[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Is there evidence of Shankaracharya having destroyed Bhāgavata dharma/s?

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

Dear Subbuji,

Bhagavata is very clearly advaitic. The dvaitins have done injustice to Bhagavata, The great sage Vedavyasa, who is considered to be one of the 24 avataras of Lord Vishnu, wrote the Bhagavata for the consumption of the common people as well and Shri Madhvacharya's claiming that nobody can understand the Bhagavata without his interpretation,  is a direct challenge to Vedeavyasa himself. WE should not condone such views of the dvaitins. 

On this score I will like to dismiss summarily the views of the Dvaitins on the Bhagavata. Kindly excuse me if I am using sfrong language.

Regards,
Sunil  


--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 1/10/17, V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com [advaitin] <advaitin at yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 Subject: [advaitin] Is there evidence of Shankaracharya having destroyed Bhāgavata dharma/s?
 To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>, "Advaitin" <advaitin at yahoogroups.com>
 Date: Tuesday, January 10, 2017, 8:36 PM
 
 
  
 
 
 
   
 
 
     
       
       
       Is there evidence of
 Shankaracharya having destroyed Bhāgavata dharma/s?
 
 
 In the post referred to below, some
 alleged purāṇic references are provided to
 'prove' that Shankaracharya is the same as the demon
 called 'maṇimān born to a brāhmaṇa, destroying and
 criticizing 'sat dharma' / 'bhāgavata
 dharmas' and criticizing 'sat
 śāstra-s':
 http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-list_dvaita.info/2006-February/001378.html
 1.
 kUrmapurANe shrImuShNamAhAtmye paJNchame.adhyAye |
 
 shrI sUta uvAcha --
 
 purA bhAgIrathItIre niminA pR^iShTavAnmuniH |
 naShTA bhAgavatA dharmAH sachChAstrANi kalau yuge ||
 iti shrutaM mayA pUrvaM tIrthayAtrAprasaN^gataH |
 kathaM naShTA bhaviShyanti punaH sthAsyanti vai katham.h ||
 vada vidvanmahAbAho kashchoddhAraM kariShyati |
 
 shrI vAmadeva uvAcha --
 
 chatussahasre dvishate gate saugandhike vane |
 nihatA bhImasenena dvAparAnte nR^ipottama |
 saugandhikAkhye nihatA ye cha krodhavashAH khalAH |
 rudreNa nihatA ye cha traipurAshcha kalau yuge |
 chatussahasre.aShTashate maNimantAdayo.asurAH
 janiShyanti brahmayonau daityAH saddharmadUShakAH |
 mithyAvAdamasachChAstraM kariShyanti kalau yuge |
 gopayiShyanti sachChAstraM sachChAstraparipanthinaH |
 evaM dharmeShu naShTeShu shAstreShu cha kalau yuge
 | devairvij~nApito
 viShNurvAyumAj~nApayiShyati |
 
 Madhvas
 also quote purported Garuda purāṇic verses in the same
 vein as the above:
 The complete text of the Garuda
 purANa is available here:
 http://fiindolo.sub.uni-
 goettingen.de/gretil/1_sanskr/
 3_purana/garup3_u.htm
 tena saṃkaranāmāsau
 bhaviṣyati khageśvara /
 dharmānbhāgavatānsarvānvināśay
 ati sarvathā // GarP_3,16.71 //
 
 [Owing to this, sAnkarya karaNam,
 this person will be known as 'samkara', O GaruDa. He
 will destroy the complete bhAgavata dharma totally.]
  
 
 On the basis of the above lines of
 the purāṇa, is there any evidence within Shānkara
 bhāṣyas or any other sources of the writings of other
 Acharyas that Shankara:
 1. Destroyed Bhāgavata
 dharmas
 2. Sat
 dharmas
 3. Criticized
 sat śāstra-s.
 Also,
 based on the following verses cited from Garuda
 purāṇa:
 maṇimānnāma daityastu
 sankarākhyo bhaviṣyati /
 sarveṣāṃ saṃkaraṃ yastu
 kariṣyati na saṃśayaḥ // GarP_3,16.70
 //
 [A demon named maNimAn will
 incarnate with the name 'sankara'.  Undoubtedly he
 will bring about the samkara, admixture, of 'all'. 
 The verse does not say what is meant by 'all'.  It
 is reasonable to take, from the popular meaning of the word
 'sAnkaryam' that castes will get mixed up and there
 will be varNavyavasthA.  So, this maNimAn will bring about
 such a situation.  How this happens is not stated in the
 puraNa.]  
 Are there evidences in the
 Shānkara bhāṣyas for Shankara having taught/supported
 admixture of castes?
 BGB
 introduction:अनुष्ठातॄणां
 कामोद्भवात्
 हीयमानविवेकविज्ञानहेतुकेन
 अधर्मेण अभिभूयमाने
 धर्मे, प्रवर्धमाने च
 अधर्मे, जगतः स्थितिं
 परिपिपालयिषुः स
 आदिकर्ता नारायणाख्यो
 विष्णुः भौमस्य
 ब्रह्मणो
 ब्राह्मणत्वस्य
 रक्षणार्थं देवक्यां
 वसुदेवादंशेन कृष्णः
 किल सम्बभूव ।
 ब्राह्मणत्वस्य हि
 रक्षणे रक्षितः
 स्याद्वैदिको धर्मः,
 तदधीनत्वाद्वर्णाश्रमभेदानाम्
 ॥
 
 Even if 'sānkarya'
 pejoratively means the core Advaitic doctrine of 'One
 without any differences of any kind', does it amount to
 'mixing up of everything?' Is the Advaita tattva a
 result of 'mixing up' everything in creation to
 arrive at the 'One'? Has Shankara taught anywhere
 that a mixing up is what is to be done to arrive at the One
 (and not negating the name-forms that are
 superimposed)? 
 Also, is there evidence anywhere
 that there indeed existed an individual by name
 'sankara' (since the puranic verses and the Mani
 Manjari say that that person was named so/well known
 so) who matched the personality details of the well
 known entity called Shankaracharya?
 
 One can take into
 consideration this statement, for example, of many, from
 Shankara's BSB on the bhāgavata doctrine
 sūtra:
 ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । द्वितीयः
 अध्यायः । द्वितीयः
 पादः । उत्पत्त्यसम्भवाधिकरणम् । सूत्रम् ४२ - भाष्यम्तत्र
 भागवता मन्यते —
 भगवानेवैको वासुदेवो
 निरञ्जनज्ञानस्वरूपः
 परमार्थतत्त्वम् ; स
 चतुर्धात्मानं
 प्रविभज्य
 प्रतिष्ठितः —
 वासुदेवव्यूहरूपेण,
 सङ्कर्षणव्यूहरूपेण, प्रद्युम्नव्यूहरूपेण,
 अनिरुद्धव्यूहरूपेण च ;
 वासुदेवो नाम परमात्मा
 उच्यते ; सङ्कर्षणो नाम
 जीवः ; प्रद्युम्नो
 नाम मनः ; अनिरुद्धो नाम
 अहंकारः ; तेषां
 वासुदेवः परा प्रकृतिः,
 इतरे सङ्कर्षणादयः
 कार्यम् ; तमित्थंभूतं
 परमेश्वरं
 भगवन्तमभिगमनोपादानेज्यास्वाध्याययोगैर्वर्षशतमिष्ट्वा
 क्षीणक्लेशो
 भगवन्तमेव प्रतिपद्यत
 इति । तत्र
 यत्तावदुच्यते — योऽसौ
 नारायणः
 परोऽव्यक्तात्प्रसिद्धः
 परमात्मा सर्वात्मा, स
 आत्मनात्मानमनेकधा
 व्यूह्यावस्थित इति —
 तन्न निराक्रियते, ‘स
 एकधा भवति त्रिधा भवति’
 (छा. उ.
 ७-२६-२) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः
 परमात्मनोऽनेकधाभावस्याधिगतत्वात्
 ; यदपि तस्य
 भगवतोऽभिगमनादिलक्षणमाराधनमजस्रमनन्यचित्ततयाभिप्रेयते,
 तदपि न प्रतिषिध्यते,
 श्रुतिस्मृत्योरीश्वरप्रणिधानस्य
 प्रसिद्धत्वात्
 ।That Vāsudeva is to be attained by
 worshiping him by going to temple, contemplating on him
 continuously with one-pointed devotion, etc. is not
 refuted/objected to since worship of/ dedicating one's
 everything to Ishwara is taught in the
 scriptures.A noted Madhva scholar
 Dr.Anandatirtha Vysampayanacharya Nagasampige, Director,
 Purnaprajna Samshodhana Mandiram, a Bangalore-based premier
 Madhva research institution run under the patronage of Sri
 Vishvesha Tirtha SwamigaLu, the seer of the Pejawar Mutt
 (whose disciple is the author), writes in his popular
 Kannada book: 'Mata traya sameekshaa': //  ಮೂರು
 ದರ್ಶನಗಳಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಸಮಾನತೆಗಳು: 
 ಅದ್ವೈತ-ವಿಶಿಷ್ಟಾದ್ವೈತ
 ಹಾಗೂ ದ್ವೈತ
 ಸಿದ್ಧಾಂತಗಳಲ್ಲಿ
 ಸ್ಥೂಲವಾಗಿ ಕೆಲವು
 ಸಮಾನತೆಗಳನ್ನು ನಾವು
 ಕಾಣಬಹುದಾಗಿದೆ:  ವಿಷ್ಣು
 ಪರದೇವತೆ ಎಂಬ ಸಂಗತಿ
 ಅಚಾರ್ಯತ್ರಯರಿಗೆ
 ಸಮ್ಮತವಾಗಿದೆ:[The similarities/sameness present in the three
 systems: In Advaita, Vishishtaadvaita and Dvaita, we can see
 an explicit similarity: - ]  
 And
 has quoted appropriate passages from the works of the Three
 Acharyas.  In respect of Shankara, he quotes the
 following:
 ೧. नारायणः
 परोऽव्यक्तात्
 अण्डमव्यक्तसंभवम्
 ।अण्डस्यान्तस्त्विमे
 लोकाः सप्तद्वीपा च
 मेदिनी ॥ [Introduction by Shankara to His Gita
 Bhashya]Narayana is beyond the Avyakta; From the Avyakta
 the Mundane Egg is born; Within the Mundane Egg, verily, are
 these worlds and the Earth made up of the seven
 dvipa-s.The
 Madhva scholar goes on to list other 'commonalities'
 across the Three Acharyas:1. All the Acharyas agree that the Veda
 is apauruSheya and is the parama-pramANa. (he quotes
 appropriate passages from the works of the three Acharyas
 which substatiate this)2.
 That Bhakti alone is the means for liberation is admissible
 to all the three Acharyas.  In support of this he quotes
 Shankara's statement from the Gitabhashya
 18.65:एवं
 भगवतःसत्यप्रतिज्ञत्वं
 बुद्ध्वा भगवद्भक्तेः
 अवश्यम्भाविमोक्षपलमवधार्य
 भगवच्चरणैकपरायणो
 भवेदिति वाक्यार्थः
 । 
 //The idea conveyed by the passage is: Having thus
 understood that the Lord is true in His pormise, and knowing
 for certain that liberation is the unfailing result of
 devotion to the Lord, one should have dedication to God as
 his only supreme goal,//3.
 That karma is subsidiary to Jnana and is the cause for
 chitta-shuddhi is admissible to all the Three Acharyas. The
 Shankara-passage given for this is:....अग्निहोत्रादिलक्षणं
 कर्म
 ब्रह्मचर्यादिलक्षणं
 च अनुग्राहकं भवति
 विद्योत्पत्तये. (Taittiriya
 Up.Bhashya 1.11)  [for the karmas such as Agnihotra, as
 also the practices of celibacy, etc., undertaken in the past
 lives, become helpful to the rise of
 knolwedge....]Noted Madhva scholar Dr.Bannanje Govindacharya has
 in several public platforms stated that Shankaracharya
 upheld Vishnu sarvottamatva The Pejawar
 Swamiji, during an address at the PPSM Bangalore, after a 10
 day Vivekachudamani workshop, which I attended, said: All
 the three Acharyas stressed the need for Bhagavad bhakti.
   Shankara is
 admitted by even other schools to have authored the
 Vishnusahasra nāma bhāṣya. Many devotional works such as
 the Ranganathāṣṭakam, the Viṣṇu ṣaṭpadī,
 Nrsimha, Jagannātha ashtakam, etc. are admitted to be his
 by even vaiṣṇavas.   List given by
 Vedantadeshika as follows:   पिशाच -
 रन्तिदेव - गुप्त  -
 यादवप्रकाश -  शङ्कर -
 भास्कर -  नारायणार्य - 
 यज्ञस्वामि - 
 प्रभृतिभि:,  does not mention
 'Shankara' as 'sankara'. The
 contemporaries of Shankara, Sureshwara and Padmapada do not
 seem to have known Shankara as 'Sankara'. If that
 was his real name, it would be easily known to the followers
 too, along with his supposed ill-famed birth. On the other
 hand Sureshwara says in the Brihadaranyaka bhashya vartika
 that he belonged to Atrigotra. He also refers to his Guru as
 the one who bore the name of 'Bhava' and
 'Vedhāḥ', both names known to be of Shiva.There
 is no name 'sankara' that is one of the epithets of
 Shiva. Padmapada, in his invocatory verse for Panchapadika
 compares / contrasts Shankaracharya and Shiva and not any
 Sankara.We can also see that all the advaita
 Acharyas that followed Shankara, before and after Ramanuja
 and Madhva, have invoked the blessings of Viṣṇu  in one
 or the other form.  If it is true that Shankara
 had 'destroyed bhāgavata dharma-s', how could those
 who followed him have displayed devotion to Viṣṇu? Even
 Vāchaspati Misra, the author of Bhāmatī, has prayed to
 Veda Vyasa as the shaktyavatāra of 'Bhagavan'
 Viṣṇu.   If it is said 'the writings of
 Shankara are not to be relied upon for the person Shankara
 was quite the opposite (demoniacal)', then such a charge
 is open to other Acharyas like Ramanuja and Madhva as
 well. Even a Madhva historian has said that
 'in Sringeri the temples to Shāradā and Janardana have
 been there since ancient times.’It is also
 strange that the purported Garuda purana quote is completely
 silent about Ramanuja:tadā bhūmau vāyudevo
 bhaviṣyati na saṃśayaḥ /
 yajñārthaiḥ sadṛśo yasya
 nāsti loke caturdaśe // GarP_3,16.72 //
 [Then in the world vAyudeva
 will undoubtedly take birth.  He will be unequalled by
 anyone in matters of yajnArtha (?) in all the fourteen
 worlds.] Between the four hundred years
 (that is the meaning of 'tadā', 'then'!!)
 that passed after Shankara and before Madhva, Ramanuja had
 come to do the same work Madhva did: of refuting Advaita
 darshana of Shankara. If Madhva is credited to have
 established 'sat śāstra' by refuting Shankara,
 there is no way one can deny that credit to Ramanuja too.
 And the Ramanuja school has thrived these 1000 years
 producing great quantum of Acharyas and works even as the
 Madhva school has. Yet, curiously enough the author of the
 Garuda purana takes no notice of Ramanuja and ignores him
 completely, who arrived two hundred years after Shankara and
 before Madhva.       It is quite understandable, and
 reasonable too, that the Madhvas value the listed purāṇic
 references for the primary reason that they are corroborated
 by the real events, names, etc. pertaining to the birth and
 life and activities/works of Madhva. Similarly, it would be
 reasonable to value those references the Madhvas think are pertaining to Shankaracharya, too are corroborated
 by the real events, names, what he did, for example
 'destruction of bhāgavata/sat dharmas and his
 criticizing sat śāstras'. The 'śāstras'
 Shankara is known to have refuted in the Brahmasutra bhashya
 are: mainly sānkhya, nyāya vaiśeṣika, chārvāka, purva
 mimāmasa, pāśupata, bauddha and jaina. Are these 'sat
 śāstra-s'? The pāncharātra has been critiqued by him
 on certain doctrinal grounds, but not by
 denigrating Vāsudeva. It also doubtful as to whether the
 pāncharātra that he had referred to there is the same as
 what is popularly known. 
 In the above background one can assess the merit of
 the purāṇic verses pertaining to Shankaracharya cited in
 the post or elsewhere. 
 regardssubrahmanian.v
    
 
 
     
      
 
     
     __._,_.___
 
           
   
  
 
     
      
 
     
         
         Posted by: V Subrahmanian
 <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>        
      
      
 
     
                           Reply
 via web post
                       •
             
                Reply to sender            
           •
             
               Reply to group            
           •
             Start a New
 Topic
           •
                             Messages in this
 topic
                 (1)
                       
 
         
 
             
         
 	     
         
             
             
                 Have you tried the highest rated
 email app?
                 With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the
 highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting
 for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook,
 AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with
 1000GB of free cloud storage.
             
         
               
      
     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
       
 
 
       Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta
 Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. (Members
 belong to vasudhaiva kutumbam)
 
 Advaitin Homepage at:  http://www.advaitin.net/
 
 To Post a message send an email to:
 advaitin at yahoogroups.com
 
 Messages Archived at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/advaitin/messages
 
 
 
       
 
 
     
   
 
  
 
 
 
 
     Visit Your Group
 
      
   
 
 
 
   
    • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
 
  
   
   
   
 
 
 
      
 
 
 
 
      
 
   .
 
 
    
 
 
  
 
 __,_._,___
 
 
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524 --
   #yiv3019239524ygrp-mkp {
 border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px
 0;padding:0 10px;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524ygrp-mkp hr {
 border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524ygrp-mkp #yiv3019239524hd {
 color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
 0;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524ygrp-mkp #yiv3019239524ads {
 margin-bottom:10px;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524ygrp-mkp .yiv3019239524ad {
 padding:0 0;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524ygrp-mkp .yiv3019239524ad p {
 margin:0;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524ygrp-mkp .yiv3019239524ad a {
 color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;}
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524ygrp-sponsor
 #yiv3019239524ygrp-lc {
 font-family:Arial;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524ygrp-sponsor
 #yiv3019239524ygrp-lc #yiv3019239524hd {
 margin:10px
 0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524ygrp-sponsor
 #yiv3019239524ygrp-lc .yiv3019239524ad {
 margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524actions {
 font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524activity {
 background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524activity span {
 font-weight:700;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524activity span:first-child {
 text-transform:uppercase;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524activity span a {
 color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524activity span span {
 color:#ff7900;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524activity span
 .yiv3019239524underline {
 text-decoration:underline;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 .yiv3019239524attach {
 clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
 0;width:400px;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 .yiv3019239524attach div a {
 text-decoration:none;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 .yiv3019239524attach img {
 border:none;padding-right:5px;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 .yiv3019239524attach label {
 display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 .yiv3019239524attach label a {
 text-decoration:none;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 blockquote {
 margin:0 0 0 4px;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 .yiv3019239524bold {
 font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 .yiv3019239524bold a {
 text-decoration:none;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 dd.yiv3019239524last p a {
 font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 dd.yiv3019239524last p span {
 margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 dd.yiv3019239524last p
 span.yiv3019239524yshortcuts {
 margin-right:0;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 div.yiv3019239524attach-table div div a {
 text-decoration:none;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 div.yiv3019239524attach-table {
 width:400px;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 div.yiv3019239524file-title a, #yiv3019239524
 div.yiv3019239524file-title a:active, #yiv3019239524
 div.yiv3019239524file-title a:hover, #yiv3019239524
 div.yiv3019239524file-title a:visited {
 text-decoration:none;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 div.yiv3019239524photo-title a,
 #yiv3019239524 div.yiv3019239524photo-title a:active,
 #yiv3019239524 div.yiv3019239524photo-title a:hover,
 #yiv3019239524 div.yiv3019239524photo-title a:visited {
 text-decoration:none;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 div#yiv3019239524ygrp-mlmsg
 #yiv3019239524ygrp-msg p a span.yiv3019239524yshortcuts {
 font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 .yiv3019239524green {
 color:#628c2a;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 .yiv3019239524MsoNormal {
 margin:0 0 0 0;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 o {
 font-size:0;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524photos div {
 float:left;width:72px;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524photos div div {
 border:1px solid
 #666666;height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524photos div label {
 color:#666666;font-size:10px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;width:64px;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524reco-category {
 font-size:77%;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524reco-desc {
 font-size:77%;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 .yiv3019239524replbq {
 margin:4px;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524ygrp-actbar div a:first-child {
 margin-right:2px;padding-right:5px;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524ygrp-mlmsg {
 font-size:13px;font-family:Arial, helvetica, clean,
 sans-serif;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524ygrp-mlmsg table {
 font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524ygrp-mlmsg select,
 #yiv3019239524 input, #yiv3019239524 textarea {
 font:99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524ygrp-mlmsg pre, #yiv3019239524
 code {
 font:115% monospace;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524ygrp-mlmsg * {
 line-height:1.22em;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524ygrp-mlmsg #yiv3019239524logo {
 padding-bottom:10px;}
 
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524ygrp-msg p a {
 font-family:Verdana;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524ygrp-msg
 p#yiv3019239524attach-count span {
 color:#1E66AE;font-weight:700;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524ygrp-reco
 #yiv3019239524reco-head {
 color:#ff7900;font-weight:700;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524ygrp-reco {
 margin-bottom:20px;padding:0px;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524ygrp-sponsor #yiv3019239524ov
 li a {
 font-size:130%;text-decoration:none;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524ygrp-sponsor #yiv3019239524ov
 li {
 font-size:77%;list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524ygrp-sponsor #yiv3019239524ov
 ul {
 margin:0;padding:0 0 0 8px;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524ygrp-text {
 font-family:Georgia;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524ygrp-text p {
 margin:0 0 1em 0;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524ygrp-text tt {
 font-size:120%;}
 
 #yiv3019239524 #yiv3019239524ygrp-vital ul li:last-child {
 border-right:none !important;
 }
 #yiv3019239524