi Shankaracharya movie which is made in Sanskrit. It is a movie about Adi Shankaracharya and depicts different incidents in his life from birth to attaining samadhi at Himalayas.

The movie depicts an incident where Sureśvarācārya was observing a vedic sacrifice. In the sacrifice, animals made of dough were offered instead of real animals. So, he becomes displeased and talks to Adi Shankara that when will people be free from rituals and concentrate on self. Adi Shankaracharya appreciates him saying he has realised the futility of the rituals and he is worthy of commenting on Shankara Bhashyam which is a commentary on Brahma sutras.

Knowing this, the other shishyas were disappointed to know that their acharya has not chosen other senior most shishyas like Padma Pada or Hastamalaka who is a great scholar. Adi Shankaracharya tells them that there should be unity among the shishyas who are dedicated for the spread of Vedic wisdom through out the country. The shishyas apologise for the mistake they made and later Adi Shankaracharya chooses Totakacharya who is also known as Ananda Giri to write a commentary on his own Shankara Bhashyam. It is the work Nyaya Nirnaya

You can watch the scene on YouTube.

Is this a true incident that there is a resentment among the disciples of Adi Shankara which led to Ananda Giri's work Nyaya Nirnaya ? Is this incident mentioned in any of the biographies of Adi Shankaracharya?

Some can think that it is a movie and writers take some creative license but it is said in the titles that the script is approved by religious scholars and it is heard and blessed by Shankaracharyas of Shringeri, Dwaraka, Jyotirmatham and Kanchi Kama Koti Peetham. So, this should have been present in some of the traditional biographies of Adi Shankaracharya.

  • 2
    There's a different story in Madhaviya Shankara Digvijaya. Other disciples don't allow Sureswara to write commentary as Sureswara formerly belonged to Purva Mimamsa which gave importance to rituals and they feared he would write commentaries in favor of ritualism. – The Destroyer Mar 17 '18 at 9:34
  • 2
    How is this material to knowledge about Hinduism ? – user1195 Mar 17 '18 at 19:12
  • 1
    @moonstar Are incidents about lives of acharyas and their texts off-topic? How come? This is an incident which is about a rise of Nyaya Nirnaya (sub commentary) on Shankara Bhashya and according to the above comment, something related to it is present in Madhaviya Shankara Digvijayam. Do you think it is not related to Hinduism? – Sarvabhouma Mar 18 '18 at 1:21
  • 3
    @sarvabhouma If that is the intent of the Q, then it needs to be reworded. In its current form the Q seems curious about fights among people (as opposed to philosophical differences which led to the distillation of knowledge in its current form) which does not add to the knowledge about Hinduism. – user1195 Mar 18 '18 at 2:48
  • 1
    @moonstar My intention is clear already. I said it in my above comment and in the question also. I want to know whether there was a disagreement among the shishyas and what is th eaccurate incident happened. I am not asking why there was a resentment or doubting them or something else (See how I called them in the question). Not all are interested in philosophy. Knowing history of Hinduism is also a form of knowledge. This question and intention is already clear. I can't see how this question gives rise to fight between people. – Sarvabhouma Mar 19 '18 at 5:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .