[Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

Dear Michael,
 
With the help of a friend I could read the papers presented in the above Conference. The gist is as follows.
 
Western scholars suggested the year 788 CE. Max Muller did that from his AIT Chronology. Dr. Fergusson supported that in his book "History Ofg India". Prof. Webb suggested tyhe 8th century CR in his "History of Indian Literature" C.P.Tiele in "Outlibes of History of religions"  and Barth in "Indian Antiquary (Vol. XIII) referred to an inscription from Cambodia to suggest the same based on guesswork. Some Indian scholars supported the 788 CE date thinking that Dignaga and Dharmakirti were living in the 6th and the 7th century CE and they saw that  there are slokas in the Sutrabhashya which are the same as given  in the works of Dignaga and Dharmakirti. . The scholars  were wrong in their dates of Dignaga and Dharmakirti.
 
There citations of  many proofs such as the Tamrasasana of Sudhanva to arrive at the date of 509 BCE.
 
It is interesting to note that the Dwaraka peeth said that their first pontiff was Brahmaswarupacharya and that the first Pontiff at sringeri was Hastamalaka. Incidentally Hastamalaka hailed from Gokarna which is not very far from Sringeri. So it appears that Sureshwaracharya was kept free for the Kanchi Kamakoti peeth. 
 
I wish the Sringeri peeth should come out with a scholarly paper in support of their date of Adi Sankaracharya. Alberuni's mention of the works of Bhaskaracharyta seems to suggest the exoistencve of one earlier Saka kala.
 
Regards,
 
Sunil
 
 
 
 
 


--- On Thu, 12/10/09, Michael Shepherd <michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:


From: Michael Shepherd <michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi
To: sivasenani at yahoo.com, "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Date: Thursday, December 10, 2009, 6:18 AM


Dear Sri Senani

Let me say at once : Sanskrit and Vedic grammar before it are the oldest, most subtle, and most universal grammar in the world; and thus, Sanskrit explanations of Sanskrit grammar will be far more advanced than anything that English-speaking grammarians have inherited from earlier simplifications by earlier generations, fossilized in book form ! And grammar itself is transcendental, so beyond any human interpretation, living purely in its causes and effects ! So take everything I say with a large pinch of organic sea-salt...

However, John Grimes, of the 'Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy', is an acknowledge scholar, studying, teaching and moving between the US and India now for many years; so I tend to favour his 'thumbnail' definitions as a broad consensus.

'Atman-' like swa, is normally given as another form of reflexive along with -asmi.

So I bow to the pundits in all this-- if they agree among themselves :)

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
[mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of
sivasenani at yahoo.com
Sent: 10 December 2009 13:03
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi


Dear Sri Michael and Sri Jaladhar

I meant to look up a few references after reading your statement that asmi is a pronominal suffix but could not. 

I know it is too basic for either of you but would it be possible to supply an authority to back up this view? My own understanding is that 'aham brahma' is exactly the same as 'aham brahmaasmi' or 'brahmaasmi'. 

The way I remember to have learnt, forms of 'as' and 'bhu' have to be often supplied by the reader. They are 'adhyaahritas'. For instance in 'prajnaanam brahma' or 'ayam aatmaa brahma' an 'asti' is implicit (or in satyam jnaanam anantam brahma); or to take a counter example, the 'asi' in tattvamasi does not reflect back on the subject nor does it intensify. If one were to take examples involving the uttama purusha only, dhanyo'ham is exactly the same as dhanyo'smi. If emphasis is required 'vai' (in the older language) and 'eva' in the more recent period) do the job ('ahameva maam juhomi svaahaa' a mantra taught in Sri Vidya is an example). Sometimes aatma is repeated as in the Gita teaching about the Self itself uplifting the Self. 

In the example given by Sri Michael, the being in third person (prathama purusha) asmi has no place either as a verb or a pronominal suffix. If we were to make the King to convey that sense, he would in most places in Sanskrit literature use 'aatmaanam'
Best regards
Senani
Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel

-----Original Message-----
From: "Michael Shepherd" <michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:37:30 
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi

Anant

Since you ask :) Aham brahmasmi means literally (in that unsatisfactory
'Sanglish' or 'Engskrit' language of translation !) 'I-awareness('am-ness')
am Brahman myself'. Aham is a pronoun and verb joined as 'I am'. The
'pronominal suffix 'asmi' can carry either of two meanings : ' as in 'The
king cut himself while shaving'; or in 'The king himself joined the battle'.
The first meaning is 'reflexive' -- an action done to oneself; the second,
also labelled 'reflexive' (and less discussed in Vedic and Sanskrit grammar)
is used more as an 'intensive' like 'Indeed true'.

Why, you reasonably ask, add the 'asmi' ? Perhaps 'Aham Brahman' might be
taken out of context to suggest that Brahman is asserting His existence ! So
this is a reminder that I myself, you yourself, he himself, she herself, is
indeed that Brahman -- not two other guys *!* (It's extended in the vakya
'ayam atmaBrahma, sarva nu bhu')

The four 'mahavakya' are indeed four aspects, four views from different
positions, of the essential concept of Advaita Vedanta. The fact that they
are displayed on the four compass sides of the inner courtyard of a math
indicates that they are considered worthy to be contemplated individually
and together !

You could say that of the four mahavakya, one is addressed to the first
person; another to the second person; another is 'impersonal'; and the
fourth doesn't address the person at all, but is simply a statement about
consciousness itself being universal as Brahman..

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
[mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of
Somayaji, Ananth
Sent: 10 December 2009 11:19
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi



I see another issue with this : Assuming that aham is an adjective
qualification to Brahman, it brings about the existence of another Brahman
albeit Ham-Brahman. It would bring about duality inside Mahavakya. Thoughts
? The other things to consider is that in none of the other Mahavakyas we
have any adjective to the Brahman : Tatvamasi, Pragyanam Brahma etc. Can
some one correct me if I am wrong ?

-Ananth

-----Original Message-----
From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
[mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org] On Behalf Of Raghav
Kumar
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 02:42 PM
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi

well sir,
first take the sentence
brahma asmi
that is  a mahavakya complete and accurate in itself. the verb 'asmi'
implies  the first person singular anyway even without 'aham'

now therefore aham can be taken as an adjective qualifying brahma since both
the words aham and brahma are  neuter singular nouns.

therefore  it aham-brahma asmi isgrammaticaly ok. athough the interpretation
itself is something novel. i have never come across it.

On 12/10/09, sthanunathan Ramakrishnan <r_sthanu at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Shakthi,
>
>            I have one problem with your interpretation. I do not know if
> "ham" means rejectable. But assuming it is, the statement should be
> "Aham Brahma Asthi" (to get the meaning you intend, that is the "Non
> Rejectable is the greatest") and not "Aham Brahma Asmi", because "Asmi" is
> in the first person and "Asthi" would be in the third person.
>
>   Folks, Please correct me if Iam wrong. Iam just taking my baby steps in
> learning sanskrit.
>
> regards
> Sthanu
>
> > But I have also heard an interpretation like this:
> >
> > "Aham Brahmasmi"
> > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.]
> > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.]
> > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.]
> >
> > So, it comes to a conclusion that,
> > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest.
>
>
>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:34:04 +0530 (IST)
> > From: Shakthi Prashanth <shakthi.prashanth at ymail.com>
> > Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued]
> > To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> > Message-ID: <843026.39194.qm at web95104.mail.in2.yahoo.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Thank you so much for such a great response from all of
> > you.
> >
> > But I have also heard an interpretation like this:
> >
> > "Aham Brahmasmi"
> > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.]
> > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.]
> > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.]
> >
> > So, it comes to a conclusion that,
> > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest.
> >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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