Nonsense about Adi Shankara at Ashoka University

387 views
Skip to first unread message

Kuntimaddi Sadananda

unread,
Nov 14, 2021, 7:42:16 AM11/14/21
to Advaitin, adviata-l

putran M

unread,
Nov 14, 2021, 11:05:20 AM11/14/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaskaram Sada-ji,

The article acts like this is a normal event at a University that only the right-wing crowd is riled up about. Imagine replacing Shankara with Mohammad, pictures and all, and the whole nation will be in an uproar. The thing sad about India is the easy double-standard that keeps Hindus and Hinduism alone as free targets for wokists and liberals.

thollmelukaalkizhu

--
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/574412292.10865.1636893732849%40mail.yahoo.com.

Kuntimaddi Sadananda

unread,
Nov 14, 2021, 11:56:20 AM11/14/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Putranji - PraNAms

One should not be like doormat for others to step on. That is not what Geeta teaches us. 
Not to be protested in every avenue possible. Politicians try to divide the Hindus on the caste basis or language basis - to divide the votes - these so called liberal Hindus want to recognitions from those who finance anti Hindu stand. 
Hari Om!
Sadananda




sunil bhattacharjya

unread,
Nov 14, 2021, 4:45:29 PM11/14/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Namaste,

We advaitins should gather the moral courage to uphold the historical truth, as to when Adi Shankaracharya. We should let the world know about the teachings of Adi Shankara, as well as the truth about when he was born, so that people can relate Adi Shankara to the social situation of that time. The avataras are all time related. Adi Shankara was not born in the 8th century AD(CE). Even though the Shringeri math vouches for the 8th century date of Adi Shankara, to my knowledge they have not produced any proof of their claim at all of any kind. However,  all the other months produced proofs for the 6th century BCE date of Adi Shankaracharya.

Regards,
skb



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/2142484714.436916.1636908972790%40mail.yahoo.com.

Chittaranjan Naik

unread,
Nov 15, 2021, 10:59:24 AM11/15/21
to advaitin
Dear Sri Bhattacharjya-ji,

In this context, here is a book on the topic by Jagadguru Sri Shankaracharya of Puri Govardhan Math:

Warm regards,
Chittaranjan

Vinodh

unread,
Nov 15, 2021, 11:41:40 AM11/15/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com, adviata-l
Namaskaram,

I can see how one may be offended by this, but I unfortunately found the text and the way it is being presented way too comical to be taken seriously at all. 

Shankara Bhagavadpada’s work is available for all to read and make their own conclusions regarding the integrity of these claims. 

As Acharya says “ ज्ञानं तु प्रमाणजन्यम् । प्रमाणं च यथाभूतवस्तुविषयम् । अतो ज्ञानं कर्तुमकर्तुमन्यथा वा कर्तुमशक्यम् । केवलं वस्तुतन्त्रमेव तत् ; न चोदनातन्त्रम् , नापि पुरुषतन्त्रम् ; ” (Knowledge of something is born out of Pramana. And Pramana is a matter dependent on the object. So knowledge cannot be made one way, unmade, or made to appear another way. It is dependent on the object only. It is not upto a person.) 

In my opinion, instead of trying to stop or counter such nonsense, our efforts are better invested in reading, reflecting on, and sharing the teachings of Shankaracharya with like-minded people.   

Om tat sat 🙏

 

Kuntimaddi Sadananda

unread,
Nov 15, 2021, 12:20:25 PM11/15/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com, adviata-l
Vinodji - PraNAms

This is not a joke - the lady who is the author is originally from JNU - Here is some info that I Received who kept following  post against Hindutva.
------------
She is a member of the J N U Gang which is continuously writing filth about anything brahminical culture of India. She has been associated with the prestigious JNU but misused her position. Recently her term ended as adjunct professorship due to age but the faculty used special powers to renominates her through the Vic ship. But her nomination was cancelled by the BJ P Board with the statement that other younger persons should also get an opportunity at a prestigious university.
       Om Mukheja
---------------------

 




sunil bhattacharjya

unread,
Nov 15, 2021, 3:46:37 PM11/15/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Dear Shri Naikji,

If you have gone through the booklet, can you please tell us the  birthdate found by Swami Nishchalanandji?

Regards,
sunil kb

--
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/1a6b51f1-fee9-4d26-87c5-e7b79b9ae0c9n%40googlegroups.com.

sunil bhattacharjya

unread,
Nov 15, 2021, 3:53:34 PM11/15/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Dear Vinodhji,

In case of acquiring knowledge, it is always -  the more the merrier. A bit of small effort spent in finding the true date of Adi Shankara is not going to reduce or hamper acquisition the Advaita- knowledge. If possible you may please give us a review of what you found in Sw. Nishchalanandji's book, if possible with an example.

With pranaams to Adi Shankara,
skb

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAC%2BJcJ%2BVofwsoBqgswHYS%2BUSHAc_8pr9ECsJKD_YMfP-RyK7kw%40mail.gmail.com.

Chittaranjan Naik

unread,
Nov 15, 2021, 10:22:00 PM11/15/21
to advaitin
Dear Sri Bhattacharjya-ji,

I have ordered the book but haven't received it still. I'll let you know once I read it. I expect that the booklet will argue for the 6th century BC date. The website for the Govardhan Peetha says that the Peetha was established in 486 BC.

Warm regards,
Chittaranjan

Dilip

unread,
Nov 15, 2021, 10:44:58 PM11/15/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
This parochial author relies on what Mahatma Phule said about Shankaracharya. Freedom of expression is alright, not the freedom to spread hatred certainly. 


There is another aspect to this debate. In these days of irrational shallow  wokeism, we cannot expect a sane and cool public  analysis of the mission accomplished by Shankaracharya. This mostly applies to the guys who wallow in the echo chambers. 

I am surprised by the traction this guy called Mahtma Jyotiba Phule has got. He was a crude man, having a low intellect, full of venom. I have read his works called ‘ Samagra Phule literature.’ . It is abusive, insensitive, insensible, and full of lies. 

The only good thing he ever did was to start a school for the girls in Pune. 

The most distressing part, however, is the effort of the Maharashtrian pseudo intellectuals who were bought by the then government. These pseudos helped the government in publishing his crude works. One of them was an expert( ha !)  in the Hindu scriptures. The other professors were beholden to the government for the crumbs thrown by the government to them. 

Thus spreads the evil.

Dilip Dhopavkar 

Sent from my iPhone

Prasad

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 12:13:48 AM11/16/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com, adviata-l
Dear Sadanandaji 

This is old news as you can see (from 2018). 

Left-'liberal' or anti-Veda academics generally rule the roost in most elite institutions in India. Ashoka is only a recent example.

To counter this Dharmikas must have modern forward thinking institutions and widespread social/political activity of their own. 

That does not seem to be happening because the informed ones are too intellectual to be political and the political pro-dharmikas are not informed in general. 

Best, 

- Prasad

--
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/574412292.10865.1636893732849%40mail.yahoo.com.


--

Vinodh

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 12:20:13 AM11/16/21
to Advaitin
Sri Sada ji, it is indeed sad to see this state of affairs in the Indian academic circles. I found it funny because the content left me wondering whether it was written for children or written by children! :) It did not seem like something that could come from a learned person, much less a professor at a well known university. 

However, there will always be such people regardless of their status in society. It is part of the Maya that we are all under. Therefore, instead of becoming upset by such things and wondering how to stop them, it is worth investing our effort in reading, reflecting on, and discussing Advaita shaastra of the Acharya because that is the way to strike at the very root of this Maya, is it not? 

This post reminds me of a story in Ramana Maharshi's life when a scholar had presented him with a biography of him based on what he had gathered from local people. Unfortunately, this biography contained various untrue stories like he was a householder and a lawyer with three children, etc. 

Maharshi read the whole biography from beginning to end, stopping only here and there to correct some spelling mistakes, and then returned it to the author without altering even a single statement or idea. Thinking that the biography he had written was correct in every respect, having been seen and corrected by Sri Bhagavan himself, the author was very happy. 

With great surprise and joy, Kunju Swami received the biography from the Malayalam scholar and began to read through it. But when he saw the many untrue reports written in it, he was unable to bear it. He went to the author and tactfully said to him, "Many statements in this biography are totally incorrect! I am afraid that you have not gathered your information from the proper sources."

But with great confidence the author replied, "There is not even a single mistake in it. See, Bhagavan himself has corrected it with his own pen wherever it was necessary. So I am confident that this alone is his correct life history."

Without saying anything further, Kunju Swami brought the biography to Sri Bhagavan and complained, "O Bhagavan! Your own handwriting is found here in many places, so you must have seen this. But how can this all be true?"

"Are all these other things true (pointing to the world), and is this alone false?" replied Sri Bhagavan with a peaceful smile.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1287740975.505748.1636996819650%40mail.yahoo.com.

Vinodh

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 2:49:19 AM11/16/21
to Advaitin
Sri Sunil ji,

I have not read Sw. Nishchalanadji's book. What I know of Shankaracharya is from what the Kanchi Acharya Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi has told in discourses, which is in Vol 5 of Voice of God (pages 177-729), a translation of the Tamil version Deivatthi Kural. He has established that Shankaracharya's avathara was in 509 BC and his siddhi was in 477 BC by quoting from various sources. He also cites various contentions to this date and counters all of them with sound reasoning. This is highly recommended for anyone who is seriously interested in this subject matter.

Below, I share some excerpts on how he establishes the period of Shankaracharya to be 509-477 BC and what he has said about a contrary view (AD 788 - 820) and their various reasons supporting this view. I will share his detailed responses to the every one of these reasons behind the contrary view in a subsequent email and also what he has said about other contrary views (44-12 BC). 

Through his extensively analysis (which is covered in about 65 pages, pp. 491-555 of Vol 5 of Voice of God), he establishes that the Acharya's period of 509-477 BC mentioned by his Mutts is supported by what is said in the books of Hindus, Jains, and buddhists. This view has also come through the generations. There does not appear to be this much supporting evidence for the period 788 - 820 AD or any other period. 

On Acharya's siddhi in "Punya Sloka Manjari":
"There is a book i which the days on which the days on which the Acharyas of this [Kanchi] mutt including [Shankara]Acharya attained siddhi are given in the serial order. It is called 'Punya Sloka Manjari'. In that the particulars of Pitadhipathis up to the 55th Pitadhipathi have been given - the name, his placew, the place where he attained siddhi, the time when he attained siddhi, etc, in the form of sloka. Later the Pitadhipathi who came after five or six Pitadhipathis wrote a supplement and in that he has given similar details of Acharyas from the 56th to the 60th in the form of slokas. 

The sloka in the original book 'Punya Sloka Manjari' about the day on which Acharya attained siddhi is given below:

'Mahasaamsaath jaathah madhuram upathishtaadhvaya nayah
Maha-moha-dwaantha-praasamana ravih Shanmathaguruh
Phale swasmin swaayushi saracharaabhdhe (a)pisakaler
Viliye Rakthaakshin yathivrusha sidhikaadhaasi pare'

In the above sloka, the first half speaks of Acharya's greatness - his having been born as an aspect of Iswara, having made Advaita pleasantly acceptable by his Bhashyam, establishing the six ways of worship (Shanmatham), shining as a Jnanasurya who removed the darkness of ajnana.

It is in the second part, the reference to [Katapayaadhi] Saankya comes. 

In the last line, it is clearly stated that he attained siddhi in the year Rakthaakshi, in the Vrushabha month that is Vaikaasi and on the day of Suklapaksha Ekadasi. In the third line it has been clarified which Rakthaakshi it is since the same year repeats once in sixty years; it also says what his age was when he attained siddhi. 

These two have been expressed in words related to Katapayaadhi Saankya [a system by which numeral values are given to alphabets in a reversed order]. In Saracharaabhdhe 'sa' - 'ra' - 'cha' - 'ra' indicate the year in Kali 'Sara' means the arrow. 'Chara' means going.

'Sa' has the numerical value 5
'ra' has the numerical value 2
'cha' has the numerical value 6
'ra' has the number value 2

If the above numbers are arranged in order we get 5262. When this is reversed [according to the Katapayaadhi Saankya system] we get 2625. That means Acharya ended his Avathar on Vaikasi Suddha Ekadasi in the year Rakthaaskshi which came as the 2625th year after the birth of Kali. 

It appears that the practice of giving numeral values to alphabets is there in the Western countries also. They call it chronogram. For example, Roman letter I becomes 1, V becomes 5, X becomes 10. 

We have seen that Acharya attained siddhi in the 2625th year of Kali. Kali as born in 3102 BC. Therefore Kali 2625 corresponds to 477 BC. 

The words 'Phale swasmin swaayushi' indicate his age at that time. In the word 'Pale' there is a pun. When the two letters 'Pa' - 'La' indicate two numbers it would mean 'at the age of that number in his life'. 

'Vililye' - attained Laya which means that at that age he attained his real form which is Brahmam. 

'Phala' has also the name fruit. If a seed is sown it sprouts, becomes a plant, then a tree and in the end it gives the Phalam which is fruit. Therefore the other meaning is that he attained 'laya' with his Atma which is the ultimate fruit. 

'Phale swasmin' - fruit in being oneself. 

He attained 'laya' with Parameswara Swarupam which is the ultimate Phala for all yajnas, charity, thapas, bhakthi, jnanam, etc.

Let us now see what Phala means in terms of numerals.

'Pha' has the numerical value 2.
'la' has the numerical value 3.

If the two are written together it is 23. Reversing the order we get 32. 

We come to know that in his 32nd year Acharya ended his earthly sojourn and attained layam."

On Acharya's avathara in "Praachina Sankara Vijayam":
"I have said in the sloka referring to Acharya's siddhi it was 477 BC and on that basis his Avatharam was in 509 BC. I said it on the basis of the sloka in 'Punya sloka Manjari'.

It is not necessary that the year of the Avatharam should be inferred only from the year of his siddhi. There is another sloka which directly refers to the year of his Avathara. In the same book (Sushama) in which the siddhi sloka is given, the other sloka has also been given. It appears that it is in 'Praachina Sankara Vijayam' which is considered to be very old and which is not available now in its full form:

'Thishye prayaathyanal sevadhi bhaana nethre
Yo nandhane dhinamanau udhagathva bhaaji
Raadhe (a)dhitheruduni nirgatham asthra lagne
(a)pyaahuuthavaan Sivaguruh sa cha Sankarethi'

In the last line it has been mentioned that 'the name Sankaran was given to the child born on this day'. In the previous line, the word Raadhe means 'in the month of Vaisaakam'. Adhitherudu - Adhithe: Udu means Punarvasu star which is the start of the Devathaa called 'adhithi'. Vaalmiki also, while saying that Raamavathaaram took place in Punarvasu, says 'Nakshathre adhithi Daivathye'. Ashthra lagna means the Dhanur Lagnam. There is also a view that this is not correct but 'Anga Lagnam' is correct, because in the month of Vaisaakam, Dhanur lagnam comes during night time. But Acharya was born during mid-day. At that time the lagna must be Katakam. This is what is called Anga Lagnam, they say. 

'Angam' indicates the number 4.

Like Katapayaadhi, there is also another type of calculation. It is giving to the number a name which is best in a particular thing. Thus when the word 'nethram' or 'nayanam' is said, it will mean the number 2. The Brahmin has to worship three kinds of fires. Therefore if the name Agni is mentioned, it will mean number 3. Since there are six rithus, if the word 'rithu' is mentioned it will mean the number 6. Since there are 7 rishis (saptarishi) the word 'rishi' will mean the number 7. Similarly the word 'Vedham' means 4. Since there are four branches in the army, the word 'angam' (branch or part) means number 4. Therefore 'Anga Lagnam' is the fourth which is Katakam.

In the second line of the sloka, it has been said that the Avatharam took place in the year 'Nandana' when it was Utharayana. In the first line, the year of Kali in which the Avatharam took place is mentioned. The word 'thishye' means 'in Kaliyuga'. 'Thishyam' has also the meaning 'Kali'. 

'Thishye prayaathyanala sevadhi bhaana nethre'

'Thishye prayaathi' means 'When Kali was progressing.

'Anala sevadhi bhaana nethre' - This gies the information about the year according to the calculation I had mentioned a little earlier. 

Anala - means Agni which is number 3
sevadhi - means 'nidhi' - since the nidhi are nine in number (nava nidhi) nidhi means number 9
bhaanam - means number 5 - Manmatha is having pancha bhanam.
nethra - means number 2.

Therefore, 'Anala sevadhi bhaana nethra' means 3-9-5-2. Just as in Katapayaadhi Saankya here also this number has to be reversed. If that is done it will be 2593. That is the 2593rd year of Kali. Kali was born in 3102 BC. Therefore Kali 2593 will be 3102 minus 2593 which is 509 BC."

On Acharya's period in Ithihasa-Puranam:
Regarding Acharya's period, it has been said in Sivarahasya Ithihasam: 'Sahasra dwiyath - param'. This means 'after 2000 years of Kali.' But this 'after' has not been indicated as a particular year. In any case it means that Avatharam was before 3000 years of Kali. 

In Bhavishyoththara Puranan it is said 'Kalyadhaav dhwisahasraanthe.' This means towards the end of the second thousand of Kali.

On the basis of several other Puranas, Mutt books - Guruparampara - edicts etc and other evidence and on information passed from generation to generation we are of the view that Acharya's period was from Kali 2593 to Kali 2625. Since this is 600 years before and after in the second 2000 years of Kali, Bhavishyotthara Puranam must have said 'towards the end'. Kali 2593 - 2625 corresponds to 509 BC - 477 BC. 

On contrary views of Acharya's time period:
Contrary view (AD 788 - 820): There are several views on Acharya's period. Westerners who are called Orientalists and do research on matters pertaining to Eastern countries say that Acharya was born in 788 AD, lived for 32 years and attained siddhi in AD 820. Many of our own people and scholars accept this view. In all the history books, Sankara's period is given as 788 - 820 AD and that is being read and believed.

Between BC 509-477 which I have mentioned and AD 788-820 there is a gap of approximately 1300 years.

Even in our country there is a sloka which refers to Acharya's Avatharam according to what the year of Avatharam will be AD 788. Europeans also have taken this as the base and then done their research and concluded that the period is AD 788-820. 

In this sloka, the year of Kali has been mentioned by 'Nidhinaagebhavahyabdhe'. 

Nidhi - means number 9 (because of navanidhi)
Naaga - means number 8 (because of eight 'Nagas' like Vaasuki, Daksha, etc.) Naagam also means elephant. Then also it means number eight because of 'ashta dhig gajam'.
Ibha - also means elephant. Therefore it is number 8.
Vahni - means Agni which is number 3. 

Therefore the phrase gives the number 9883. In the reverse order it is 3889. According to the Christian era, it is 3889 minus 3102 that is 787 AD. 

I have said that there is a belief on the basis of this sloka that Acharya's year of Avatharam is 788 AD. 

I have said 788. The reason why it is 787 is:

English year commences in January. Indian year commences between mid-March and mid-April in the 'Chandramana' system and around mid-April if it is 'Souramaana' system. This means that under either of these systems parts of the two English years will overlap. Upto our Dhanur month it will be part of one English year and then up to the end of Phaalgun it will be part of another English year. That is why for every Indian year we have to refer the English year by 'from ..... ' 'to..... '. We refer to our Subhakrith year as 1962-1963 (This part is from a conversation following Sivarathri 1963). Thus Kali 3889 must have been 787 AD to 788 AD. 

The Orientalists who assume the date 788 AD on the basis of the sloka and also our people who accept their word as the highest truth give other reasons also. 

Period of Buddha, Kumaarila Bhattar, and Kalidasa: 'In Acharya's books the names of certain persons or the philosophies of certain persons figure. Therefore Acharya should have come only after them. When we consider their period, Acharya's period cannot at all be 509 BC to 477 BC,' say the researchers. In this Buddha's period comes very close to BC 509 which sasthrajnas say is the Acharya's year of birth. Buddha becomes contemporary. 'Buddha's period is approximately 560 BC to 480 BC. He lived 80 years,' conclude the researchers and this is what has found place in all history books. This means that Acharya was born around the 50th year of Buddhu and he too must have attained siddhi around the time of Buddha's Nirvana. It was only after Buddha, that is after the period of Sankara as determined by sastrajnas buddhism spread under the patronage of several rulers and it was further spread by Ashoka after 200 or 300 years. When this is so how will it be right to say that in Sankara's period itself buddhism suffered decline? - this is the objection of the researchers. Sastrajnas themselves accept that Kumaarila Bhattar was born only after buddhism had spread over a long period and then he had refuted it and it was only later that Acharya refuted what remained. But after accepting this, to say that Acharya was Buddha's contemporary is not acceptable,' they say. 

... [some discussion on Kumarila Bhattar's work and his quotation of Kaalidaasa] ...

Kumaarila Bhattar quotes Kaalidaasaa to show that conscience also becomes an authority but as the last one. Therefore it is clear that he was after Kalidasa's period. For the same reason, Acharya also should been after Kalidasa's period. According to Western researchers Kalidasa's period was later than 600 BC. If he belonged to Vikramaadityaa's period, Vikramaadityaa lived in the 1st century BC. Vikramaadityaa shakaabhdam commenced in 57 BC. There is evidence to show that Kalidasa lived during Chandragupta Vikramaadityaa's period which was 400 AD or even later. In Megha Sandesham Kalidasa refers to the dhig-gaja as 'Dhingnaaga' and has played a pun and ridiculed 'Dhingnaagar' who started a branch of buddhism called 'Vaibhaasikam'. That Dhingnaagar belonged to 600 AD. Therefore there is room for taking Kalidasa's period up to that. Therefore, Acharya's period is not what the sastrajnas say, namely, between 600 BC and 500 BC - This is what the researchers say. 

Principles of Buddhism in Acharya's Bhashyam: Acharya has refuted the Vaibhaasika principles of Dhingnaagar in his Bhashyam. There is another branch of buddhism called 'Soundhraanthikam' which has taken some of these principles and changed some. There is also a third branch called 'Yogaachaara' and 'Vijnaanavaadham'. This was formulated by Asankar and Vasubandhu who belonged to the 4th century AD. Acharya has refuted this also. There is a fourth branch called 'Maadhyamikam' or 'Sunyavaadham'. It was Naagaarjuna who had contributed to its growth. It has determined that he belonged to 2nd century AD. 

The question is asked 'when Naagaarjunaa, Asankar, and Dhignaagar belong respectively to 2nd century AD, 4th century AD, and 6th century AD and Sankara had criticized their principles how can Sankara's period be in the BC?'

During Kanishka's time buddhism split into two, namely Mahaayaana and Hinayaana. Padmapaadhar who was Acharya's direct sishya has referred to Mahaayaanaa by name in his 'Panchapaadhika' (the explanatory notes which he wrote for Acharya's Sutra Bhashyam) and refuted it. However much Kanishka's period is taken backwards it cannot be included in a period before 1st century BC. This is another reason given by them. 

References to AD in Acharya's Sthothras: Just as the researchers show internal evidence from Acharya's books like his Bhashyam they are showing some evidence from his devotion sthothras also. It is usual for them to say that 'Acharya who followed the jnana marga would not have made any bhakthi sthothra at all and that whatever has been done by some others are being attributed to him.' Yet, when they want to demolish the majority view of sasthrajnas regarding Acharya's period they say that whatever sthothra are supportive of their view had been made by Acharya. 

In Soundarya Lahari (Sloka 75) Acharya says 'With great compassion you gave your milk to a 'Draavida sisu' and because of that he became foremost among the poets'. It was Jnaanasambandhar to whom Ambal had suckled her milk. There is firm evidence that Jnaanasambandhar belongs to 7th century AD. Mahendra Varma who was the Pallava king in the beginning of the 7th century AD had been converted from Jainism to the Vedhic religion by Appar Swami. Since Appar and Sambandhar had gone together to several holy places and sung in praise of the deities there, Sambandhar also belongs to the same period as Appar. Sambandhar also had converted a Pandian King from Jainism to Vedhic religion. He was Maara Varma Arikesari who ruled in 7th century AD. Therefore Sambandhar also belongs to the 7th century AD. Acharya who alludes to him in his sthothra must therefore belong later than that of Jnaanasambandhar - this is what the researchers say. 

... [the story of Siruthonda Nayanar who lived during the period of Narasimha Varma who came to throne after Mahendra Varma is narrated. In this story, Siruthonda Nayanar, a siva bhaktha, and his wife sacrifice their only son for Ishwara who had come to them as Bhairava. Seeing his bhakthi his son was returned back to him.] ....

Acharya has made a sloka called 'Bhujanga Prayaatham'. In that every line has twelve alphabets. ' Siva Bhujangam' is one of the sthothras in it. In that he says, 'I do not know how to please you. I am not capable of betraying others. But you bestow yours blessings on one who betrayed his wife, one who betrayed his son, and one who betrayed his father.' This is a kind of 'Nindha stuthi (what looks like abuse is in fact a form of praise): Kaantha dhrohi, sudhaa dhrohi, pithru dhrohi - here three Naayanmaars have been referred to. 

'Kaantha drohi' was a Naayanaar called "Iyarpagai Naayanaar'. Iswara came as a devotee and asked him to give his wife and he readily gave her. Subsequently it also ended happily as in the story of Siruthondar. Except that Iyarpagai Naayanaar was a merchant and nothing is known about his period. 

Siruthondar is the 'Sudha dhrohi'. He was the commander-in-chief of Narasimha Varma's army when he invaded Vathapi in 7th century AD and defeated the Chaalukya king. Later, when Narasimha Varman came to know that he was a great Siva bhakta he felt sorry that he was being involved i wars, sought his apology and retired him from service and sent him to a place giving him sufficient gifts. It was only after that he had a child and the rest of the story happened. 

Therefore, say the researchers, Acharya's Avatharam could not have taken place before the later part of 7th century AD. 

... [the story of 'pithru dhrohi' who is Chandikeswara is then narrated, but this belongs ages back to how Chandikeswara became part of the family of Siva and has no relevance to Acharya's period] ...

The objection has been raised only on the basis of the story of Siruthondar. 

There are two more objections raised by the researchers on the basis of two other things. 

Note on Purna Varman: In Sutra Bhashyam when Acharya says how impossible it is to show a relationship between what exists (sat) and what does not exist (asat), says 'Before Purna Varma's coronation, the son of a barren woman was the king.' This is a metaphorical way of showing that the comparison between sat and asat is impossible. Who is the Purna Varman referred to by him? Researchers have tried to find out the period of Purna Varman so that they can establish that Acharya must have been either his contemporary or must have come later. They have found out two kings with the name Purna Varman. 

It may be known that the culture of Bharath had spread in the Far East long before. In Java (which is called Yavakam) there was a king called Purna Varman in the 4th century AD. There, his feet have been carved out on a huge rock in the manner of 'Vishu Padham'. In the same rock, his edict is also inscribed. He has been described as being equal to Vishnu. 

But researchers do not consider this Purna Varman Their argument is 'Why would Acharya take the example of Purna Varma of Java? He must have referred only to a king in our own country who is known to our scholars who can read his Sutra Bhashyam'. 

The other Purna Varman whom the researchers have found out belongs to our country. He had ruled in the western part of Magadh. Heun Tsang who had travelled in the first half of the 7th century AD for 16 years has recorded that Purna Varma was ruling Magadh at that time. The researchers say 'Therefore Purna Varma of Magadh must be the one to whome Acharya had referred. He wrote his Bhashyam in Kasi and the western part of Magadh is close to Kasi. Gaya is very much connected with Kasi. It is found that a king called Sasankan who was an enemy of buddhism had cut the Bhodhi tree in Gaya and Purna Varman planted it again, nurtured it and made it grow. Therefore, we can take it that in his Bhashyam Acharya has referred to this Purna Varman only'. In other word, they say that this is one more evidence that Acharya came after the 7th century AD. 

Let us now consider the second king referred to by the researchers. 

'Although when Acharya wrote his Bhashyam and preached it there was no possibility of his having referred to a king of the Far Eastern region, since our Vedhic religion and buddhism had spread there, our temples, Buddha vihaaraas are there and there are idols for Agasthya, Buddha, and Bhodisathvar, there are edicts describing them and therefore it is possible that in order to show the Indian influence there, reference to Acharya may be available'. The researchers have gone about making their research on the basis that even though Acharya would not have referred to anything connected with the Far East in his Bhashyam, it cannot be said that people of those countries would not have referred to Acharya. 

In Cambodia, (called Kaambhojam) a Sanskrit edict has been found out. That is the edict of a king of Cambodia called Indraa Varma. It is said therein that Indraa Varma's Guru was Sivasoman and that Sivasoman 'learnt sasthras from Bhagawaan Sankar' : 'Yenadhidhani shaasthraani Bhagavadh - Shankaraahvayath'. After that the greatness of that "Bhagavadh Shankara" has been described and the sloka ends with that. It says that his lotus feet is being swarmed by all the great scholars likes bees. It means that the world of scholars bows at his feet: 'Nichchesha suri murdhali malalidangri pankajath'. 

Researchers conclude that this 'Bhagawaan Sankarar' must be Acharya. There was no on in Cambodia with that name who would have been considered worthy of worship by the community of scholars there; in India also there is no on other than Sri Sankara Bhagavadpaadha. Moreover in the colophon of his books it has been mentioned 'Sankara Bhagavatha'. This (Bhagavad Sankara) tallies with what is mentioned in the colophon, say the researchers. 

It has been concluded that Indraa Varma's period was the second half of 9th century AD. His guru Sivasoman must have been about 30 or 40 years older than him. If he had been the direct disciple of Acharya and learnt all sasthras from him the view is very correct that Acharya's period was 788 - 820 AD, say the researchers. 

Responses to various reasons supporting the contrary view (788 - 820 AD):

[to be written in the next email]


Om tat sat 🙏

Vinodh

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 11:01:42 AM11/16/21
to Advaitin
Namaskaram,

In my previous email I had provided excerpts from Mahaperiyava's discourse on how Shankara's period is established to be 509-477 BC, on the contrary view that Shankara's period is 788-820 AD, and on the reasons provided for this view. In this email, I will share what he has said in response to each of these reasons and what he has said about other contrary views (44-12 BC) and how it is established that Shankara's period is 509-477 BC and not any other period. These are also from Vol 5 of Voice of God, an English translation of the discourses of Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswath, former Kanchi Mataadhipati, compiled originally in Tamil under the title "Deivatthin Kural". From the content, it appears that this discourse was given in 1963.

Responses to various reasons supporting the contrary view (788 - 820 AD): 
In Puranas the period of our royal dynasties have been given. In addition to that about one thousand years back, Kalhanar, a poet belonging to the Kashmir royal dynasty, examined the matter deeply, collated all the information that has come from generation to generation and has written a book 'Raaja Tharangini'. When it is said that something came from generation to generation through hearing and word of mouth, immediately it should not be rejected as story. If we think whether all these facts would have been passed on without any basis and then compare them with other supporting evidence, then we will find there will be much in them to be accepted. If there is a king there will be wars with other kings, matrimonial alliances etc. Tharangini talks about other kings also who were in other parts of India at various times. In many places what is said in Tharangini matches with the Puranas. 

There is a 'chronicle of Nepal' in which information has been given about rulers from the ancient times and their periods. Pundit Bhagawan Lal Indraaji obtained the book from a Buddha bikshu and has published it. The names of kings and their periods are given in it from the time of Mahabharata. From that also we can know the periods of those of our historical figures. Surprisingly, this tallies with the information that we get from Puranas and other sources. 

There is a book 'Mahaavamsam' in Sri Lanka. It must be at least 1500 years old. It gives information about the history of buddhism in that country. Researchers have the practice of showing that the reliability of buddhist books is more than Hindu books. Therefore they also say that to a large extent Mahaavamsam can be accepted. 

Mahaavamsam speaks about the royal dynasties because religion had either grown with the support of the kings or declined in the absence of their support. In olden times, it was due to India that Lanka's religion, culture, political life etc. developed, then fights and friendship. In this way both the countries are closely related. Therefore details of the periods of our people are also found in this book. 

If we compare the Puranas, Raaja Tharangini of Kashmir which is in the extreme North, the chronicle of Nepal, Lanka's Mahaavamsam and find out where they are converge in their opinion, we can at least accept those. There are in fact many like this. 

The central question: Who is Sandracottus mentioned by Megasthanes? Let us keep aside the fact that Europeans had deliberately put forward our historical periods to deprive us of our ancient glory. It is true that it is not correct to blame allof them. It is not fair to say that all of them acted with prejudice. But it is possible that without their knowing and without any ulterior motive, they would have accepted as correct something which had no basis and on that basis they would have determined the period. I shall talk about one such thing. 

They are having a particular date which they consider as a definite and indisputable date in ancient history. They keep that date as the basis and they have determined the period before that or after that. In a way, that is the key for ancient history. What is that?

Alexander's commander-in-chief Selucas Niketar who came to power in Greece after Alexander invaded India. But he got defeated at the hands of the emperor of Magadh who was ruling from Paataliputhra. They entered into a peace treaty. It is said they also had matrimonial alliance. Later, Selucas sent Megasthanes as the Ambassador to Paataliputhra. Megasthanes has written about all that he had seen and heard in India. That is the first authentic document about our history which the Englishmen got. Therefore it is a document which can be fully trusted.

They definitely know that Alexander, Selucas Niketar and Megasthanes belonged to the 4th century BC. Therefore they have taken the king of Paataliputhra to whom Megasthnes has referred also belonged to that period. Who was that king? It was Sandracottus referred to by Megasthanes. 

Europeans have assumed that this Sandracottus was Chandragupta who founded the Mauryan dynasty and became and emperor and on this basis they have determined the old historical periods. They have concluded that Chandragupt Maurya belonged to the first half of 4th century BC as a contemporary of Selucas Niketar about whose period they were definite. 

On that basis they have decided the period of those of the Nanda dynasty, the Aisunaaga dynasty which ruled still earlier, his son Bindusaaran who came in the Mauryan dynasty, his grandson Ashoka and others and then of those of the Sunga dynasty which came after the Mauryas. 

The question is whether this is correct. This is a big question.

Megasthanes has mentioned only 'Sandracottus' that is 'Chandragupta', not as Chandragupt Maurya. He has not said to what dynasty he belonged. He has also not said that the Nanda dynasty was ruling before him or that his son was Bindusaara. He refers to Paataliputhra as 'Polibothra' and says that he ruled from there and that his country was glorious. 

Therefore the question arises. Why cannot Sandracottus referred to by Megasthanes be Chandragupta of Gupta dynasty and not Chandragupta of Mauryan dynasty? Gupta dynasty also had Paataliputhra as the capital. In that there were two Chandraguptas. The second of them was the famous Chandragupta Vikramaadithan. Why could Megasthanes not have been during the rule of one of these Chandraguptas?

If we examine the Puranas, Raja Tharangini, the chronicle of Nepal etc. and calculate the periods of the dynasties which ruled Magadh, we find that the statement that Chandragupta Maurya was during the period of Megasthanes, that is, 4th century BC, does not work out correctly. From the details we get in these, the period of Maurya Chandragupta was 1500 BC. There is a difference of 1200 years between this calculation and 300 BC given by Orientalists as the period when he came to power. There is a difference of 1300 years between what we say and what they say about Acharya. 

In Vishnu Purana in one place it is said that 1500 years after Parikshit who came to power at the beginning of Kali, Nandan (Mahaapadmaanandan, who was the chief of Magadh before Chandragupta Maurya) came to the throne. That is Nandan came to the throne in 1600 BC. If it is said that the next one was Chandragupta, is it not close to what has been said earlier, when we are calculating events of 3500 years back?

From what we know from different sources it can be said with definiteness that Chandragupta referred to by Megasthanes was Maurya Chandragupta. 

It appears that there is room for taking that Sandracottus could have been one these two Chandraguptas of the Gupta dynasty. 

According to researchers the period of Chandragupta Maurya was the beginning of 400 BC; the first of the Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty belongs to the first part of 400 AD; the second Chandragupta was from the later part of the same century and up to the earlier part of the 5th century AD. This means that there is a gap of 700 years between the two. 

Since even in this gap of 800 years the period of several people could be earlier or later, this 800 could be 1000 or even more. 

Therefore, if it is accepted that the Chandragupta referred to by Megasthanes was the Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty all our historical events will be pushed back by nearly 1000 years. It will be proved that our people are not just claiming the ancient glory but there was in fact civilized society in our country from ancient times. 

We need not have to fight with the Europeans. What Sir William Jones, Wilson and others said that Megasthanes has referred to one Chandragupta has helped us to do further research. Therefore we should express gratitude to them. What is important is that we should not become fools to believe whatever they say further without questioning them. We have think 'foreigners are talking about our country, are they saying things correctly or with the right object?'

It may be asked 'the Chinese pilgrim Fa Hian came during the period of Chandragupta Vikramaadityaa of the Gupta dynasty and has left his memoirs. Therefore Chandragupta Vikramaaditya must belong to the period 4th century AD to 5th century AD. How can his period be put back to BC?' It is true that Fa Hian came in that period of AD and spent six years traveling to the buddhist holy places and collected literature pertaining to buddhism. But he as not made any mention of any king of that time. He was interested only in matters related to buddhism and in the course of dealing with them he has also referred to the social life of that time. So it is on the basis of Fa Hian's visit that historians say that Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty was a ruler at that time. There is no basis to assert that at the time of Fa Hian's visit the ruler was Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty. 

I have not done full research into this matter. Neither do I have the qualification in History to do such research. Therefore scholars of History should examine this minutely. Kota Venkatachalam of VIjayawada has done deep research into this and has established that Sandracottus was a ruler of the Gupta dynasty and not a Maurya. (Later Kota Venkatachalam became a sanyaasi of the Advaita order). K. G. Natesa Sastri of the ayuvedic college, Mylapore has also made research and come to the same conclusion. 

Some others have conducted research into Puranas, Raja Tharangini etc and given details about many incidents mentioned in history books having occurred several centuries before the periods mentioned in the books. 

It is my surmise that Samudra Gupta who was the son of Chandragupta I and the father of Chandragupta II was perhaps Sandracottus. The first alphabet in the name of Chandragupta is 'Cha'. In the name Sandracottus mentioned by Megasthanes the first alphabet is 'Sa'. Samudra Gupta starts with 'Sa'. In the languages of the West like Greek, there is a clear difference between 'Cha' and 'Sa'. Would Megasthanes have wrongly got the very first alphabet of a name? The Greeks of Alexander's period have said that one 'Xandrames' was the ruler of Paataliputra. Although it cannot be definitely said who that ruler was researchers say that 'Xandra' here (not Sandra but Xandra) refers only to 'Chandra'. But Megasthanes says 'Sandra'.

Megasthanes wrote his memoirs not after studying books but on the basis of what he heard from people during his interaction with them. Often it happens that a combination of a consonant and a vowel sounds as a consonant during conversation. In the conversational language of our own people 'Samudra' must have sounded as 'Samdra'. It is possible to think that what Megasthanes heard as 'Samdra' from our people became 'Sandra' and he wrote as 'Sandracottus'. 

Overall, if events are thrown back by a thousand years or more how can the view that Acharya's period was 8th century AD alone be correct? That also would get thrown back by one thousand years. The period of Buddha also will be put back by one thousand years before 6th century BC which the Westerners have determined. That would mean that even if Acharya's period was 6th to 5th century BC he could not have been Buddha's contemporary and his Avathar would have taken place only several centuries after buddhism had taken roots.

According to our calculations based on Puranas, Mauryan dynasty started in 1500 BC. From Mathsya Puranam it is seen that Bimbisaara had ruled for 300 years before 1500 BC. Bimbisaara's son was Ajathsathru, then there were three rulers after him, then Mahaa Padma Nandan and then the Mauryan dynasty. The period of each of the rulers is given and in that it is said that Bimbisaara was 300 years before Chandragupta Maurya. That is his period was 1800 to 1700 BC. Buddha also belonged that period. Kota Venkatachalam and others have also confirmed this on the basis of other indigenous sources. It would therefore mean that Acharya's Avatharam was in 509 BC, long after Buddha. 

According to those say that Acharya's period was 788 - 820 AD he had come 350 to 400 years after the period of the Guptas, namely, 4th to 5th century AD. During the intervening period the Gupta empire had come to an end and several other kings had ruled and it was also 100 years after even Harsha's rule had ended. From 'Harsha Charithram' written by the great poet, Baanaar, it is seen that Harsha had ruled from beginning of the 7th century AD for more than 40 years. Even if one does not want to rely on Baanaa for determining the period of Harsha, Hieun Tsang's records are there. From that also it is confirmed that Harsha's period was the first half of the 7th century AD. It can be said that there is no justification to take backwards by 1000 years events that took place after Harsha. It can also be said 'You may, if you like, take the period backwards by 1000 years up to the Gupta period. According to our calculation, even in 4th century AD Fa Hian had recorded his notes. But he has concentrated only on matters relating to buddhism. Without naming any of the great kings of the time, he has merely said 'The country is peaceful. People are quiet. There are no major crimes. It is possible to move from one corner to the other without fear. Both buddhism and Hinduism are being practiced.' Therefore we will not connect him in the determination of the period of the Gupta dynasty. But it is a confirmed fact that the period of Harsha and Hieun Tsang was 7th century AD. Since we say that Acharya's period was 150 years later than that there is no room for interfering with that conclusion.' Therefore one by one I have to deal with their reasons, for the conclusion that Acharya's period was 788 to 820 AD and see whether they are right or wrong. 

About Kalidasa: One of their points is that Kalidas has referred to Kumarila Bhattar who was Acharya's contemporary but was older than him. They say that Kalidasa's period was not 6th century BC. Even if his period is pushed back he could have been only the contemporary of Agnimithraa, the son of Pushyamithraa Sungan because the hero of 'Malavikaagnimithra' is Agnimithraa. Pushyamithraa's period was 2nd century BC. Therefore there is no scope for taking Kalidasa's period to 6th century BC.

But their (researchers') calculation of 2nd century BC is also based on their determination of the Mauryan perioed keeping Megasthanes as the central figure and that Pushyamithraa who was the commander-in-chief of the last of the Mauryan kings had assumed power after him. We have seen that the basis for the Maurya period itself could be wrong. We have also seen that in accordance with that the researchers can accept our views upto 4th century AD. Since this (2nd century BC) also comes within that period, they cannot assert their view. 

According to the calculations in our Puranas, Mauryan dynasty started in 1500 BC and after their rule for 300 years, Pushyamithraa established the rule of the Sunga dynasties. Therefore that must be near about 1200 BC. If Kalidasa was his contemporary, his period also will go backwards that much. That would mean that on the basis of our view that Acharya's period was 6th century BC, Kalidasa's period will be six centuries before that. 

Because Kalidas has written about those of the Sunga dynasty, can it be said that he too belonged to that period? Even today, some one can write a new Ramyana. Can it be said that such a person is Rama's contemporary? It can only be said that Sunga period is the upper limit to Kalidasa's period. It only means that his period could not have been earlier than that. It could have been later. Is there anything about that?

Over a long period there is the belief in our country that 'Kalidasa belonged to the period of Vikramaadityaa. He was one of the Navarathnas in his court. The sasthrajnas also say that Vikrama shakaabhdam commenced in 57 BC. When that is so how can his period be taken to 600 BC?' - it may be asked.

There is a view that there was another Vikramaadityaa around the year 2500 of Kali, that is in the beginning of the 6th century BC, that has been mentioned in Raaja Tharangini and that Kalidasa belonged to that period. According to our belief that Acharya's Avatharam was towards the end of that century (509 BC) Kumarila Bhattar must have been born around the middle of that century. 

Anyone taking a neutral stand can only conclude that nothing definite can be said about Vikramaadityaa irrespective of the views of the sasthrajnas and the belief in our country. 'Bruhathkatha' and 'Katha Sapthasadhi' etc which speak about him are all stories like novels. They do not have the validity of the Puranas, Raaja Tharangini etc. People of all countries need stories of some one who had performed valorous acts. That way the stories of Vikramaadityaa, Madanakaamaraajan and others have become very popular. But if we proceed to determine dates treating them as historical figures, it will only end in confusion. It is usual that if some one had attracted the people at some time and was charismatic, lot of stories are built around him. That is how it has happened regarding a Vikramaadityaa who ruled from Ujjain and Bhojan who ruled from Thara. There is also a belief in our country that Kalidasa belonged to the period of Bhojan. If there are two beliefs in our own country, one of them must be wrong. Simply because it is the belief of people in our country we cannot assert that it is correct. Those who have considered all this expressed a view that there were two Kalidasa. It issaid that the Navarathnas who were in Vikaramaadityaa's court were Dhanwantri, Kshapanakar, Amaarasimhan, Sanku, Vedhaala Bhattar, Kadakarparar, Kalidasar, Varaahamihirar, and Vararuchi. It is seen from another source that all these nine were not contemporaries. When this is so how to determine the period with reference to which particular Kalidasa and which particular Vikramaaditya? In 'Bhoja Prabhandam' written by Vallalar it is said that Kalidasar was one of the Navarathnas in the court of Bhoja and that the others with him were Bhavabhuthi, Baanar, Dandi, Sriharshar. From other evidences it is seen that these were not contemporaries.

Even the views such as that Kalidasa could have been the contemporary of Chandragupta Vikramaadityaa who was a historical figure could be mere surmises and not authority. 

Just as an upper limit has been indicated to show that Kalidasa could not have belonged to a period before Pushyamithra Sungan we are unable to indicate a lower limit to show that his period could not have been later than 7th century AD. Baanar who was the court poet of Harsha in the first half of the 7th century AD has praised Kalidasa by name in the beginning of his 'Harsha Charithram'. In one of the royal edicts of the same period Kalidasa's name has been mentioned in a sloka. That is the edict of Pulakesi II. It is an edict found in Ihohow a place noted for its architecture. That edict has been dated as saakaa year 556, that is, 634 AD. In that there is a play of words 'Ravi Kirthi - Bhaaravi Kirthi'. That sloka says that Ravi Kirthi was shining with glory like Kalidasa and Bhaaravi who were noted for their poetry:

Sa vijayathaam Ravikirthi
Kavithaashritha Kaalidaasa Bhaaravikiirthi

Therefore it is only known from this that Kalidasa's period was before 634 AD, but it is not known how much before. How can we say definitely about something on the basis of another thing which is definitely not known? This is how it is when it is attempted to determine the period of Kumarila Bhattar and Acharya on the basis of Kalidasa's period. 

There was one Appaa Shaastri in Kolhaapur who had the title of 'Vidhya Vaachaspathi'. After examining several books, he has determined, that Kalidasa was in the beginning of 6th century BC, Kumarila Bhattar in the middle of that century and Sankara towards the end of that century. He has studied not only our Puranas and other religious literature but also literature pertaining to Jainism. When we find that, when it is a question of determining dates, religions agree on dates notwithstanding their mutual quarrels on other aspects we have accept the view that we are able to get from opposite sources. 

On buddist literature in the AD: What pertains to the authors of buddhist literature of the Christian era? Let us now come to the next point. Let us consider the arguments that since Acharya had refuted the Vaibhaasikam of Dhignaagar, Soundhraanthikam of Asankar and the Sunya Vaadham of Naagaarjuna, Acharya must belong to the period later than them who belonged to the periods 2nd century AD to 6th century AD. 

It is true that Acharya had refuted the Siddhanthas mentioned above. But he has not referred by name either to Dhignaagaror or Asankar or Naagaarjuna. Whether it is these Siddhanthas or other Siddhanthas in our country they were not formulated by whom they were made prominent. These Siddhanthas must have been prevailing for a long time before them. But they must have been vague and not given proper form and codified. Later the Siddhanthis whom we now know prominently must have given them form, codified it and given them as sasthra. 

This is so even in respect of Acharya's Advaita. Acharya only gave Advaita which was prevailing from time immemorial in a well structured form. He did not formulate Advaita. 

Buddhas and Jinaas of old times: Now we find another reason to counter the objection that if Acharya's period is 6th century BC he and Buddha would be contemporary. The reason is this: Those who are followers of buddhism themselves say that it is wrong to say that it was Gauthama Buddha who had established buddhism. They say 'Gauthama Buddha who was the son of Suddhodhana was the 24th Buddha. There were 23 Buddhas before him. Therefore just as you claim that your Vedas are timeless, our religion is also timeless'. There is evidence in Ramayana in support of this view. 

Bharatha goes to forest to try and get back Rama to Ayodhya. Jabali Maharishi was one of those who accompanied him. He wanted to talk to Rama, make him give up his resolve to carry out his father's words and get him back to Ayodhya. Or he wanted to show to the world Rama's attachment to the Vedic religion. With this in view he argues in a manner which is totally opposed to Vaidhikam and is atheistic. At that time Rama condemns Jabali's arguments which are contrary to Vaidhikam and says that such arguments are the principles of Buddha, they are like Chaarvaakam which is totally atheistic and also declares 'We should not even be seen by people with such views; these people have also to be punished like thieves. (Valmiki Ramayanam, Ayodhya Kandam, 109th Sargam, 34th Sloka). Here he also mentions the name 'Thathaagathar' which is another name for Buddha. From this it is clear that even then buddhism was prevalent. But it is seen that it was like the buddhism which was preached by Gauthama Buddha on the basis of right conduct, control of senses, dhyaana etc but it was like Chaarvaakam which allows all kinds of behaviour and it was this which Buddha had reformed and preached. 

The Jains also say that their religion is very ancient and that Jinaa (Mahaaviraa) whom we say is the founder of Jainism was in fact the last of their 24 Thirthankaras. Rishabhar who is mentioned as an 'Avathara purusha' even in Puranas is their first Thirthankara. Even the Orientalists who hesitate to accept this say that Parsvanathar who was the 23rd Thirthankara and was beofre Mahavira could have lived in 9th century BC. 

Those who argue, 'There is condemnation of buddhism in Brahma Sutram, Krishna Paramatma refers to that Brahma Sutra in Gita as 'Brahma sutra paadhaaschaiva hethumadhbir vinischithaih' (Ch. XIII - 5) and therefore Brahma Sutram and Gita are all later than Buddha' have to consider these facts. There have been several Buddhas before the Buddha referred to by them. Buddhism preached by those Buddhas was also there. Therefore it is not correct to say that Vyasa who compiled the Brahma Sutra and Krishna who gave Gita were later than Gauthama Buddha. 

In this there is another thing regarding Gita. In his Gita Bhashyam, Acharya when commenting on the word 'Brahma Sutra' does not mean that it is the Brahma Sutra for which had written commentary. His commentary is 'Braahmanaa: suchakani vachakani - Brahma suthraani'. It means 'words which indicate Brahmam'. From this we can guess that Vyasa must have classified the Vedas and wrote the Brahmasutram after Gitopadesam and at the beginning of Kali. In order to confirm this the views expressed in Gita which is Smruti have been mentioned in Brahamsutram and it is clarified that Gita was earlier than Brahma Sutra: 'Smariyathe' : 'This is how it has been said in Smruti'. 

The subject which I wanted to mention: Many Siddhanthas for which we determine dates on the basis of books which are now available had existed long before in some form or other. Thus Soudranthikam, Vaibhaasikam, and Sunyavaadham had probably existed even during Acharya's time and he might have refuted them. It is also possible that it is only after his time that Asankar, Dhingnaagar and Naagaarjuna gave them new life and spread them.

We have to take note of one other point also. The periods allotted to them in the Christian era by the researchers are also merely surmises like Kalidasa's period. 

Kalidasa in his 'Meghasandesa Kaavyam' when saying that the cloud should go pushing aside the Dhig-gajas, says instead 'Dhing-Naagaa'. There is a view that this is a form of innuendo by which he says that Dhingnaagar who was a buddhist should be excluded! If that is so Dhingnaagar must have been the contemporary of Kalidasa whose period is not known and who was before Acharya. 

According to the details of the royal dynasty of Nepal it appears that the period of Naagaarjuna dates back to the beginning of the 13th century BC. 

Trying to determine Acharya's period like this on the basis of dates about which nothing is definite is like blind leading the blind. 

Responses to Padmapaadhar's reference to Mahayana in Panchapaadhika, various references (like dravida sisu, sudha drohi) in Acharya's sthothras cited by those who hold the contrarian view of his time period, reference to Purna Varman in Acharya's bhashya, the edict in Cambodia with reference to 'Bhagawan Sankara', and other contrary views to be covered in the next email.  

Om tat sat 🙏

sunil bhattacharjya

unread,
Nov 16, 2021, 5:25:02 PM11/16/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com, B Shridhar

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

unread,
Nov 17, 2021, 2:25:49 AM11/17/21
to Advaitin
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 (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 Bhashyam'. In those Mutts he is being honoured with sthothras and titles just as for Acharya. 

Like Vidhyaranya, Abhinava Sankarar was here (He was the 38th Pitadhipathi of Sri Kanchi Mutt). Abhinava means 'repeat Avatharam'. The world has adored him as the Avathar of Adi Sankara. That is why his name 'Dhira Sankarendra Sarasvathi' went out of use and he came to be called 'Abhinava Sankarar' only. The two books 'Sankarendra Vilasam' and 'Sadguru Santhana Parimalam' deal with his life story. 

Although for a few centuries after Acharya Vedic religion was at the height of its glory, later buddhism, Kaapaalikam and Vaamaachaara religions came up again. But because of the strong foundation laid by Acharya they could not gain respect among the people. But since some of the kings and those who were fond of philosophical debates gave support to buddhism it appeared to have had a good following. Those who were lacking in civilized ways took to Vaamaachaara religion which was given a glorified name 'Rahasya Anushtaanam'. Abhinava Sankara came 1300 years after Acharya and like Acharya he toured over the entire country, refuted the other religions and attained the 'Sarvajna Pitam'. It is also said that he went to other countries and preached Dharma and that the Chinese, the Turks and Bahlikars (Balkh is a place in Afghanistan) also worshipped him as their Acharya - Guru Rathna Mala says 'China - Thurushka -  Bahlikaathyais - Swaparaachaaryathayaa Sthutham' (Sloka 66). 

It is possible that Abhinava Sankara and Adi Sankara Bhagavadhpaadha would have been thought to be the same person and therefore conflicting things have been said in the Sankara Vijayam books. 

Scholars are of the view that the 'Nidhinaaga' shloka which gives Acharya's period actually refers to Abhinava Sankara's Avathara.

In Sushama commentary the period of his Avathara has been quoated from Sankarendra Vilasam. This is also in the form of words indicating numerals. 

The calculation given here is : 
'Sevathi-dhwipa-dhisa-(a)nala varshe thishya'
Sevathi means 'nidhi' - means number 9 (because of 'nava nidhi')
dhwipam means 'elephant' - means number 9 (because of ashta gaja)
dhisa - direction - means number 8 (because of eight directions)
anala - means agni - means number 3
Therefore the number is 9883
When reversed, it is 3889
thishya means kali

Therefore, it is 3889 of Kali which corresponds to 787-788 AD.

What we understand is that the date 788 AD given in history books refers to the year of Abhinava Sankara's Avatharam. This is the same year which is indicated in the 'Nidhinaaga' sthothra. For a long time many among our people have been thinking that it is the date of Adi Acharya. The Orientalists also have taken this as the basis and built their theory. 

There is another point which adds strength. Both in 'Nidhinaaga' sloka and the esloka in Abhinava Sankara Charithram apart from Kalyabdham (the year in Kali) the year, month, and thithi have also been mentioned. Both are matching. The year 'Vibhava', the month 'Vaisaakam' and 'Sukla Paksham' and 'Dasami' are mentioned in both. 

From other evidence we see that the year of Acharya's birth was Nandana. But here it has been given as Vibhava. They say that 509 BC which according to our calculation is Nandana and 788 AD corresponds to the year Vibhava.

It is not known in which year the divine personages were born. What was the year of Rama? What was the year of Krishna? Scholars may keep bothering about it but people who celebrate their Jayanthi are not concerned about the year but they celebrate it in the particular month, paksha, and thithi every year. Rama's date was Sukla Paksha Navami in Chaithra. Krishna's was Krishna Paksha Ashtami in Sraavana month. The importance is for thithi. All the important jayanthis like Ramanavami, Gokulashtami, Vinayaka Chathurthi, Skanda Sashti, etc. are all celebrated according to thithi only. 

Acharya's jayanthi is celebrated all over the country in the month of Vaisaakam on Sukla Paksha Panchami. But in both these slokas Dasami thithi has been mentioned instead of Panchami. Therefore there is room for assuming that the one whose Avathara was in Dasami and the other whose Avathara was in Panchami are two different persons. 

In usual practice, thithi is important for a jayanthi and no one thinks of the year according to the sixty-year cycle or according to Kali. But here the thithi has been left out but the year in Kali has been taken and period determined as 788. This is surprising. It is very necessary that thithi must tally.

For all these reasons, those who are of the view that Adi Sankara's Avathara was in 509 BC think that Orientalists have determined the period as 788 AD because they had mistaken Abhinava Sankara for Adi Sankara. They are also of the view that in the stone inscription of Cambodia, Indraa Varman has referred to Abhinava Sankara only as the Guru of his own Guru Sivasomar. 

In Sankara Vijayam the names of Pruthvithavar, Chithsukar, Chitvilaasar, Jnaana Kaandar, Vishnuguptar, Ananthaananthar, Udhankar (there is a belief that he is Thotakar), the 6 persons who preached the Shanmatha along with the four chief disciples of Acharya. But there is no mention of the name Sivasomar. How could it happen that the name of one who was the Guru of the king of a foreign country had been omitted?

When we do not go into research but when we only think of Acharya's grace we should not make distinction between 'Adi' and 'Abhinavam'. It is because he is the new Avathara of 'Adi' he is 'Abhinava'. Therefore it can be said that whatever fame Abhinava Sankara has belongs to Acharya. When extreme bhakthi is practiced to Adi Acharya who came as the Avathara of Iswara, we can also consider the one who came after him as his Avathar as Acharya himself. When we consider that all the sruthi is for the Adi Purusha, we can assume that Sivasomar was not his direct sishya but one came in the line of sishyas. Even now do we not say 'We are Acharya's sishyas'? Why can't this be said about the Rajaguru of Cambodia who lived 1200 years back? This is possible if there is the attitude of bhakthi. But we now bundled and kept all our bhakthi and got into research. That is why talk of two different people."

Other contrary views among a section of modern researchers 
This and the responses to them will be covered in the next email.

Om tat sat 🙏

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB9_ZwNDjaZN4UebhD_KniGTeFCVnEodFs-%2B2DpAsOuHKHg%40mail.gmail.com.

Venkatraghavan S

unread,
Nov 17, 2021, 3:38:33 AM11/17/21
to Advaitin
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

On Wed, 17 Nov 2021, 07:25 Vinodh, <vinod...@gmail.com> wrote:

Vinodh

unread,
Nov 17, 2021, 5:02:31 AM11/17/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
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. 🙏

--
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.

Gowrishankar Arunachalam

unread,
Nov 17, 2021, 6:24:30 AM11/17/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
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


deivathin kural vol 5 page 832.jpeg

Bhaskar YR

unread,
Nov 17, 2021, 6:57:19 AM11/17/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com

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

unread,
Nov 17, 2021, 8:29:10 AM11/17/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
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




Vinodh

unread,
Nov 17, 2021, 8:30:42 AM11/17/21
to Advaitin
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, the life of those times as 'Social stories'. 

Instead of merely saying that he belonged to a dynasty that had ruled for 500 years from the 8th century BC is it possible to tell his period precisely on the basis of our Puranas etc.? It is possible. K.G. Natesa Saastri has conducted such a research and has written in the journal 'Jinjnasa'. His research shows that Halan was the 74th of the kings who had ruled Magadh from the beginning of Kali yuga. Starting from the Barhathra dynasty which commenced from Bruhadrathan if the period of all the kings who had ruled from that dynasty is considered it will be seen that a king of the Andhra dynasty had ruled as the 74th king. This coincides with Acharya's period of Kali 2600. This is the calculation : if a king had ruled for 35 years on average, the period covered by 74 kings would be 74 x 35 which is 2600. It is said that the average period of 35 years for a king conforms to the real position. Therefore it can be accepted without reserve that Acharya was in his time. 

More than all this, another 'discovery' has also been made in the most unexpected manner. It appears that in Vaayupuranam it is said 'Thathaah samvathsaram Purno Haalo Raajaa bhavishyathi'. This means 'Thereafter Halan who is called Purnan will become the king'. Just as Brahmins have the suffix 'Sarman' the kshathriyas have the suffix 'Varman'. In the South also among the Pallavaas we see that there were kings like Mahendra Varman and among Paandian kings Jataa Varman and others. Similarly if Varman is added to the name Purnan that becomes Purna Varman. 

Acharya in his Sutra Bhashyam has said 'Before Purna Varman, the son of a barren woman had ruled'. In this context the modern researchers have been trying to find out who that Purna Varman was. That Purna Varman was none but the Halan of the Andhra dynasty mentioned in our old books. According to our calculation his period was 500 BC and Acharya's period was also 500 BC. This is the discovery of those who endorse our views. 

Authority of Buddhist - Jain texts: If there is confirmation in the buddhist-Jain old books for what has been said in Hindu books, it will have greater value and it can be said that the matter gets fully established. 

Both the buddhists and Jains have provided evidence in their books in support of Acharya's period being 509 BC - 477 BC. 

The details of the royal dynasties of Nepal (Napala Raajavamsaavali) have become available from buddhists. Therein it is said that Acharya had gone to Nepal and at that time Vrusha Deva Varma was the king of Nepal. It is also mentioned that Vrusha Deva Varma's period was exactly Kali 2600 (That means 5th century BC).

Now I shall come to the books of the Jains. There is a book called 'Jina Vijayam' which deals with Mahaavira's life story. I have referred to a Sasthri of Kolhapur in the context of Kalidasa's period. The same Sasthri has examined that book and determined several dates. In that book reference is made to Kumaarila Bhattar, Sudhanva, Acharya and others. It is certain that it would not have been the intention of the authors of that book to show them as belonging to the ancient times. Still the dates which have been given in that book correspond to the BC period. Therefore we can take it that this is proof that those dates are true. 

Kumarila Bhattar's date of birth has been given in Jina Vijayam by the sloka, 'Rishir vaaras Thathaa bhumir marthyaakshau vaama melanaath'.

'Rishi' means numeral 7 (because of Saptha rishi)
'Vaara' means numeral 7 (seven days in the week)
'Purnam' means numeral 0 (because Purnam is round)
'Marthyakshau' means numeral 2 (the two eyes of a man)

Therefore according to the sloka the number is 7702. When this is reversed according to the rule 'Vaamamelanam' it becomes 2077. I have said earlier that the Jains follow a different Yudhishtira Sakam and it started in Kali 468. Therefore what is said to be the year of Kumarila Bhattar's birth is 2077 of that sakaabdham, that is Kali 2575 which corresponds to 557 BC. We say that Acharya's period was 509 BC. That means Kumarila Bhatta was older than him by 48 years. This also agrees with the fact that when the young Acharya met Kumarila Bhattar the latter was old. It is mentioned in the book that Acharya met him when he was fifteen. It is only one year less than sixteen when Acharya had met him:

Paschaath Panchadhase varshe Sankarasyaagathe sathi
Bhattaachaarya Kumaarasy dharsanam Kruthavaan Sivah

Even in the book in which Acharya is being abused he is referred to as 'Sivah' thereby indicating the truth of his Avathara. 

The date of Acharya's siddhi has also been mentioned in that book.

'Rishir baanas Thathaa bhumir marthyaakshau vaama melanaath
Ekathvena labhethaangas thaamraakshas thathra vathsarah'

Rishi means the number 7
Baanam means the number 5 (because of Panchabhaanam)
Bhumi means the number 1 (because there is only one bhumi)
Marthyaksham means the number 2 (two human eyes)

Therefore according to the sloka the number is 7512. If this is reversed it is 2157. That means it is Jain-Yudhishtira Sakham 2157 which corresponds to Kali 2625. This is the period of siddhi according to us which corresponds to 477 BC.

The year has been mentioned as 'Thaamraaksham'. Thamram (copper) is red in colour. Therefore we understand that the year is Rakthaakshi. We also say that the year is Rakthaakshi. 

Thus everything is tallying with each other. 

Thus the Acharya's period 509 BC - 477 BC mentioned by his Mutts is supported by what is said in the books of Hindus - Jains - buddhists. This view has also come through the generations. There does not appear to be this much supporting evidence for the period 738 AD - 820 AD or any other period."

Om tat sat 🙏

Vinodh

unread,
Nov 17, 2021, 8:36:25 AM11/17/21
to Advaitin
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. 


To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1701523573.1026561.1637155746945%40mail.yahoo.com.

sunil bhattacharjya

unread,
Nov 17, 2021, 8:37:49 AM11/17/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
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

unread,
Nov 17, 2021, 9:06:19 AM11/17/21
to Advaitin
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."

Chittaranjan Naik

unread,
Nov 17, 2021, 9:07:54 AM11/17/21
to advaitin
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

Vinodh

unread,
Nov 17, 2021, 9:08:32 AM11/17/21
to Advaitin
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

unread,
Nov 17, 2021, 9:11:28 AM11/17/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
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....





You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/advaitin/yiuAn3bDpMg/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/66a0b420-c587-4b3f-98a1-ef16ded94bf3n%40googlegroups.com.

Vinodh

unread,
Nov 17, 2021, 9:29:58 AM11/17/21
to Advaitin
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. "
--
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/AM7PR06MB658190C44AEFBACE1F7B9F72849A9%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

sunil bhattacharjya

unread,
Nov 17, 2021, 12:40:42 PM11/17/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
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

--
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/AM7PR06MB658190C44AEFBACE1F7B9F72849A9%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

Bhaskar YR

unread,
Nov 17, 2021, 10:55:11 PM11/17/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com

praNAms Sri Sunil prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Things are baffling to those scholars,

 

  • You may be right but interestingly those who argued different dates of shankara would have their own source of ‘authentic information’ and presented the dates accordingly 😊  Again if you see Prof. SKR’s shankara and adhyAsa bhAshya, in the chapter : Who was shankara, the writer makes the following interesting observation :

 

// quote // 

 

Despite this pious convention, ( that he is an incarnation of shiva), it is heartening that shankara has always been regarded by scholars (both favourable to him and unfavourable) as a human teacher, who needs to be defended or opposed.  It is only in the popular mind that he is an incarnation, either divine or demonic.  This detail has rendered the legendary and fanciful accounts of his life also popular.  There are more than twenty such accounts that are available, but it is impossible to glean much historical material from them.  All these works are comparatively recent, composed between 14th and 1th centuries, although some among them pretend to be contemporary documents. 

 

These works are essentially poetical in nature, and adopt the puranic style of narration.  The details concerning important events in the master’s life (like parents, nativity, education, monastic ordination, travel, writings, disputation and death) are so hopelessly various and conflicting that we cannot take them seriously. 

 

Te earliest and complete gloss that is available on shankara’s VSB is from the pen of vAchaspati Mishra (bhAmati).  This vAchaspati who wrote numerous works has fortunately given the date of the composition of one of them, nyAya sUchi nibandha (about 841AD).  This fixes the upper limit of shankara’s age.  It may thus be reasonably assumed that he lived some time between 650 and 840AD.

 

It is likely that he was nearer dharmakeerti than vaachaspati Mishra.  Dharmakeerti who was the pupil of dharmapAla at Nalanda was a nephew of the famous meemAmsaka writer kumaarila Bhatta according to Tibetan sources.  And the Indian tradition makes shankara a junior contemporary of kumaarila.  The date suggested by TR Chintamani, viz. 632-664AD appears to be nearest to the most probable period of shankara’s life.

 

// unquote//

 

This whole chapter would be interesting reading.  And in the reference section he gives ample references from shankara’s works to prove shankara’s vaishNava leanings 😊

sunil bhattacharjya

unread,
Nov 17, 2021, 11:51:17 PM11/17/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Dear Bhaskarji,

The stars don't tell lies, that is what astronomers believe. Whatever astronomy I know,  I looked at the planetary positions on the date 788 CE, claimed by Shringeri math. but the planetary position do not approve the 788 CE date.

Regards,
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/AM7PR06MB6581B1D3E2B39C7F99C8EE47849B9%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

sunil bhattacharjya

unread,
Nov 18, 2021, 12:58:12 AM11/18/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Dear Bhaskarji, 
Prof. SKR has assumed that TRChintamani is correct. How? Let him prove what he claims.

He also asserted but not proved 
the claim of Vacaspati Mishra. Let him quote the exact sentences written by Vacaspati Mishra.

Regards
skb



Sent from my iPhoney
--
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.

Chittaranjan Naik

unread,
Nov 23, 2021, 6:39:42 AM11/23/21
to advaitin
Dear Sri Bhattacharjya-ji,

If you have gone through the booklet, can you please tell us the  birthdate found by Swami Nishchalanandji?

I am reproducing here the conclusion printed on the last page of the booklet: 

"Incarnation of Shrimajjagadguru Shankaracharya Bhagawatpada is proved to be Yudhisthir Samvat 2631, Kalisamvat 2595, 507 BC, and 450 years before Vikramasamvat."

Warm regards,
Chittaranjan








On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 2:16:37 AM UTC+5:30 skbhattacharjya wrote:
Dear Shri Naikji,

If you have gone through the booklet, can you please tell us the  birthdate found by Swami Nishchalanandji?

Regards,
sunil kb

On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 7:59 AM Chittaranjan Naik <chit...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sri Bhattacharjya-ji,

In this context, here is a book on the topic by Jagadguru Sri Shankaracharya of Puri Govardhan Math:

Warm regards,
Chittaranjan



On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 3:15:29 AM UTC+5:30 skbhattacharjya wrote:
Namaste,

We advaitins should gather the moral courage to uphold the historical truth, as to when Adi Shankaracharya. We should let the world know about the teachings of Adi Shankara, as well as the truth about when he was born, so that people can relate Adi Shankara to the social situation of that time. The avataras are all time related. Adi Shankara was not born in the 8th century AD(CE). Even though the Shringeri math vouches for the 8th century date of Adi Shankara, to my knowledge they have not produced any proof of their claim at all of any kind. However,  all the other months produced proofs for the 6th century BCE date of Adi Shankaracharya.

Regards,
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/1a6b51f1-fee9-4d26-87c5-e7b79b9ae0c9n%40googlegroups.com.

sunil bhattacharjya

unread,
Nov 23, 2021, 12:13:31 PM11/23/21
to adva...@googlegroups.com
Dear Chittaji, 

Have they given the basis, astronomical or otherwise?
Regards
SKB

Sent from my iPhone

Chittaranjan Naik

unread,
Nov 23, 2021, 12:44:49 PM11/23/21
to advaitin
Dear Sri Bhattacharjya-ji,

Have they given the basis, astronomical or otherwise?

It is based on certain dates prevalent in the tradition and on a few dates mentioned in some texts. 

If possible, I will send you the scanned pages of the booklet by private mail, give me a few days time....

Warm regards,
Chittaranjan
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages