date (time, age) of Shankaracharya?

[Guest guest]

Dear List members,

 

Can you please let me know what is the consensus on the time when Adi

Shankaracharya lived?

 

My purpose is not at all to study anything religious. I am trying to

find all information I can get about a musical instrument -- the

oboe. I remember from Adi Shankaracharya's "Shiva-Maanasa-Puujaa" a

line that goes like this:

....vii.naa bherii m,rdanga kaahala kalaa giitam ca n,rtyam tathaa

saa.s.taangam pra.nati.h stutir bahuvidhaa ...

(the devotee prays to Lord Shiva, and among the many acts of worship,

he/she offers the music of the lute, the drum, the oboe...)

 

I am hoping to find an approximate date for the 'kaahala'

 

Thank you,

 

Sincerely,

 

Dileep Karanth

[Guest guest]

>Can you please let me know what is the consensus on the time when Adi

>Shankaracharya lived?

 

Inscriptions in s. India mention Sankaracharya' works in 1065 AD

and later. Usually, Sankara's date is tied to Vaacaspatimishra.

Vacaspatimisra lived around 975 AD. Sankaracharya could possibly

have lived around 900 AD.

 

>I remember from Adi Shankaracharya's "Shiva-Maanasa-Puujaa" a

>line that goes like this:

 

Do we know Sankaracharya composed this stotram?? or, a later saint.

 

-----------

 

Chola inscriptions call the nAgasvaram as mangalavaadyam,

and Kampan, an Chola era poet uses kAkaLam as well.

 

On proto-nAgasvarams called Ezil, vayir

CTamil/message/402

INDOLOGY/message/1613

 

Regards,

N. Ganesan

[Guest guest]

Doesn't one of the important Shaivite saints (Maanikavaachagar?)

refer to Shankara as the "hurricane who rocked and shook the world".

Which saint was it and what was his date?

 

INDOLOGY, "naga_ganesan" <naga_ganesan@h...> wrote:

>

> >Can you please let me know what is the consensus on the time when

Adi

> >Shankaracharya lived?

>

> Inscriptions in s. India mention Sankaracharya' works in 1065 AD

> and later. Usually, Sankara's date is tied to Vaacaspatimishra.

> Vacaspatimisra lived around 975 AD. Sankaracharya could possibly

> have lived around 900 AD.

>

> >I remember from Adi Shankaracharya's "Shiva-Maanasa-Puujaa" a

> >line that goes like this:

>

> Do we know Sankaracharya composed this stotram?? or, a later saint.

>

> -----------

>

> Chola inscriptions call the nAgasvaram as mangalavaadyam,

> and Kampan, an Chola era poet uses kAkaLam as well.

>

> On proto-nAgasvarams called Ezil, vayir

> CTamil/message/402

> INDOLOGY/message/1613

>

> Regards,

> N. Ganesan

[Guest guest]

The "official" and most common date is (788-820CE). I found about 154

web pages that mention this date.

 

Also see:

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/dating-Sankara.html

 

It appears to be a reasonable date.

 

> Can you please let me know what is the consensus on the time when

> Adi Shankaracharya lived?

 

Yashwant

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "vpcnk" <vpcnk@H...> wrote:

> Doesn't one of the important Shaivite saints (Maanikavaachagar?)

> refer to Shankara as the "hurricane who rocked and shook the world".

> Which saint was it and what was his date?

 

Sankara's name is not mentioned in Maanikkavaacakar.

Some scholars like Maraimalai aTikaL, u. vE. cA., take Maanikkavaacakar to be

3rd century.

But scholarly opinion is more like 9th century. Manikkavaacakar

speaks negatively of maayaavaadam. Whether it refers to earlier maayavaada

teachers whose names are mentioned in Tibetan sources, need to be looked into.

 

Tamil inscriptions mentioning Sankaracharya and his works start only from 1065

AD.

 

Regards,

N. Ganesan

 

>

> INDOLOGY, "naga_ganesan" <naga_ganesan@h...> wrote:

> >

> > >Can you please let me know what is the consensus on the time when

> Adi

> > >Shankaracharya lived?

> >

> > Inscriptions in s. India mention Sankaracharya' works in 1065 AD

> > and later. Usually, Sankara's date is tied to Vaacaspatimishra.

> > Vacaspatimisra lived around 975 AD. Sankaracharya could possibly

> > have lived around 900 AD.

> >

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "vpcnk" <vpcnk@H...> wrote:

> Doesn't one of the important Shaivite saints (Maanikavaachagar?)

> refer to Shankara as the "hurricane who rocked and shook the world".

> Which saint was it and what was his date?

>

 

None of the Saivite saints mention Samkara. Why should they since

Samkara was not of their tradition, assuming in the first place that

Samkara pre-dated them. I am also not clear that Samkara has had any

demonstrable association whatsoever with any Siva temple in the Tamil

country.

 

Bhakti saints did not care particularly for mAyavAda. On occasion,

both Saiva as well as Vaishnava saints have gently savaged

mAyAvAdin's. Hopefully Dr Ganesan can find a quote from one of the

Saiva saints on mAyAvAda.

 

Here is a verse from NammAzvAr:

 

kUTiRRAkil nal uRaippuk

kUTAmaiyaik kUTinAl

ATaR paRavai uyarkoTi em

mAyan Avatu atu atuvE

vITap paNNi oruparicE

etirvum nikazvum kazivumAy

OTi tiriyum yOkikaLum

uLarum illai allarE.

(tiruvAymozi 8.8.9)

 

A translation of the above verse:

 

If they should merge,

that's really good:

 

if the two that'll never meet

should meet,

then this human thing

will become our lord,

the Dark One

with the sacred bird

on his banner-

as if that's possible.

 

It will always be itself.

 

There are yogis

who mistake fantasy

for true release

and run around

in circles

in the world

of what is and what was

and what will be.

 

It takes all kinds.

 

(A K Ramanujan, Hymns for the Drowning, p. 56)

 

Hope this helps,

 

Lakshmi Srinivas

 

PS: MW gives Rajatarangini as the source for the word 'kAhala'.

Perhaps that may be a more profitable line of inquiry?

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "ymalaiya" <ymalaiya> wrote:

> The "official" and most common date is (788-820CE). I found about 154

> web pages that mention this date.

>

 

This "official" date is not the majority view. It's

only the Sringeri Math view. Today's most famous

math of advaita tradition is, of course, Kanch Sankara mutt.

The revered Kanchi Acharyas do not accept this date.

 

When one reads papers dating Sankara to 788-820 AD, the discussion

about Vaacaspati Mishra's date as 840 AD is often encountered.

Because Vaacaspati lived in 840 AD, the argument goes that

Sankara is dated to around 800 AD.

 

This view is erroneous, and has been demonstrated by

Indologists long ago. Vaacaspati lived at the end of

10th century. Paul Hacker wrote years ago that vAcaspati

lived in late 10th century (p. 30, Wilhelm Halbfass,

Philology and Confrontation, Paul Hacker on Tradional and Modern Vedanta).

See Dr. Birgit Kellner mentioning Walter Slaje's remarks

about vAcaspathi

http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0001&L=indology&P=R2580

 

See the discussion about Vaacaspati by prof. Ashok Aklujkar.

Scholars (eg., Sankaranarayanan) in India writing about dates

of Sankara are not even aware that there were two Vaacaspatis!

http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0002&L=indology&P=R7814

http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0003&L=indology&P=R4355

 

The dating by Indologists about Vaacaspati in 975 AD (and, *not* 841 AD)

has not percolated into the neo-vedanta polulist writings in newspapers and such

from India. Of course, the Tamil inscriptions mentioning Sankara

and his works in later 11th century onwards has not yet been

considered in the western academic advaita folks. Many dates in Indology

have fallen upon closer scrutiny. Avaliable evidence points

to Sankara flourishing around 900 AD.

 

BTW, the Tamil scholar, R. Raghavaiyangar was the first one to

write about Sankara's birthplace, KaalaDi. This has been used

by mutts, but we don't find mention of Sri RR.

 

Regards,

N. Ganesan

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "naga_ganesan" <naga_ganesan@h...> wrote:

> INDOLOGY, "ymalaiya" <ymalaiya> wrote:

> > The "official" and most common date is (788-820CE). I found about

154

> > web pages that mention this date.

> >

>

> This "official" date is not the majority view. It's

> only the Sringeri Math view. Today's most famous

> math of advaita tradition is, of course, Kanch Sankara mutt.

> The revered Kanchi Acharyas do not accept this date.

 

The Kanchi maTha proposes a date for Samkara around the early

centuries BC. This would naturally be at considerable odds with

scholarly opinion.

 

Regards,

 

Lakshmi Srinivas

[Guest guest]

> When one reads papers dating Sankara to 788-820 AD, the discussion

> about Vaacaspati Mishra's date as 840 AD is often encountered.

> Because Vaacaspati lived in 840 AD, the argument goes that

> Sankara is dated to around 800 AD.

 

Let us not base Shankara's date merely on Vaacaspati - if Shankara

lived before Vaacaspati, he could have lived 100 years before or even

1000 years before.

 

The only thing that really concerns me about Shankara being dated at

900 AD is the factor of the muslim presence in India. Ramanuja and

Maadhva are dated at 1000 AD - at their time there was considerable

muslim presence in Southern India itself. I would think that it would

have taken more than 100 years for the muslims to come down from

north to the south. So if Shankara lived in 900 AD considering he

went around the country propogating the pristine Advaita philosophy

(not meant for people of the dull intellect! :-), he would have been

aware of the muslim presence considering what they were doing with

Hindus and their religion.

 

But when we read Shankara's works, there's absoltuely no indication

of the overwhelming muslim presence in India. The atmosphere of

Shankara seems almost to be Vedic!

 

What are the pre-Shankarite parameters which are used for dating

Shankara? Weren't Shantarakshita and Kamalasila aware of Shankara?

Shankara quotes Dharmakirti - but does he quote these later

Svaatantra Vijnaanavaadins?

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "naga_ganesan" <naga_ganesan@h...> wrote:

> INDOLOGY, "ymalaiya" <ymalaiya> wrote:

> > The "official" and most common date is (788-820CE). I found about

154

> > web pages that mention this date.

> >

>

> This "official" date is not the majority view. It's

> only the Sringeri Math view.

 

How did one determine majority view? Was there a opinion poll in

India ? In the school and college history books , the above date is

mentioned which makes it "educated" view among Indians. So, it is

not "only" SM view.

 

Today's most famous

> math of advaita tradition is, of course, Kanch Sankara mutt.

 

 

If by "famous", one means high prifile, yes

 

> The revered Kanchi Acharyas do not accept this date.

 

 

Kanchi mutt view is a much earlier date, which makes 'that' a

majority view.

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "naga_ganesan" <naga_ganesan@h...> wrote:

 

> This "official" date is not the majority view. It's

> only the Sringeri Math view. Today's most famous

> math of advaita tradition is, of course, Kanch Sankara mutt.

> The revered Kanchi Acharyas do not accept this date.

 

VA: The 'majority' view, in that case, is that he lived around 500

BCE as this is the date proposed by Dwaraka, Puri and Jyotirmatha

acharyas. The Sringeri matha itself does not swear by the 788-820

dates, if only you were to talk to the acharyas personally. They

neither deny, nor affirm this date.

 

 

>

> When one reads papers dating Sankara to 788-820 AD, the discussion

> about Vaacaspati Mishra's date as 840 AD is often encountered.

> Because Vaacaspati lived in 840 AD, the argument goes that

> Sankara is dated to around 800 AD.

 

VA: That is JUST ONE of the arguments. There could be many others to

reasonably place him a few decades BEFORE 788 A.D. For instance, the

Manimanjari makes Brahmadatta a senior contemporary of

Shankaracharya. Now, Brahmadatta can be reasonably identified as a

contemporary of Matrdatta (all from Kerala) who was a contemporary of

Dandin, who lived actually towards the end of the 7th century. This

would place Shankaracharya closer to 700 A.D.

 

>

> This view is erroneous, and has been demonstrated by

> Indologists long ago. Vaacaspati lived at the end of

> 10th century. Paul Hacker wrote years ago that vAcaspati

> lived in late 10th century (p. 30, Wilhelm Halbfass,

> Philology and Confrontation, Paul Hacker on Tradional and Modern

Vedanta).

> See Dr. Birgit Kellner mentioning Walter Slaje's remarks

> about vAcaspathi

> http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0001&L=indology&P=R2580

VA: Selectively quoting Indologists is misleading. One could counter

Paul Hacker (a self professed hater of Neo-Vedanta) with G. C. Pande

(See 'Life and Thought of Sankaracharya').

 

 

>

> See the discussion about Vaacaspati by prof. Ashok Aklujkar.

> Scholars (eg., Sankaranarayanan) in India writing about dates

> of Sankara are not even aware that there were two Vaacaspatis!

> http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0002&L=indology&P=R7814

> http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0003&L=indology&P=R4355

>

 

VA: There were actually more than 2 Vachaspatis in the arena of

Indian philosophy. Setting up straw men does not settle the argument.

 

> The dating by Indologists about Vaacaspati in 975 AD (and, *not*

841 AD)

> has not percolated into the neo-vedanta polulist writings in

newspapers and such

> from India.

VA: That is your false impression. The date 788-820 or even a few

decades earlier is WIDELY accepted in non populist, non neo-Vedanta

writings. I suggest you read some relevant literature.

 

 

Of course, the Tamil inscriptions mentioning Sankara

> and his works in later 11th century onwards has not yet been

> considered in the western academic advaita folks. Many dates in

Indology

> have fallen upon closer scrutiny. Avaliable evidence points

> to Sankara flourishing around 900 AD.

>

VA: Epigraphic evidence is irrelevant in this case. Why should there

be epigraphic evidence for everything? Why especially should Advaitin

monks living in ashrams find mention in epigraphs? Such monolateral

reasoning pushes Vimuktatman, Samskepasarirakakaara....and dozens of

Advaita authors close to 1100-1200 AD, an implication that seems to

be ignored by NG, and something on which Paul Hacker et al did not

reflect correctly.

 

 

> BTW, the Tamil scholar, R. Raghavaiyangar was the first one to

> write about Sankara's birthplace, KaalaDi. This has been used

> by mutts, but we don't find mention of Sri RR.

 

VA: This is interesting. It is not out of place to point out that

some Dravidianists post-date Shankaracharya, and through a

tendentious line of reasoning, also Buddha, then Rigveda and so on in

order to enlarge the chronological gap between IVC and Vedic

literature. The ulterior motive is enhance the possibility of

acceptance of a 'proto-Dravidian' race as the progenitor of the IVC.

[Guest guest]

Between (788-820CE), 9th century (N. Ganesan's view) and 8th century

suggested by others, the difference is not large.

 

I think an error margin of about a century is not very large. We can

easily rule out any dates that are far away from these.

 

There are very few dates that can be computed exactly, and usually

some margin always needs to be allowed i.e. a probabilistic view can

be taken.

 

What would be the consequences of slight variations in

Sankaracharya's date? Are their other dates that are implied by

Sankara's date?

 

Yashwant

 

> > > The "official" and most common date is (788-820CE). I found

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "ymalaiya" <ymalaiya> wrote:

 

> There are very few dates that can be computed exactly, and usually

> some margin always needs to be allowed i.e. a probabilistic view

can

> be taken.

 

Shankara's death at the age of 32 seems never to be disputed, however

speculative his dates may be. There must be a text in which this

information is explicit?

 

P. Ernest

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "phillip_ernest" <phillip.ernest@u...> wrote:

 

> Shankara's death at the age of 32 seems never to be disputed,

>however speculative his dates may be. There must be a text

>in which this information is explicit?

>

> P. Ernest

 

Have seen in academic works taking the view that Sankara

must have lived a long life exceeding this 32 years limit.

The young guru teaching to aged folks is often repeated

in south Indian legends. Skanda-Murukan teaching to Shiva,

Jnanasambandhar, Kumarakuruparar teaching their best as a child,

and so on. Sankara himself supposedly praises Jnanasambandhar

in Saundaryalahari. Samabandhar lived only upto 16 or so,

and Sankara upto 32.

 

Sankaracarya's hagiography is largely a 14th century creation,

acc. to indologists like H. Kulke, P. Hacker. Those scholars

write that the "four maths founded by Sankara in four cardinal

directions" is a myth created as a response to the Muslim

invasions of south India in 13-14th centuries.

 

Curiously, Sankaravijaya texts constructing a "life story"

for Sankara employ many legends of Tamil Saiva Nayanmars

who lived and waged a campaign against Jainism and Buddhism

centuries earlier than him. The comparison of Tamil Saiva

legends with those in Sankara vijaya need a detailed study.

For eg., the Tirumuular legend comes with certain modifications

in Sankaravijaya. Those modifications are needed so as to

fit the mana traditions of Nambudiris. The nambudiri traditions

in that part of the story has been explained by Agehananda Bharati.

 

Tiru. Nanda Chandran, asked about maayaavaadam deluding people

mentioned in Tiruvaasakam. Many times maayaavaadins are mentioned

in Tamil literature often called as demons. These negative

characterizations of maayaavaada have to do with shunnyavaada

buddhists and ekaanmavaadis. Manickavasakar debated with

Buddhists from Lanka in his lifestory. In Tanjore big temple,

completed in 1004 AD, has a big panel of tripuraandaka episode.

There, Buddha under the pipal tree is shown teaching asuras.

Buddha/Buddhists are often mentioned as mAyan

(teacher of delusion, illusion, magic).

In Kanchipuram Shiva temple, there are adjascent panels to

Shiva showing Vedavyasa and Jaimini on both sides. An ekadandi

sannyasi with a tonsured head is shown near Jaimini. This is

an early Pallava 7-8th century portrayal. Dravidacarya, Sundara

Pandya, ... are early advaita teachers from Tamil Nadu.

So, maayaavaadam in Tamil tiruvaasakam and elsewhere in texts

need not refer to Sankara. No old commentary says so.

It usually means buddhists, and later adavita.

Buddhism and advaita tradition are deeply connected.

 

Regards,

N. Ganesan

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "vpcnk" <vpcnk@H...> wrote:

> The only thing that really concerns me about Shankara being dated at

> 900 AD is the factor of the muslim presence in India. Ramanuja and

> Maadhva are dated at 1000 AD - at their time there was considerable

> muslim presence in Southern India itself. I would think that it

>would have taken more than 100 years for the muslims to come down

>from north to the south. So if Shankara lived in 900 AD

>considering he went around the country propogating the pristine

>Advaita philosophy

> (not meant for people of the dull intellect! :-), he would have been

> aware of the muslim presence considering what they were doing with

> Hindus and their religion.

 

The oldest mosque in India in not in the north, but built in Kerala.

Arab Muslims have been trading with Keralan coast even in the 8th

century.

 

I also remember reading the historian K. A. Nilakanta Sastri

in a book of his, that the monistic philosophy was developed

because India had to respond to monotheism of Islam. Will look

into KAN Sastri's books, don't remember his exact words.

Someone here may know the reference.

 

Regards,

N. Ganesan

[Guest guest]

NG> When one reads papers dating Sankara to 788-820 AD, the

>discussion about Vaacaspati Mishra's date as 840 AD is often

>encountered. Because Vaacaspati lived in 840 AD, the

>argument goes that Sankara is dated to around 800 AD.

 

<<<

VA: That is JUST ONE of the arguments. There could be many others to

reasonably place him a few decades BEFORE 788 A.D. For instance, the

Manimanjari makes Brahmadatta a senior contemporary of

Shankaracharya. Now, Brahmadatta can be reasonably identified as a

contemporary of Matrdatta (all from Kerala) who was a contemporary of

Dandin, who lived actually towards the end of the 7th century. This

would place Shankaracharya closer to 700 A.D.

>>>

 

Vaachaspati's name and his date of around 975 AD was quoted

because often one finds Vaachaspati mentioned in Sankaran dating.

 

Is the maNimanjari from the Madhva tradition? What is the app.

century? 14th or later?

 

Brahmadatta is a common name in Indian stories. Tamil sangam

literature mentions a piramattan2 (Brahmadatta) as well. Indian

stories bring different persons together who could not have actually

met because they lived in in vastly different times. In Tamil,

tiruvaLLuvamAlai and kapilar akaval bring together several persons who

could not have acually met from epigraphical evidence. Sankara vijaya

has that impossibility also.

[Guest guest]

>Sankara himself supposedly praises Jnanasambandhar

> in Saundaryalahari.

 

But it is not really certain whether "dravida sisu" really referred

to Thirujnaanasambandhar.

 

>Dravidacarya, Sundara

> Pandya, ... are early advaita teachers from Tamil Nadu.

 

First of all very little information exists regarding these two

authors to say anything conclusive about their background. Also to be

noted is that it is very unlikely that they would have been "advaita"

teachers in the strict sense of the term - they would have probably

been Vedaantis. They might have held views similar to Advaita in the

issue of the unity of Atman and Brahman but very unlikely that they

used the doctrine of maya the way Gaudapaada and Shankara did.

Classical Advaita starts only from Gaudapaada which fact Shankara

himself seems to recognize.

 

> So, maayaavaadam in Tamil tiruvaasakam and elsewhere in texts

> need not refer to Sankara. No old commentary says so.

 

Historically I don't think there is any reference to Buddhists as

maayaavaadis. Shunyavaadis, Vijnaanavaadis - but never maayaavaadin -

though maayaa as a philosophical doctrine was first systematically

expounded by Naagaarjuna - but still maadhyamikas were called

shunyavaadins.

 

Maayaavaadi in Indian philosophy has always stood only for Advaitins -

though such a ignorant definition ignores the positive aspects of

Advaita namely : Atmavaada and Brahmavaada.

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "naga_ganesan" <naga_ganesan@h...> wrote:

>

>

> Vaachaspati's name and his date of around 975 AD was quoted

> because often one finds Vaachaspati mentioned in Sankaran dating.

VA: And most works 'often' also mention his date as earlier than 975

A.D.. In fact, fairly mainstream literature places him squarely in

800's. A list of references can be provided, if requested. Or

alternately, you can see the online list on Karl H Potter's

bibliography at http://faculty.washington.edu/kpotter/ckeyt/home.htm

Note that he dates Vachaspati fairly late, like you, BUT, he places

Shankaracharya at 710 A.D. See

http://faculty.washington.edu/kpotter/ckeyt/txt.html#372.%

20Aviddhakarna

 

 

>

> Is the maNimanjari from the Madhva tradition? What is the app.

> century? 14th or later?

 

VA: So what if it is late?

 

>

> Brahmadatta is a common name in Indian stories. Tamil sangam

> literature mentions a piramattan2 (Brahmadatta) as well.

 

VA: Yes, Brahmadatta is a common name and is found in many genres of

Hindu literature - right from Vedic times. But we know of only one

Brahmadatta who was intimately related to Vedanta and possibily to

Mimamsa, and also who lived in Kerala.

 

Indian

> stories bring different persons together who could not have

actually

> met because they lived in in vastly different times.

 

VA: True. In this case however, I suggest you read the Manimanjari.

The text is no doubt full of fantasy, but it brings persons fairly

close to each other chronologically otherwise, in the school of

Brahmadatta - Umbeka, Kumarila, Bhaskara, Shankara..

 

Those who rely on 'no inscription' type arguments of silence, might

also well reflect on the fact that Shankaracharya's works are

COMPLETELY silent on Christians (who dwelt not far from Kaladi) and

Muslims.

 

In Tamil,

> tiruvaLLuvamAlai and kapilar akaval bring together several persons

who

> could not have acually met from epigraphical evidence. Sankara

vijaya

> has that impossibility also.

 

VA: For that matter, the Bhavishya Purana says that Sri

Ramanujacharya defeated Sri Shankaracharya in a shastrartha!! The

monolateral reason of Hacker et al has many holes. For instance, we

need to consider that for Shankaracharya and Vachaspati, the Samkhyas

were VERY REAL opponents. Did Samkhya survive as a pwoerful school

down to 975 A.D. to merit epithets such as 'pradhanamalla' etc.??

 

Or consider that Jayanta Bhatta, who is placed at 870 AD (see

http://faculty.washington.edu/kpotter/ckeyt/txt.html#418.%

20Kamalasila ) mentions Bhaskara's Vedanta. Since Bhaskara succeeded

Shankaracharya, is it possible to place the latter at 900 A.D.?

 

Sincerely,

 

Vishal Agarwal

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "vpcnk" <vpcnk@H...> wrote:

 

> The only thing that really concerns me about Shankara being dated

at

> 900 AD is the factor of the muslim presence in India. Ramanuja and

> Maadhva are dated at 1000 AD - at their time there was considerable

> muslim presence in Southern India itself.

 

Nanda,

 

In Ramanujacharya's works or in traditional narratives about him,

there is no mention whatsoever of Muslims ("turuSka").

 

Thanks and Regards,

 

Lakshmi Srinivas

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "vpcnk" <vpcnk@H...> wrote:

> What are the pre-Shankarite parameters which are used for dating

> Shankara? Weren't Shantarakshita and Kamalasila aware of Shankara?

 

No.

 

"Among the six schools of Hindu philosophy, not all schools will

be equally relevant here. For example, because Sankaracarya's

Vedanta became important only after Dharmakirti's main commentators

had spelled out the intricacies of Buddhist epistemology, it

is given little consideration in Tibetan scholarship."

(p. 60, G. B. J. Dreyfus, Recognizing Reality, Dharmakirti's

philosophy and its Tibetan interpretations.

State univ. of New York press, 1997).

 

K. Kunjunni Raja has also written the nonavailability of Sankara's

name in early Tibetan sources.

 

Regards,

N. Ganesan

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "vpcnk" <vpcnk@H...> wrote:

> >Sankara himself supposedly praises Jnanasambandhar

> > in Saundaryalahari.

>

> But it is not really certain whether "dravida sisu" really referred

> to Thirujnaanasambandhar.

>

 

Many things from Indian texts are not certain. We're not sure

whether even the Saundaryalahari is by Adi Sankaracarya either.

 

Given Jnanasambandhar's popularity, inscribed on stone,

icons in metal and stone, and texts from 7th century in the

South, many authors write that this hymn refers to

the crucial event in Jnanasambandhar's life where the goddess Parvati

feeds him.

 

> >Dravidacarya, Sundara

> > Pandya, ... are early advaita teachers from Tamil Nadu.

>

> First of all very little information exists regarding these two

> authors to say anything conclusive about their background. Also to be

> noted is that it is very unlikely that they would have been "advaita"

> teachers in the strict sense of the term - they would have probably

> been Vedaantis. They might have held views similar to Advaita in the

> issue of the unity of Atman and Brahman but very unlikely that they

> used the doctrine of maya the way Gaudapaada and Shankara did.

> Classical Advaita starts only from Gaudapaada which fact Shankara

> himself seems to recognize.

>

 

I just mentioned Sundara Pandya, Dravidacarya originally from the South.

But there were Gauda teachers in the South as well. Inscriptions

mention incoming Sivacharyas, Brahmins into the South.

 

Also, under Jaimini (Mimamsa), and Vedavyasa (Brahmasutra) sculptures

we find ekadaNDi sannyasis expounding vedanta in many temples

datable to 7th century onwards. See the published sculptures in

K. R. Venkatraman's book, C. Sivaramamurti's book & so on.

It will be wrong to assign them as Adi Sankara, as there is paucity

of evidence till eleventh century.

 

> > So, maayaavaadam in Tamil tiruvaasakam and elsewhere in texts

> > need not refer to Sankara. No old commentary says so.

>

> Historically I don't think there is any reference to Buddhists as

> maayaavaadis. Shunyavaadis, Vijnaanavaadis - but never maayaavaadin -

> though maayaa as a philosophical doctrine was first systematically

> expounded by Naagaarjuna - but still maadhyamikas were called

> shunyavaadins.

>

> Maayaavaadi in Indian philosophy has always stood only for Advaitins -

> though such a ignorant definition ignores the positive aspects of

> Advaita namely : Atmavaada and Brahmavaada.

 

Not just advaita. Refer to the classic Madras University Tamil Lexicon

volumes. MTL clearly says maayaavaadam in Tamil means *both* buddhism,

and advaitam. Is it Gaudapada's 4th chapter that is considered

a separate Buddhist work on its own?

 

Regards,

N. Ganesan

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "naga_ganesan" <naga_ganesan@h...> wrote:

> > >Dravidacarya, Sundara

> > > Pandya, ... are early advaita teachers from Tamil Nadu.

> >

> > First of all very little information exists regarding these two

> > authors to say anything conclusive about their background. Also to be

> > noted is that it is very unlikely that they would have been "advaita"

> > teachers in the strict sense of the term - they would have probably

> > been Vedaantis. They might have held views similar to Advaita in the

> > issue of the unity of Atman and Brahman but very unlikely that they

> > used the doctrine of maya the way Gaudapaada and Shankara did.

> > Classical Advaita starts only from Gaudapaada which fact Shankara

> > himself seems to recognize.

> >

>

> I just mentioned Sundara Pandya, Dravidacarya originally from the South.

> But there were Gauda teachers in the South as well. Inscriptions

> mention incoming Sivacharyas, Brahmins into the South.

>

> Also, under Jaimini (Mimamsa), and Vedavyasa (Brahmasutra) sculptures

> we find ekadaNDi sannyasis expounding vedanta in many temples

> datable to 7th century onwards. See the published sculptures in

> K. R. Venkatraman's book, C. Sivaramamurti's book & so on.

> It will be wrong to assign them as Adi Sankara, as there is paucity

> of evidence till eleventh century.

 

I mentioned about inscriptional evidence necessary to date Sankaracharya

for a reason. In the south India, that's how saints are dated.

We find Azhvars' poems inscribed in modern Malaysia. Nayanmars, the Saiva

saints' mention are frequently found in inscriptions. About Ramanujacarya,

there is a whole book (Dr. Gopal's book analysing inscriptions on Ramanuja).

 

It will be really surprising to push Sankara's date to 7th, 8th centuries

when we find Vaacaspati living in late 10th century, and inscriptions pertaining

to Sankara are in Tamil and belong to 11th and 12th centuries.

 

Regards,

N. Ganesan

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "vishalsagarwal" <vishalagarwal@h...> wrote:

> VA: This is interesting. It is not out of place to point out that

> some Dravidianists post-date Shankaracharya, and through a

> tendentious line of reasoning, also Buddha, then Rigveda and so on

in

> order to enlarge the chronological gap between IVC and Vedic

> literature. The ulterior motive is enhance the possibility of

> acceptance of a 'proto-Dravidian' race as the progenitor of the IVC.

 

This is surprising. Going purely by their writings, traditional Tamil

scholars, Dravidianists etc are not in the least interested in

Samkara or his advaita.

 

In fact, strong interest in Samkara, advaita etc is a general 20th

century, urban phenomenon. Samkara's dating has been in public eye

since the same time also because of some rather public washing of

dirty linen by the various maTha's.

 

It may come as a surprise but most advaita scholars at least in the

South are not very comfortable in the mother tongue. Many primarily

write or wrote in English. Good examples would be Sarvepalli

Radhakrishnan, TMP Mahadevan etc ...

 

You can see this even today in discussion lists on the Net on

Advaita. The discussion is primarily in English, using English

translations of a sort (full of words the English themselves may have

forgotten like 'nescience', 'verily' etc ) and most references are to

English texts. Even their advaita primers are named in a particular

way. One of them 'Kindle Light', a primer on advaita of the Chinmaya

Mission, always reminded me of 'Lead Kindly Light'

 

It may perhaps be more accurate to think of Tamilists/Dravidianists

and Advaitists as two non intersecting universes, each rather

uninterested in the other's pursuits.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Lakshmi Srinivas

[Guest guest]

> > What are the pre-Shankarite parameters which are used for dating

> > Shankara? Weren't Shantarakshita and Kamalasila aware of

Shankara?

>

> No.

>

> "Among the six schools of Hindu philosophy, not all schools will

> be equally relevant here. For example, because Sankaracarya's

> Vedanta became important only after Dharmakirti's main commentators

> had spelled out the intricacies of Buddhist epistemology, it

> is given little consideration in Tibetan scholarship."

> (p. 60, G. B. J. Dreyfus, Recognizing Reality, Dharmakirti's

> philosophy and its Tibetan interpretations.

> State univ. of New York press, 1997).

 

I'm not sure what the point is here.

 

>

> K. Kunjunni Raja has also written the nonavailability of Sankara's

> name in early Tibetan sources.

 

That itself cannot prove anything conclusive as the Tibetean

tradition is not Indian.

 

Gaudapaada was earlier than Bhaavaviveka as the latter quotes the

former in his Tarkajvaala. Dignaaga was later than Bhaavaviveka as he

is a contemporary of Chandrakirti who criticizes Bhaavaviveka.

Dharmakirti was not even a direct disciple of Dignaaga and was

probably a couple of generations away. Saantarakshita likewise was

not a direct disciple of Dharmakirti.

 

Here it is to be noted that Gaudapaada was the paramaguru of

Shankara - the teacher of his teacher. So how later can he be than

Gaudapaada?

 

Shantarakshita is known to have criticized Advaita in his

Tarkasamgraha. But is he aware of Shankara?

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "lsrinivas" <lsrinivas> wrote:

> INDOLOGY, "vishalsagarwal" <vishalagarwal@h...> wrote:

> This is surprising. Going purely by their writings, traditional

Tamil

> scholars, Dravidianists etc are not in the least interested in

> Samkara or his advaita.

VA: But they might still be interested in his date.

 

>

> In fact, strong interest in Samkara, advaita etc is a general 20th

> century, urban phenomenon.

VA: Darshanashastra has been linked with the elite of the society,

typically. In the sphere of Vedanta as such, Advaita has had a

privileged position as such for a few centuries.

 

Samkara's dating has been in public eye

> since the same time also because of some rather public washing of

> dirty linen by the various maTha's.

VA: But has any of these 'XYZmatha-mukha-chapetikaa' or 'ABC-XYZ-

samvaada' type literature tried to postdate Adi Shankara after 788-

820 AD? To my knowledge, no.

 

>

> It may come as a surprise but most advaita scholars at least in the

> South are not very comfortable in the mother tongue. Many primarily

> write or wrote in English. Good examples would be Sarvepalli

> Radhakrishnan, TMP Mahadevan etc ...

VA: Orthodox Advaitins actually do not have a very high opinion of

Radhakrishnan's 'Vedanta' and as a Hindu I myself find his works too

pot-pourri. Advaita Vedanta has been more pan Indian than say Gaudiya

Vedanta, Ubhaya Vedanta (their very names indicate a regional

association) and from the very beginning, Advaita literature tries to

emphasize its pan-Indian character ('thus say the Gaudas..and thus

also say the dravidas' etc.). It is questionable if most Advaita

scholars are uncomfortable with their mother tongues, at least in

north India, there is no dearth of Advaita classics and commentaries

in Hindi, Punjabi....

 

 

>

> You can see this even today in discussion lists on the Net on

> Advaita. The discussion is primarily in English, using English

> translations of a sort (full of words the English themselves may

have

> forgotten like 'nescience', 'verily' etc ) and most references are

to

> English texts.

 

VA: Depends on one's views on translation of Samskrit texts. One

school would leave along terms like maya, avidya, devata, abhasa

etc., whether the other school things that doing so is defeating the

very purpose of translations.

 

> Even their advaita primers are named in a particular

> way. One of them 'Kindle Light', a primer on advaita of the

Chinmaya

> Mission, always reminded me of 'Lead Kindly Light'

VA: Shows that the Mission is not narrow minded and is open to

external influences. Aparently, the Hindus are damned if they do it,

and damned if they do not do it!

 

>

> It may perhaps be more accurate to think of Tamilists/Dravidianists

> and Advaitists as two non intersecting universes, each rather

> uninterested in the other's pursuits.

 

VA: The Dravidianists might not be interested in what the Veda or

Vedanta say, but might be still interested in the dates of these

texts.

 

BTW, in another post you mentioned that none of the traditional

biographical accounts on Sri Ramanujacharya mention Muslims. But is

there not a tradition that he went north to retreive an icon from the

daughter of a Muslim ruler ('of Delhi') and re-installed it in the

original site in South India?

 

Sincerely,

 

Vishal Agarwal