[Advaita-l] [advaitin] Paper on Kenopanishad

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Dear Bhattacharya ji,

what are Nimbarka and Keshava Kashmiri doing in this thread on the advaita
list? Please keep your different private email and public discussion
threads distinct.

Thank you,
Vidyasankar

On Jan 14, 2017 11:56 PM, "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <
sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dear Vidyasankarji,
>
> I admire your very critical look at things.  From you mail it is clear
> that you are not convinced in Keshav kshmiri Bhattacharya being the 33rd
> Nimbarkacharya. I would have been happy if  you would have told us as to
> what you think about the date of Suka, the guru of Gaudapadacharya. I am
> reminding you lest you have overlooked that
>
> Regards,
> Sunil KB
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Sat, 1/14/17, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] [advaitin] Paper on Kenopanishad
>  To: "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
>  Cc: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-
> vedanta.org>, "yahoogroups" <advaitin at yahoogroups.com>
>  Date: Saturday, January 14, 2017, 6:20 PM
>
>  On Jan 14, 2017
>  2:41 PM, "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
>  wrote:
>  Dear
>  Vidyashankarji,
>
>
>
>  Like the Avogadro's Hypothesis in science, the
>  hypothesis that Adi Shankara wrote sixteen (16) bhashyas may
>  stand tall, particularly because  the Brihat Shankara
>  Vijaya as well as the work of Shri Vidyaranya combined with
>  commentary on it says so, until someone gives another proven
>  figure to contest that.
>
>  Till I see credible reports of
>  actual manuscripts of this so called bRhacchankaravijaya
>  having been found, I'll be extremely skeptical, even
>  dismissive, of arbitrary claims conveniently attributed to
>  that text. Whatever flights of fancy you choose to believe
>  is your problem sir. Please do not expect everyone else to
>  subscribe to the same fancy!
>
>
>
>  Kindly permit me to say that I have no reason to believe
>  that  there have been people  all around, who have been
>  conspiring against the Sringeri
>  math.
>  This statement of yours is so
>  laughable as to not deserve any response, so I'm not
>  going to give you one. I just wonder how some generic doubt
>  about authorship of one or the other text becomes an issue
>  about the Sringeri lineage in your mind! There is no
>  connection at all that anybody else can see, but please,
>  have at it. I'm done, trying to respond sensibly to your
>  latest round of desperate attempts in this
>  misdirection.
>  Best
>  regards,Vidyasankar
>
>
>