[Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya

[ganesh kaushik]

Hi All,

Should we have to discuss about the date of acharyaal so elaborately? When
he didnt want to mention his age?

I have been a member of this group for about 2-3 months now. I used to get
one or two mails everyday mostly Mr.Anbu Sivam2's posts
about Sivaanandalahari. But now when there is post looming about a topic,
which "Doesnt has a common consensus amongst our gurus", everyone chips in.

Even if we get the MWP Ujjain professor's paper or artcle and it gives us a
glaring evidence, would this reduce or increase our guru bhakthi? Definitely
NO.

I am sorry to say these posts remind me of the "Advaita Vs Dwaita" loops
what i found in the archives.

Possibly the best thing we can do is to use these efforts to share something
"what u know and i dont".

Thanks,
GK

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:30 PM, <
advaita-l-request at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Send Advaita-l mailing list submissions to
>        advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        advaita-l-request at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        advaita-l-owner at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 06:57:14 -0800
> From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya
>        in      October, 2002
> To: Advaita List <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Message-ID: <COL123-W44703E0771DC99C4060C92DB7B0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> Anbu Sivam wrote:
>
> >
> > Obviously Vidyasankaraji has not (didn't want to) read Sri Ravisankar
> > Mayavaram's post!
> >
>
>
> Thanks for speculating about what I did or didn't do, but I did read my
> co-moderator's post.
>
> However, I just don't see how anything that I said went against what he
> wrote, nor how your
>
> views about Chiranjeevis fit in this context. If sureSvara is a
> Chiranjeevi, that tradition is not
>
> recorded anywhere in the Sankaravijaya texts. In fact, there is a
> well-recorded tradition that
>
> sureSvara was reborn as vAcaspati miSra, in order to complete the mission
> of writing a
>
> sub-commentary on the brahmasUtra bhAshya.
>
>
>
> It is easy to create myths and it is easy to see contradictions between
> different myths or
>
> even different versions of the same myth. It is not necessary that anybody
> who disagrees
>
> with a specific myth is a "secular" investigator. Give me the legends and
> myths in old texts,
>
> whether in  Sanskrit or Tamil or Marathi or Bengali. Spare me the modern
> myths created within
>
> the last two hundred years, some of which are nothing more than knee-jerk
> reactions to
>
> British rule and the presence of European Christianity in India.
>
>
>
>
>
> Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote:
>
>
>
> >I would also like to know on what basis the Sringeri authorities do not
> give importance to Sudhanva's inscription.
>
>
>
> Simple. As per all reports, Sringeri Matha has no such inscription in its
> possession, nor do they
>
> have any tradition that such an inscription ever existed. There are so many
> variant traditions
>
> pertaining to Sankara bhagavatpAda in the whole country. Why should one of
> the most
>
> important lineages with arguably the most authentic tradition accept
> anything other than their
>
> own handed-down tradition?
>
>
>
> It is perfectly well-known within Hinduism, that different traditions and
> minor variations on the
>
> same traditions can co-exist, without leading to controversy. Different
> Puranas give different
>
> details of the same legends pertaining to the same people. That is not a
> problem at all. What
>
> IS a problem, is the modern tendency to artificially fit an imaginary
> consensus on such variants,
>
> based on the current flavor of politics, and in the process, attempt to
> denigrate and marginalize
>
> anybody and everybody who doesn't subscribe to this unnecessary tendency.
> What I see in
>
> these attempts to "prove" that Sankara lived in 509 BC, to assert that the
> later date was a
>
> controversial one created by Western scholars to devalue Indian antiquity
> and to assert that
>
> anybody who accepts a later date is a fool taken in by Western chicanery is
> precisely that -
>
> an attempt to denigrate and marginalize the Sringeri lineage, one of the
> most important ones in
>
> Sankarn tradition, merely because they have seen no need to do anything
> other than stick to
>
> their own tradition. If this is massively inconvenient for the purposes of
> some people, so be it.
>
> Thus it is, that although in 1993, the Sankaracharyas met in person and
> themselves acknowledged
>
> that they have different views on the life and times of Sankara
> bhagavatpAda*, about ten years
>
> later, others organize "conferences" and issue press releases claiming
> "unanimity". There is
>
> another term for this process in modern parlance. It is called
> "manufacturing consent".
>
>
>
> If I succeed in locating the article by the Ujjain professor when I go to
> India in 2010, I will post
>
> more details. Other than that, I have said all I that want to on this
> subject.
>
>
>
> Happy new secular year wishes,
>
> Vidyasankar
>
>
>
> * vayaM matabhedinaH (we are of differing views) - Sanskrit statement
> issued in Sringeri in 1993,
>
> personally signed by the heads of Sringeri, Puri, Dwaraka, Badrinath and
> Kanchipuram Mathas. This
>
> statement is publicly available, as it was issued within a few months after
> the Ayodhya fiasco in
>
> 1992, and Hindu and Muslim religious leaders were actively trying to
> resolve that controversy.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:35:28 -0500
> From: Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya
>        in      October, 2002
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
>        <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <f65008470912280835s1636f135vf47160f73d142530 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Sir,
>
> All I was implying was:  "Why is it so important for you to anchor to a
> date
> and call Mahaswami in a fashion that hurt the feeling of the devotees?  At
> the end of BrihadhaaranyakOpanishad there is a huge list of lineage given.
> Has any Hindu tried to fix a date of any of them?  Obviously that is not
> our
> importance.  You fix a date and question KamakOti Peetam and they give an
> answer giving their lineage.   Is this topic of any importance to
> saadhakas?
>
> Only the secularists will be interested in the dates to show the importance
> of whiteman, blackman, Aryan Dravidan etc crap.  My plea to fellow members
> is not to get caught in the ego trips but just respect the Gurus and their
> lineage *irrespective of the Peetam* for any disrespect will retard them
> deep down in the cycle of birth and death.
>
> My huge respect for you, Vidyasankarji is yet undiminished.
>
> This is my last post on this topic.  My humble apologies to Ravisankarji.
>
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <
> svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Anbu Sivam wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Obviously Vidyasankaraji has not (didn't want to) read Sri Ravisankar
> > > Mayavaram's post!
> > >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for speculating about what I did or didn't do, but I did read my
> > co-moderator's post.
> >
> > However, I just don't see how anything that I said went against what he
> > wrote, nor how your
> >
> > views about Chiranjeevis fit in this context. If sureSvara is a
> > Chiranjeevi, that tradition is not
> >
> > recorded anywhere in the Sankaravijaya texts. In fact, there is a
> > well-recorded tradition that
> >
> > sureSvara was reborn as vAcaspati miSra, in order to complete the mission
> > of writing a
> >
> > sub-commentary on the brahmasUtra bhAshya.
> >
> >
> >
> > It is easy to create myths and it is easy to see contradictions between
> > different myths or
> >
> > even different versions of the same myth. It is not necessary that
> anybody
> > who disagrees
> >
> > with a specific myth is a "secular" investigator. Give me the legends and
> > myths in old texts,
> >
> > whether in  Sanskrit or Tamil or Marathi or Bengali. Spare me the modern
> > myths created within
> >
> > the last two hundred years, some of which are nothing more than knee-jerk
> > reactions to
> >
> > British rule and the presence of European Christianity in India.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >I would also like to know on what basis the Sringeri authorities do not
> > give importance to Sudhanva's inscription.
> >
> >
> >
> > Simple. As per all reports, Sringeri Matha has no such inscription in its
> > possession, nor do they
> >
> > have any tradition that such an inscription ever existed. There are so
> many
> > variant traditions
> >
> > pertaining to Sankara bhagavatpAda in the whole country. Why should one
> of
> > the most
> >
> > important lineages with arguably the most authentic tradition accept
> > anything other than their
> >
> > own handed-down tradition?
> >
> >
> >
> > It is perfectly well-known within Hinduism, that different traditions and
> > minor variations on the
> >
> > same traditions can co-exist, without leading to controversy. Different
> > Puranas give different
> >
> > details of the same legends pertaining to the same people. That is not a
> > problem at all. What
> >
> > IS a problem, is the modern tendency to artificially fit an imaginary
> > consensus on such variants,
> >
> > based on the current flavor of politics, and in the process, attempt to
> > denigrate and marginalize
> >
> > anybody and everybody who doesn't subscribe to this unnecessary tendency.
> > What I see in
> >
> > these attempts to "prove" that Sankara lived in 509 BC, to assert that
> the
> > later date was a
> >
> > controversial one created by Western scholars to devalue Indian antiquity
> > and to assert that
> >
> > anybody who accepts a later date is a fool taken in by Western chicanery
> is
> > precisely that -
> >
> > an attempt to denigrate and marginalize the Sringeri lineage, one of the
> > most important ones in
> >
> > Sankarn tradition, merely because they have seen no need to do anything
> > other than stick to
> >
> > their own tradition. If this is massively inconvenient for the purposes
> of
> > some people, so be it.
> >
> > Thus it is, that although in 1993, the Sankaracharyas met in person and
> > themselves acknowledged
> >
> > that they have different views on the life and times of Sankara
> > bhagavatpAda*, about ten years
> >
> > later, others organize "conferences" and issue press releases claiming
> > "unanimity". There is
> >
> > another term for this process in modern parlance. It is called
> > "manufacturing consent".
> >
> >
> >
> > If I succeed in locating the article by the Ujjain professor when I go to
> > India in 2010, I will post
> >
> > more details. Other than that, I have said all I that want to on this
> > subject.
> >
> >
> >
> > Happy new secular year wishes,
> >
> > Vidyasankar
> >
> >
> >
> > * vayaM matabhedinaH (we are of differing views) - Sanskrit statement
> > issued in Sringeri in 1993,
> >
> > personally signed by the heads of Sringeri, Puri, Dwaraka, Badrinath and
> > Kanchipuram Mathas. This
> >
> > statement is publicly available, as it was issued within a few months
> after
> > the Ayodhya fiasco in
> >
> > 1992, and Hindu and Muslim religious leaders were actively trying to
> > resolve that controversy.
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
> > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
>
> End of Advaita-l Digest, Vol 65, Issue 27
> *****************************************
>