sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com>: Nov 16 02:24PM -0800
Dear Vinodhji,
Nice that you have written a detailed mail, so that our Advaitin friends
can know about
the history of this Advaita parampara. Itihasa is so important to the
Sanatana dharma
that the puranas had to obey the Pancha-lakshana, and according to one of
the
lakshanas, the history of our civilization has to be kept updated and it
was indeed kept
updated properly upto the Gupta period, which started in the 3rd century
BCE.
Thereafter the Bhavisha purna took that up and had attempted to k of the 6th
century
CE.
Now, coming to the date of Adi Shankara, there is some sort of hostility
among the
Shankara mathas. There were court cases going on for years between the
Tunga
Shringeri Math (on the bank of the river Tunga) and the Kudali Sringeri
Math (the
original Sharada Peeth/math at the confluence of the rivers Tunha and
Bhadra). Around
1310 AD (CE), Malik Kafur, a general of Allauddin Khilji attacked Karnataka
and the
Kudali Shringeri math was devastated and the Swmi Vidyashankar Teertha had
to
escape to Kanchipuram, where the Kanchi-Kamakoti math welcomed him to be
their
there for several decades. Later on two disciples of Swami Vidyashankar
Teertha,
namely Bharati Teertha and his brother Vidyaranya completed their studies
and
returned to Kudali Shringeri and Hampi respectively. With the help
Vidyaranta's
disciples Kings Harihara (Hakka) and Bukkarai (Bukka) of the Vijayanagara
Kingdom,
they started a new math in Tunga Shringeri, a safer place with a bigger
area for a big
establishment and Swami Bharati Teertha shifted from Kudali Shringeri to
the new
Tunga Shringeri and Swami Vidyaranya became the Mathadhipati of Kudali
Shringeri.
After Swami Bharati teertha took his samadhi, Swami Vidyranya became the
Mathadhipati of the Tunga Sringeri math. Eventually there were disputes
between
these two maths and the Kudali Shringeri math maintained their
Guruparampara from
Adi Shankara of the 5th century BCE and the Tunga Shringeri math ( under
British
pressure through one Mr. Pathak, changed their past history to 8th century
AD, to be in
line with the British-Created-AIT-Timeline, starting from 8th century CE
However, the other Shankara mathas maintained their original guru-parampara
from
2,500 BCE The Dwarka math had one King Sudhnva's copper inscription, which
proved
that this Math was established in the 5th century BCE. As this inscription
opposed the
British-backed AIT-Timeline, the British officer -in-charge of the
Archaeological Survey
of India (ASI) tricked the Dwarka math and took away the copper
Inscription, on loan,
for study, by sending one Dewan of the Junagarh state, to the math, and
rewarded the
Dewan by awarding him the epithet "Rai Bahadur". Then very soon the Dewan
mysteriously died and the inscription was lost, as it could not be traced.
Before giving
the inscription to AST, the Dwarka math kept a copy, but the Tunga
Shringeri math
refuses to believe the authenticity of that inscription, because the Tunga
Shringeri
math itself is a math established only about seven (7) hundred years ago,
when the
Bharatai Teertha from the Kudali Shringeri math shifted there.
It is a pity that there is also no good relation between the Tunga
Shringeri math and
the Kanchi Kamakoti math, both occupied by distinguised saints from time to
time. I
personally feel that the administrative staff of the Tunga Shringeri math
is responsible
for their adamance in not accepting the original Guru-Parampara of the
Shringeri math,
going back to 2,500 BCE.
Jai Mahagurudev Adi Shankaracharya
Sunil K. Bhattacharjya
|
Vinodh <vinod...@gmail.com>: Nov 17 12:55PM +0530
Sri Sunil ji,
Thank you for sharing this interesting story about the Srungeri math.
Regarding conflicting views and the resulting animosity between mathas, I
would like to recollect Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi's words on this
topic:
"It is difficult to appreciate differing opinions being expressed
concerning the history of Acharya who had come only for bringing about
unity. He did not write his autobiography or leave a 'will'. But those who
came after him drew their own conclusions based on different evidences. The
basic truth is that all of us are his bhakthas, sishyas and children. More
important than conducting any research is that all of us should have
bhakthi to him and love devoid of even a tinge of enmity. If anything does
harm to this all the research can be withdrawn."
"*The goal is to obtain grace and not do research. ... *How does the period
matter to us? What is important to us is the grace of the Acharya. It is
not as if that would be Anugraha Murthi only if it had come in olden days.
However old it may be those who were Acharya's contemporaries were greater
recipients of grace that what we can get. Do we not get the grace from
great men of recent times and even present time?
Therefore even if Acharya had come later than 9th century AD the grace we
get from him is in no way affected. We are listening to his story so that
we will becoming deserving of his grace. We should not forget that
important goal.
At the same time we should allow others to say whatever they want and
establish it. We have to see what we do to counter it. When we do so, there
are three important points we should remember: Because they are obstinate
we too should become obstinate. If there is a view contrary to ours and if
it has supporting authority we should whole-heartedly accept it. Second, we
should not become angry with those who hold contrary views. Any matter that
pertains to Acharya should be one which removes differences and not one
which leads to anger and disgust. Third, not fogetting that what is
important to us is His grace."
I am also reminded of this scene in the Adi Sankaracharya sanksrit movie
<https://youtu.be/BjPbhtGVwno?t=6642> (starting at 1:50:42) from the 1980s.
In this, Sankara gives the responsibility of commenting on his Brahma Sutra
Bhashyam to Sureshwara. Then Sankara and his sishyas are called to have
food. However all the remaining sishyas do not want to eat. They resent the
fact that Sureshwara was chosen instead of one of the others to comment on
Sankara's work. Symbolically it is shown as though Vijnanam, visualized
here in a personified human form, leaves them. When Sankara asks them why
they are not coming to have food, the sishyas tell him the reason. They
argue with Sankara that there were better choices than Sureshwara. Sankara
becomes sad and says that even if the four of them cannot have the same
thought and voice, what chance is there for the Vedic thought to spread
across India! Sureshwara gives back the bhashya to Sankara, falls at his
feet, and says let Padmapaada himself write the commentary on your work.
Everyone else seeing this come running and apologize to Sureshwara saying
that Sureshwara himself should write it. Sankara says that he has made up
his mind and hands over the bhashya to Padmapaada and says "you alone may
write".
Keeping the above in mind, I am only sharing the information as a way of
conveying to everyone what the Kanchi Acharya has said. If this leads to
even a tinge of enmity among us who are all sishyas of Shankara
Bhagavadpada, please kindly consider all this withdrawn. The most important
part of his life are his teachings, which are nothing but what was present
in the Vedas since time immemorial, and that is what we should focus on as
his sishyas and as descendents of this great culture.
Having said this, as promised earlier, I will share the remainder of the
responses to the various reasons cited in support of the the contrary view
(788 - 820 AD) as conveyed by Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi. These
reasons include Padmapaadhar's reference to Mahayana in Panchapaadhika (his
commentary on Acharya's Sutra Bhashyam), various references (like dravida
sisu, sudha drohi) in Acharya's sthothras, a reference to Purna Varman in
Acharya's bhashya, and the edict in Cambodia with reference to 'Bhagawan
Sankara'.
*Responses to various reasons supporting the contrary view (788 - 820 AD)
(contd.):*
*Regarding Mahaayaana: "*We have seen a point : 'Padmapaadhar has referred
to Mahaayaa; it was in the period of Kanishka who was in the beginning of
the Christian era, buddhism split into Mahaayaana and Hinyaana'. Although
it is correct that this clear division took place in Kanishka's time, even
during the buddhist conference held in the royal palace after Buddhas's
Mahaa Parinirvaana there was clash between people who held two different
views and then this division kept growing as 'stha Viravaadham' (what is in
Pali language, Therovaadham) and Mahaasangikam and finally became Hinayaana
and Mahaayaana. This is seen from their religious books. It is likely that
right from the beginning the names Hinayaana and Mahaayaana would have been
there. If that was so there is no chronological error in what Padmapaadhar
has said. If we remember the discussion about Megasthanes and push back
history to a previous period all these questions will get annulled.
*Regarding Draavida Sisu: *Acharya himself was a Dravida Sisu - a Tamil
child - this is what I had said [Mahaperiyava refers here to what he had
said earlier about Nambudris brahmins of Kerala and their connection to
Tamilnadu. He points to several connections between Acharya's father
Sivaguru and the Kumbakonam area and says that Acharya's ancestors belonged
to the Kumbakonam region]. It is said in Kerala that when he was child he
had drunk Ambal's milk and became a poetic genius.
Very near Kaaladi, there is a village called Manikka Mangalam. There is a
temple there for Ambaal with the name Kaathyaayani. Acharya's father used
to go to that temple everyday and do puja. He used to offer naivedya of
milk and give the milk to his son as 'Ambaal prasaad'. Acharya who was a
child thought Ambaal herself had drunk the milk offerred by his father and
kept a little for them. One day when Acharya's father had to go out of the
village Acharya himself performed puja to Ambal telling Her 'Amma, take
this milk'. Ambaal wanted to shower Her grace by performing a lila. She
consumed all the milk in a subtle way. Then the child felt that there was
nothing left for him as prasaad. Ambaal then suckled him. There is a belief
like this in that place.
Even in the well-known commentaries on Soundarya Lahari, namely,
Lakshmidhara, Soubhaagya Vardhani, Arunamodhini, Lakshmidhara, it has been
explained in this way only. In Lakshmidhara, it has been said 'The author
of this sthothra born in Draavida jaathi'. But in the other two
commentaries the story above has been given in detail.
Therefore it cannot be said that Acharya's period was after
Jnaanasambhandar, that is, after 7the century AD.
*Regarding Sudhaa dhrohi: *What is our answer for the reference to
Siruthondar of the 7th century AD as Sudhaa drohi?
It is not correct to say that Acharya would have not made any bhakthi
sthothra. Even then it is doubtful if all the sthothras now being mentioned
as those of Acharya were made by him. He must have authored sthothras like
Soundarya Lahari, Sivaananda Lahari, Bhaja Govindham, Subrahmanya
Bhujangam, Kanakadhaaraasthvam etc. Yet when we see some of the sthothras
we find internal evidence to the contrary. (For example) 'Devi Aparadha
kshamapana Sthothram' is said to be that of Acharya. In that is is said 'A
bad son may be born; but a bad mother is never born'. :
Kuputhro jaayathe kwachithapi kumaatha na bhavathi
In that it is clearly said 'If you do not show your compassion to me when I
am over 85 years, where will I seek refuge?' Could Acharya who lived only
for 32 years have said like this?
Which is the one done by Sankara? In the Mutts founded by Acharya any
number of Swamis have come with the name Sankaracharya. Among them there
are many who have had 'Sankara' in their sanyasa name also like Krupa
Sankarar, Ujjvala Sankarar, Muka Sankarar, Abhinava Sankarar etc. In
Sringeri they refer to one Vidhya Sankarar with great respect. There could
have been some among these who would have made sthothra. As is common with
the passage of time, such sthothras also came to be believed as those of
Adi Sankara. Siva Bhujanga Sthothra which talks of 'Sudhaa dhrohi' could
also be one such. Therefore it would not be correct to determine a date on
the basis of a single reference.
*The goal is to obtain grace and not do research.* There is also
justification to treat the sthothras which were written by those who had
occupied the acharya pitam successively and which were recited with good
results as the sthothras of Acharya. Such sthothras came from the other
Acharyas through Acharya's inspiration which entered into them. Therefore
it is not necessary to disturb such good faith. When we get too much into
research it would only end in bhakthi going away. But when some people make
research and try to establish what they say is the truth we cannot avoid
pointing out that there are other views and they also have basis. That is
how when I started talking about determining the period of Acharya I
happened to speak about sthothras which are in the name of Acharya. Even if
we assume on the basis of research that sthothras made by Acharya and those
made by later Acharyas are different they all came out of experience as the
prasaad of only one Guru. Therefore it is good to keep reciting them and be
benefitted without making distinction between 'Him' and 'They'.
How does the period matter to us? What is important to us is the grace of
the Acharya. It is not as if that would be Anugraha Murthi only if it had
come in olden days. However old it may be those who were Acharya's
contemporaries were greater recipients of grace that what we can get. Do we
not get the grace from great men of recent times and even present time?
Therefore even if Acharya had come later than 9th century AD the grace we
get from him is in no way affected. We are listening to his story so that
we will becoming deserving of his grace. We should not forget that
important goal.
At the same time we should allow others to say whatever they want and
establish it. We have to see what we do to counter it. When we do so, there
are three important points we should remember: Because they are obstinate
we too should become obstinate. If there is a view contrary to ours and if
it has supporting authority we should whole-heartedly accept it. Second, we
should not become angry with those who hold contrary views. Any matter that
pertains to Acharya should be one which removes differences and not one
which leads to anger and disgust. Third, not fogetting that what is
important to us is His grace.
*Regarding Purna Varman: *Let us now see the other point on the basis of
which the Westerners claim to have determined the date. I have already said
that on the basis of what Acharya has said about a king named Purna Varman
in his Suthra Bhashyam, namely, 'How impossible it is to say that before
him the son of a barren woman had ruled!', the Westerners have assumed that
this Purna Varman was the king who ruled Magadh in the early part of 7th
century AD.
But can it be said that Acharya had referred to a king of that name who was
really there? No. When we refer to people in a general way we give some
name - maybe some Rama or some Krishna etc just as it is said in English
Tom, Dick, and Harry. Such names do not refer to any particular person.
Some name has to be given and therefore these names are given. Acharya
himself in his commentaries has used such as Deva Dattan, Yajna Dattan etc.
in a general way without referred to any particular person. No one has done
any research to find out who those people are. It is possible that the name
of Purna Varman also was mentioned in the same manner. Acharya wants to
show that sat (what really is) cannot be compared to asat (what is not). At
that point he refers to some king and asks whether it would be appropriate
if it is said that before him there was the son of a barren woman (an
impossibility). Therefore it would be fitting to give him a name which
means 'sat'. Asat is sunya. Sat is exactly opposite which is Purnam. We can
say that because of this he had used the name Purna Varman.
We come to know from what Hieun Tsang has said that the king of Magadh by
name Purna Varman was a staunch buddhist. I have said earlier that he made
the Bhodhi tree in Gaya to get life and grow again. There is no need for
Acharya who established Vedanta to refer to a buddhist king in his Sutra
Bhashyam. It will have meaning if his name had been mentioned in some
buddhist literature or it can be understood if he was a big emperor of that
time. That is also not so. He was a small king in 650 AD. What the
researchers say as Acharya's time is 800 AD, that is, 150 years after that
king. Will those who read Suthra Bhashya remember a small king who was
there 150 years earlier? Why should Acharya particularly remember him and
mention in his Bhashyam? (Laughing) Acharya would have perhaps introduced
an element of humour by giving the name Purna Varman to the buddhist king
who was a Sunyavaadhi! Acharya does not give any such hint but keeps
talking only facts.
If some one says something without thinking and calls it research, others
also become 'yes men' without thinking.
This is why they also come up with some arguments without thinking deeply
about them. Here is one such thing: 'Hieun Tsang has not mentioned the name
of Sankara at all! How could Sankara have been before him?' Hieun Tsang was
attached to buddhism only. He has also not referred to our Upanishad,
Brahma Sutra and Gita which are called 'Pasthana Thrayam'. But have not the
researchers accepted that these are several centuries before him?
*Abhinava Sankarar: *There are two more points in their argument which
remain to be answered. One is 'in the stone inscription in Cambodia it has
been said that the community of scholars bowed at the feet of 'Bhagavadh
Sankara'. Who could this Sankara be other than Adi Sankara? The period of
the inscription tallies with the period of Acharya namely 8th century AD to
the beginning of 9th century AD. What is your answer to this?' The other
one is the calculation shown in one of our own slokas -
'Nidhinaagebhavhnyabdhe' - according to which the date is Kali 3889
corresponding to 788 AD. We can answer the two together.
After Adi Bhagavadpaadha several great persons had occupied the acharya
pitam. I have said that some of the sthothras and books thought to be those
of Acharya could have been made by them. There is the example of
Vidhyaranya Swamigal about whom there is good historical evidence. He was
born in the 14th century and was responsible for establishing the
Vijayanagara Saamraajyam. If he had not come on the scene the entire
souther region of the country would have been converted to Islam. He paved
the way for the establishment of a Hindu Saamraajyam. He had only preserved
and protected Advaita without being swamped by Madhva's religion and Vira
Saivam in Karnataka and Andhra. He brought glory to Sringeri Mutt and
founded several other Mutts in that area and ensured that our Acharya's
Sampradhaaya flourished there. He had written 'Panchadhasi', 'Jivan Muktha
Vivekam' 'Vaiyaasika Nyaaya Mala' and along with his brother (before he
took to Sanyasam) was responsible for writing commentary for all four
Vedas. It is called 'Sayana |
Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com>: Nov 17 08:38AM
Namaste Vinodh ji,
Thanks for painstakingly sharing the Kanchi Paramacharya's analysis in this
regard. Very illuminating indeed. One small comment - I think an important
"not" may be missing in the sentence below.
"Because they are obstinate we too should become obstinate. If there is a
view contrary to ours and if it has supporting authority we should
whole-heartedly accept it."
That is, the second sentence seems to indicate that the first sentence
ought to be "Because they are obstinate we too should *not* become
obstinate".
Regards
Venkatraghavan
|
Vinodh <vinod...@gmail.com>: Nov 17 03:32PM +0530
Thank you, Venkatraghavan ji, for pointing out.
Of course, it should have the “not” in there! Imagine how funny it would be
for an Acharya to have made a comment without that important “not”! 😄
Hopefully the sentence following this one makes this immensely clear to the
reader: “If there is a view contrary to ours and if it has supporting
authority we should whole-heartedly accept it.” (indicating the opposite of
being obstinate)
Unfortunately, there are a few other such typographical errors of mine
introduced unknowing to the text because I was typing all this into the
email from the book. If there are any serious ones like this that others
notice, please do ask to clarify. 🙏
|
Gowrishankar Arunachalam <pinak...@yahoo.com>: Nov 17 11:24AM
Namaskaram.I checked the book 4th edition of Deivathin kural in Tamil. this passage occurs in p832 0f that edition.the tamil version contains the negative, it is stated
அவர்கள் பிடிவாதமாக சொல்கிறார்களே என்று நாமும் பிடிவாதமாக இருக்கக்கூடாது'
translation
that we should not be adamant merely because they adamantly hold their views.
the error is probably a oversight in translation
Gowrishankar : : Let Noble Thoughts Flow from Everywhere
On Wednesday, November 17, 2021, 03:32:32 PM GMT+5:30, Vinodh <vinod...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you, Venkatraghavan ji, for pointing out.
Of course, it should have the “not” in there! Imagine how funny it would be for an Acharya to have made a comment without that important “not”! 😄 Hopefully the sentence following this one makes this immensely clear to the reader: “If there is a view contrary to ours and if it has supporting authority we should whole-heartedly accept it.” (indicating the opposite of being obstinate)
Unfortunately, there are a few other such typographical errors of mine introduced unknowing to the text because I was typing all this into the email from the book. If there are any serious ones like this that others notice, please do ask to clarify. 🙏
On Wed 17. Nov 2021 at 14:08, Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:
Namaste Vinodh ji,Thanks for painstakingly sharing the Kanchi Paramacharya's analysis in this regard. Very illuminating indeed. One small comment - I think an important "not" may be missing in the sentence below.
"Because they are obstinate we too should become obstinate. If there is a view contrary to ours and if it has supporting authority we should whole-heartedly accept it."
That is, the second sentence seems to indicate that the first sentence ought to be "Because they are obstinate we too should not become obstinate".
RegardsVenkatraghavan
On Wed, 17 Nov 2021, 07:25 Vinodh, <vinod...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
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/CAL34aEmGuo4SXcipehGdBkQzbt-X%2B5uh2w0KxYtsmYgeF%3DYUeA%40mail.gmail.com.
--
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/CAC%2BJcJLDmNtnCmqCccS_vmty%2BC4_V-xdNs7A5icJwTUiot4k4A%40mail.gmail.com. |
Bhaskar YR <bhask...@hitachienergy.com>: Nov 17 11:57AM
praNAms
Hare Krishna
The birth century of Adi shankara not yet conclusively presented and unanimously accepted by any of the traditional mutts. Prof. S.K. Ramachandra Rao observes in his work shankara and adhyAsa bhAshya that his time has been now decided as 632 to 664 AC. He gives the clarification and reference to this T.R. Chintamani, Journal of Oriental Research, Madras 1929, III, pages 39-56. And he also says that this counting has been accepted by mahA mahOpAdhyAya Kuppu Swamy Shastry and others. Sri SSS in his bhagavatpAda vruttaanta saara sarvasva ( In Kannada) says that shankara’s time is inconclusive. And Prof. SKR also of the opinion that the kanchi mutt’s observation about 5 different shankara’s i.e. First one is, Adi shankara who wrote only bhAshya-s ( his time is BC), second one is krupAshankara who did the shaNmata sthApana, third one is ujjwala shankara who engaged himself in debates and roaming the country etc. fourth one is arbhaka shankara (mUka shankara) who is the founder of mutt of kaanchi puraM and fifth and final one is bAla shankara about him episodes narrated in most of the shankara Vijaya-s 😊
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar |
Kuntimaddi Sadananda <kuntima...@yahoo.com>: Nov 17 01:29PM
Vinod and Venkatraghavan - PraNams
So what is the authoritative statement about Shankara's time? It should also depend on the references he made in his bhashyas about the darshanikas views, is it not.
Hari Om!Sadananda
On Wednesday, November 17, 2021, 05:02:32 AM EST, Vinodh <vinod...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you, Venkatraghavan ji, for pointing out.
Of course, it should have the “not” in there! Imagine how funny it would be for an Acharya to have made a comment without that important “not”! 😄 Hopefully the sentence following this one makes this immensely clear to the reader: “If there is a view contrary to ours and if it has supporting authority we should whole-heartedly accept it.” (indicating the opposite of being obstinate)
Unfortunately, there are a few other such typographical errors of mine introduced unknowing to the text because I was typing all this into the email from the book. If there are any serious ones like this that others notice, please do ask to clarify. 🙏
On Wed 17. Nov 2021 at 14:08, Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:
Namaste Vinodh ji,Thanks for painstakingly sharing the Kanchi Paramacharya's analysis in this regard. Very illuminating indeed. One small comment - I think an important "not" may be missing in the sentence below.
"Because they are obstinate we too should become obstinate. If there is a view contrary to ours and if it has supporting authority we should whole-heartedly accept it."
That is, the second sentence seems to indicate that the first sentence ought to be "Because they are obstinate we too should not become obstinate".
RegardsVenkatraghavan
On Wed, 17 Nov 2021, 07:25 Vinodh, <vinod...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
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/CAL34aEmGuo4SXcipehGdBkQzbt-X%2B5uh2w0KxYtsmYgeF%3DYUeA%40mail.gmail.com.
--
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/CAC%2BJcJLDmNtnCmqCccS_vmty%2BC4_V-xdNs7A5icJwTUiot4k4A%40mail.gmail.com. |
Vinodh <vinod...@gmail.com>: Nov 17 07:00PM +0530
Namaskaram,
So far, I have covered what the Kanchi Acharya has said about Shankara's
period (477-509 BC) and how he has countered various reasons that have been
cited in support of a contrary view (788-820 AD). Now, I will share what he
has said about other contrary views among a section of modern researchers.
This email concludes what I would like to share with you on this matter. I
hope this provides the level of detail to which matter has been dealt with
by the Kanchi Acharya, the diversity of sources from which he has quoted,
the simplicity and elegance of his explanations, his understanding of the
various contrary views and their supporting reasons, and his detailed
responses to each one of them.
*Contrary view among a section of modern researchers:*
"Some of the modern researchers themselves say that 788 AD cannot be
correct and give reasons for their view.
In Sutra Bhashyam when Acharya mentions the names of some places as
examples he refers to Paataliputhra.
'After Guptas lost their glory and Prabhakara Vardhanar and Harsha
Vardhanar ruled from Kanauj, Paataliputhra lost its fame. Harsha's period
was 600-650 AD (approximately). Hieun Tsang who came here during that
period has written that Paataliputhra was in ruins. Later around 750 AD the
city was completely washed away by floods. It was only several centuries
after that the city rose again and it is the present Patna. If Acharya's
period was 788-820 AD there was no Paataliputhra at all then. How could he
have given an example a city whose glory had declined 150-200 years before
him and 40-50 years earlier it had been entirely washed away by floods?' -
This is their question.
They also give one more important reason. For centuries what has been
considered as Acharya's achievement is his refutation of buddhism. Although
Kumarila Bhattar before him and Udhayana after him had carried out this
task, it was Acharya who did it with vigour. Although he did not write much
in his Bhashyam, when he went from place to place to infuse new life into
temple worship he had strongly opposed buddhism and removed it. He has
himself mentioned in his Sutra Bhashyam that in his time buddhism was
powerful enough to cause distress to the people and confuse them:
'Vainaasikaih sarvo lokaa aakulikriyathe'. Vainasika is another name for
the buddhists. Acharya says that they were turning things upside down in
the whole world. From this it is clear that in his time buddhism was an
active force.
It is on this basis some of the modern researchers say that 788 AD is not
correct because much before that buddhism had declined steeply. Hieun Tsang
who came during Harsha's time - 150 years before 788 AD - has said that
buddhism had declined. Harsha tried to rejuvenate a little. But his effort
did not influence the entire people. It attracted only Bikshus and some
individuals and religious persons. If Acharya's Avathara is taken as the
end of 8th century AD at that time right from Bengal a major part of North
India was ruled by kings of Baala dynasty and they were followers of
buddhism. But even the modern historians say that those kings showed their
attachment to buddhism only as far as they were concerned but it was not
such that it could be said that the entire world was being turned upside
down by buddhism. During that period the secret tantrik worship was on the
increase in buddhism. But it could not take roots here and therefore went
to Tibet.
(Laughing) If the standard history books are referred to without thinking
that I am talking in support of my view because I belong to Sankara Mutt it
will be seen that before the period of Acharya as given in the book
buddhism ceased to be a great force.
Buddhism was being practiced only in places like Nalanda University, some
buddhist Mutts and by Bikshus and educated people. Even up to the time of
Muslim invasion the same position continued. At that time, it was not so
powerful as to confuse the entire people that what Acharya did to refute it
could be considered his great achievement. Therefore if it is said that
Acharya had a great fight with buddhism it was only like a shadow fight.
It is on this basis that some of the modern researchers object to 788 - 820
AD as the date. According to their history even at the beginning of the
Gupta empire in the the beginning of the 4th century AD Hindu religion
became resurgent and buddhism had declined. The researchers say that
Acharya could have been the cause for this and therefore there is room for
taking his period by 500 years backwards from 800 AD.
'If according to us Acharya's period was before 2500 years, after him and
even after the Gupta Age buddhism was prevalent in this country during
several periods. There is firm evidence that several Vihaaraas and
Chaithyas came up even during the Christian era. If it is said that Acharya
had banished buddhism before 2500 years, how could that be?' - that is a
question which needs to be answered.
It is true that Acharya had banished buddhism like that. It is also true
that he had destroyed the seventy two religions that were being practiced
and became Jagadaacharya.
Even so, in this country there was plenty of scope for free thinking on
religion and philosophy and observance of practices. Therefore even after
Acharya many people appeared who had now and then written books on buddhism
and Jainism and therefore these religions showed up again. They have also
built huge vihaaraas and schools. Even then neither buddhism nor Jainism
was the religion of the people in the later days. It was only a small
section of the society consisting of Bikshus, kings who were attached to
buddhism, some citizens who were afraid of the king and therefore followed
him in the thought 'Yathaa Raaja Thathaa prajaa'. This is not what I am
saying out of my imagination. Apart from people like Munshi who had done
historical research some of the European history scholars also have
accepted this in recent years and are writing.
Therefore it is not necessary that because there are symbols of buddhism
which belong to the period within 2500 years Acharya also should have come
within that period. What we see as the symbols of buddhism now are only
those which came up a few centuries after Acharya had refuted buddhism and
only Hindu religion prevailed. In later days also great men of our religion
have appeared and removed the religions opposed to the Vedic religion. Did
not Acharya have to take Avatharam when adharma showed up even after
Krishna had done Dharma Samsthaapanam? The same situation came up a few
centuries after Acharya also. Finally in 7th century AD buddhism declined
completely and existed only in some universities and Bikshu sangas. If
Western scholars say that Acharya's Avatharam was a few centuries after
this and that had a big clash with buddhism and came out victorious it is
not a view that can be accepted.
It was Abhinava Sankara who had removed what little was still there as
buddhism and also some of the practices that were contrary to Vedic
religion but being carried on in the name of Hindu religion. We also know
that in addition he spread our religion in Far Eastern countries also.
*The view that Acharya's period was 1st century BC*: There is a view that
Acharya's period was neither 788-820 AD nor 509-477 BC but it was 44-12 BC.
This view has been prevalent in the Karnataka area. This means that
according to them Acharya's period was 460-470 years later than the period
that we have determined.
Those like T.S. Narayana Sastri (in the book, The Age of Sankara) give a
reason for this difference of 460-470 years. That is : The Jains and
buddhists follow what is called 'Yudhishtira Sakham'. This commenced 468
years after Kali began. Yudhishtira was Dharma puthraa, the eldest of the
Pandavas. When they heard of Krishna having returned to Paramapadham they
wanted to end their life's journey and left for Swargam - what is called
'Mahaaprasthanam'. Kali was born from the time of Krishna's return to
Paramapadham. At that time, Yudhishtirar had ruled for 36 years. That is
why we, the Hindus, say that Yudhishtira Sakaabdham started 36 years before
Kali (3138 BC). But the Jains and buddhists take 468 years after the birth
of Kali as their Yudhishtira Sakaabdham. This is said uniformly in their
books.
From a long time back, Jainism had taken roots in Karnataka. Chandragupta
Maurya became a Jain Bikshu in his last days, went to Sravana Belagolaa and
did 'Prayopavesam' (observing fast) and gave up his life. Therefore the
Yudhishtira sakham followed by the Jains there came to be followed by
others also and therefore Kali 2600 which is said to be the Acharya's
period has been taken by them as 2600 of the Jain Yudhishtira sakham and
therefore the period has been pushed forward by 460-470. This is what
Narayana Sastri says.
Some people say 'We need not go as far back as 6th century BC or go down to
7th century AD. (laughing) we can as a compromise keep it as 1st century
BC'. The reason they give for this is: It is mentioned in our Guru
Parampara that the seven or eight Swamis who had occupied the Pitam of our
Mutt in the early years of the Mutt were in the Pitam for 80-90-100 years.
These dates have been given in 'Punya sloka Manjari'. 'This appears to be
on the high side. It looks that just to give it a sense of antiquity a
cycle of 60 years has been added to those who would have remained in the
Pitam only for 20-30-40 years. Keeping the names of the year, month, paksha
and the thithi in which they had attained unchanged in the slokas, their
period of holding the Pitam could have been increased by adding 60 years
for each. If these 60 years are reduced from the tenure of each of them,
then Acharya's Avatharam will correctly be 44 BC.' - This is what they say.
*The view contrary to the above view: *This cannot be accepted as it is.
There is nothing to be surprised about if in the olden days those came to
occupy the Pitam at a very young age had with all 'Yoga and niyam' lived
even for 120 years. Therefore 80-90-100 need not be considered as
exaggeration but could be true. Have I not been remaining as Swami in the
Pitam for 55 years? (This was said in 1963) Therefore there is no need to
cut down the period of the early Pitaadhipathis.
*Evidence provided by Dwaaraka Sri Matam: *There is a Mutt in Dwaaraka
founded by Acharya. In the Guru Parampara of that Mutt also the period of
Adi Acharya has been mentioned close to 509 BC. For some of the Swamis who
had occupied the Pitam there, the period of their Pitam has been mentioned
according to Yudhishtira Sakaabdham (The Yudhishtira Sakaabdham which we
follow that is which began in 3138 BC) After giving the years like this in
the beginning for some of the Swamis, the periods of other Swamis have been
given according to Vikrama Sakaabdham which commenced in 57 BC. The period
of Acharya's siddhi mentioned in that list more or less tallies with what
we are saying. It is the same 5th century BC but it is a few years earlier.
When we are considering the period of 2500 years back, the difference of a
few years is not significant. Apart from that one of the Pitaadhipathis of
the previous century has written the book 'Vimarsaa' approving 509 BC.
Here in Kanchi Sri Mutt, till now (till 1963) there have been 68 Swamis.
But in Dwaaraka Sri Matam there have been 79 Swamis for whom they have kept
Guru Parampara in the order of their terms. Starting from the first Swami
they have given for every Swami the number of years they have been in the
Pitam. Here, in the beginning, seven Swamis were occupying the Pitam for
more than 60 years each before we come to the beginning of the Christian
era but there were eleven in Dwaaraka in the same period.
When this is so how is it correct to suggest that we can reduce 60 years?
*Important evidence: *Identical view of all Sankara Mutts : One important
evidence in support of Acharya's period being around 500 BC is that all the
Mutts, namely, Kanchi, Dwaaraka, and Puri refer to the same period.
Long years back Sri Subrahmanya Iyer who was considered to be a great
scholar even by the Europeans had written in the journal 'Theosophist' on
the basis of the records of Dwaaraka Mutt that Acharya's period was 600 BC
- 500 BC. I have mentioned about a king Sudhaanva who was an aspect of
Indraa. Dwaaraka Mutt people have said that they have with them a copper
plate containing what Sudhaanva had addressed to our Acharya and the same
was also published in the book Vimarsaa.
The Govardhan Mutt in Puri Jagannath which was also founded by Acharya also
says that his period was 600 BC - 500 BC. They are keeping a list of 140
Swamis who had occupied the Pitam till now.
A question may be raised why in Puri the number of Swamis who had occuped
the Pitam are almost twice the number of Kanchi and Dwaaraka. The reason
is: In the other Mutts, young Brahmachaaris come to the occupy the Pitam
but in Puri Mutt only those who cross the middle age come to occupy the
Pitam. Therefore the period for which they occupy the Pitam is on an
average much less than those of other Mutts. It is for this reason that the
number in the Guru Parampara in Puri is more.
The Mutt which Acharya founded in Badrinath is called Jyothir Mutt. They
have published a book (in 1946) called 'Mataanusaasanam'. In that also
Acharya's period of Avatharam has been indicated as 509 BC.
It has to be noted that a Mutt in the South, one in the East, one in the
West and one in the North in Himalayas which are separated by more than
thousand miles between each of them unanimously say that Acharaya's period
was 500 years before the beginning of the Christian era. Can we say that
what is said by all our acharya pitams unanimously cannot be believed but
what is said by the Orientalists is only the truth?
I am occupying the PItam in one of these Mutts and therefore it will not
look proper if I say more than this. If what I have already said is more,
that is because the Mutt and you, the sishyas of the Mutt, all belong to
one family and therefore I took the liberty of talking to you.
*Halan - Purna Varman : *Evidence provided by several sources : I shall
mention some more evidence in support of the view that Acharya's period was
600 BC - 500 BC.
When we look into all the Puranas according to the genealogy (the royal
dynasties) Mauryas ruled from 1500 BC to 1200 BC (approximately).
Thereafter up to 900 BC the Sungas ruled and then for about hundred years
the Kaanwars had ruled and at the end of it from the beginning of 8th
century BC for 500 years Saatavaahanaas who are called 'Andhras' had ruled.
Although they had established their rule in the Deccan their rule extended
to the North also and they have also been referred to as
'Magadhaadhipathi'. If Acharya's period was 600 BC - 500 BC this Andhra
dynasty must have ruled at that time.
This is also confirmed by Guru Rathnamaala. When referring to Acharya
leaving Kasi for Prayag to meet Kumarila Bhattar after Lord Viswanatha came
before him in the guise of an outcaste it is said 'He left Kasi even though
he was patronized by the king Halan'. Both the scholars of Purana and the
Orientalists agree that there was a Satavahana king by name Halan. The
important fact to be noted is that the Orientalists themselves have said
that he belongs to the 1st century AD. His rule had extended up to Kasi.
Acharya has said that in his time there was no emperor. This Halan also had
not ruled over the entire country but perhaps he had ruled over the
territory between Godhavari and Ganges. Therefore it is possible that Kasi
was in his kingdom. More than a king he was famous as a poet. He has
written a book of seven sathakams describing in Prakruth language, |
Vinodh <vinod...@gmail.com>: Nov 17 07:06PM +0530
Namaskaram Sada ji,
The conclusion of Kanchi Acharya is that Shankara was in the period 509 -
477 BC.
Of course it should depend on the references he has made in his bhashyas
and darshinaka views. All this has been dealt with at length in the Kanchi
Acharya's discourse which I have shared over the past few emails. In short,
he shows that the references made in Sankara's works point to the time
period of 509 - 477 BC and has sufficiently clarified any counters that
claim to show that these references indicate otherwise. I would encourage
you to read this for yourself in whole.
If you have specific questions on this topic, please let me know, and I can
point you to the Kanchi Acharya's answers for them within his discourse.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 6:59 PM 'Kuntimaddi Sadananda' via advaitin < |
sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com>: Nov 17 05:37AM -0800
Dear Vinodhji,
Lord Krishna, the Paripurna Brahman, told Arjuna that the highest Dharma is Truth. Unless it is for an innocent joke or for saving someone’s life, no untruth of any kind is to be condoned.
Coming to history, Kanishka lived in the 13th century BCE, as can be seen from the Rajatarangini. Ashvaghosha’s Mahayana texts were written at that time. The ancient Indian history was distorted during the British-Raj.
The world is Mithya, in the sense it is anitya, but no untruth, even in the transient world is permissible.
As regards Purnavarman, he was also called Haala, according to Vayu purana, and he lived in the 6th century BCE. He was a Shatavahana king. Shatavahanas ruled tilled the 4th century BCE.
Let me conclude with these two cents.
Satyameva Jayate. Jai Shri Krishna. Jai Adi Shankara. Jai Ma Lalita.
sunil k b
Sent from my iPhone
|
Vinodh <vinod...@gmail.com>: Nov 17 07:35PM +0530
Namaskaram Sunil ji,
Sudhanva's Copper inscription, Kanishka period, and the Shatavahana king
Purnavarman (also called Haala) according to the Vayu Purana are indeed all
corroborated by the Kanchi Acharya's discourse as well. Thank you for
sharing. 🙏
I do agree with you that, even in this mithya jagat, it important to talk
about the "truth" that we perceive and we must present the evidence for our
views of this "truth" in this mithya jagat. We must also not accept
something without any questions. At the same time, we should not let this
create any enmity among us, and more importantly, we should not forget what
our ultimate goal is, which is to remove this mithya with the grace of our
Guru.
I would like to reiterate here the words of the Kanchi Acharya: "At the
same time we should allow others to say whatever they want and establish
it. We have to see what we do to counter it. When we do so, there are three
important points we should remember: Because they are obstinate we too
should not become obstinate. If there is a view contrary to ours and if it
has supporting authority we should whole-heartedly accept it. Second, we
should not become angry with those who hold contrary views. Any matter that
pertains to Acharya should be one which removes differences and not one
which leads to anger and disgust. Third, not forgetting that what is
important to us is His grace."
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 7:07 PM sunil bhattacharjya < |
Chittaranjan Naik <chit...@gmail.com>: Nov 17 06:07AM -0800
Namaste Sri Vinod-ji,
Thank you for posting the relevant sections from the Daivathin Kural
relating to the dating of Adi Shankaracharya. I had not had access to the
English translation of the work so far, so your posting these extracts in
detail has been very helpful to me. The case for a 6th century date has
been very well argued by Maha Periyawal, in my opinion. Many thanks.
Warm regards,
Chittaranjan
On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 7:00:42 PM UTC+5:30 Vinodh wrote:
|
Vinodh <vinod...@gmail.com>: Nov 17 07:38PM +0530
I noticed another "not" missing this time! 😀 My apologies 🙏
"At the same time we should *not* allow others to say whatever they want
and establish it."
|
Chittaranjan Naik <chit...@gmail.com>: Nov 17 07:41PM +0530
*The case for a 6th century date has been very well argued by Maha
Periyawal, in my opinion. Many thanks.*
I mean for a 6th century BCE date....
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 7:37 PM Chittaranjan Naik <chit...@gmail.com>
wrote:
|
Vinodh <vinod...@gmail.com>: Nov 17 07:59PM +0530
Namaskaram Sri Bhaskar ji,
In relation to your statement that "The birth century of Adi shankara not
yet conclusively presented and unanimously accepted by any of the
traditional mutts.", you may be interested in the following words of Sri
Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi, which I had quoted in a later email:
"*Evidence provided by Dwaaraka Sri Matam: *There is a Mutt in Dwaaraka
founded by Acharya. In the Guru Parampara of that Mutt also the period of
Adi Acharya has been mentioned close to 509 BC. For some of the Swamis who
had occupied the Pitam there, the period of their Pitam has been mentioned
according to Yudhishtira Sakaabdham (The Yudhishtira Sakaabdham which we
follow that is which began in 3138 BC) After giving the years like this in
the beginning for some of the Swamis, the periods of other Swamis have been
given according to Vikrama Sakaabdham which commenced in 57 BC. The period
of Acharya's siddhi mentioned in that list more or less tallies with what
we are saying. It is the same 5th century BC but it is a few years earlier.
When we are considering the period of 2500 years back, the difference of a
few years is not significant. Apart from that one of the Pitaadhipathis of
the previous century has written the book 'Vimarsaa' approving 509 BC.
Here in Kanchi Sri Mutt, till now (till 1963) there have been 68 Swamis.
But in Dwaaraka Sri Matam there have been 79 Swamis for whom they have kept
Guru Parampara in the order of their terms. Starting from the first Swami
they have given for every Swami the number of years they have been in the
Pitam. Here, in the beginning, seven Swamis were occupying the Pitam for
more than 60 years each before we come to the beginning of the Christian
era but there were eleven in Dwaaraka in the same period.
When this is so how is it correct to suggest that we can reduce 60 years?
[He is referring to an earlier objection raised that seven or eight swamis
of the Kanchi Mutt were in the pitam for more than 60 years and suggested
that 60 years must be subtracted from each to keep the same name of the
year in the 60 year cycle while keeping the number of years they were
pitaadhipathis to a smaller figure]
*Important evidence: *Identical view of all Sankara Mutts : One important
evidence in support of Acharya's period being around 500 BC is that all the
Mutts, namely, Kanchi, Dwaaraka, and Puri refer to the same period.
Long years back Sri Subrahmanya Iyer who was considered to be a great
scholar even by the Europeans had written in the journal 'Theosophist' on
the basis of the records of Dwaaraka Mutt that Acharya's period was 600 BC
- 500 BC. I have mentioned about a king Sudhaanva who was an aspect of
Indraa. Dwaaraka Mutt people have said that they have with them a copper
plate containing what Sudhaanva had addressed to our Acharya and the same
was also published in the book Vimarsaa.
The Govardhan Mutt in Puri Jagannath which was also founded by Acharya also
says that his period was 600 BC - 500 BC. They are keeping a list of 140
Swamis who had occupied the Pitam till now.
A question may be raised why in Puri the number of Swamis who had occuped
the Pitam are almost twice the number of Kanchi and Dwaaraka. The reason
is: In the other Mutts, young Brahmachaaris come to the occupy the Pitam
but in Puri Mutt only those who cross the middle age come to occupy the
Pitam. Therefore the period for which they occupy the Pitam is on an
average much less than those of other Mutts. It is for this reason that the
number in the Guru Parampara in Puri is more.
The Mutt which Acharya founded in Badrinath is called Jyothir Mutt. They
have published a book (in 1946) called 'Mataanusaasanam'. In that also
Acharya's period of Avatharam has been indicated as 509 BC.
It has to be noted that a Mutt in the South, one in the East, one in the
West and one in the North in Himalayas which are separated by more than
thousand miles between each of them unanimously say that Acharaya's period
was 500 years before the beginning of the Christian era. Can we say that
what is said by all our acharya pitams unanimously cannot be believed but
what is said by the Orientalists is only the truth?
I am occupying the PItam in one of these Mutts and therefore it will not
look proper if I say more than this. If what I have already said is more,
that is because the Mutt and you, the sishyas of the Mutt, all belong to
one family and therefore I took the liberty of talking to you. "
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 5:27 PM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin < |
sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com>: Nov 17 09:40AM -0800
Dear Bhaskarji,
Things are baffling to those scholars, who are not aware of the fact that
there was indeed a very great scholar saint naHe was even considered by
many as an avatara of Adi Shankara. Eventually, whatever he wrote had been
ascribed to Adi Shankara, because during the British Raj, the ancient
Indian History was distorted and Lord Buddha's date was forced on us as 6th
century BCE, even though in reality, Lord Buddha was born in 1887 BCE and
Adi Shankara was born in 509 BCE. I feel sad about it but I don't see
anybody caring for these facts. Even after seven decades of independence no
historian has written the ancient Indian history texts with proper
chronology.
Best
skb
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 3:57 AM 'Bhaskar YR' via advaitin < |
