The Kanchi Kamakoti mutt has given ample proof of Adi Shankara belonging to the 5th - 6th century BCE. There are many other historical evidences from different phases of his life, in support of such a date, like the Jina Vijaya referring to his meeting with Kumarila Bhatta (477 BC), the Nepalaraja Vamshavali (487 BC), Shankaracharya Kashmir temple made after him in (417 BC) and the dating of the Kalady river to 2500 years ago.
However, the mlecchas dated him to 788 AD, in regard to which, the mutt while giving the list of the peethadhipatis, has stated this to refer to Abhinava Shankara, the 38th peethadhipati and one of the 5 most famous Shankaras who came 1300-1400 odd years after Adi Shankara. In regard to this Abhinava Shankara, I came across a comment on the site, as per which many works currently attributed to Adi Shankaracharya may actually be the works of Abhinava Shankara. This sounds pretty much plausible for the reasons below mentioned.
Upon short miscellaneous reading, there appear many contradictions between some works, for example,
- His very sober and sensible commentary on Brahma Sutra 1.4.16, encouraging performance of Nitya Karmas for knowledge, the mutts advocating yajna and Agnihotra performance vs. The vehement advocation of abandoning karma (eg. Ishopanishad commentary).
- His respect towards and acceptance of both, Mandana Mishra and his wife as disciples vs. the view held in Vivekachudamani (not considered Adi Shankara’s) of preference of males.
- Puri Shankaracharya’s reiteration that Maya is not illusion but jada Prakriti vs the Svetasvatara Upanishad 1.6 (Bheda Shruti) Bhashya (not considered Adi Shankara’s) with extensive stress on Aham Brahmasmi.
It is further stated that Adi Shankara has drawn reference to the Bodhayana Vritti for the purposes of his commentary on the Brahmasutras, for which even Sri Ramanujacharya did and hence a difference in interpretation is not likely, unless we surmise that entire works or parts thereof are those of Abhinava Shankara, who possibly misinterpreted the philosophy 1400 years later, such as those portions with excess emphasis on Maya and Aham Brahmasmi. There has to be some reason why Abhinava is among the foremost, for which I ask:
Which are these entire works or parts thereof that are attributable to Abhinava Shankara?
It is not necessary to say an entire work is attributable to him, it’s possible that over time (1400 years), some lost portions may have been filled up at the time of Abhinava with extensive stress on karma abandonment, Maya and Aham Brahmasmi.
Please give views of authentic acharyas, peethas and other sources, with their records showing those works having been written by Abhinava or a non-biased analysis of why some portions (eg. Excess stress on Maya and Aham Brahmasmi) of certain works are or are not Adi Shankaracharyas. OR upon reading through contradictions, which portions can one consider as attributable to either of the Shankaras?
Please note there is no insult or disrespect intended to Adi Shankaracharya. I’m merely asking which works are not attributable to him.