I attempted, very roughly and crudely, a functional interpretation of Sankara as read by De Smet, and also functional history.
While rough and crude, there are gains. It became clear to me that not only Lonergan, but also De Smet, came to the insight that Sankara's ideas about knowing and meaning determined his interpretation.
The attempt to relate Sankara to earlier, contemporary and later writers is also useful in fixing his meaning.
Where I am still very raw is in the larger historical picture, the effort to relate viewpoints to one another. There I have probably to hit upon some anomaly and follow through. That might well be Sankara's understanding of understanding; or the mirror theory of knowledge; or the postulate of similarity.