Fwd: Adi Sankara belongs to 8th century[ 788-820.A.D]- Evidence produced

[Sampath Kumar]

Follow this

Sampath Kumar Medavarapu Ahmedabad 09998344758     ​

 

​             

​

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sampath Kumar <sampath...@gmail.com>
Date: 2013/10/18
Subject: Adi Sankara belongs to 8th century[ 788-820.A.D]- Evidence produced
To: "bvpar...@googlegroups.com" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>

Dear friends ..

No dispute on the date of Adi sankara.

Adi sankara belongs to 8th century[ 788-820.A.D] only

i will show you the evidence, follow these lines.

Adi sankara quoted Sundra Pandya verses.

but he did not mentioned the auther of the verses.

Actually those verses written by Sundara pandya of 7th century king and Philosopher.He ruled the Pandya kingdom.

so we can assume Adi Sankara  belongs to later to Sundarapndya.

 kingdom.

See Adi Sankara's lines.

1-Adi sankara in his  Bhashya [ Sutra bhashya]

there are 3 verses quoted in समन्वयाधिकरण भाष्ये; 1-1-4

 as अपि चाहुः-

१-गौणमिथ्यात्मनोऽसत्वे पुत्रदेहादि बाधनात्

सद्ब्रह्मात्माहमित्येवं बोधे कार्यं कथं भवेत्॥

२-अन्वेष्टव्यात्मविज्ञानात् प्राक् प्रमातृत्वमात्मनः

अन्विष्टः स्यात् प्रमातैव पाप्मदोषादि वर्जितः॥

३-देहात्मप्रत्ययो यद्वत् प्रमाणत्वेन कल्पितः

लौकिकस्तद्वदेवेदं प्रमाणं त्वात्मनिश्चयात्॥

In the Commentary of Bhaamati these verses quoted as

एते ब्रह्मविदां गाथाः-

2-Amalaananda in his "kalpataru[कल्पतरु] commentery on bhaamati

mentioned another 3 verses निश्रेण्यारोहण प्राप्यं प्राप्तमात्रोपपादि च etc...as written by Sundara Pandya.

3-Madhava mantri in  his तात्पर्य दीपिक व्याख्या on

"Suta samhita" he quoted 3rd verse and mentioned as ,

 he taken these verses from  वार्तिका of Sundara Pandya.

4-Kumarila in his तंत्र वार्तिक quoted 5 verses 3+2 as

आह चात्र निदर्शनमाचार्य सुंदरपाड्यः।

Other 2 verses are 

४-तॆन यद्यपि सामर्थ्यं प्रत्येकंसिद्धिमन्यथा

तथापि युगपद्भावेजघन्यस्य निराक्रिया॥

५-अन्यथैव हि शून्यॆषु दुर्बलैरपि चर्यतॆ

अन्यथा बलवद्ग्रस्तैःसर्व शक्तिक्षये सति॥

5-In प्रबोध परिशोधनी  a commentary on पञ्चपादिका of 

Padmapaadacharya , written by  AtmaSvarupa

he mentioned as these 3 verses are belongs to SundaraPandya.

6-In न्याय सुधा ,Jnaanottama mentioned these 5 verse as

वृद्ध वचनानि.

SundaraPandya is a philosopher king. Historians assumes

he wrote a commentary on BrahmaSutra also. but it was lost.

any how it is evident he wrote a Vartika which may be a commentery on Brahma sutra.

So Adi Sankara belongs to later period of Sundara Pandya

Good luck 

Sampath Kumar Medavarapu Ahmedabad 09998344758     ​

 

​             

​

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

According to Shringeri math /peeth Adi Shankara was born on the 14th year of reign of King Vikrama. That means there should have been one king Vikrama reigning from 775 CE, if Shankara was born in 788 CE, but there was no such Vikrama reigning from 775 CE. So Adi Shankara was not born in 788 CE.

Further there was no Sundara Pandya in the 7th century. The early pandya kings mentioned in the Sangam literature and in the Mahavamsha were ruling aroung 6the century BCE.

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

2013/10/18 Sampath Kumar <sampath...@gmail.com>

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Sampath Kumar]

Dear friends

SundaraPandya either 6 or 7 or else

but that matter is sankara quoted sundarapandya 

in his Sutra Bhashya

so sankara is later to sundarapnadya

Sundarapandya is not ruled in B.C

He is ruled  in 6 or 7th century

so sankara is belongs to A.D 788 only

Sampath Kumar Medavarapu Ahmedabad 09998344758     ​

 

​             

​

2013/10/19 sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com>

[ajit.gargeshwari]

Adi Shankara's date has been discussed for more than 140 years or more in various Indological Journals and books. Hajime Nakamura in his History of Early Vedanta Volume 1 has exhaustively discussed all major research papers on Adi Shankaras date. ( The book might available on http://www.scribd.com). If members have published any further research on this area of research please post. There is no point in stating known postions of other scholars which is well known to scholars of this group. We should not end up quoting each other if we have nothing substantial to add on this topic. Thanks.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

There was no Sundara pandy in the 6th century also. The Pandyan kings ruled arond the times of Adi Sankaracharya in the 6th century BCE. According to the Mahavamsha the Lankan king had matrimonial relationship with the Pandya kings and that was in the 6th century BCE.

Moreover the Dwaraka peeth and the Puri peeth has the Guru-parampara lists going back upto 2,500 years ago. The Shringeri peeth, on the other hand, in fact, gave out different guru paramapra lists at different times, which conflict with each other. At one time the guru-parampara was shown as starting from 44 BCE and later on as starting from the 8th century.

Thus there is no doubt that Adi Shankara lived in the 6th century BCE and that is proven by the fact that the guru-parampara lists of the two Shankara peeths have vouched for it. Historically too there are evidences that Dharmakirti, a senior contemporary of Adi Shankaracharya, lived around 6th century BCE and this is in line with the date of Lord Buddha, who lived in the 19th century BCE The evidences for lthe 19th century date of Lord Buddha  comes from the Rajatarangini as well as Dr. Narahari Achar's astronomical dating of Lord Buddha in the 19th century BCE and my own research on the Dotted Records, a paper on which was presented in the WAVES conference a few years ago.

THus there is not an iota of doubt that Adi Shankara was born in the 6th century BCE

Regards,

Sunil KB

2013/10/18 Sampath Kumar <sampath...@gmail.com>

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

 

To add to Sri Ajit Gargeshwari's comment about the relevant scholarly literature, this topic has also been discussed threadbare online in recent times and hardly deserves another protracted debate on this forum. Some of the most comprehensive internet discussions of this topic can be found by searching in the public archives of Advaita-L (http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l) via Google. To find most of it in one place, as summarized by yours truly, please visit http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp and follow the links to Sankara's life and the Sankaravijaya literature.

 

Bhattacharyaji, please do not thrust upon me the disagreeable task of refuting you time and again, on multiple online forums! I sincerely hope you pick up a copy of Swami Tapasyananda's translation of the Madhaviya Sankaravijaya and actually take the trouble to read his verbatim quotation of a letter from the Sringeri Peetha's adminstration from decades ago. Please note that this Swamiji belongs to the Ramakrishna Math, which operates quite independently of Sringeri and cannot be accused of being partisan in any way. I have pointed out all these things numerous times elsewhere and really have no wish to expand upon everything all over again. Somehow, the fact that the Sringeri Peetha has the best maintained historical records seems to irk some people no end. What a pity. I hope that this thread doesn't degenerate into Sringeri vs. others, as happens all too often whenever this topic comes up. All I will say here is that scholars should note the force of G C Pande's comment in his book on Sankara's life, namely that only the Sringeri lineage fits best with what is known independently from other sources of historical data.

 

I can add one piece of recent scholarly research to this discussion. Kengo Harimoto, a Japanese scholar who studied in the USA and is currently based in Germany, presented a paper a few years ago, drawing attention to some other names mentioned in the brahmasUtra bhAshya and connecting them with known chieftains and kings in south India from around the 7th century CE. I will summarize its contents here when I find the citation, for the benefit of this Parishat.

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Thanks Sri Vidyasankar for pointing out this topic has quite extensively been discussed in Advaita-L mailing list and other online lists. Let us now tentatively put a stop to this topic unless scholars can share and bring out any new or latest research on this topic. Let us stick to this basic guideline नामूलं लिख्यते किंचित् नानपेक्षितमुच्यते।"Nothing is written out of focus and whatever is written is not without any authentic source".

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

[Ashok Aklujkar]

On 2013-10-20, at 6:44 AM, Shri Ajit Gargeshwari made two points. I agree with the first, namely >Thanks Sri Vidyasankar for pointing out this topic has quite extensively been discussed in Advaita-L mailing list and other online lists. Let us now tentatively put a stop to this topic unless scholars can share and bring out any new or latest research on this topic.<

I also agree when he says: >Let us stick to this basic guideline नामूलं लिख्यते किंचित् नानपेक्षितमुच्यते।< Although originally written by Mallinaatha in the context of commentary writing, what the verse half conveys is a good principle for historical research, too.

What I am not sure about is the translation of the verse half: >Nothing is written out of focus and whatever is written is not without any authentic source". Probably Shri Gargeshwari intends the second clause in the English sentence as a translation of the first clause in the Sanskrit sentence. If that is the case, "Nothing is written out of focus" would be a rather opaque or too free a translation of naanapek.sitam ucyate. 'Nothing unseen/unexpected is said" is what the clause should literally mean. Given the fact that Mallinaatha was making the statement in his introduction to a commentary about to follow, we may add "(by the author of the commentandum -- the text being commented upon)" after  "unseen/unexpected." Following vartamaana-saamiipye vartamaanavat, we may also use "will be" in the place of "is". It would also be justifiable to extend the intended context beyond commentary writing and understand Mallinaatha as meaning "Nothing that is usually not intended by the words -- that goes beyond the normal, easily defensible or attested meanings of words -- will be said." A further extension to "Nothing unseen/unexpected in the context of the given culture/tradition" can also not be ruled out.

If Shri Gargeshwari wished to stick to the clause sequence of the original, the opacity of translation will be even greater.

I felt like making these comments (a) because Mallinaatha has made a highly beneficial programmatic statement, and it is important that we understand it correctly or at least within certain explicitly stated limits and (b) because I have not so far seen a translation of Mallinaatha's statement, although it recurs in the introductions of his commentaries. It is good that Shri Ajit Gargeshwari has offered a translation. If there are any other out there, I would be grateful to learn what they are. 

a.a.

P.S.

I would also like contributors not to reproduce the earlier posts in their entirety unless it is necessary to do so for taking the discussion ahead.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Vidyasankarji'

I had the apprehension that the Moderaterji would not like a fresh debate on the issue of the date of Adi Shankara as the issue might have been discussed in the forum (before I was a member of the forum) and in a private mail I expressed that apprehension to Dr. Ganesan too in a private mail but he asked me to seek the permission of the moderatorji (afresh). I did that and the moderatorji too in a private mail advised me to open a new thread on it. Yet I was reluctant but when Mr. Sampathkumar opened a new thread I joined the issue. Mind that I did not open the the new thread myself but just gave my reply to Mr. Sampathkumar as his claims on the dating of Adi Shankaracharya in the 8th century BCEon the basis of the Sundara Pandya's verses is unacceptable owing to the reasons I mentioned.

Secondly, as regards Nakamura's work (which Ajitji mentioned) what I gathered after reading Nakamura's work quite sometime ago was that Nakamura  tried to address the issue in a comprehensive way yet  he failed to suggest any definite date for Adi Sankaracharya definitely and even raised some doubts on the 8th century date of Adi Shankara  nothing beyond that.

I know that there have been lot of past attempts in the form of book , articles / papers in journals and conferences for  finding the date of Adi Sankaracharya but none has taken cognizance of the fact that all those discussions (attempts had ignored several facts. With all regards to the scholars who tried in the past to find the date Adi Sankaracharya  I must say that they were complacent with their own views and avoided (for the reasons best known to them) addressing  the uncomfortable issues connected with the date of Adi Shankaracharya. If however you and / or other scholars want to address these issues I can enumerate those afresh here (though I mentioned some of these alreadt) and that too provided the moderatorji permits that. My interest is guided only by the  quest for the truth about  date of Adi Shankaracharya and not in any loyalty to this Shankara math or that.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On 2013-10-20, at 6:44 AM, Shri Ajit Gargeshwari made two points. I agree with the first, namely >Thanks Sri Vidyasankar for pointing out this topic has quite extensively been discussed in Advaita-L mailing list and other online lists. Let us now tentatively put a stop to this topic unless scholars can share and bring out any new or latest research on this topic.<

I also agree when he says: >Let us stick to this basic guideline नामूलं लिख्यते किंचित् नानपेक्षितमुच्यते।< Although originally written by Mallinaatha in the context of commentary writing, what the verse half conveys is a good principle for historical research, too.

What I am not sure about is the translation of the verse half: >Nothing is written out of focus and whatever is written is not without any authentic source". Probably Shri Gargeshwari intends the second clause in the English sentence as a translation of the first clause in the Sanskrit sentence. If that is the case, "Nothing is written out of focus" would be a rather opaque or too free a translation of naanapek.sitam ucyate. 'Nothing unseen/unexpected is said" is what the clause should literally mean. Given the fact that Mallinaatha was making the statement in his introduction to a commentary about to follow, we may add "(by the author of the commentandum -- the text being commented upon)" after  "unseen/unexpected." Following vartamaana-saamiipye vartamaanavat, we may also use "will be" in the place of "is".

 

It would also be justifiable to extend the intended context beyond commentary writing and understand Mallinaatha as meaning "Nothing that is usually not intended by the words -- that goes beyond the normal, easily defensible or attested meanings of words -- will be said." A further extension to "Nothing unseen/unexpected in the context of the given culture/tradition" can also not be ruled out.

Thanks for the comments on the translation of Mallinatha's statement and its applicabilityto all the writings in the modern context in the name of research or new findings.

Indeed, it is a free translation of the half verse and strictly applicable strictly to the context of commentary as explained in the first half:

इहान्वयमुखेनैव सर्वं व्याख्यायते मया। 

नामूलं लिख्यते किंचित् नानपेक्षितमुच्यते॥ 

Both the clauses are eligible for wider interpretation than the context of commentary in general and I liked it in the extended sense. 

The word अमूलं  can be interpreted in different ways because of the compound, hardly not as that is not in the मूल. But only, as नञ् compound, either Tatpurusha or Bahuvrihi, 

न मूलम् = अमूलम्, not मूल. strictly not the origin (source). naturally we take by मूल for the the text commented.

अविद्यमानं मूलं यस्य - अमूलम्, किंचित् न लिख्यते is the बहुव्रीहि compound, as per  used as adverb or adjective, अमूलं  न किंचित् लिख्यते and "नञोऽस्त्यर्थानां बहुव्रीहिरुत्तरपदलोपश्च" (वा।१०२) इति विद्यमानशब्दलोपः| which gives the intended meaning that nothing is written without source and hardly that is not in the मूल. And also he has already stated, he is strictly following the अन्वय for everything in the text - इहान्वयमुखेनैव सर्वं व्याख्यायते by sarva, everything in the text he is commenting is naturally one can grasp. I found both the meanings in a dictionary online:

अमूल  a.

1 Rootless (lit.); पशवो$मूला ओषधयो$ मूलिन्यः Śat. Br.; (fig.); without basis or support, baseless, groundless.

-2 without authority; not being in the original; इहान्वयमुखेनैव सर्वं व्याख्यायते मया । नामूलं लिख्यते किंचित् Malli. Introduction of Ṭīkā on R.

If we apply his principle to his own commentary, whenever he gives further explanations, meanings not popular, he quotes lexicons for meanings not popular or नानार्थ, to make clear the meaning and grammatical explanations in the case rare forms. And not given for common words or common forms popular. This might have been intended by the phrase "नानपेक्षितमुच्यते।" as for common words need not any detailed quotations lexicons, grammar or other sources to support them and only in the cases where they are required, he explains with sources quoted in support of his interpretation. This what I liked and explained as nothing is written out of focus and whatever is needed, is not written without authorities quoted. 

This is desirable in the discussions or comments in a group of scholars, like BVP can accept this maxim in its extended sense as a general standard though this is not necessarily to be followed in any other blog spots on the web. Only that much is intended by Mr.Ajith. 

And a similar statement is also found in Kiratarjuniya, of Bharavi, who is popular for his presentation of the ideas: "भारवेरर्थगौरवम्" ---

स्फुटता न पदैरपाकृता न च न स्वीकृतमर्थगौरवम्। 

रचिता पृथगर्थता गिरां न च सामर्थ्यमपोहितं क्वचित्॥ (किरातार्जुनीये महाकाव्ये २---२७) 

I am not giving the translation, as it itself clearly states the necessity of clarity and leave the अर्थगौरव to be understood by the members while writing the messages.

With regards

Now the  

​​

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

I also support Ajitji's quoting : नामूलं लिख्यते किंचित् नानपेक्षितमुच्यते. One should not write baseless things, which in our parlance means that if questioned the writer has to be able to substantiate what he writes with explanations and proper references. One should also not speak (or state in writing) what is not called for, as otherwise the discussions will include irrelevant issues and the focus will be lost.

Regards,
Sunil KB

--

[Dr.BVK Sastry (Gmail)]

Namaste

 

On the word <anapeskhitam> to yield the translation < "Nothing unseen/unexpected in the context of the given culture/tradition" can also not be ruled out. >

 

Can we also understand the word as < anapekshitam > =   < na – apa – Ikshitam> = Not seen with skewed eyes, Not seen in a distorted perspective. < Iksha darshane:  Drushir -PrekshaNe>

 

The < a-moolam> Is one criterion firming up the < Base, anchor, Original  Continuing Shista Tradition, Undistorted, un-mutilated, supported by evidence of acceptable and authorized kind, without any roots >

 

The < anapekshitam> can go beyond  to the next level of < demand for clear vision without any flavors, fuzziness, coloration , motives, imposed limitation, forced interpretations, coming with an analytically clear understanding, personal constructions of preference>  . It is not all < blind compulsive conformity to a ‘ sheep follow sheep’ - > view repetition ?

 

The ‘practical criticism’ methodology that I A Richards proposed gives a similar thought. The ‘ moola vakyArtha vichAra’ followed in traditional pedagogy is another endorsement for this approach. What the text says / capable of saying  is the key; What I understand is secondary and contextual. In this sense, Mallinath keeping the focus on padartha –alamkara  as main and dhvani to a limited extend makes sense in the commentaries. It is also a key differentiator from Mallinathas commentary   and modern < pravachanas> elaborating the contextual <dhnvani meanings>.

 

Regards

BVK Sastry  

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3614/6764 - Release Date: 10/19/13

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Dr.BVK Sastry (Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste

 

On the word <anapeskhitam> to yield the translation < "Nothing unseen/unexpected in the context of the given culture/tradition" can also not be ruled out. >

 

Can we also understand the word as < anapekshitam > =   < na – apa – Ikshitam> = Not seen with skewed eyes, Not seen in a distorted perspective. < Iksha darshane:  Drushir -PrekshaNe>

 

Thanks ​​for the etymology and its correct translation. Here are the different meanings of the verb, with उपसर्ग - अप and one can take any meaning depending on the context:

   ಅಪೇಕ್ಷ್

(H1) ಅಪೇ* ಕ್ಷ್ [p= 56,2] [L=10364]

( √ಈಕ್ಷ್) to look away , to look round AV. S3Br.  ; 

to have some design  ; 

to have regard to , to respect  ; 

to look for , wait for  ; 

to expect , hope  ; 

to require , have an eye to Sa1h.  ; 

with  न , not to like Katha1s.

​and take around the meaning, what is generally taken for the verb: अपेक्षते as in the in the usage and distort the meaning in every context as in the usages than that is needed by the context:

अपेक्षा, अपेक्षितम्।    

सा विवक्षामपेक्षते -

(H2) अपे* क्षा [p= 56,3] [L=10370] f. looking round or about , consideration of , reference , regard to (in comp. ; rarely loc.)

[p= 56,3] [L=10371] dependence on , connection of cause with effect or of individual with species

[p= 56,3] [L=10372] looking for , expectation , hope , need , requirement

(H2C) अपे* क्षया [p= 56,3] [L=10373] ind. with regard to (in comp.)

अपेक्षित

(H2) अपे* क्षित [p= 56,3] [L=10375] mfn. considered

[p= 56,3] [L=10376] referred to

[p= 56,3] [L=10377] looked for , expected

[p= 56,3] [L=10378] wished , required.

​as here:

अनपेक्षित

(H2) अन्-अपे* क्षित [p= 25,3] [L=5131] mfn. disregarded

[p= 25,3] [L=5132] unheeded

[p= 25,3] [L=5133] unexpected.

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

In the interest of furthering scholarship and highlighting a little known journal article in this Parishat, here is the citation for the paper that I promised in an earlier mail.

 

Kengo Harimoto, The Date of Sankara: Between the Calukyas and the Rastrakutas, Journal of Indological Studies, No. 18, 2006, pp. 85-111.

 

The reason I think this paper is important and interesting is this. It takes a fresh look at an old problem, highlighting little known facts of texts and history. Rather than the same old discussion about Srughna and Pataliputra (BSBh 2.1.17), and recognizing that these place names are much older than Sankara (they already found in the Mahabhashya, for example), Kengo Harimoto focuses on a rarely noticed quotation later in the brahmasUtra bhAshya -

 

tathA ca loke ... ... "gaccha tvam ito balavarmANaM tato jayasiMhaM tataH kRSNaguptam" iti (BSBh 4.3.5).

 

The context of the bhAshya discussion is arcirAdi krama in the devayAna, which implies a hierarchy from this balavarman to kRSNagupta. The author points out that there is recorded evidence of a vassal of the Calukyas called balavarman, and postulates that jayasiMha was a Calukya king while kRSNagupta could be a reference to the Rashtrakuta king, Krishna I, who defeated the Calukyas and reversed the older king-feudatory relationship between the Calukyas and the Rashtrakutas. [To bring this history to a more popular understanding, the Rashtrakuta dynasty was responsible for the Ajanta and Ellora cave temples that are tourist spots today.] If Kengo Harimoto's postulate is correct, it allows us to possibly narrow down the date of the BSBh, and therefore that of Sankara bhagavatpAda, to some period between 756 and 772 CE.

 

The only assumption involved is that Sankara was using the actual names of his contemporary south Indian chieftains and kings in his bhAshya. I do not find much that would argue against such an assumption. The names balavarman, jayasimha and kRSNagupta seem quite specific and are not stock examples. This is unlike Devadatta and Yajnadatta, the Toms, Dicks and Harrys of Indian philosophical writing. To completely refute the above argument, the proponents of a BC date for Sankara will have to show evidence of the same three names from a more remote time period and make those names fit in with the logic of the arcirAdi krama in the bhAshya.

 

Imagine a religious teacher in south India five years ago, talking about Karunanidhi (or Yedyurappa or Reddy) along with Manmohan Singh and Pratibha Patil, in the course of explaining something to his disciples. The references to balavarman, jayasiMha and kRSNagupta in the SAnkara bhAshya could be as innocuous as that. It seems rather likely to me that oral instruction followed by later reduction to writing was how the bhAshyas originally came into being. Was Sankara bhagavatpAda busy teaching his disciples in the ancient method of oral transmission or did he sit down with stylus and tALapatra to write down things in his own handwriting? Perhaps a bit of both, like teachers anywhere in the world?

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

Quote

The author points out that there is recorded evidence of a vassal of the Calukyas called balavarman, and postulates that jayasiMha was a Calukya king while kRSNagupta could be a reference to the Rashtrakuta king, Krishna I, who defeated the Calukyas and reversed the older king-feudatory relationship between the Calukyas and the Rashtrakutas.

Unquote

From the above it is very clear that the Kengo Harimoto is very vague about the dates and is taking recourse to wild imagination. How does all he says fit into the proposed date of 788 CE of Adi Shankaracharya ?

On the otherhand Adi Shankara's bhashya on the Brhmasutra mentions Purnavarmana or Hala, who reigned till 489 BCE. At that time (i.e., in 489 BCE) Adi Shankara was 20 years old and he composed the Brahmasutra by that time.  This is quite compatible with the 509 BCE as the birth-year of Adi Shankara.
 

Regards,

Sunil KB

--

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Bhattacharyaji, it is not wild imagination. It is just sound scholarship. Please read the paper in detail if you get a chance. I only presented a small synopsis of its major conclusion. The author is not a proponent of the 788 CE date for Sankara, but clearly, he does not accept the 5th cent BCE date either. Nothing wrong with any of this. In fact, there is everything that is right with it, because of its intellecual honesty. He has adequately addressed the name pUrNavarman quoted in BSBh as well. Note that BSBh does not use the name hala. The equation of pUrNavarman with hala comes from sources outside Sankara himself. Please ask yourself, does the BSBh citation indicate that its author and this pUrNavarman were contemporaries? Assuming that pUrNavarman was an actual historical person, all one can say is that Sankara bhagavatpAda must have lived later than pUrNavarman, but we cannot know whether it was a day later or a year later or a century later or a millennium later.

 

As you may be aware, another author, R M Umesh, a close disciple of the previous Sringeri Sankaracharya, has also written about Sankara's date, where he examines all these questions (but not the balavarman, jayasiMha and kRSNagupta citation, to my knowledge). He also leaves it as some time in the 7th-8th century. His SraddhA and bhakti towards his chosen guru did not blind him to the just parameters of scholarly research. And Dr. Kunjunni Raja of The Adyar Library, a firm proponent of the 788 CE date, wrote a foreword to Umesh's book, commending it. This kind of open-endedness that scholarship often demands may be disconcerting for those who want absolutely certainty, but in reality, it is the quest for historical certainty that is faulty. Sometimes, so long as a general picture emerges that is internally consistent, that is the best one can do. In many cases, "iti syAt" is better than "ity eva."

 

I hope you don't take this personally, but could you tell me the exact samvatsara, mAsa and nakshatra under which each one of your grandfathers' grandfathers were born? Or the mAsa, paksha and tithi of their deaths? I don't know the birthdates even for my own grandfathers, leave alone all these details about their grandfathers. The conclusion is, unless these people left some enduring record of their day to day lives, we know very little indeed, even from say two hundred years ago. In India, we may know some of these details for three generations before us, because of the traditions of doing SrAddha for ancestors and ArAdhana for saMnyAsi gurus, but we don't necessarily keep records of these details going back for many hundreds or thousands of years. Therefore, the further back in the past you try to go, the less definite you can be about dates. Where you have pratyaksha evidence, e.g. a verse providing some detail, an inscription recording a grant, etc., you can be happy with certainty. Where you have to rely on anumAna or arthApatti or Uha or aitihya, i.e infer / hypothesize / assume / correlate, absolute certainty is impossible. A better argument that dislodges a previously held conclusion needs to be given importance and accepted if it stands scrutiny.

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

 

ps. Also, please take into consideration that for religious and philosophical traditions like ours, which do not pin their worth on historical events in the lives of prophets or saviors, a quest for certainty about the histories of their torchbearers is at best an unnecessary digression. It can even be a harmful preoccupation.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Vidyasankarji,

I have not yet read the paper by Kengo Harimoto as I did not succeed in getting a copy of that so far. However, as you report, if  his study does not lead to any possible date of Adi Shankaracharya that work is at best like that of Nakamura in this respect ans is inconclusive. As regards the name of Hala being Purnavarman, the source is Vayu purana and I respect the Puranas as the fifth Veda. In my view the ancient sages were honest to the core and they did not take resort to falsehood. The Puranic Chronology also is reliable as I find from my study, particularly when  the informations are not contested by any other purana.

As regards the work of Shri Umesh I could get a copy of that about four years ago, through the courtesy of one of his junior associates in Chennai.  I had some questions on that. I sent my questions to Mr. Umesh through the same associate of his but that associate replied saying that Mr. Umesh had become a sort of recluse and that I should not expect any response. Offhand I cannot reproduce those questions, now and here, but that incident definitely created a sort of scepticism about Mr. Umesh's scholarship and on the soundness of his reasoning. If you wish to look at those mails of correspondence I may try to retrieve those, though it may take a while for that.

As regards the historicity or chronology it has its own value and a search for the historicity would not hamper the spiritual quest, in which the Shankara mathas are engaged. Moreover to my knowledge the  Holy Mathadhipatis leave the question of history to the historians, to sort out.  If we are to believe the Narada purana, it indicates that a knowledge of  the proper historicity is good for dharma. Offhand I do not have the Narada Purana reference for that but if you insist I can get that reference and report here.

Further the recent work on the date of Lord Buddha confirms his Puranic date and the date of Dharmakirti also changes to the BCE period. Rajatarangini as well as the astronomical study of Prof. Narahari Achar also show that Kaniska was living in the beginning of the 13th century BCE. Kaniska lived after about five hundred years of passing away of Lord Buddha. Lord Buddha passed away towards the end of the 19th century BCE. Prof. M.A.Troyer was the lone western scholar to contestseverely  the chronology proposed by Prof. Max Muller.  Prof. Max Muller proposed a date of Lord Buddha, which made him  a contemporary of Lord Mahavira.  Prof. Max Muller also went for the 788 CE date of Adi Shankara as was proposed by Mr. Pathak, as that fell in line with his (Prof. Max Muller's) date of Lord Buddha. The wrong conclusions of Mr. Pathak and Prof. Max Muller had created havoc in the historicity of Adi Shankaracharya also.  Mr. Umesh and others engaged in dating of Adi Shankara are completely unaware of the 19th century BCE date of Lord Buddha. Had they known that Lord Buddha lived in the 19th century BCE and Dharmakirti also had also lived around 6th century BCE, they could have been able to get an idea of the correct date of Adi Shankaracharya.

Regards,

Sunil KB

--

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Dear Sri Bhattacharya,

 

I'm afraid we are starting to go over the very same ground that we have already covered earlier elsewhere, so I'll try and address only the new points raised by the paper I cited. Hopefully, it will also be my last response on this topic on BVP, at least for now.

 

1. Contrary to how you portray it, Kengo Harimoto does indicate a date for Sankara within a 16 year period in the latter half of the 8th century, as dictated by the known and documented history of the Calukya and Rashtrakuta dynasties. I had already mentioned that this is as narrow as one can achieve, in my synopsis of his paper. It is a about a specific quotation in the brahmasUtrabhAshya and if this hypothesis is correct, I have also explained why the proposed period can be more conclusive than any assertion of a more certain date. Rather than trying to dismiss Harimoto's hypothesis with a host of other unrelated details, it would behove you to examine the balavarman, jayasimha, kRshNagupta relationship in the BSBh. If you can offer an alternative hypothesis or at least disprove Kengo's hypothesis about the Calukyas and Rashtrakutas without offering a different explanation of the BSBh citation, then a discussion can progress. If this cannot be done by anyone who doesn't like an 8th century CE date for Sankara, then Kengo Harimoto's explanation of the BSBh citation remains as a plausible reconstruction of Sankara's historical circumstances. In fact, it is the most plausible one that I have seen so far on this subject.

 

2. Frankly, it amazes me that one would want to say that Sankara was exactly so many years old on such and such a date when he wrote such and such a bhAshya. One can of course say these kinds of things in some kind of traditional poetic praSaMsA, but that would not be history according to the standards of contemporary scholarship. I have already explained how and where justifiable uncertainties about dates arise. Again, I would urge you, keep an open mind till you get a chance to read the paper in full and please keep an open mind afterwards as well, in order to deliberate on it as dispassionately as possible.

 

3. Please do not cast aspersions on Sri Umesh's scholarship or soundness of reasoning. Take it from me as well, that he is indeed quite a recluse and that he is just not interested in continuing with mundane discussions like the one we are having right now. He has been there, done that, as they say nowadays. He is a "viviktadeSasevI, arato janasaMsadi, and tulyanindAstutir maunI santushTo yena kenacit." These are qualities that we advaitins must respect, not criticize lightly. If you are interested in discussing details of the bhAshya-s from a philosophical standpoint or exchange notes on yoga sAdhana with him, through the same student of his, then you may have better luck conversing with him.

 

4. This may be a contentious point, but please note that not all maThAdhipatis in recent times have left history to the historians. And unfortunately, Adhipatyam of a maTha is also not a guarantor of holiness. Probably everybody on this list knows it and acknowledges it, but it falls to me to say it out loud and I am invariably seen as criticizing people who should never be criticized. Ironically, in the one case where the maThAdhipati-s have indeed left carcA about historical dates to the historians, you and others want to criticize them and you unfairly assert that the maTha has changed its paramparA list over time. Whereas, you know fully well that all they have done is to reassign the dates given to some of the early names in their traditonally reported paramparA. Please read Swami Tapasyananda's quotation in his translation of the Madhaviya Sankaravijaya, to get a correct picture of the situation.

 

5. Most of the rest of the details below can very quickly be assigned to the anapekshita category when it comes to Sankara's date, after just a little bit of deliberation. For example, nobody is saying that the vAyupurANa is wrong in its hala = pUrNavarman equation. However, on what basis can one equate the pUrNavarman mentioned in passing in the BSBh with the one mentioned in the vAyupurANa? Sankara is, after all, not the author of vAyupurANa. Resorting to the fifth veda status of the purANa texts does not help the case. Many independent scholars who must have known of the vAyupurANa instead thought that the pUrNavarman of BSBh could have been some other king, from distant Cambodia, based on an inscription found there. In reality, both identifications of this pUrNavarman in BSBh could be quite far-fetched and inappropriate. So today, we have an Amar Chitra Katha myth about Sankara and Cambodia, a far-fetched tale that is not found in any of the Sankaravijaya texts. Similarly with the date of the Buddha. What is the rule that fixes the time elapsed between the parinibbana of the Buddha and the janma of Sankara? Who made up that rule? The buddha's date could be 50th century BCE or 20th century BCE or 5th century BCE or even in the distant future (maitreya), but this does not materially affect an independent assessment of Sankara's date based on internal evidence from Sankara's own works. So talking of gautama siddhArtha, the buddha known to history, and imposing a new historical reconstruction upon his date, are ultimately irrelevant for determining Sankara's date.

 

I could go on, but nothing I could possibly say on any of these points would be unfamiliar to you, so I will stop here.

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Vidyashankarji,

Yoy do not seem to have noticed my emphasis on the date of Kanishka on the basis of Rajatarangini and recent astronomical studies. Kanishma was living in the 13th century BCE and that also shows that the pauranic date of Lord Buddha in the 19th century BCE is correct. Moreover  astronomical studies based on data from cannonical Buddhist literature as well as the reapprisal of the Dotted records also support that. All that also pushes back the date of Dharmakirti.

Do you think that Dharmakirti's date around 6th century BCE has no impact on the date of date of Adi Shankaracharya ?

My copy of  Mr. Umeswh's book is in Mumbai and I shall try to get it back soon. As you have that book with you may also let me know if Mr. Umesh had mentioned about Dharmakirti in his book. I trust that Mr. Umesh had indeed become a recluse and what I meant was that my questions to him remained unanswered. So I am unable to consider his work as foolproof, though he might have done to the best of his knowledge. It is also quite possible that he (Mr. Umesh was not aware of the 19th century BCE date of Lord Buddha and its implications in the dating of Adi Shankaracharya.

Regards,

Sunil KB

--