[Advaita-l] Encounter between Madhvacharya and a Sringeri Pontiff

[D Gayatri]

//Also, the Puranas and Mahabharata and Ramayana are no more than
'hagiographies'.  //

Correct. No serious scholar considers them as literally true, though they
may be based on true stories, but this is not verifiable anyway. They are
mythology, not history.


On Saturday, 3 September 2016, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 2:42 PM, D Gayatri <dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dgayatrinov10 at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
>> //Even Advaitins believe that Shankaracharya had a discussion with Veda
>> Vyasa. Advaitins, at a level, take such accounts seriously//
>>
>>
>> This is the problem with hagiographies that I was trying to point out.
>>
>
> That is no problem for Advaitins; only those who are not Advaitins may
> have a problem. The purpose of such accounts is  well served for aspirants
> of the tradition just as the accounts of Krishna or Rama do. Shankara and
> all the pūrvāchāryas of the tradition did not have any problem with such
> accounts about their earlier Acharyas for their quest of the Advaitic
> Truth. It is the by stander that has problems.
>
>
>> Moreover, the ones on Shankara were written hundreds of years after he
>> lived. So for all practical purposes, they are not of much historical value.
>>
>
> The one on Shankara that was written much later, is based on an earlier
> one that was existing before that. That is what is said in the abridged
> version. The earlier version, however, is unavailable now.
>
> Also, the Puranas and Mahabharata and Ramayana are no more than
> 'hagiographies'.  We only believe that their authors were present when
> those events took place. Who can prove it? It is the case with anything
> past.  Even with a comparatively recent dating of Madhvacharya or
> Vidyaranya or Appayya Dikshita there is no finality.
>
>