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

[Anbu sivam2]

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
>