[Advaita-l] Sankaracharya

[vijay kartik]

Parallel traditions still have to reflect historical facts in essence.

Anything that is in total contradiction to well-accepted and age-old understanding of history cannot be reckoned as “tradition”.It is obviously nice to say that all the eminent saints belonged to its lineage so that the public image of the Mutt is benefited. However such claims of “tradition” have to bear some semblance of credibility.

 

Just to quote an example:

The Kanchi Mutt claims that:

   - Vidya Theertha was one of the Acharyas of the Kanchi Mutt in the 13th century!!

   - Vedanta Desika was a disciple of Vidya Theertha at Kanchi!!

 

It is well-known that Vidya Theertha adorned the Sringeri Peetam. Even Madhva literature recognize  Vidya Theertha as the Sringeri Acharya who engaged in debate with the Madhva saint.

 

The Vaishanava bhaktas of Vedanta Desika would be shocked to read such worng references about the guru of their revered Desika. It is strange why Desika has not referred to this “guru” of his in any of the numerous works he authored.

 

Such claims are just the product of wild imagination.They cannot be called “tradition”. Just because the unsuspecting public would believe anything that is claimed, Mutts cannot distort history.


Ravishankar Venkatraman <sunlike at hotmail.com> wrote:
>From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" 
>Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Sankaracharya
>Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 01:31:21 -0400 (EDT)
>
>On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Ravishankar Venkatraman wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately this tradition is from Sri Sadasiva Brahmendra Saraswathy
> > Swamigal (acknowledged to be the biggest mystic in several centuries by 
>all
> > Sankaracharyas and other yogis). This is at least 400 years old.
> >
>
>Personally I do think that Kanchis' claim to be one of the original even
>the central Math established by Adya Shankaracharya is not tenable.
>However you are right that the lineage of sannyasis whose names end in
>*indra Saraswati is older. There is literary evidence for atleast 400
>years as you mentioned.
>

Jaldhar, I do see your point here. What is being brought to light by kanchi 
mutt is what they have had as a tradition. The Guru Parampara which mentions 
all the Acharya's names by Sri Sadasiva Brahmendra is one of the key 
documents for extrapolating the dates to 2500BC, with a list of Acharyas.

Sri Sadasiva Brahmendra Saraswathy was not an Acharya of the mutt as he was 
married for a short period of time. He lists all the previous acharyas upto 
His guru (Sri Paramasivendra Saraswathy), in Guru Ratna malika stotram, 
with their names, place and the date of mukthi. Under a financially 
difficult period in 18th and 19th centuries, with the Kanchi Acharyas having 
meagre resources to do Sri. Chandramoulishwara puja, I doubt whether they 
were worried about having to spend their money on information systems to 
prove their validity in future.

Now when someone observes how Kanchi mutt can come up in such a detail adout 
the Acharyas' names, places and the tithi etc. is certainly a valid 
question. But this is THE TRADITION, with the information being passed down 
from Sri. Sadasive Brahmendra. We really cannot do much here.

If you read the book "Adi Sankara: His Life and Times", Sri. 
Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi Swamigal concludes his view of the 
Bhagavathpada's life, primarily based on Siva Rahasyam, with additional 
justification from Sankara Vijayas. His Holiness view is also traditional in 
that way. The copies of Siva Rahasyam, which were used by His Holiness were 
obtained from Maharaja of Kashi library. They were not from Kanchi mutt 
library.

I am bound to think that a parallel tradition, having a link between Kanchi 
mutt and Sri. Bhagavathpada should have existed in the past, but became 
weak over centuries. When the British started rewriting Indian History, Sri 
Sankara's life became a controversy,for the first time people started 
comparing the available hagiographies.

We see that in many temples, we have a tradition from sthala puranas, which 
may not be found in the regular 18 puranas. Sometimes they contradict each 
other, still we do go to the temple, and the all merciful God is still kind 
to us, irrespective of what you think is correct. This is something like 
that.


>
>By the way, I also don't agree with the Dwarka maths figures either (which
>incidently contradict some of their own earlier publications which
>acknowledge the 788-820 AD date) so this is not just a matter of party
>politics for me.
>
I understand the predicament. On one hand, they find the Sringeri mutt 
matching up with 7th Century AD, but with their list of 70 Acharyas they 
cannot fit into this period.


Thanks everyone...

God bless,

Ravi

_________________________________________________________________
Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar – FREE! 
http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/

_______________________________________________
want to unsubscribe or change your options? See:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
Need assistance? Contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th