[Advaita-l] Sreemath Hariharapura

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

Dear Vidyasankarji,

I remember to have read a write-up by you quite sometime ago where there  mentioned  about some kind of dispute between the Kanchi Mutt and the Kumbhokaonam Mutt. In fact to my knowledge the Kanchi Mutt shifted temporarily to Kumbhokonam sometime in the past for whatever reason and later on it shifted back to Kanchipuram.

As regards King Vikram I feel that the Vikram could be the king who died in 457 BCE and Alberuni mentions about the Vikrama era starting from 457 BCE. That Vikrama ruled from Ujjain and he was the son of Chandra Sarma, the purvashrama name of Govinda Bhagavadpada, the guru of Adi Sankaracharya. King Purnavarman (whom Adi Sankaracharya mentioned) also spoke highly of this Vikrama. Bhartrihari was the brother of this Vikrama and the latter got the Hari ki pairi made in Hardwar in memory of Bhartrihari.

Regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Sun, 4/17/11, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:

From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Sreemath Hariharapura
To: "Advaita List" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Date: Sunday, April 17, 2011, 8:02 PM


Dear Suniji,
 
With great hesitation, I'm responding to a couple of points below. I'm at a loss to understand
why you think that there are elders of Kumbhakonam Matha who are separate from the elders
of Kanchi Matha. I'm also at a loss to understand why you think Sringeri Matha has given up
its tradition that Sankara Bhagavatpada was born during the reign of Vikrama (no matter which
king this Vikrama may be identified with, by different people). 
 
Regards,
Vidyasankar
 
 
> Dear Venkata Sriramji,
> 
> You said as follows;
> 
> Quote
> Great wars have been waged by the parties of 2 mutts and there are some
> culprits behind this.  Let us not dig out those issues.  
> Unquote
> 
> Yeas. This is very painful but true.  However just burying the unpleasantness will not help. Even if we bury it today it will be dug up tomorrow. The elders of the two mutts should sit down and sort out their differences sooner than later. The elders of the Kanchi mutt should also sit down separately with the elders of the Kumbhakonam mutt to sort out certain issues about their antiquity and they should not take it as prestige issue as the truth is at stake. So also the Sringeri mutt should stick to its original statement that Adi Sankaracharya was born on the 14th year of the reign of Vikramarka. To me that Vikramarka  cannot be the Vikramaditya-II of the Chalukya dynasty who reigned from 733 to 744 CE and new evidences are coming to show that he could have reigned even earlier. I think I should not talk much as it is better to leave it to the elders of the mutts to work out the things out  and my service is at their disposal whnever they want it.
> 
> As regard the Vyavaharika one cannot run away from the Vyavaharika world nor can ignore it by doing like the Ostrich does ie. which digs the head into the sand. The Vyavaharika world is the Karmabhoomi and even devas want to come to this Karmabhoomi. The Vyavaharika world appears as dream only to a Jivanmukta, for whom there is not any individual identity and there is only "Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma".  Adi Sankaracharya was a Jivanmukta and the Vyavaharika world did appear as dream world to him  but that cannot be said to happen to any  Tarun, Dinesh and Harish (I mean any Tom, Dick and Harry) just like that.
> 
> Why don't you tell us more about the details of observing the "rAja mudrA" of srImukha patra of the amnaya pitha ?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Sunil K.Bhattacharjya
                           
_______________________________________________
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