[Advaita-l] On the history of Bharathavarsha
anbesivam2 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 21 00:39:29 CST 2010
I am glad you did bare your chest to rid of what was irking you. I hope it
should ease any discomfort.
Please let me comment on what you wrote.
Quote: "*Dr. Subramanian Swamy, all said and done, is a political leader. I
do not mean anything derogatory by it, as every society needs political
leadership. However, I do not (unlike most of my countrymen) attach any
extra importance to a man with power and influence.*"
Sure you can hold to that opinion. That is your prerogative. Contrast this
to what I said of him. I said: "*It is to his credit that he boldly and
single-handedly thwarted the attempt of the athiest and corrupt hoards of
the DMK men who had planned to blow up Ramasethu, a bridge of ancience and
about which crores of bhakthas have sung in great piety. People go there
endlessly to do their tharpaNam for the release of their pithrus*."
Sir, Ramasethu is very sacred to the Hindus. What was at play was not just
a 'politically motivated offshore development' as you would portray. The
destruction of Ramasethu is to give a body blow to the Hindus for Ramasethu
kindles the icon Rama and his most extolled Dharma Rajya that the secular
forces despice. The asuric forces tried to destroy Ramasethu to attack our
ancient beliefs. They would also make some money in the dredging which even
though in crores of rupees is insignificant compared to the issue at stake.
Everyone with a modicum of economics would know that this so called 'canal'
is bound to fail given the nature of the sea there and the narrowness and
shallowness of the area to permit any ship of even a moderate size to pass
through. Importantly sir, that time and again, our Gods were called into
question, they were denigrated and declared before the Supreme Court that
Rama never existed and was a fiction. Dr. Subramanian Swamy defended our
dhaarmic belief system and not a secular view of history that you so much
wish to depend on and basing on which you would easily like to pass your
judgement that you 'would not cite him as a primary authority on any
historical detail.' Believe me sir, Dr.Swamy in neither citing any
'secular' history nor is he enomoured to be certified on that account.
Quote: "*I mean no disrespect to Dr. Swamy, and I'm sure that if he were to
read this, he would appreciate the fact that I respect a true scholar more
than anyone else.*"
I am not interested in questioning your platitute to Dr.Swamy but in as much
as you hold one version of history as dear to you he too held to the idea
that the history of Bharathavarsha has been distorted by the westerners and
it is taking a toll in the body politic of the country as for example, and I
reiterarate that it is just an example, in the Aryan Invasion Theory, and
our history therefore needs correction. If you say only a historian has to
say that and no one else, then you do know that all 'historians' do not
remain monolithic in upholding the secular version but a very large number
of historians do come to the conclusion that the history as we know need to
be corrected. There has been enough evidence to disprove AIT, there has
come to light enough evidence that the River Saraswathy is not a fiction,
there has come conclusive evidence in the researches of Dr.Narahari Achar on
the date of Mahabharatha war, there has been enough evidence of Dwaraka now
under sea and so on and so forth.
Quote: "*The fact that Dr. Swamy took the blessings of Sringeri Acharya is
of not much consequence really. The Acharyas give blessings to everyone who
asks for them sincerely. And lest you misconstrue this as disrespect to the
Sringeri Acharya too, let me hasten to add that that would be furthest from
my intent. This should be obvious, but I'm stating itjust for the record!*"
This is a wonderful scholarship to belittle Sringeri Aachaaryaa's blessing
to Dr.Swamy. So be it.
Quote: "*do you think the likes of Brahmin-bashers in Tamil Nadu need my
opinions to bolster their case?*"
Whatever you say, the undeniable fact is that you played as good whip to
bash Kanchi AachaaryaaLs whom you have irreverently abbreviated as C.S. and
J.S. among other things. That is the secularist historian in you. For most
of us we do call them as ParamaachaaryaaL and Jayendra PeriavaaL. That is
our belonging. We would also not call Mahasannidhaanams in any other way.
Quote: "*About plunging into mires of controversies about dates - may I
point out that you are finding fault with the messenger? I am well aware of
the mire and I am also well aware of who created the mire in the first
place. Could you kindly tell the people who keep adding more dirt into the
mire to stop doing so?*"
Could I tell everyone not to talk about the date? Sure, I can - but don't
you think that I am just a member like everyone else and shouldn't arrogate
to be authoritative? Nevertheless I do plead with everyone not to meditate
on things that wouldn't help their purushaartha.
Quote: "*In your life, have you ever found it necessary to say anything
about the pointless nature of debating Adi Sankara's date to people like
Polagam Rama Sastri, T M P Mahadevan, N Veezhinathan and others from your
native Tamil Nadu, who have contributed tremendously to increasing the
confusion on this issue, and largely by insulting, questioning and
disparaging the Sringeri traditions in heavily publicized writings over the
last half a century? Has anyone of you ever thought of walking up to one of
these people and telling them, "Do not disrespect the legacy of Adi Sankara
by insulting the Sringeri lineage? Do not be callous and describe it as an
institution that was accidently set up and not by intent. Do not spread lies
about the Sringeri lineage, because we all should respect those Acharyas
greatly." Have you ever done so? Please be honest to yourself and to me and
examine how much you have acted upon your supposed respect for the Sringeri
First of all, I am nobody to any of these people. Since the discussion was
going on in this list I participated in it and in my earlier post of the
28th December 2009 I have said: "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."
In an earlier posting I have referred to the lineage given in
BrihadhaaranyakOpanishad where it is traced backwards from a nameless rishi
whose mother is Pautimaasi and from him another 36 rishis are nameless too
but only their mothers' names are given. Then enters Yagnavalkya and then
the lineage traces on the 22 actual rishis whose names are given (some of
them with their father's name) and ends up with Brahman. You can count
about 58 teachers in lineage starting with Brahman followed by
Hiranyagarbha. If as per the secularist calculation
Brihadhaaranyakopanishad is somewhere about the first or second millenium BC
then the world must have started sometimes equal to what the Bible says!
This is of course if we consider that no humans lived beyond 100 years. But
the Hindu belief is that the world started from the beginning of Kritha Yuga
and it is millions of years back. If you are a secular historian you
definitely branch off from our belief. There is no escape from it. That is
where the 'scholar' as you see and I see differ.
With best regards,
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <
svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sri Anbu Sivam,
> I think this conversation is digressing into too many unnecessary
> 1. Dr. Subramanian Swamy, all said and done, is a political leader. I do
> mean anything derogatory by it, as every society needs political
> However, I do not (unlike most of my countrymen) attach any extra
> to a man with power and influence. I grant that Dr. Swamy has provided
> leadership on issues of importance, whether on the Chidambaram temple issue
> or the politically motivated Rameshwaram offshore development. That does
> NOT mean that I would cite him as a primary authority on any historical
> I tend to privilege original scholars more than those who cite them. I
> the same attitude to people all across the political spectrum, from left to
> all through the middle. I mean no disrespect to Dr. Swamy, and I'm sure
> if he were to read this, he would appreciate the fact that I respect a true
> scholar more than anyone else. The fact that Dr. Swamy took the blessings
> of Sringeri Acharya is of not much consequence really. The Acharyas give
> blessings to everyone who asks for them sincerely. And lest you misconstrue
> this as disrespect to the Sringeri Acharya too, let me hasten to add that
> would be furthest from my intent. This should be obvious, but I'm stating
> just for the record!
> 2. You give me entirely too much credit for my supposed "effort to pit one
> Matam against another". To begin with, I have not started any controversy
> myself. It is something that is somewhat more than a century old. Secondly,
> do you think the likes of Brahmin-bashers in Tamil Nadu need my opinions to
> bolster their case? That too is a political game that has been been going
> for more than a century. Let me assure you I am considerably younger than
> a century. I am most probably very much younger than you too.
> 3. About plunging into mires of controversies about dates - may I point out
> that you are finding fault with the messenger? I am well aware of the mire
> and I am also well aware of who created the mire in the first place. Could
> you kindly tell the people who keep adding more dirt into the mire to stop
> doing so? I have no intention of stepping into the mire, but I do find
> wrong in saying that there does exist a mire. I find it extremely curious
> you, along with many others, think it is your prerogative to tell people
> like me
> not to say anything about this topic. When this whole thread started on
> list, it was about a "conference" where somebody "unanimously" decided that
> Adi Sankara's date was 500 BCE. The Sringeri Matha and its tradition was
> conspicuously left out of such manufactured unanimity. Did your much-
> proclaimed respect for the Sringeri tradition prompt you to step up and say
> that this was not right, by any standard of intellectual fairness or
> respect? Did you feel the need to say to Mr. Sunil Bhattacharjya, "debating
> the date of Adi Sankara is a frivolous exercise"? No, all I found you doing
> to tell me not to say anything. Why is it that you expect only those who
> with the Sringeri tradition to shut up and put up?
> In your life, have you ever found it necessary to say anything about the
> nature of debating Adi Sankara's date to people like Polagam Rama Sastri, T
> M P
> Mahadevan, N Veezhinathan and others from your native Tamil Nadu, who have
> contributed tremendously to increasing the confusion on this issue, and
> largely by
> insulting, questioning and disparaging the Sringeri traditions in heavily
> writings over the last half a century? Has anyone of you ever thought of
> up to one of these people and telling them, "Do not disrespect the legacy
> of Adi
> Sankara by insulting the Sringeri lineage? Do not be callous and describe
> it as an
> institution that was accidently set up and not by intent. Do not spread
> lies about
> the Sringeri lineage, because we all should respect those Acharyas
> greatly." Have
> you ever done so? Please be honest to yourself and to me and examine how
> you have acted upon your supposed respect for the Sringeri tradition. If
> yes, I can
> give some credence to your claim that you do indeed discourage people from
> debates. If not, I request you to stop telling me to withdraw, because all
> I see you
> doing is increasing this discussion by telling me to stop the discussion,
> by appealing
> to a weak emotion when facing a mountain of insurmountable fact. Either
> way, this
> increasingly ridiculous email exchange has to come to an end.
> And like your sentiments of not wishing to hurt my feelings, I apologize if
> I have
> hurt yours in the above. I really have no intention of doing so, but
> sometimes a
> spade needs to be called a spade.
> Best regards,
> > Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 07:13:28 -0500
> > From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com
> > To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> > Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] On the history of Bharathavarsha
> > Dear Sri Vidyasankarji,
> > I thank you for your response.
> > If you would like to peremptorily brush aside Dr. Subramanian Swamy as a
> > politician, of course, it could easily put him in company with those of
> > secular India of extraordinary moral degeneration and corruption. It is
> > sure to generate a derision and possibly it would put him out of our
> > on his view on history. All he was saying was that the Indian history had
> > been distorted and it has to be set right. I suppose you are not in
> > agreement with him.
> > It may not be out of place to say something about Dr.Subramanian Swamy in
> > his defense of our beliefs and that of our PuraaNas and Ithihaasas which
> > have been poopooed as fiction and myth. *It is to his credit that he
> > and single-handedly thwarted the attempt of the athiest and corrupt
> > of the DMK men who had planned to blow up Ramasethu, a bridge of ancience
> > and about which crores of bhakthas have sung in great piety. People go
> > there endlessly to do their tharpaNam for the release of their pithrus.
> > All dhaarmic Hindus owe a gratitude to Dr.Subramanian Swamy.*
> > When the same criminal gang took over Chidambaram Natarajar Temple, a
> > denominational temple run by the Dhikshithar Brahmins that was out of
> > of the secular laws, by wringing a corrupt judge it was Dr.Subramanian
> > who took up their issue and faced brutal attack by the rowdy advocates
> > opposed to the Brahmin community at the halls of the high court of
> > When it comes to anti-Brahminism nothing was sacred to the enemies of
> > Hinduism. You can ignore Dr.Subramanian Swamy's contribution but I cannot
> > ignore that your effort to pit one Matam against another has only
> > contributed to you being used by the same athiest, anti-Hindu,
> > hoards to denigrate our ancient dharma and its institutions and the
> > I came across how it is used by a Brahmin baiting gentleman by name Arul
> > Tilak in the following url.
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/akandabaratam/message/46407
> > Is this a worthy purushaartha on your part?
> > I should point out that Dr. Subramanian Swamy had the blessings of all
> > Sankaracharyas including the Sannidhaanam at Sringeri whom I hold in
> > veneration.
> > Beside the fact that I am ill-equipped as my life-time has been spent in
> > gnaana maarga and these such as dates were quite frivolous for me, the
> > reason that I do not want to take up the issue of whether Adhi Sankara
> > born at certain point of time was that it would suit an agenda of
> > denigration of any of our sacred institutions and their Achaaryaas which
> > my opinion is gravely ego driven and terribly counterproductive. It will
> > not be a tribute to our great sage Adhi Sankata who brought the idea of
> > Advaitha to the reach of ordinary people. My attempt has been to
> > people's pursuit into such mire.
> > By writing this, if I have hurt your feelings I do sincerely apologize.
> > With warm regards,
> > Anbu
> Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list