ajAti vAda

Rhat Sankaravijaya of citsukha seem extremely far-fetched, and within the living
advaita tradition, there is great controversy over the very existence of this text. There is a
more recent text, called bRhat Sankaravijaya, by one brahmAnanda sarasvatI, which
seems to date from the 17th or 18th century.
Another prAcIna Sankaravijaya is also sometimes attributed to one mUkakavi. As with
the bRhat Sankaravijaya of citsukha, nothing specific is known about this prAcIna
Sankaravijaya either, as all attempts to trace source manuscripts have failed. Some
quotations from a prAcIna Sankaravijaya are found in some very recent works, but the
real source of these quotations remains unknown.
anantAnandagirIya Sankaravijaya - In my opinion, this work is very unreliable. To
begin with, it is a very late text and all available versions seem extremely corrupt. The
author of this text identifies himself as anantAnandagiri. Many scholars mistakenly
identify this text with that of Anandagiri, the TIkAkAra, probably due to the misleading
similarity of their names. Among these, H. H. Wilson thinks that the author is an
unblusing liar, because he reports miracles and supernatural events associated with
Sankara. However, he seems prepared to accept this text's description of Hindu religious
cults. About forty out of the seventy-odd chapters in this work describe some 72
different religious cults and sects prevalent in India, which Wilson uses in his study. A.
C. Burnell, however, thinks that the work is spurious and very modern, [7] written in the
interests of southern maThas which had broken their ties with the Sringeri maTha. Be
that as it may, a casual reading of this Sankaravijaya text is enough to convince the
reader that its author cannot be identified with Anandagiri at all. anantAnandagiri
appears to be a quite different author altogether. He quotes sections from the adhikaraNa
ratnamAlA, a 14th-century work of vidyAraNya and bhAratI tIrtha, but attributes these
quotations to Sankara. He also makes barely veiled references to rAmAnuja, the 11thcentury
teacher of viSishTAdvaita, and AnandatIrtha, the 13th-century teacher of dvaita.
Both of them have been described as direct disciples of Sankara himself.
Moreover, most of the available manuscripts of this work are incomplete, and even these
seem to have been heavily tampered with. Two separate accounts of Sankara's life may
be found in different editions of this work. For example, the 19th century editions from
Calcutta, [8] and all their source manuscripts, describe Sankara's birth at Cidambaram in
Tamil Nadu, while the 1971 Madras edition [9] says that Sankara was born at Kaladi in
Kerala. The earlier 19th century editions mention a maTha at Sringeri, and no maTha at
Kancipuram. However, in the 1971 Madras edition, an ASrama has been mentioned
near Sringeri, and a maTha at Kancipuram has been described in great detail. All
editions mention that Sankara stayed at Sringeri for twelve years, and his last days are
placed at Kancipuram, but this text is totally silent about any sarvajnapITha. It has been
pointed out that the 1971 Madras edition is not true to the manuscripts that it lists as its
sources. [10] T. M. P. Mahadevan's introduction to this edition also wrongly identifies
this work with that of Anandagiri, the TIkAkAra, and claims that this must be the work
that is called both bRhat and prAcIna. However, Mahadevan is silent about the bRhat
text said to have been written by citsukha and the prAcIna text attributed to mUkakavi.