[Advaita-l] Anangagiri's significant comment

[Vinodh]

On Sat 15. Jan 2022 at 13:57, nsaha12 at yahoo.com <nsaha12 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Namaskaram, Vinod ji and Subbu ji,
>
> V: Sri Niranjan ji, thank you for your response, which is
> non-contradictory to
> what I have said (Shankara’s period has been argued to be 508-477 BCE. )
>
> N: I just wonder if it's held to be 7/8th Century CE.
>

I am aware of the arguments in support of both periods and the counters to
the 7/8th century CE period as told by Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi in
a 1963 discourse. The breadth and details of the various aspects discussed
in the discourse provide a convincing argument that Shankara’s period is in
the BCE and not in the CE period.

I had typed the English translation of his discourse on this subject from
the book Voice of God Vol 5 (a translation of Deivattin Kural) earlier over
a series of 4 emails in another group:
https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/yiuAn3bDpMg/m/Tf2zbzyPAgAJ

Although I had initially started with the aim of only give a few excerpts,
I ended up typing almost the entire discourse to be able to do full justice
to the depth and breadth of the topics he has addressed in it. It may
contain a few typographical errors here and there. My apologies for those
errors. If you seem to find any serious errors in what I have written,
please do let me know, and I would be happy to check again and send you
photos of the corresponding pages from the book if required.

Namaskaram 🙏


> S: Anandagiri's gloss has clearly said that
> taking the triad to be diff individuals is Puranic and not Shrouta and in
> the face of Shruti, Purana is a weak evidence.
>
> N: Yes, ...not shrauta...a weaker evidence.
>
>
> With regards,
> Niranjan
>
>
> On Saturday, 15 January, 2022, 11:09:50 am IST, V Subrahmanian via
> Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 7:36 AM Vinodh via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > Sri Niranjan ji, thank you for your response, which is non-contradictory
> to
> > what I have said.
> >
> > Sri Subbu ji, I am still curious to know what the significance of Sri
> > Anandagiri’s comment is?
> >
>
> The significance is this: there are certain people who wish to paint
> Vidyaranya and later Advaitins as having deviated from Shankara,
> Sureshwara, Sarvajnatman, etc. all of whom were 'Vaishnava Advaitins' in
> the sense that they all held Vishnu alone to be the Supreme Brahman,
> Saguna.  The leaning towards Hari-Hara abheda, Trimurti aikya, etc. started
> afterwards.
>
> This statement of Anandagiri is clear evidence to the contrary.  Not just
> this, Sureshwara's Vartika holds Hari-Brahma-Pinaki as the non-different
> Jagatkaranam, Antaryami, for which Anandagiri's gloss has clearly said that
> taking the triad to be diff individuals is Puranic and not Shrouta and in
> the face of Shruti, Purana is a weak evidence.
>
> regards
> subbu
>
>
> >
> > I had always assumed devah meant Brahma etc. For example, during the
> > Deva-Rishi-Pitru-Tarpanam during the Brahma-Yajna Nitya-Karma, we start
> > Deva-Tarpanam by saying “Brahmaadayoh ye devaah taan devaanstarpayaami”.
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>