[Advaita-l] RE: Sankaracharya
svidyasankar at hotmail.com
Tue Apr 13 16:22:09 CDT 2004
> >>Even Kanchi Paramacharya has described the beauty of Madaviya Sankara
> >>Vijayam in his lectures, which were later translated and printed in the
> >>"Adi Sankara: His Life and Times". His Holiness did not get into the
> >>subject of whether the book was written by Swami Vidyaranya or not.
>I do not know where you are reading from.
I agreed with you that he did not get into the authorship question. However,
since you brought it up anyway, I discussed the other side of the story.
After all, the first people to question the authorship of the Madhaviya were
affiliated with the Kanchi Matha.
>Let me know what has not been critically analyzed to promote this
>controversy. Each statement by the followers of both the mutts, have been
>CAREFULLY TWISTED to find evidence against the argument. Welcome to the
>tradition of Maya...
I beg to differ. Proper critical analysis does not require twisting of
statements. When I say critical analysis, I refer to careful and exact
reading, followed by evaluation and comments. I do not mean critical in the
sense of simply finding fault.
>I do not want to start another controversy here. What is believed about
>Sadasiva Brahmendra is that he lived for many centuries. That was one of
>reasons he is still the biggest mystic of His times as well as our times.
Be that as it may, it still does not help one reconcile the problem of
dates. If I remember right, Gururatnamalika gives a date of 1565 for the
passing away of Paramasivendra Sarasvati. You call for examining concrete
evidence. Well, there are inscriptions in Tanjavur, of grants given in the
mid-1700's to Brahmana scholars who were co-students of Sadasiva Brahmendra.
Now, one may believe that Brahmendra lived for many centuries, but surely,
he should have been an old yogi in the 1700's, not young enough to be still
attending a Veda Pathasala. On the other hand, if he was a young boy in the
early 1700's, his guru, Paramasivendra Sarasvati, could not have lived in
the 1500's. It is a simple matter of common sense here, not controversy.
>When people seem to have evidence to prove Sri. Bhagavadpada lived 1200
>years ago, they do not have the exact date for an event which happened 200
That Adi Sankara lived about 1200 years ago, not 2500 years ago, is based on
inferential arguments, not on concrete material evidence. In any case, this
pitting of 1200 vs. 200 years is an invalid argument. An excavation may
unearth a fossil dating back to millions of years, the date being arrived at
by inference, but we may never know the days and times of birth of our
great-grandmothers, due to lack of birth certificates. Nevertheless, we do
know the approximate period during which our great-grandmothers may have
lived, don't we?
>I do not want us to get into perpetual arguments. Anybody can believe in
>anything, that is the beauty of tradition and faith.
The point is that one can have faith and tradition, but one doesn't have to
pit them against good reason. It does not have to be a matter of faith that
Adi Sankara lived 2500 years ago. That is all.
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now!
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list