Guest guest Posted October 25, 2002 Report Share Posted October 25, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2002 Report Share Posted October 25, 2002 >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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2002 Report Share Posted October 25, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2002 Report Share Posted October 27, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2002 Report Share Posted October 27, 2002 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. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2002 Report Share Posted October 27, 2002 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2002 Report Share Posted October 27, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2002 Report Share Posted October 27, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2002 Report Share Posted October 28, 2002 > 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2002 Report Share Posted October 28, 2002 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2002 Report Share Posted October 28, 2002 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2002 Report Share Posted October 29, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2002 Report Share Posted October 29, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2002 Report Share Posted October 29, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2002 Report Share Posted October 29, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2002 Report Share Posted October 29, 2002 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2002 Report Share Posted October 29, 2002 >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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2002 Report Share Posted October 29, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2002 Report Share Posted October 29, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2002 Report Share Posted October 30, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2002 Report Share Posted October 30, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2002 Report Share Posted October 30, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2002 Report Share Posted October 30, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2002 Report Share Posted October 30, 2002 > > 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2002 Report Share Posted October 30, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.