[Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

Om Namo Bhagavate Vasuevaya,
That the Jinavijaya has been destroyed is substantiated by circumstantial evidence and I have given the reasons. If you do not pay attention to the circumstantial evidence I have no problem.. Don't forget that it was you who first talked about the Jinavijaya, .without knowing that Jinavijaya had been mentioned in literature prior to the concoction of the AIT by Max Muller. .
Again it was you and not me who talked about Chitsukha, without proving or disproving anything. Now you are trying to evade the issue.
I talked about king Sudhanva's copper inscription and not carbon inscription as you mention. You are choosing to remain silent on that now. What type of scholarship is this to ignore vital evidences? If you challenge the claim of the Dwarka Math, one of the four main Sankara maths, it is incumbent on you to substantiate what you say. 
Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya.
Sunil K. Bhattacharjya



--- On Mon, 1/18/10, Varadaraja Sharma <rishyasrunga at rediffmail.com> wrote:

From: Varadaraja Sharma <rishyasrunga at rediffmail.com>
Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002
To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Date: Monday, January 18, 2010, 5:34 AM

Radhe Krishna

Shriman Sunil, Radhe Krishna. 

It is not all important as to in what all literature, a reference has been given about "Jina Vijaya".  It is all the more important, as to whether a orignial manuscript of the grantha is available as on date. you have written that "The British historians obviously saw to it that the Jinavijaya is destroyed as that was the biggest hardle in their pet theory of AIT". So you agree to the fact that what is available today as "Jina Vijaya" is not original as such. If that being the case, I do not give credence to what is written in it. Regarding your statement "that British historians obviously saw to it that the Jinavijaya is destroyed" - may I ask you - is it a substantiated fact? or an allegation? - not sort of scoring points - but sort of knowing about the facts, I have put forth this question.

The same with regard to chitsuka, the alleged childhood friend of Adya Acharyal. What is the source from which you say that Chitsuka was the childhood friend of Adya Acharyal? 

Regarding the carbon inscription.  A whole of lot of queries which are extremely relevant to enunciate the vracity of this inscription has been raised by Shriman Vidyasankar in the post "history of Bharatvarsha". I wish to add one more observation. Carbon dating of the copper plate which is alleged to be thousands of years old. A normal procedure followed by historians who examine artefacts.

Please do not ask me, a salaried employee working currently in Kashmir to go all the way to Dwarka to examine the copper plate.  Thats the job of a historian.  As I told you already I am patient enough to wait for the facts to unfold and do  I not have any preconceived notions.

Me - an armchair critic! - Just by having read a few books on this topic and having read a good lot of discussions on related topics from the archives of this list, indology and audarya fellowship, I consider myself a humble reader and person interested in updating my information on known facts. If you used this phrase as an abuse, it does not bather me.  Shama damadi shatgunasampath is the prerequisite of aspiring soul. Although I have not gained the shatgunasampath, I virtually long to earn it.  With warm regards.

Radhe Krishna



_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org