Question regarding the lineage of Appayya Dīkṣita

[Madhav M Deshpande]

Dear BVP Colleages,

     As you can see from the attached extract of the Sanskrit Introduction to the 1864 pothi print edition of Veṅkaṭādhvarin's Lakṣmīsahasra, evidently, while the great Appayya Dīkṣita was mainly a Śaiva Advaitin vehemently attacking especially the Mādhva Vaiṣṇavas in his Madhvatantramukhamardana, his son Raghunātha Dīkṣita and grandson Veṅkaṭādhvarin were Vaiṣṇavas.  Among his later descendants we have Śaiva scholars like Nīlakaṇṭha Dīkṣita.  How did these Śaiva and Vaiṣṇava affiliations develop within this one and the same family?  If anyone knows sources for the family history of Appayya Dīkṣita and his lineage, I would very much appreciate to know those sources.  Thanks for your assistance.

Madhav M. Deshpande

Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

In an introduction to the book containing  Brahmatarkastava and Pancharatnastuti, the editor, R. Krishnaswami Sastri gives some  details of the father and grandfather of Appaya Dikshita and  says that Dikshita himself as well his father and grandfather were ardent advaitins and R.K.Sastri relates an   instance, when Appayya Dikshita was invited to a Viashnava program on Desikachara-composed drama, where a stage performer put his foot on the head of Lord Shiva and that upset Dikshita. That could be the reason why Appayya Dikshitp resolved to restore the glory of Lord Shiva.

There is also a possibility that Appaya Dikshita was wounded by Shri Madvacharya's trying to prove the superiority of Vishnu over Shiva, on the strength of Brahmatarka. So Appayya Dikshita also could have tried to prove the superiority of Shiva over Vishnu on the strength of Brahmatarka.  Where and how Shri Madhvacharya and Appayya Dikshita read the text of Bramha tarka is anybody's guess. There may be scholars in this list who may have more details on these.

Regards,

Sunil KB

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[rniyengar]

Prof.Deshpande,

I am writing from memory; textual reference will be provided as and when available. Very distinct  Śaiva and Vaiṣṇava affiliations among Tamil Brahmins (Iyers & Iyengars) is a late phenomenon. Appayya Diks.ita's grand father had two wives one of them being a staunch S'ri V.  Due to her influence Dikshita developed interest and knowledge in the Vis'istaadvaita. This seems to be a reason for his writing his famous commentary on the Yaadavaabhyudayam of Vedanta Des'ika, (where one explanation was revealed to him in a dream). I recollect to have read this in the Srirangam edition of the Yadavabhyudayam. 

regards

RNI

[Nagaraj Paturi]

http://anand-vsiyer.blogspot.in/2007/08/my-ancestry-with-little-history-and_23.html

provides a family tree of Sri Appayya Dikshitar and that meantions Swami Shivananda lineage.

Sri Swami Sivananda gives a write up on Sri Appayya Dikshitar which includes biography at

http://www.dlshq.org/saints/appayya.htm

In neither of these Sri Venkatadhwari figures.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

I have attached The family tree of Sri Appayya Dikshit extracted from Appayya Dikshit biography by Ramesan N.  Even in this list Sri Venkataadhwari doesn't seem to show.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Venkatadhwari figures in this family tree of a Sri Vaishnava family. There is a Kanchipuram connection in this too.

http://creative.sulekha.com/history-of-the-kidambi-kadambi-cadambi-kilambi-family_210144_blog

[Sathya Narayanan N]

Respected Scholars,

I think, I have some information to add.

One of the descendants of Sri. Appaya Dikshita is in Bangalore. A Athi Rudram was organized in Vellore a year before. At that time "one of his descendant" had come. He made donations and participated.He looks to be a Smartha/Advaithin, 

Kanchi mutt currently takes care of Appaya Deekshitas house in Adayapalam, Arani. There is a Sastri belonging to mutt, who was a student of a member of Appaya Deekshitas lineage.

I did come across a FB discussion which said Appaya Deekshitars wife is a Vaishnavite.

regards,

Sathya

[Sundareswaran N.K]

शतं जीव शरदों वर्द्धमाना 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

N. K. Sundareswaran,

Department of Sanskrit,

University of Calicut,

Kerala - 673635

INDIA

https://universityofcalicut.academia.edu/SundareswaranNK

[Sundareswaran N.K]

Sorry. My previous posting was a wrongly sent.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

One more clue linking Sri Venkatadhwari to 'Dikshitar' title of his lineage is here:

http://raghavanhema.blogspot.in/2012/10/lakshmi-sahasram-i-v-k-chary.html

Sri VenkatAdhvari also called as Sri VenkatAcarya Deekshidar and Aparadesikan composed Sri LakshmI sahasram. He was born at arasaaNipAlai near Kaancipuram and lived between 1590-1660 A.D. His family lived near YatoktakAri sannadhi in Kaanchi. His forefathers had performed many yAgAs and earned the title “Deekshitar”. There is still a place in arasaaNipAlai that is referred to as “YaagasAlai”. Till date one can see a stone pillar there that is called “Yoopastambham”. Sri VenkatAdhvari was an expert in tarka, vyAkarNam, mImAmsai, vedAntam, astrology and mantra sAstram. He used to offer the fruits of all his yAga, yaj~nam to Lord Venkateswara and hence was called VenkatAdhvari.

Among the many works of Sri VenkatAdhvari only some are available to us. Acarya PancaaSat, SravanAnandam, YadavarAgavEyam, Subhashita Kaustubam, ViSvaguNadarSa Sambu, Uttara Sambu, VaradAbyudaya Sambu, PradyumnAnanda nATakam, LakshmI sahasram are some of his works that have been published so far. He was said to have translated ThiuvAimozhi in to Sanskrit but the translation for only “oru nAyagamAi” pAsuram is available now.

 

(Highlighting mine)

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

One more clue linking Sri Venkatadhwari to 'Dikshitar' title of his lineage is here:

http://raghavanhema.blogspot.in/2012/10/lakshmi-sahasram-i-v-k-chary.html

Can this person be said to be in the Appayya Dikshita lineage? It is unlikely since the name 'desikan' is not a smārta one; it is unique to the Viśiṣṭādvaita sampradāya.  The article itself is by one from this following. 

On an aside, the word 'Sambu' appearing in the paragraph below is actually 'champūḥ'. 

regards

subrahmanian.v   

[Nagaraj Paturi]

AadaraNIya Sri V Subrahmanianji,

From the details collected so far by me and by Dr Ajit Gargeshwari , Sivaadvaiti Appayya Dikshitar and the Appayya Dikshitar found in the document shared by Prof. Deshpande are, in all probability, two different individuals.  

I showed the Dikshitar link not to say that Sivaadvaiti Appayya Dikshitar is the forefather of Sri Venkatadhwari.

My intention was to try to make sense of the word Dikshitar found in the document shared by Prof. Deshpande. The document you responded to helps us in this regard. 

[Madhav Deshpande]

Thank you all for a productive discussion.

Madhav Deshpande

[Nagaraj Paturi]

That said, intermarriages between Smaarta and Maadhva families are quite common in the area of my birth namely the borders of Karnataka and southern Andhra Pradesh.

[Madhav Deshpande]

As it turns out, that was the case with my grand parents' marriage.  The Deshpande family was, at least until the generations of my great grand-parents, a Mādhva Vaiṣṇava family, but my grand-mother came from a family of Ganesha devotees, and with her, Ganesha and Shiva entered our family, and have been there ever since.

Madhav Deshpande

[Nagaraj Paturi]

In fact, in the Maadhva families of my place, Ganesha did not have to newly enter because they had an age-old family tradition of Benakappana Pooje (Ganesha pooja of Vinayaka Chaturthi)

Gaurammana Pooje was also a regular intense family tradition in those families.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Sub castes are no issue now a days. The criteria most people look for if it’s an arranged marriage are both bride and Groom are Brahmins or not  During my grand-father days they used to look for couple from Same smarta sub caste but should be from different gotras till the Hindu marriage act was amended which allows marriage between the same gotras now.

 

Ajit Gargeshwari

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I am not talking about the recent developments across the Brahmin community in general, of which I am aware as everyone else. What I am talking about is the centuries old practice of a specific region.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

I did not realise when Prof. Deshpande talked about his grand-mother old practice specific to a region. Are inter marriages between Smaarta and Maadhva marriages related appayya Dikshits family lineage unless you consider link and claims like these to be authentic http://raghavanhema.blogspot.in/2012/10/lakshmi-sahasram-i-v-k-chary.html

[sk]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 8:48:52 AM UTC-4, Madhav Deshpande wrote:

As it turns out, that was the case with my grand parents' marriage.  The Deshpande family was, at least until the generations of my great grand-parents, a Mādhva Vaiṣṇava family, but my grand-mother came from a family of Ganesha devotees, and with her, Ganesha and Shiva entered our family, and have been there ever since.

For your information -- unlike SriVaishnavas, Madhvas are not opposed to Shiva worship at all. In fact Lord Shiva is considered as manObhimAni (presiding deity for manas) and Himself is consider parama vaishNava in Madhva doctrine. His worship is a must for every follower in the tradition.

Your observation that Ganesha and Shiva entered the family **only** after intermarriage, seems to be a little strange to me.

/sk

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I began the discussion on Smaarta-Maadhva intermarriages after the Appayya Dikshita discussion was concluded, with the words "that said" , to indicate that this was going to be a related but  new topic.

Appayya Dikshita topic had Smaarta (more specifically Sivaadvaiti) and Srivaishnava issue. The conclusion there was that the lineages of Venkatadhwari the Sri Vaishnava and Appayya Dikshita the Sivaadvaiti are different.

Since  during the cource of the thread, there was a suspicion of a Smaarta - Vishnava intermarriage  inter-marriage I pointed out that such a thing is possible at least in Smaarta-Maadhva case in my native region, though here we are able to see that such a thing did not happen.  

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I agree with vidwan sk skot...@gmail.com.

I have a big number of first hand cultural practice observations and primary textual sources in support of this.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

For your information -- unlike SriVaishnavas, Madhvas are not opposed to Shiva worship at all. In fact Lord Shiva is considered as manObhimAni (presiding deity for manas) and Himself is consider parama vaishNava in Madhva doctrine. His worship is a must for every follower in the tradition.

 

So what you are saying is Shiva is considered as a Parama Vaishnava hence you worship. Else you don’t worship Shiva.

 

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of sk
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 7:25 PM
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Question regarding the lineage of Appayya Dīkṣita

 

--

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Thank you I agree

[Nagaraj Paturi]

> So what you are saying is Shiva is considered as a Parama Vaishnava hence you worship. Else you don’t worship Shiva.

I hope this is fun for humour, said in a lighter vein.

What he is saying is, we do worship Siva as a Parama Vaishnava. There is no context for 'else' here.

Fun noted. Thanks.  

[Madhav Deshpande]

About Ganesha and Shiva entering our family with my grand mother, that is what I had heard in the family.  The grand parents are gone long time ago, and cannot ask them.  

Madhav Deshpande

--

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

As Prof Paturi said I made a lighter remark on the words “For your information -- unlike SriVaishnavas” may considered as rude in a sense. Not making a specific remark but saying so in a general way.  I think we now can move back to the thread for further discussion as needed.

[Madhav Deshpande]

There was no trace of Mādhva Vaiṣṇavism in my family when I was growing up in Pune, and it may have to do with my grand-father's marriage, as well as migration to Pune from our ancestral town called Temburni, near Solapur.  Evidently, there was a Mādhva Paṭḥaśālā in the same building where my grand-father's family lived, and one of the stories of those old days was that in the Marathi usage of the Mādhva families, in stead of using the Marathi verb "Shiv" for sewing, they would use the alternative expression dorā ghālaṇe "to put through the thread."  I cannot vouch for the accuracy of these reported stories, and, when I was growing up, there was no trace of Mādhva Vaiṣnavism in the family.  On one occasion, some Mādhva Ācārya was visiting Pune during my childhood, and my father wanted to go in for Darshan.  But he was told that he would have to either show that he had a Tapta Mudra, or would have to get one, before he could go in for Darshan.  Again, these are hearsay stories for me, and I cannot vouch for their accuracy.

Madhav Deshpande

[Nagaraj Paturi]

What we can say , as academicians, is that the content of such oral narratives need not necessarily be justifiably right. But for the fact that such narratives existed , their listeners like you are the evidence enough.

Why such narrow views of a tradition which does not in fact have such views existed in a family like that of your grand parents?

The following hypothesis could be proposed :

Maharashtra is a region to which Maadhva tradition spread from Karnataka. Migrant minority cultures sometimes tend to be hyperconservative in the areas of their migration out of a paranoid fear of dilution under the domination of the majority 'other'.

 

[Madhav Deshpande]

Paturi-ji, you have come up with a good possible explanation.

Madhav Deshpande

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Let us move back to Sri Appayya Dikshitar.

The following is from him:

// viShNurvA shankaro vA shruti-shikhara-girAmastu tAtparya-bhUmiH
na-asmAkam tatrva vAdaH prasarati kimapi spaShTam-advaita-bhAjAm |
kintu-Isha-dveSha-gADhAnala-kalita-hRRidAm durmatInAm duruktIH
bhanktum yatno mama-ayam nahi bhavatu tato viShNu-vidveSha-shankAm ||

[Nagaraj Paturi]

In a previous thread on BVP,

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/bvparishat/maadhva%7Csort:relevance/bvparishat/YzDiNVqIu3E/oCeysdurBgAJ

I posted as follows:

Here you may read about a Shiva temple in Udupi which is worshipped by maadhva Vaishnavas:

 

It is said here that "While the image installed in this temple is that of Lord Shiva according to the devotees of Shiva, the Vaishnavas worship the image as both Shiva and Vishnu. What one sees in the sanctorum is a Linga. However, the idol taken in a procession during the festivals is that of Lord Ananthapadmanabha. Thus it stands to reason to infer that the temple is the abode of Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva. Sri Vadiraja has glorified this place by concluding that Lord Hari is residing in the body of Lord Hara here.

Legend has it that Acharya Madhwa’s father served here as the temple priest. When he shifted to the holy Pajaka kshetra, he carried a replica of Lord Ananthapadmanabha’s idol with him and installed it at Pajaka where it is worshipped to this day."

[BVKSastry(Gmail)]

Namaste

 

      On  < while the great Appayya Dīkṣita was mainly a Śaiva Advaitin vehemently attacking especially the Mādhva Vaiṣṇavas  > . The key is in <Panchaayatana Pooja, proposed by Sri Shankara Acharya, a  system accommodating the personal  Ishta-Devataa’ within the broad gamut of Universal Divine (Para Brahma / Parama Purusha )

 

1.       Appayya Diskhita (1520–1593 CE  ) is said to be belonging to the ‘Smaarta Saiva Sampradaaya’.; and advocacy of ‘ Panchaayatana Pooja with accommodation for Ishta-Devataa of choice’ was an accepted norm for more than 1000 years before him in India. And this continues even to this day in almost all Shankara –Advaita institutions.  

 

Appayya Dikshita, like Mahamaheswara Abhinvaguptacharya was a polyglot and open minded Sanatana Dharma traditionalist.

 

The   three faculties, namely  :  Desire to seek  Intellectual discourse-dialogue  with sharp acumen (  Tattva Vaada – bahu shrutatva – bhau shaastrajnataa)   -  Personal Faith ( Kula -Paramparaa Shraddhaa – Ishta Devataa)  and Taste for literature ( Kaavya – Alamkaara Sahitya)  seem never to have crossed swords in the mind of  Appayya Dikshita. The work ‘Hari Hara Stuti’ is an example of such open mindedness.  

 

http://shaivam.org/adappayya_works.htm  -  70. Hari Hara stuti :    In the great kshetra, Chidambaram, the temple to Sri Govindaraja, the Vishnava Lord, which was closed for worship was thrown open again for worship during the time of Ramaraya, the regent of Vijayanagar, through the good offices of one vaishnavite teacher Doddacharya. Sri Appayya Dikshita who had no distinction between Siva and Vishnu, fully welcomed this. In honor of that great event he wrote the Harihara Stuti. This contains ten verses. In each both Siva and Vishnu are praised alternatively. It is well-known that in Chidambaram one can have darshan of both the Lords at the same time.

 

2.     The artificiality of dividing the ‘Hinduism study’  in to  blocks like  ‘Saivite –Vaishnavite’ /  Smaarta –Vaishnava’ faith blocks – highlighting the ‘ divisive hatred point’  is a hall mark colonial presentation and western construct. 

This does not truly reflect the essence of the Sanatana Dharma, which is ‘ Unity in Diversity –Eka Devataa San-moola –Chin-Moola’- Upaasanaa.

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

 

 

 

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Madhav M Deshpande
Sent: Monday, 25 July, 2016 4:50 PM
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Question regarding the lineage of Appayya Dīkṣita

 

Dear BVP Colleages,

 

     As you can see from the attached extract of the Sanskrit Introduction to the 1864 pothi print edition of Veṅkaṭādhvarin's Lakṣmīsahasra, evidently, while the great Appayya Dīkṣita was mainly a Śaiva Advaitin vehemently attacking especially the Mādhva Vaiṣṇavas in his Madhvatantramukhamardana, his son Raghunātha Dīkṣita and grandson Veṅkaṭādhvarin were Vaiṣṇavas.  Among his later descendants we have Śaiva scholars like Nīlakaṇṭha Dīkṣita.  How did these Śaiva and Vaiṣṇava affiliations develop within this one and the same family?  If anyone knows sources for the family history of Appayya Dīkṣita and his lineage, I would very much appreciate to know those sources.  Thanks for your assistance.

 

Madhav M. Deshpande

Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

--

[Nagaraj Paturi]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molla_(poet):

Atukuri Molla (1440–1530) was a Telugu poet who authored the Telugu-language Ramayana. Identified by her caste, she was popularly known as Kummara (potter) Molla.

 

Her father Kesana was a potter of Gopavaram, a village in Badvel Mandal, fifty miles north of Kadapa in Andhra Pradesh state. He was a Saivaite and devotee of Srikantha Malleswara (an incarnation of Shiva) in Srisailam. He gave her daughter the name Molla, meaning "Jasmine", a favourite flower of the god, and also nicknamed her Basavi in respect to Basaveswara (another incarnation of Shiva).

Molla claimed Lord Shiva as Guru, and her inspiration is claimed to have come from Potana, who wrote Bhagavata purana in Telugu. Like him, she was Saivaite, but wrote the story of Rama (an incarnation of Vishnu) and also refused to dedicate her Ramayana to any king, a general practice for poets at the time.

According to Varadarajn's book, "Study of Vaishnava Literature", as her popularity spread, she was invited to Sessions court and got an opportunity to recite Ramayana in front of Krishnadevaraya and his poets. She spent her old age at Srisailam in the presence of Lord Srikantha Malleswara.

(Though I can give my own first hand account of this, as a scholar of classical Telugu literature, I am providing this link for objectivity purposes)

[Ashok Aklujkar]

> On Jul 26, 2016, at 8:28 AM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:
> … Sri Appayya Dikshitar.
>
> The following is from him:…. nahi bhavatu tato viShNu-vidveSha-shankAm ||

Should the last word not end in “A” or “ā”? The syntax needs a nominative.

I had also heard the following charming verse as coming from Appayya Dīkṣita but have not so far had time to ascertain if it is indeed found in any of his works:
पुरारौ च मुरारौ च नास्ति भेद: कथंचन / तथापि मामकी भक्तिश् चन्द्र-चूडे प्रधावति //

a.a.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Thanks Prof. Aklujkar, this was an oversight born of less careful copy-pasting.

It should be nahi bhavatu tato viShNu-vidveSha-shankA ||

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[K S Kannan]

mā-ramaṇam umā-ramaṇam​​

    phaṇidhara-talpam phaṇādharā''kalpam /

mura-mathanam pura-mathanam

    vande bāṇārim asama-bāṇarim //

This verse praises both Viṣṇu and Śiva serially via similarly sounding epithets.

​.​

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Madhav Deshpande <mmd...@umich.edu> wrote:

There was no trace of Mādhva Vaiṣṇavism in my family when I was growing up in Pune, and it may have to do with my grand-father's marriage, as well as migration to Pune from our ancestral town called Temburni, near Solapur.  Evidently, there was a Mādhva Paṭḥaśālā in the same building where my grand-father's family lived, and one of the stories of those old days was that in the Marathi usage of the Mādhva families, in stead of using the Marathi verb "Shiv" for sewing, they would use the alternative expression dorā ghālaṇe "to put through the thread."  I cannot vouch for the accuracy of these reported stories, and, when I was growing up, there was no trace of Mādhva Vaiṣnavism in the family.  On one occasion, some Mādhva Ācārya was visiting Pune during my childhood, and my father wanted to go in for Darshan.  But he was told that he would have to either show that he had a Tapta Mudra, or would have to get one, before he could go in for Darshan.  Again, these are hearsay stories for me, and I cannot vouch for their accuracy.

Namaste

Perhaps Sri Madhav ji is right in alluding to those 'stories.'  Here is a foreword to a book 'shānkara-pāda-bhūṣaṇam' by a scholar Sri Digambara Sastri, available for download too in archives.  There he lists some of those practices which prevailed in Pune or some northern region. A discussion on the topic is available here:

http://advaita-l.advaita-vedanta.narkive.com/ZwHB74Ho/shankarapadabhushanam-sanskrit

regards

subrahmanian.v   

[Nagaraj Paturi]

The discussants in the link provided by you too disagree with the opinion that such extreme Sivadvesha could have existed among Maadhva families.

In fact, many of the discussants (including your respectable self) provided very good substantiation for the lack of Sivadvesha among Maadhvas.

[V Subrahmanian]

I only wanted to point out that such practices could be/have been  among Madhva families in that region as Digambara Sastri was from. He could be reporting only what he witnessed. Since it appeared corroborating Madhavji's reports I shared that instance.

Regards

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

In which text Samkaracharya "proposes the Panchayatanapuja"?

Generally it is repeated by many, but, as scholars/researchers, it will be better for us if the actual source where such a proposal, is clearly stated.


Ganesan

On 26-07-2016 21:46, BVKSastry(Gmail) wrote:

[Nagaraj Paturi]

>In which text Samkaracharya "proposes the Panchayatanapuja"?

 

The quote obviously is from the post of Dr BVK Sastry in this thread.

 

This question is already discussed in various forums.

 

The points that emerged from these discussions are:

 

1. One Stig Lundgren, here in one of the forums responded as follows:

 

I have never found any such advices or injuctions in his works.

Panchayatana puja is performed among traditional smarthas, particularly in

South India. In Tamil Nadu within the Iyer community there is a widespread

custom to include also Lord Subramanian in the puja, hence the so-called

Shanmatha puja. Panchayatana puja includes the following gods: Ganesha,

Shiva, Shakti, Visnu and Surya. In the Shanmatha puja Subramanian is added

to these five gods. Shivapanchayatana puja means that Shiva is placed in

the middle of the five gods (generally represented by five specific stones,

placed upon a metal plate).

 

Whether this custom was actually invented by Adi Shankara himself remains

an open question. But it is a part of the smartha tradition, and perhaps

Panchayatana puja was performed by the smarthas also before the advent of

Shankara.

One notable healthy feature of this response is  to see the question as open in stead of pretending omniscience by declaring that Sankara has nothing to do with this.

2. Here the blogger broadens the prevalence of the tradition beyond Smartas and conjectures that it was part of general 'Sanatana Dharma'. Sankara probably 'systematized' it.

3. When people observe that a. it is a Smarta specific feature , b. Smarta tradition was 'founded' by Sankara, they combine, though it may not be perfectly logical , that this feature was introduced by Sankara.

4. Since most of the culture in ancient world in general and ancient Indian culture in particular, including our own respective favourite Indian tradition have only oral origins, it may not be a fruitful exercise to keep looking for written evidences for each one of them.

 

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[K S Kannan]

  "   .........Indian tradition have only oral origins, it may not be a fruitful            exercise to keep looking for written evidences for each one of them."

Dear Prof. Paturi,

Very well said.

Ananda Coomaraswamy, whose sense of history was no less keen than that of some of the best of historians, also laid high - that is, due - emphasis on this idea. 

While this is not to be taken as an easy license to make any tall claims, positive or negative, in respect of the remote past, the truth of the situation ought not to be overlooked.

After all, expressions such as 

"iti śuśruma", 

"pūrvebhir ṛṣibhiḥ", and 

"pathibhiḥ pūrvyaiḥ" 

are encountered in even the Vedic literature.

It is the modern obsession with intellectual property rights, preceded &/or backed by a rabid Eurocentrism, that has verily vested the historical approach with an exaggerated importance.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:59 AM, K S Kannan <ks.kann...@gmail.com> wrote:

  "   .........Indian tradition have only oral origins, it may not be a fruitful            exercise to keep looking for written evidences for each one of them."

Dear Prof. Paturi,

Very well said.

Ananda Coomaraswamy, whose sense of history was no less keen than that of some of the best of historians, also laid high - that is, due - emphasis on this idea. 

While this is not to be taken as an easy license to make any tall claims, positive or negative, in respect of the remote past, the truth of the situation ought not to be overlooked.

After all, expressions such as 

"iti śuśruma", 

"pūrvebhir ṛṣibhiḥ", and 

"pathibhiḥ pūrvyaiḥ" 

are encountered in even the Vedic literature.

It is the modern obsession with intellectual property rights, preceded &/or backed by a rabid Eurocentrism, that has verily vested the historical approach with an exaggerated importance.

Well said. Another 'linga' that Shankaracharya has advocated is 'if a particular practice is followed by 'śiṣṭa-s' then it need not be subjected to any further examination.  Shankara places great value for shisṭācāra. The Panchayatana puja is practiced by such people and there is no prohibition for it in the shastras. One cannot question: Is there prescription?  For this question alone the Tai.Up. answers: follow what the shishtas do. The shishtas will not be doing something prohibited. They will be following what other shistas, purvāh, have followed. How such practice came into being is a question that may not get an answer. That is not required is what the above nyāya conveys.   

 

 तद्धि प्रामाण्यकारणं श्रुत्यन्तरादवगम्यते ‘यथा मातृमान्पितृमान्’ (बृ. उ. ४-१-२) इत्यादेः । वेदस्मृतिशिष्टैर्वा प्रत्यक्षानुमानागमैर्वा । तेभ्यो हि विशुद्धिः प्रत्यक्षा । त्रिकर्मकृत् इज्याध्ययनदानानां कर्ता तरति अतिक्रामति जन्ममृत्यू । Kathopanishad bhashyam 1.1.17

यान्यपि च अन्यानि अनवद्यानि अनिन्दितानि शिष्टाचारलक्षणानि कर्माणि, तानि सेवितव्यानि कर्तव्यानि त्वया । नो न कर्तव्यानि इतराणि सावद्यानि शिष्टकृतान्यपि । Tai.up.Bhashyam 1.11.4

न च तस्य प्रतिषेधोऽस्ति । न च मत्स्यबन्धनादिकर्मवत्स्वभावजुगुप्सितमेतत्, शिष्टनिर्वर्त्यत्वात्, अकरणे च प्रत्यवायश्रवणात् ।  Br.up.Bha. 1.1.2

 तस्माद्विशुद्धं कर्म वैदिकम्,  शिष्टैरनुष्ठीयमानत्वात् अनिन्द्यमानत्वाच्च ; BSB 3.1.25

शिष्टैर्मनुव्यासप्रभृतिभिः केनचिदप्यंशेनापरिगृहीता येऽण्वादिकारणवादाः, तेऽपि प्रतिषिद्धतया व्याख्याता निराकृता द्रष्टव्याः ;  BSB 2.1.22

An article in Tamil has some inputs to show that there is the beejam, seed, for the shaṇmata-s in Shankara's admitted works like the prasthānatraya bhashya and other works like the Prapanchasāra:

An Tamil article titled 'சங்கரரும்-வைணவமும்’ - ஓர் விமர்சனம் is available in this location:

http://www.mediafire.com/download/ya0ejj8wb03i3tm/sankararum_vainavamum_TTA.pdf

The article points out the mistaken ideas the author of the Tamil booklet 'Sankararum-Vaiṇavamum' has put forward to claim a relationship between Shankaracharya and vaiśṇavism. Since it is in Tamil, the present article is also in the same language. 

regards

subrahmanian.v

[K S Kannan]

A hint, perhaps, at the enormity of the Scriptural literature we have lost - not necessarily due to the depradatory agenda of the invading hordes, despite the fact that the havoc they have wrought is by no means non-monumental - is evident in Patañjali's plain statement, 

"sahasravartmā sāmavedaḥ ..."etc., 

but also in Bhartṛhari's enunciation, 

"ṛṣīṇām api yaj-jñānam tad apy āgama-pūrvakam".

[Nagaraj Paturi]

This takes us into the whole issue of orality and literacy and related issues such as privileging literacy over orality as a feature of modernity and modern 'scientific' notions of evidence, complex interface between oral and literate textualizations etc.

During the British time, many Indians had  incur huge property losses due to insistence on written evidences for property claims which were though genuine did not have any written documentation.

Even today Indian tribes are suffering due to insistence on written evidences for their claims.

Complex interface between oral and literate textualizations are exemplified by what Prof. Kannan quoted from Vakyapadiyam. The central claim of Bhartrihari in the book that ----he was just preserving the theoretical foundations of Ashtadhyayi that were textualized by Sangraha which was 'lost' (astamupAgatE) in course of time--- itself is all described in detail as an oral to literate to oral to literate transfer from time to time. Finally he says his Gurus acquired the vyAkaraNa Agama from Parvata (parvatAdAgamam labdhvA ) and he was putting into written form what was given to him orally by his Gurus. In spite of he giving such a detailed account, modern researchers resist to accept his claim and ask for written evidences for the claim that it is Sangraha rewritten.  

[K S Kannan]

Coomaraswamy  cites the statement

"the myth is not my own, I had it from my mother" (Euripedes), to note the universality of the oral traditions.

His Bugbear of Literacy debunks the prime importance paid to literacy as the sole/primary instrument of culture, as well as the nonsense perpetrated by the printed word . (Bernard Shaw was no less denunciatory about the latter.)

The golden words of Coomaraswamy are memorable:

'It is far better not to know  how to read 

              than not to know what to read."

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

In these expressions it is clear that they refer to collective nouns--and hence, obviously all are in plural.

As it is obvious , they mean "we heard before", ""by ancient sages"", ''by earlier followers'', etc. Here, one cannot demand any written ''evidence'' as proof. And, all of us--followers of the Sanatana dharma--fully accept this.
But, when one says that a particular historical individual said so and so, or holds this view, I am sure, one should be able to give evidences from that individual's writings.

So, the expressions cited below and the statement that Samkaracharya (for instance) proposed such a practice or held this or that view are not on the same level. In the latter instance one has all the literature, and if what is said is true, then it should be found in the writings. Scholars can only argue on the basis of  available writings. That is why I said in my earlier mail, ""Generally it is repeated by many, but, as scholars/researchers, it will be better for us if the actual source where such a proposal, is clearly stated."

In popular belief, one is free to hold any belief or view on somebody.

I am sure we all agree that there ''are popular beliefs'' on the one hand and ''well founded scholarly views'', on the other on many matters which are obviously different.


Ganesan

[V Subrahmanian]

In my last post I had said:

//They will be following what other shistas, purvāh, have followed. //

I think the word 'pūrvāḥ' should be 'pūrve'.  Scholars may please give their opinion.

Thanks

subrahmanian.v

[K S Kannan]

Dr. Ganesan's views are tenable.  My emphasis was only on extreme historicism. Many problems concerning antiquity are not easily sorted out, as are sorted out issues of recent centuries.

Coomaraswamy went to the extent of speaking of the famed Buddha as "the pseudo-historical Buddha", and not without foundation.

History and meticulous documentation were no primary concerns of the East, and for solid reasons. The theological roots of fervent, and even febrile, historicism of the West has been well delineated in some of the writings of Rajiv Malhotra, especially his Being Different.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, 27 July 2016 16:40:52 UTC+5:30, ks.kannan.2000 wrote:

especially his Being Different.

... which Dr. Kannan and H. R. Meera have translated into Kannada as ವಿಭಿನ್ನತೇ (Vibhinnate). 

[Sathya Narayanan N]

To add on Panchayatana pooja and Shankara. I found an article, which quotes  RKM book as a reference.

A paragraph from “Sankara’s Teachings’ by Sri Atmananda of Sri Ramakrishna Mutt on the subject:

“Sankara instituted the worship of all these five Gods, Sun, Ambika, Vishnu, Ganapati and Shiva all on the same pedestal. This emphasized the idea that these are not five different Gods, but they are the one God worshipped in five different forms in different parts of India. Some wrongly think Sankara taught only Jnana and had no place for Karma. Sankara held that the place of Jnana was all-important but he knew equally well that many could not give up Karma and so they should be taught the most beneficial forms of Karma. Thus it is that the Panchayatana Puja (the worship of five Gods) came into vogue in Smartha homes. The other name for this is Siva-Puja.’’

Reference:

https://mahaperiyavaa.wordpress.com/2014/06/25/panchayathana-puja-initiation-from-kanchi-acharyas/

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Long back I read that there were many sects worshipping 30 or so devatas and Shakara wanted to reduce the sectarianism and he started the Panchayatana puja. The sixth deity Subrahmanyam was added later on and according to some that too was  by Shankara only. May be, some of the scholars of the list members would recall the original Sanskrit verses related to this

Regards,

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Ashok Aklujkar <ashok.a...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 26, 2016, at 8:28 AM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:
> … Sri Appayya Dikshitar.
>

I had also heard the following charming verse as coming from Appayya Dīkṣita but have not so far had time to ascertain if it is indeed found in any of his works:
पुरारौ च मुरारौ च नास्ति भेद: कथंचन / तथापि मामकी भक्तिश् चन्द्र-चूडे प्रधावति //

a.a.

This verse is also popular as coming from the pen of Appayya Dīkṣita:

महेश्वरे वा जगतामधीश्वरे जनार्दने वा जगदंतरात्मनि ।

न वस्तुभेदप्रतिपत्तिरस्ति मे तथापि भक्तिस्तरुणेंदुशेखरे ॥ 

regards

vs

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 10:27 PM, K S Kannan <ks.kann...@gmail.com> wrote:

mā-ramaṇam umā-ramaṇam​​

    phaṇidhara-talpam phaṇādharā''kalpam /

mura-mathanam pura-mathanam

    vande bāṇārim asama-bāṇarim //

This verse praises both Viṣṇu and Śiva serially via similarly sounding epithets.

Perhaps Pāpanāsam Sivan was inspired by the above composition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeDN8RcFGcI

 

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 4:40 PM, K S Kannan <ks.kann...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dr. Ganesan's views are tenable.  My emphasis was only on extreme historicism. Many problems concerning antiquity are not easily sorted out, as are sorted out issues of recent centuries.

Well said.  This is what the earlier Sringeri Acharya had said in 1988 in a Kannada discourse  in Mysore:

//In our Holy land, Bharath, persons in the Government, Advaitic Sannyasins,devotees and people interested in the Shastras have been celebrating , since the start of the current year, the twelfth centenary of the advent of Bhagavatpada, the preceptor. Historically, 1200-1300 years have passed since Bhagavatpada was born. If, following deliberation as on other issues, a consensus had arisen about the year of Bhagavatpada’s advent, be it 1200 years ago or earlier or later, there would have been no occasion for dispute. Historians have so far not determined the year of Buddha’s Nirvana with exactitude and certainty.  Yet, in 1956, the 2500^th anniversary of Buddha’s Nirvana was commemorated in various parts of the globe.  Research has not established that Jesus Christ was born precisely in 1 A.D. on December 25.  Nevertheless, the world over, Christmas is observed on December 25 and the Christian era commences from 1 A.D.  Thus, there are precedents for the anniversaries of events relating to personages being celebrated even in the absence of historical definiteness about the dates of those occurrences. So, the mere reason that 788 A.D. may actually not be the year of Bhagavatpada’s advent cannot debar or render censurable the current twelfth birth centenary celebrations...// 

regards

vs

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I was away and am just back.

I quoted Stig Lundgren's response: "Whether this custom was actually invented by Adi Shankara himself remains

an open question."

and said:

"One notable healthy feature of this response is  to see the question as open in stead of pretending omniscience by declaring that Sankara has nothing to do with this. "

Mine is a strictly academic methodological statement only.

You are in search of evidence for "A said B". You did not find the evidence. It does not automatically imply that A did not say B. It only means that though it is said that A said B , we did not find evidence for what is said. Search for evidence is still on. That is what is meant by "the question is still open".

All this is purely academic and scholarly critical approach only.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I quoted the following good advice from Prof. Ashok Aklujkar (given on BVP itself) in an earlier thread also:

"If we are good historians, we have to respect the limitation of the available evidence and leave the issue for a defensible solution when new evidence becomes available."

[rniyengar]

This thread has gone through too many twists and turns getting into lanes and bylanes of history, oral and textual, perhaps not knowing how to come out of it! I don't have a ready made answer either, but like to present a few points regarding the original query and the Sanskrit Introduction attached by Prof. Deshpande. Taking  Venkatadhwari (1590-1660 CE) to be the grandson of the famous Appayya Deekshita (1520-1593 CE) is a mistake. The former is of Aatreya Gotra whereas the latter is a Bhaaradwaaja. This was pointed out by Krishnamacharya in his History of Classical Skt.Lit (MLBD, 1932,..several reprints). Please see attachment. Such misunderstanding could be attributed to several factors, but over dependence on oral transmission of history and subsequent spread over large tracts of land seems to be the primary factor. Not only the Lakshmisahasram, but another text from Bombay seems to have the same mistake as per the footnote in the attached text.

RN Iyengar

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, 28 July 2016 12:14:07 UTC+5:30, rniyengar wrote:

Taking  Venkatadhwari (1590-1660 CE) to be the grandson of the famous Appayya Deekshita (1520-1593 CE) is a mistake. The former is of Aatreya Gotra whereas the latter is a Bhaaradwaaja.

Ipso facto, this difference of gotra rules out only the possibility that the former was a paternal grandson (pautra) of the latter. It does not rule out the other possibility that the former was a maternal grandson (dauhitra) of the latter, does it? 

I do not have the original source (Venkateshwar Press publication) so I cannot say whether the claim was for a paternal grandson or a maternal one. I do not even have the gotra-s of the ancestors of the two, but a difference of gotra is not sufficient to disprove a claim that X was a grandson of Y.

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

But, again, this adding to the same points.

This. obviously, does not cite any textual evidence.

My actual query was about any such textual evidence.



Ganesan

--

[rniyengar]

Well. In the original attachment with the first post, the word तस्य पुत्रः appeared twice. So...

[Nagaraj Paturi]

To avoid confusion, let me say that I guess that Dr Ganesan's response is not to Prof. Iyengar's or aadaraNIyaNityanandji's posts. It seems to be to mine.

Let me respond:

Your query about textual evidence was answered through Stig Lundgren's words: "I have never found any such advices or injuctions in his works."

Let me repeat "so far no textual evidence found". If your jijnaasaa is to know whether there is a textual evidence or not, that is anwered more than clearly.

But your response was to the question of whether Sankaracharya proposed/started/systematized panchaayatana pooja.

To that question , the research methodological answer that was given was no textual evidence does not imply  Sankaracharya did not propose/start/systematize panchaayatana pooja. 

No textual evidence still keeps the research problem open, since textual evidence is not the only (kind of) evidence.

If you want me to repeat I repeat: no textual evidence. But I also repeat that does not imply  Sankaracharya did not propose/start/systematize panchaayatana pooja.  

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

That''s my point: It is accepted that there is no textual evidence.

If  you still  say "But I also repeat that does not imply  Sankaracharya did not propose/start/systematize panchaayatana pooja.  "

you are free to repeat any number of times as you  wish. But that is obviously not discussion.


In any forum of discussion, it is but natural that one demands proof/authority/evidence on any view expressed or supposed to have been held by some body.

This is clear in my very first question in the discussion, which I repeat: In which text Samkaracharya "proposes the Panchayatanapuja"?

Generally it is repeated by many, but, as scholars/researchers, it will be better for us if the actual source where such a proposal is found, is clearly stated.


Ganesan

On 28-07-2016 12:51, Nagaraj Paturi wrote:

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Oh, you wanted to know, whether there was no textual evidence!

I thought you also wanted to know if Sankaracharya actually proposed /started/systematized panchaayatana puja.

You do not want any other discussion than your textual evidence.

But I have been discussing the broader aspects going beyond textual evidences. That is how discussions go.

They do not get stuck obstinately to one narrow point.

Repeating of the response was forced by repeating of the question.

Let me  stop repeating that mistake.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Madhav Deshpande]

Dear Professor Iyengar,

     Thank you so much for pointing to the evidence provided by Krishnamacharya in his History of Classical Skt.Lit.  This resolves my original question substantially, though, as pointed out by Shri Nityanand Misra, there could be maternal connections involved.  Will keep on looking for further sources.  

Madhav Deshpande

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, 28 July 2016 12:40:26 UTC+5:30, rniyengar wrote:

Well. In the original attachment with the first post, the word तस्य पुत्रः appeared twice. So...

Dear Prof. Iyengar 

The original attachment from Prof. Deshpande, which uses तस्य पुत्रः twice, is from 1864 pothi print edition of Veṅkaṭādhvarin's Lakṣmīsahasra, while note 6 in the reference you cited (History of Classical Skt Lit) refers to the introduction of Alaṅkāracandrikā (published by Venkateshwar Press). Just curious if the Alaṅkāracandrikā also specifically claims Veṅkaṭādhvarin to be the paternal grandson of Appayya Dīkṣita.

I am not questioning the conclusion in History of Classical Skt Lit, but only interested in tracing the exact text in Alaṅkāracandrikā to which it responds. 

Thanks, Nityanand

[rniyengar]

If I come across the Alaṅkāracandrikā (published by Venkateshwar Press) I will share the relevant information here.

Thanks

RNI

[S.Subrahmanya]

  This thread is a perfect example of american/euro "sociologification" of Indology !. 

  The indologists of yester-year also started out just like this -  Identifying the biblical "original races", "original language" etc.  

  In the coming decades, the funding of India-studies will go up significantly in India, while the funding in the West for the current style racist "Indology" will dramatically shrink.

  I just hope that Samskritam academics in India will resist this kind of "sociological guesswork" (I cannot call this scholarship) and not ape American indology depts. 

  However, this does not mean ignoring western academia. Given the current power-structure, American indology academics must be challenged and subjected to review. 

  Study of American academia itself - including Indology,RISA etc would be important. 

  Oh also - little Domi of the indology list still thinks he is in 1916 :- 

                 http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/2016-July/043854.html

                 ​I'd also be interested in thoughtful analyses of Malhotra as part of contemporary Hindu history, as an object of study rather than a contributor

         to current academic discourse.

    This is just an example of the kind of people who pervade "indology".   nuff' said. 

  

  

 regards

 S.Subrahmanya

[ajit.gargeshwari]

No I don't see this thread as you see. Thanks

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear S Subrahmanyaji,

This thread has different turns and twists and  three or four different themes.

Which one did you find to be 'sociologifying'?

Looking for Saiva- Vaishnava connections of the authors?

Looking for the origins of Panchaayatana puja in texts?

Can you please clarify?

[S.Subrahmanya]

 Dear Sir, 

  My view on "sociologification" was about the shaiva-vaishnava discord.  Just as a background , in the 2006 California textbook case, the Shaiva/Vaishnava discord was used

  by the usual suspects, as an example of evil brahminical dogma. and justifying the need for California Board of Education to civilize NRI Hindu kids and inform other US high-school kids

  about the evils of the Hindu traditions in US textbooks.

 

  On the Panchaayatana puja also, I agree with your views. 

  I would say that the use of "only textual sources" as valid can be termed as the "Lutherification" of Indology.  

  Martin Luther (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther ), was the violent guy who insisted on a more literal interpretation and sole dependency on the bible. 

  Samskrit scholars may have to understand Christianity to get a sense of why Indologists do what they do. 

  

  Regards, 

  Subrahmanya

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

Many of the so-called evils are yet to get the due attention of the Sanskrit scholars. For example, many scholars still vouch for the absurd Chaturyuga scale of 4,320,000 years, in spite of  Manu's telling us that the Chaturyuga is of 12,000 years. The Sanskrit word "Bhagana" of  the Suryasiddhanta and the Aryabhatiya has been misinterpreted to arrive at the Chaturyuga scale of 4.320,000 years. Confusion on the span of the individual yugas within the Chaturyuga is also still prevailing.  Because of this, many people consider Lord Rama as a mythical person and not historical. In the "California 6th Grade History Text-book Controversy", the ridiculous Chaturyuga scale of 4.320,000 years, was put forward, by one Hindu party from USA itself and any suggestion to rectify that was totally ignored. 

There are several such issues waiting for the serious attention of the scholars and I hope the scholars will not treat these as trivial issues. Somebody has recently used the word "factoids" to belittle one similar issue, which helped the colonial historians to derail the  ancient Indian chronology. This is regarding the  proposal of Sir William Jones that Chandragupta Maurya (and not Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty) was the Sandrocottus of the 4th century BCE.

Regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.