Regarding Sringeri and Kanchi relations and histories

[putran M]

Namaskaram Sunil-ji,

I am reposting from your final thoughts from the other thread, in case others wish to respond to this. My first request would be that you provide a proper reference for the statement that it was an Abhinava Shankara who wrote the BG Bhashya and not Adi Shankara. To my knowledge, the kanchi matha itself does not admit this thesis. Correct me if I am wrong (with some reference, ideally of an acharya saying this). I am thinking that surely the paramacharya of recent times had attributed the BG bhashya to Adi Shankara in the course of his many recorded talks.

This website https://www.kamakoti.org/peeth/origin.html#lastresort states: "It was during these years that Sankara wrote the famous commentaries on Vyasa's Brahmasutras, the principle Upanishads and the Bhagavad-Geeta."

Apart from that, your way of deducing intent etc. of Sringeri Matha, pretty much belittling the acharyas (like they were egoistic and therefore ...) - without actually providing any proof for several assertions, all that will be objectionable to others and potentially causing "pain" to those advaitins. I hope you are getting all your details from some commonly referable sources (like the official kanchi matha publication of its history) and not simply your own deductions. If yes, you should provide the sources; if no, best not to talk loosely like this even if you have full conviction/belief in such a history. I don't know enough of the inter-matha relationship and versions of history to take a stronger position at this point of time.

thollmelukaalkizhu

Sunil-ji:

Take the case of  the great animosity (arising out of jealousy) of the Sringeri math against the benign Kanchi Kamakoti math, which pains us the Advaitins. 

Why the Sringeri Math is against the Kanchi Kamakoti Math 

The history of this animosity is as follows. After setting up the four Amnaya mathas for the four disciples, Adi Shankara went to Kanchipuram, which is considered to be the Kashi of the South. Adi Shankara wrote his last bhasya on the Lalita Trishati and he set up a Shri-Chakra in the Lalita Devi temple in Kanchipuram. Though Adi Shankara might not have pre-planned a fifth Shankara- Matha, he found a promising young boy who appeared to him to be suitable to be a future Mathadhipati in Kanchipuram, and accordingly Adi Shankara trained this boy as a new disciple in Kanchipuram and he had to call Shri  Sureshvaracharya from Dwarka  to Kanchipuram,  to look after this young disciple,after Adi Shankara's taking Samadhi. That is how Sureshvaracharya succeeded Adi Shankara as the mathadhipati of the Kanchi Kamakoti Math. Later on the Mathadhipati of the Shringeri math wanted to retire in the Kasi of the South (i.e., Kanchipurama) and he requested Shri Sureshvaracharya to relieve him. That is How Sureshvaracharya became  the second mathadhipati of Shringeri math. Since late 19th century AD, the  Swamijis of the Sringeri math  became more egoistic and  they wanted to be the sole Shankara math in the South. So the Shringeri math started calling the Kanchi Kamakoti math as fake and all that. This is the root- cause of the animosity, which the Sringeri math has for the Kanchi Kamakoti math.  

There is yet another reason for which the Singeri math is more furious against the Kanchi Kamakoti math, as the latter had the great Scholar, Abhinava Shankara in the 8th century AD, who was a great versatile personality like Adi Shankara. This Abhinaba shankara was the author of the Bhagavad Gita Bhasya. All these reasons made the Sringeri math mad in anger against the Kanchi Kamakoti math and the Sringeri math falsely claims Adi Sankara to be born in the 8 th century AD, even though Adi Shankara was actally born in 509 BCE. 

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Putranji,

Please try the simplest test. First confirm from Sringeri Math, if it recognizes the Kanchi kamakoti math.

Best

skb

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-rwfbweF_qff99heu5Cs%3DgyU%2BC_yNt19VJxk5%2BuaE1BqQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Putranji,

Bhaskaracharya was living around 8th century AD. Please find out from the Kanchi Kamakoti Math,  as to  how Adi Shankaracharya in 5the th century BCE refuted Bhaskaracharya's Jnanakarmasamucchaya.?

Dest

skb

[putran M]

Namaskaram Sunil-ji,

So, is this statement that Abhinava Shankara being author of BG bhashya your personal/independent deduction in order to conform with the 509 BCE date? I just want that to be public and clear so that people don't think any of mathas have endorsed this theory.

You agree that presently the kanchi matha thinks Adi Shankara wrote the BG bhashya. Then you are saying that Bhashkaracharya lived around 8th century ad. Can you tell me how you know this dating for sure?

Did Shankara mention Bhaskaracharya by name in the bhashya? Can you quote where? It cannot be assumed that Jnanakarmasamucchaya began with Bhaskara and was not present in Indian knowledge before (like we know advaita is not Shankara's creation).

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB9-BsYbyG%2B90MN4ueGM7M-91KKzBzhK-4u%3DY7ODye55UHA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vinodh]

Namaskaram,

In response to Sunil-ji’s email in an older thread, I had posted an English translation of Kanchi Acharya Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi 1963 discourse on dating of Shankara’s period. In this, he goes into great details in to the various opposing views. At the same time, he cautions that if any of this leads to animosity among disciples of Shankaracharya, such Research should be given up and only bhakti toward the Acharya and following the teachings are most important. See here: 

https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/yiuAn3bDpMg/m/e7k-znNrAgAJ?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

Regarding dispute between Sringeri and Kanchi mathas, this book titled “Kanchi Kamakoti Math: A Myth” may give an idea. In this the author strongly rejects that claims from Kanchi Math and cites numerous arguments from his perspective. A pdf of the book is available here: 

https://ia801608.us.archive.org/24/items/KanchiKamakotiMathAMyth/Kanchi%20kamakoti%20Math%20-%20A%20Myth.pdf

Personally, I believe that trying to resolve this dispute and establishing the “truth” about Shankara’s period etc. is futile and likely to work against the true purpose of the teachings of this wonderful tradition and the ultimate objective of the saadhaka to realize the Truth and discard everything as mithya. Let each person subscribe to the matha that they like and follow their Acharya with true bhakti. Is that not enough to lead one to the same one Truth?

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Putranji,

You wrote as follows:

you agree that presently the kanchi matha thinks Adi Shankara wrote the BG bhashya. Then you are saying that Bhashkaracharya lived around 8th century ad. Can you tell me how you know this dating for sure?

Did Shankara mention Bhaskaracharya by name in the bhashya? Can you quote where? It cannot be assumed that Jnanakarmasamucchaya began with Bhaskara and was not present in Indian knowledge before (like we know advaita is not Shankara's creation).

Your assumptions are wrong. I didn't say that. Adi Shankara did not write the Bhagavad Gita Bhashya. If Adi Sankara would have written Bhagavad Gita bhasya, he would have written the bhasya on the Original Bhagavad Gita of 745 verses.

Bhaskara was not there in Adi Shankara's time. So if you think coolly, you will know that Adi Shankara could not have seen Bhaskara.

skb

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-rUOPC8vwT4q2%2Ba-%3DWKJAwpEn0KerjuSjj0TAm4JGm4tA%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Vinodh-ji and others,

We can also learn from the conflict that the perspective towards history can influence one's approach to it. It need not be an exact match with the notions of academia. If one were to take a mathematical measuring stick to any formulation of history - whether Sringeri or Kanchi or Indologists - then likely a lot of speculative uncertainties and conjectures can be identified and questioned. There will be things simply beyond proof or CCTV evidence that the tradition embraces. Because our purpose is spiritual upliftment; what we affirm in vyavaharika need not always match with an "CCTV Truth" but that provides a certain foundation to the suitable devotees for effectively progressing towards "Truth" at.a higher level. Something akin to adhyaropa-apavada process. I think the paramacharya is naturally adhering to this principle.

If someone says "Ramana is a jnani", the academic can demand a proof. The orthodox of another sampradaya can argue that he did not satisfy this or that. Nothing you provide as hard evidence will constitute proof. Yet by default, all devotees and followers of Ramana, they naturally assume that he was the highest order of jnani. There is not a big argument to contradict the possibility either. Who benefits however with the affirmation? The mumukshu and sadhaka here, who still needs some connection with personality of Ramana - for that person, the storyline of him being jnani is correspondingly helpful and appropriate to have. In fact, a shishya may think of his guru as God-incarnate. Well, prove it. No, need not be even; but the tradition may still tell that the shishya should have such a conviction because it will aid him for the higher goal.

You say Shiva is the highest God; I say Vishnu. There will be people for whom such dvaita bhava is suitable and the guru may not be preaching mithyatva and all that to such people. Doesn't mean the guru is a liar; his goal is to guide the devotee suitably. Instead give the sishya the mantra on the particular deity and perhaps guide in dvaita-bhakti  for whom such bhava fits. I recall reading that Sri Ramakrishna would talk dvaita-bhakti in general but when in close quarters with disciples like Narendra would recommend advaitic books. Was he a liar then to the mass public? Even Swami Paramarthananda who is often referred to highly in advaita circles, I have gone to his Shivarathri puja/talks in Chennai and one can easily wonder if this is a loukika guru only and not someone who expounds technical advaita texts!!

Besides this, we also have several versions of Ramayana. Suppose a Tulsidas comes along and we get Valmiki votaries calling him a liar! (Even while forgetting that the western academic calls most everything of Valmiki also a myth or fiction.) But how is it that so many versions of Ramayana can survive without all these accusations of lies and deceptions from one camp to the next? The purpose is something else and the culture and civilization had naturally imbibed it; the focus is the same Rama only brought to light via different adhyaropa angles suitable for different devotees. The paramacharya is sort of ancient Bharat in that sense; he harkens back to an indigeneous approach where these variations get sublimated in the larger flow of our civilization. 

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAC%2BJcJKG48qd510BDHwtG9o_VysvDkDU235qkLwevFVPijhPzQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Sunil-ji,

You will have to re-read what I wrote, part of which you selected improperly and part you left out from replying. 

Anyway I want to excuse myself from this headache of correcting our mutual misassumptions.

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB986YFNS5KQ-HJFnFWsfpoki7j%3DFwc_ynxCzFreNg4kVUw%40mail.gmail.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Vonodhji,

Truth is good for all. Truth is dharma. Lord Krishna never told us to compromise truth. The Kanchi Kamakoti math  has their guru parampara from the 5th century BCE.

If any of the gurus of the Kanchi Kamakoti math thinks that Adi Shankara wrote the Bhagavad Gita bhasya, then he is wrong, even if he is the Mahaperivar.

Bhagavad Gita bhasya was written by Abhinava Shankara, who became the Mathadhipati of the of  Kanchi Kamakoti Math in 788 AD. He wrote the Bhagavad Gita bhasya, by challenging the wrong interpretations of BHaskara in his Bhagavad gita bhasya in the 8th century.

Please tell your friends in the Kanchi Kamakoti math to make their statements carefully.

Sincerely,

skb

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAC%2BJcJKG48qd510BDHwtG9o_VysvDkDU235qkLwevFVPijhPzQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Sunil-ji,

You brought back this topic in the other thread:

Quote

For example, if one knows or thinks Adi Shankara to be born on a particular year, ensure in all possible ways and with an open mind that it is really so. One is responsible for one's own beliefs and actions. One can't say that one believe(d) such and such person's statement. If your human guru or any other respected person  tells you that Adi Shankaracharya wrote the Bhagavad Gita Bhasya and that was around such and such year, do listen to it respectfully, but don't forget for a moment that "To Err is Human". Keep it in mind that it does not hurt, if you try to check what you heard, in all possible ways to find out the truth. You can respectfully share the findings even with your respected Guru or the respected person and if he is spiritually enlightened, he would bless you. 

Unquote

Please understand: You and I are not regarded as Pramana for knowledge, in our forum. Our speculation is not proof. So, unless you back up your claims with some type of evidence, you will be looked upon as forwarding theories against the sampradaya entirely (not different from western indologists) and therefore such viewpoints will not be entertained for long. This is especially true for these claims like Abhinava authoring BG bhashya which none of the mathas seem to endorse. Instead of insinuating against acharyas, you can try to provide proof or accept you also don't know and just stop repeating these things.

Here is what you can do: 

Provide your source for the assertion that Abhinava Shankara is the author of BG bhashya. I already asked you whether this is your own logical deduction based on the assumption that Bhaskara preceded Shankara. That Shankara contradicted a philosophical viewpoint that Bhaskara endorsed by no means implies Shankara contradicted Bhaskara's works directly; unless you can provide quotes in Shankara's works where he directly references Bhaskara or his works by name. I asked you for such quotes and you provided none of that either. 

If there is some other scholar you are referring to, please state who that is and check if that scholar also is basing his ideas on arguments like "Bhaskara talked jnanakarmasamucchaya, BG bhashya argues against the latter, therefore BG bhashya was written after Bhaskara and hence Abhinava must have written it.". Such logic is speculative and wrong since Bhaskara could very well have come much after jnanakarmasamucchaya; and you have no basis yet for claiming your speculation must be Truth.

Finally, stop taking jabs at acharyas of mathas, talking of them as egoistic, erring, not being truthful etc. That will have to be moderated if it continues. It is also unnecessary; we can rather discuss based on the content in your sources vs what the acharyas said. 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[putran M]

Provide your source for the assertion that Abhinava Shankara is the author of BG bhashya. I already asked you whether this is your own logical deduction based on the assumption that Bhaskara preceded Shankara. That Shankara contradicted a philosophical viewpoint that Bhaskara endorsed by no means implies Shankara contradicted Bhaskara's works directly; unless you can provide quotes in Shankara's works where he directly references Bhaskara or his works by name. I asked you for such quotes and you provided none of that either. 

meant "based on the assumption that BG bhashya refers to Bhaskara and hence Bhaskara preceded BG bhashya. That BG bhashya contradicted a philosophical viewpoint that Bhaskara endorsed by no means implies that the author contradicted Bhaskara's works directly; unless you can provide quotes in BG bhashya or other of Shankara's works where Bhaskara or his works is referenced by name." 

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Putranji,

I am very sorry to have to tell you that  it appears that you don’t read the mails properly and you jump to your convenient conclusion. Quite early in the discussions  I did refer to the Madhaviya Shankar Digvijaya, which was published by  the Sringeri math, and it clearly says that Khandanaker (the author of khandana khanda khadya, Vikramaditya) was contemporary of Adi Shankaracharya. I have also mentioned how this Vikramaditya was contemporary of Adi Shankaracharya. I know you may the chief moderator, but it is highly immoral to accuse an innocent member falsely.

Sincerely

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

Sent from my iPhone

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-r-wN%2BRgGth3k156AkcuQR9sEQC5BQ3UGB0wH%3DGjhoT2w%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Sunil-ji,

I did not ask for source regarding Khandanaker being contemporary of Shankara. 

thollmelukaalkizhu 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/94282B8E-2196-4EE2-B625-CCF5DF7218BA%40gmail.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Putranji,

"Samajdaroke liye Ishara (hint) hi kafi hai", so the saying goes, This means a gesture is sufficient for an intelligent person to understand matters,  And, in fact,   I gave much more details that an ishara.

I proved that Adi Shankaracharya was living in the 5th century BCE (actually  he was born in late 6th century BCE and took samadhi in the 5th century BCE) and that is beyond doubt. In my earlier mail I also mentioned the AlBiruni's  account showing that SriHarsha  Vikrama Samvat started in 457 BCE.  There are more proofs and if Sringeri Math chooses to go to court I can prove them wrong.  I am sure the conscientious members of this group will not be able to agree with the Sringeri Math's false birth date  of 788 AD for Adi Shankara. ADi Shankara was a Jewel of India and the Shringeri Math does not have any right to distort the date of Adi Shankara and thereby distort the ancient Indian history.

Sincerely,

skb

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-rxD4JLVBjrRF_Ta0gEK32Z%3D09YMbZe-t7aLLZ28PWncQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Sunil-ji,

"Samajdaroke liye Ishara (hint) hi kafi hai", so the saying goes, This means a gesture is sufficient for an intelligent person to understand matters,  And, in fact,   I gave much more details that an ishara.

I am going to consider you capable of reading exactly what source I asked for. You are evading that and bouncing around. 

 Stop saying from here on that Abhinava is author of BG bhashya (and even to the extent that we should advise erring acharyas who talk of Adi Shankara being the author). You seem to have no credible evidence for this. As I already said, your personal deductions based on questionable data and assumptions is not going to stand as pramana against the uniform opinion of all mathas. No one else here (including those with affinity to kanchi matha) thinks Abhinava authored BG bhashya; and if you have nothing more to share, then that assertion (regarding authorship of BG bhashya) being repeated endlessly will be considered as agenda-driven propaganda on your part, that is poisonous to the forum and its objectives.

thollmelukaalkizhu 

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB9-6u6x3Sme2Jy_O2y73YG47eV4ANaRG57AG-V3Fj7XkkQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste Putram ji

Thank you for your posts. I too have not seen any source from the Kanchi Math tradition claiming the the Bhagavad Gita bhAShya was not authored by Sri Shankara but that it was authored by a later Shankaracharya. This is the critical point to note.

I also have not come across any peeThAdhipati of either the Kanchi Math or Sringeri Math casting aspersions on the integrity on each other. They seem to have maintained decorum and treated the historicity issues as scholarly matters not very consequential for the content of the Advaita texts

And l also don't see any assertions by the acharyas of the Kanchi Math about the Gita having more than 700 shlokas. 

In the light of this, the words of acharyas advising us to maintain decorum in such academic discussions are vital.

Thank you again for your patient discussion of the issues involved.

Om

Raghav

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 at 6:07 am, putran M

<putr...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-qD7bZ%3DbbKk66-ixB9%2BTb-cfC8QUqSnXzS5-q5sHso8BQ%40mail.gmail.com

.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste Putranji,

I know Abhinava Shankara as the Shankaracharya of the Kanchi Kamakoti math, who became the mathadhipati of that math  in 788 AD. As you don't agree with this view,  please  do the favor of telling us,  who in your considered scholarly view,  was Abhinava Shankara.

Thanking you in advance,

skb

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-qD7bZ%3DbbKk66-ixB9%2BTb-cfC8QUqSnXzS5-q5sHso8BQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Greetings to all.

I am putting on now, the hat of the Chief Moderator.

-----

No further discussion will be allowed in this list on the date of Shankara and on any controversy between the two Shankara muts. 

I request all the participants to focus their discussions on the central theme - Advaita Vedanta. 

Thanks to all those who are actively involved in maintaining this moderated list.

I request everyone to follow the above guidelines. 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB9_rJVA2TxHeYX%3DVzwAQ0eUQZr42ns2uwqELDMDDuHewkQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vinodh]

Sri Sunil-ji,

Thank you for expressing your views. 

It appears that you are aware of things that many in the sampradaya including mathapadhis do not know. 

And you are driven by your commitment to truth and dharma to ensure that the correct knowledge is accepted by all. 

Unfortunately, some of us are having difficulty in following your thoughts spread across several email threads, possibly owing to our own limitations. 

Given this is the case, would it not help to publish your knowledge in a coherent self-contained blog or book, so that scholars, even beyond this forum, may be able to read and fully comprehend your arguments? Just a thought to help you in your dharma. 

Sri Sada-ji,

Thank you for stepping in. 

While I see the reason behind the new, restriction, with all due respect, I do not think that disallowing topics, especially related to the guru paramapara (Shankara and his lineage) is a good idea for an forum on Advaita. Shankara did not stop having discussions with people because they had opposing views; if he did he could not have brought together the several different religions at that time together to reinstate sanantana dharma. 

What should be moderated however is *how* discussions take place. Discussions should be based on mutual respect and avoid unsubstantiated accusations. 

Namaskaram 🙏

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB9_rJVA2TxHeYX%3DVzwAQ0eUQZr42ns2uwqELDMDDuHewkQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Vinodhji - PraNAms

Thanks for your concerns. 

However - 

No further discussions on Shankara's Dates nor on the controversy between the two muths. Period. 

Thanks to all for your cooperation. 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAC%2BJcJJkY1PLnCvtTa8Xpe%2BVWoa5VuSd8GRnT0igb_hCK239AA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vinodh]

Namaskaram Sada-ji,

Thank you for making the group’s stand clear. 

My heart does not allow me to be in a group on Advaita that restricts discussions about Acharya and his mathas. This is my last email to this group. 

I sincerely thank all members who have immensely contributed to my learning! 

Om tat sat 🙏

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/445630858.1509662.1658117760423%40mail.yahoo.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Shri Vinodhji,

Let us thank Sadaji for his ruling.

As regards the book you are asking me to write, I shall have to write it shortly. I was hoping that if the Sringeri math desired to take the appropriate step, and needed any help from me, then  I would give them all the cooperation, but it appears that there is no scope for such cooperation.

Sincerely

skb

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAC%2BJcJJkY1PLnCvtTa8Xpe%2BVWoa5VuSd8GRnT0igb_hCK239AA%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram Vinodh-ji,

In case you still look at the forum from the general website,

the topic was given a lot of leeway already because of the way I went about it. The moment acharyas of mathas get diminished, a moderator could have stomped the discussion or the discussant right away. There are x-factors involved in the way the situation is contextually evaluated and how different people do that. Sada-ji took his decision for the health and well being of the forum. I can agree with you on the topic but in all honesty I don't think your ideal way of discussing it was going to be realizable here at this point of time. Some strong-handed moderation needed to happen and Sada-ji took the call. We members (still subscribed) have to respect that and continue otherwise to contribute and benefit from each other. 

If you do choose to come back, you can send me a mail. No need to let this "last email" be a hangover should you wish to rejoin otherwise. 

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAC%2BJcJ%2BeBqFd4hBqZsyDLm8kttA1wx_ANn%2B_Lb7ukMAk%2BJKFPQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nitin Shankar]

Namaste,

Govardhan Math Peethadipathi, on record, has said that Sringeri Math has expressed reservations about considering Kanchi Math as an established Shankara Math. So indirectly they have casted aspersions on the integrity of the other. https://youtu.be/ROf5HWdcHhU https://youtu.be/ROf5HWdcHhU

Regards

Nitin

https://youtu.be/ROf5HWdcHhU

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/635902018.2827112.1658106603627%40mail.yahoo.com.

--

Regards
Nitin Shankar
"Anything that brings Spiritual,Mental,or Physical Weakness, touch it not with the toes of your feet.''

[Nitin Shankar]

I am a mute learner from this highly revered group. Blocking a certain discussion that actually helps in trying to know our true history sounds a little harsh and Abrahamic-like. Why not this be discussed? 

Regards

Nitin

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAC%2BJcJ%2BeBqFd4hBqZsyDLm8kttA1wx_ANn%2B_Lb7ukMAk%2BJKFPQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[B.V. RAAGHAVAN]

Namaskarams, 

Sometimes this patient discussion turns into violent individual fight of words and they started sledging mud on the others by uttering unnecessary words.  That is why it was stopped at that point.  It was a wise decision.

Anbudan

Adiyen

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAK-KPCk7HyD-W9zJXVC00wUffEUNZeK9aRyRKeiCKQ7UXXK4_Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Those who are interested to know more about shankara’s date can refer to Prof. SKR’s work.  (title not known read long time back).  As per him, Kanchi tradition believes in 5 different shankaracharya-s, one is sUtra bhAshyakAra, another is the writer of stOtra etc. another is geeta & upanishat bhAshyakAra etc. More details can be had from this work.

 

But, we are not supposed to continue this discussion as per Sri Sada prabhuji’s (Chief Moderator) recent mail.  So lets stop here.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

Bhaskar YR

 

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Raghavanji,

Please don't be cryptic. An honest member of this august forum  is expected to speak out openly, who used which unparliamentary words or phrases, if any, during the discussions.

Sincerely,

skb

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/740641964.220654.1658390086114%40mail.yahoo.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Nitinji,

Thanks for sending the youtube link for the talk of Swami Niranjan Deva Teerthaji.

Best

skb

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAK-KPC%3DrS2AMYJ8zLK2d0sEFJ4qq7D9jakdGO4eHoG6WuXu%2BXQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[B.V. RAAGHAVAN]

Namaskarams,

I am following this forum discussions for a long time.  I am not very much sure when I joined the forum.  In between it was discontinued owing to some network problems.  Earlier in one or two occasions I noticed this sort of "discussion going out of bounds".  My present remark is based on those experiences.  If it hurt anybody I tender my unconditional apologies.

Anbudan

Adiyen

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB99Om%2BNoUffbCkFjfM_tHiEHpPREre5-tTriSJ2XsGB37Q%40mail.gmail.com.