sjayana at yahoo.com
Fri Apr 9 16:59:22 CDT 2004
I don't want to get enmeshed in arguments on the authenticity of the
Kanchi Math, but some points are not true in this post:
--- Ravishankar Venkatraman <sunlike at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I am bound to think that a parallel tradition, having a link between
> mutt and Sri. Bhagavathpada should have existed in the past, but
> weak over centuries. When the British started rewriting Indian
> History, Sri
> Sankara's life became a controversy,for the first time people started
> comparing the available hagiographies.
The biography of prime importance to four of the Shankara Maths --
Sringeri, Badri, Dwaraka and Puri -- the "Shankara dig-vijayam"
authored by Swami Vidyaranya, does NOT mention the Kanchi Math.
Besides, the Sringeri Acharyas are firm in their stand that Kanchi
originated as a branch of Sringeri. Therefore, to claim that the
history of the Kanchi Math was lost due to "rewriting of Indian history
by the British" is simply overlooking historical and traditional
accounts by the other four Maths all of which ignore the Kanchi Math
The introduction to the English translation of the "Shankara
dig-vijayam" published by the Ramakrishna Math rightly notes that the
"dasha-nAmi sannyAsins" are so grounded in tradition in ALL the four
authentic Shankara Maths that the Kanchi Math has some serious
explaining to do when they claim that the "additional set" of
sannyAsins starting with "Indra Sarasvati" really did exist as part of
> We see that in many temples, we have a tradition from sthala puranas,
> may not be found in the regular 18 puranas. Sometimes they contradict
> other, still we do go to the temple, and the all merciful God is
> still kind
> to us, irrespective of what you think is correct. This is something
But Sthala Puranas are distinguished from the Maha-Puranas. No one
every equates the former to the latter.
In the same manner, the Kanchi Math derives its lineage from the
Sringeri Math. Where is the problem with understanding or accepting
> >By the way, I also don't agree with the Dwarka maths figures either
> >incidently contradict some of their own earlier publications which
> >acknowledge the 788-820 AD date) so this is not just a matter of
> >politics for me.
> I understand the predicament. On one hand, they find the Sringeri
> matching up with 7th Century AD, but with their list of 70 Acharyas
> cannot fit into this period.
> Thanks everyone...
> God bless,
> Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar FREE!
> want to unsubscribe or change your options? See:
> Need assistance? Contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list