[Advaita-l] Encounter between Madhvacharya and a Sringeri Pontiff

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste,

On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 3:44 PM, D Gayatri <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com> wrote:

> //Sringeri maTh records show these dates of each Acharya:
> http://www.sringeri.net/jagadgurus. Those would then be what... random
> numbers?! :) //
>
>
> A record is as good or as bad as its source.
>

True. Where would this so-called questioning of source stop for you? To
clarify...


> Can you please tell me what is the source for these dates? Is it a
> manuscript? Is it an inscription?
>

...I indicated that the website is the source for me, for which records are
the source. Your question is what is the source for the records? If I were
to answer one way or the other on your follow-up question, you would do
exactly what you do next...


> Are there any old manuscripts or inscriptions before 14th century CE,
> which talk of the Sringeri Matha?
>

So, no "proof" is really enough, is it? Unless perhaps it is from something
which is likely a published book of a researcher whose "sources" you might
think are more authentic than the traditional shabda pramANa?


> Are there any external independent accounts before 14th century CE that
> testify to the existence of Sringeri Matha?
>

Why do I need external independent accounts? Why such a distrust in a
single traditional source? I am afraid you have difficulty understanding
what shabda pramANa is. Then again, why is it that anyone would trust any
other external independent account and even place it above the *living*
tradition? This is precisely why I used the word *living* with tradition in
my earlier mail also. Ours is a karNaparamparA and iti shrutam from an Apta
is proof enough, being the right means of knowledge.


> Surely, it must have received grants from kings.
>

You seem to question the source for everything. Whats the source for this
jump of yours, that too "surely"? I hope you see how baseless the argument
is. This is what is called as hetvAbhAsa in the tradition. I have said it
before too that: proof of absence DOES NOT mean absence of proof. This is
surprisingly the most oft and most basic error in modern logic used in so
many fields! tarkashAstrA would beat it down to nothing.


> Are there records of such grants before 14th century CE to the Sringeri
> matha?
>

I fail to see a point in your asking a question, an answer to which you
have disregarded beforehand. Ergo, if the records are as good as sources,
and sources which don't have external independent accounts are invalid,
what difference does it make whether there were are any such grants and
they were recorded?


> Does Shankara say anywhere in his authentic bhAshyas that he established
> mathas?
>

Pray tell why you think it is the scope of the bhAshyas! The word
"authentic" itself is a prior bias; authentic as per whom? Your definition
varies from mine; I am getting quite sure now, so should you.


> Or do his disciples say so?
>

Again, why? In what kind of work would you expect it to be? The entire
Sringeri tradition is a succession of disciples! Its not that one random
researcher got up one morning and said, "whoa, let me dig some facts
relating to some Acharyas and maThas before you traditionalists continue
your beliefs!".



> You are not properly reading my messages. I acknowledged Hacker may not be
> perfect, but do you have anything better to offer as evidence for your
> claims?
>

There is no onus on me to prove anything because I claimed nothing. I have
questioned as to why are Hacker's claims more meaningful than the
traditional stance to some. If Hacker questions the traditional stance as
wrong, the onus is on him to prove the same. Bear in mind that his tools/
means for the task may appear to be right to you, but they are not to me or
the tradition. It should stand the test of traditional definition of
pramANa.



> If you have, you are welcome to counter Hacker.
>

 Far from it.


> I have no personal affinity to his theories.
>

Again, the question is not as to whether you have personal affinity to his
theories, but the way you ask what is his reason to lie, why would you not
ask what is the tradition's reason to lie? Which is the reason for my
initial question, are traditional dates random numbers then?!


//FYI, the great grandfather of a friend of mine wrote a bhUmikA in a
publication on Brahmasutra bhAshya which mentions the varsha, tithi and
muhurtA in which Sringeri Acharyas took sannyAsa!//



> And may I know on what sources he based his information?
>

Its most definitely not an external independent account, but not random
numbers either.


Kind rgds,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
[Br.Up. 4.5.15] */