Vidyaranya

[Guest guest]

Vidyasankar writes:

 

*** Not true. The dates above represent the dates when the succeeding

*** maThAdhipati took over from the previous one. They do not

*** represent dates of sannyAsa.

 

An authoritative "not true"! :-)

 

My knowledge of these matters is restricted to one source,

the introduction by Swami Tapasyananda of RK Mutt Publication

Sankara DigVijaya. From what I have seen, Tapasyananda has commented

on number of other works and seems reasonably knowledgeable. However,

in these matters, he could be wrong; but if so, I want to see more in

the way of evidence.

 

With that has a preamble, I continue.

 

This is verbatim from the book:

 

"In the fortieth year (i.e. 1335), he became associated with

thefounders of the Vijayanagara empire - Hari Hara I and his brother

Bhukka I - who began the consolidation of the State by 1336. He served

under three successive kings as chief minister and built up the

greatness and prosperity of that kingdom until he retired in about

1380 to take up the life of Sannyasa at the age of 85. He begame the

head of the Sringeri Math for a few years and passed away at the age

of 91 in 1386."

 

For what it is worth, Tapasyananda is quite precise about both the

time he became the Muutadipathi, and the time he became a Sanyasi.

 

He further goes on to argue why the Vidyaranya, the Muttadhipathi, is

the same Vidyaranya of the Vijayanagara court. He writes (again

quoting verbatim):

 

"The identity if further established by the poet (i.e. Vidyaranya)

Madhava's reference to his life in the royal court in the following

touching introductory verses of his work: "By indulging in indulging

in insincere praise of the goodness and magnanimity of kings, which

are really non-existent like the son of a barren woman or the horns of

a hare, my poesy has become extremely impure. Now I shall render it

pure and fragrant by applying to it the cool and fragrant sandal paste

falled from the body of the danseuse of the Acharya's holy fame and

greatness, as she eprforms her dance onthe great stage of the world."

 

 

Re: inscription. How can it be established, incontrovertibly, that the

Vidyaranaya, the sanyasi mentioned in the inscription, is the same

Vidyaranya of Sringeri Mutt?

 

You mentioned the gotras, what were teh gotras of the various

Vidyarananyas?

>From what I understand, the chief minister is not a minor position,

and hence, it seems that there should be far less confusion than

perhaps even Mutt records (e.g. gotrams etc.). I was under the

impression that Sanyasis do not use their gotrams upon becoming

sanyasis. Is this true?

 

Anyway, regardless of how this issue is settled, I am personally

of the opinion that these are nit-picky issues that are best handled

by Ph.D dissertations and of little consequence to establishing

Sri Vedanta Desika's spiritual outlook.

 

sk

[Guest guest]

Vidyasankar writes:

 

*** Not true. The dates above represent the dates when the succeeding

*** maThAdhipati took over from the previous one. They do not

*** represent dates of sannyAsa.

 

An authoritative "not true"! :-)

 

My knowledge of these matters is restricted to one source,

the introduction by Swami Tapasyananda of RK Mutt Publication

Sankara DigVijaya. From what I have seen, Tapasyananda has commented

on number of other works and seems reasonably knowledgeable. However,

in these matters, he could be wrong; but if so, I want to see more in

the way of evidence.

 

With that has a preamble, I continue.

 

This is verbatim from the book:

 

"In the fortieth year (i.e. 1335), he became associated with

thefounders of the Vijayanagara empire - Hari Hara I and his brother

Bhukka I - who began the consolidation of the State by 1336. He served

under three successive kings as chief minister and built up the

greatness and prosperity of that kingdom until he retired in about

1380 to take up the life of Sannyasa at the age of 85. He begame the

head of the Sringeri Math for a few years and passed away at the age

of 91 in 1386."

 

For what it is worth, Tapasyananda is quite precise about both the

time he became the Muutadipathi, and the time he became a Sanyasi.

 

He further goes on to argue why the Vidyaranya, the Muttadhipathi, is

the same Vidyaranya of the Vijayanagara court. He writes (again

quoting verbatim):

 

"The identity if further established by the poet (i.e. Vidyaranya)

Madhava's reference to his life in the royal court in the following

touching introductory verses of his work: "By indulging in indulging

in insincere praise of the goodness and magnanimity of kings, which

are really non-existent like the son of a barren woman or the horns of

a hare, my poesy has become extremely impure. Now I shall render it

pure and fragrant by applying to it the cool and fragrant sandal paste

falled from the body of the danseuse of the Acharya's holy fame and

greatness, as she eprforms her dance onthe great stage of the world."

 

 

Re: inscription. How can it be established, incontrovertibly, that the

Vidyaranaya, the sanyasi mentioned in the inscription, is the same

Vidyaranya of Sringeri Mutt?

 

You mentioned the gotras, what were teh gotras of the various

Vidyarananyas?

>From what I understand, the chief minister is not a minor position,

and hence, it seems that there should be far less confusion than

perhaps even Mutt records (e.g. gotrams etc.). I was under the

impression that Sanyasis do not use their gotrams upon becoming

sanyasis. Is this true?

 

Anyway, regardless of how this issue is settled, I am personally

of the opinion that these are nit-picky issues that are best handled

by Ph.D dissertations and of little consequence to establishing

Sri Vedanta Desika's spiritual outlook.

 

sk

[Guest guest]

skaushik wrote:

> An authoritative "not true"! :-)

>

> My knowledge of these matters is restricted to one source,

> the introduction by Swami Tapasyananda of RK Mutt Publication

> Sankara DigVijaya. From what I have seen, Tapasyananda has commented

> on number of other works and seems reasonably knowledgeable. However,

 

I am not denying that Swami Tapasyananda is very learned. Some of his

writings are very well done, but in this particular matter, I would beg

to disagree with him. His discussion of Sankara's date is also somewhat

inconclusive, in that he tries to concede as much as possible to all sorts

of contrary "traditional" dates, which leads nowhere. This may be okay for

the purposes of hagiographical description, but as history it is weak.

> This is verbatim from the book:

>

> "In the fortieth year (i.e. 1335), he became associated with

> thefounders of the Vijayanagara empire - Hari Hara I and his brother

> ....

> 1380 to take up the life of Sannyasa at the age of 85. He begame the

> head of the Sringeri Math for a few years and passed away at the age

> of 91 in 1386."

 

This is not what the Sringeri traditions and more reliable historical

records say. The legend about the founding of the Vijaynagar empire is that

Harihara and Bukka met and became disciples of Vidyaranya, when he was doing

tapasyA on virUpAksha hill near Hampi. This might have been in the year

1335 CE. What is certain from rock inscriptions is that in 1346 CE,

Harihara and Bukka came to Sringeri, to pay respects to the maThAdhipati

there, for his blessings in setting up the Hindu kingdom. The founding of

the Vijayanagar empire is probably the first time a Hindu king consciously

thought of the Arab and Turks as aliens who needed to be resisted on religious

as well as political and military grounds.

 

This 1346 inscription mentions bhAratI tIrtha and vidyAraNya as disciples of

vidyASankara tIrtha, who were on the "dharma simhAsana of Sr.ngeri". This was

also the time when the foundation for the vidyASankara temple was laid at the

site of the samAdhi of vidyASankara tIrtha. The relevant records are now in the

possession of the Archeological Survey of India.

 

Obviously, if vidyAraNya was already at the dharmasimhAsana of Sr.ngeri in 1346,

it is difficult to square this with the idea that he "served" under three kings

of vijayanagar. The source for this confusion is the fact that vidyAraNya's

name was originally mAdhava. Whether this mAdhava was the younger brother of

sAyaNa or not, is not very clear. In the vijayanagar empire itself, there was

a minister named mAdhava and a governor of the province of Goa, also named

mAdhava.

> You mentioned the gotras, what were teh gotras of the various

> Vidyarananyas?

 

The various gotras are of the various mAdhavas. There was only one vidyAraNya.

sAyaNa and mAdhava were of the AngIrasa gotra, bodhAyana sUtra yajurvedins.

mAdhava, the governor of Goa was of the Gautama gotra, and the other minister

mAdhava was kauSika gotra, I think. More authoritative discussion on the gotras

of the three mAdhavas can be found in P.V. Kane's History of Dharmasastra, in

the context of his discussion on the pArASara-mAdhavIyam. It is not clear

what gotra was the mAdhava who became vidyAraNya. This of course squares in

with the advaita attitude towards the complete severing of all pUrvASrama

connections after sannyAsa. Even for fairly recent advaitins, there is very

scanty information on their pUrvASrama lives.

> He further goes on to argue why the Vidyaranya, the Muttadhipathi, is

> the same Vidyaranya of the Vijayanagara court. He writes (again

> quoting verbatim):

>

> "The identity if further established by the poet (i.e. Vidyaranya)

> Madhava's reference to his life in the royal court in the following

> touching introductory verses of his work: "By indulging in indulging

> in insincere praise of the goodness and magnanimity of kings, which

 

This introductory verse only proves that the writer of this Sankara-vijayam

was a mAdhava who used to praise kings to receive material benefit. It does

not prove that this mAdhava is the same as vidyAraNya. Of course, there has

never been any doubt that the mAdhavIya Sankara-vijayam is indeed the

composition of a person named mAdhava who lived in the 14th century. There has

been

some recent controversy about its authorship, but that is driven by rivalry

among different maThas. Swami Tapasyananda also points this out in his footnotes

in pages 8-10 of his introduction to the translation. However, I don't see

how this verse can be taken as proving the identity of this mAdhava with

vidyAraNya.

 

Even if the author mAdhava is the same as vidyAraNya, the verse does not

identify which king it was that he praised, nor when he composed this

Sankara-vijayam. The reference to praising kings is too general and not

conclusive.

> Anyway, regardless of how this issue is settled, I am personally

> of the opinion that these are nit-picky issues that are best handled

> by Ph.D dissertations and of little consequence to establishing

> Sri Vedanta Desika's spiritual outlook.

 

Of course. If it is the vairAgya of vedAnta deSika that is sought to be

emphasized, what you say is true. However, when referring to vidyAraNya, who

is considered a jIvanmukta and a jagadguru by the advaitins, it is perhaps

advisable to be more careful in the choice of words than to call him a

court official or a minister of the vijayangar kingdom. It is also not

consistent with the fact that vidyAraNya was called karNATaka simhAsana

pratishThApanAcArya - surely this was an AcArya who blessed the effort to

establish a karNATaka simhAsanam, not a mere official.

 

So, all in all, getting back to Swami Tapasyananda's translation of the

mAdhavIya Sankara vijayam, a large part of what he says in his introduction

is true. But his account of when vidyAraNya became a sannyAsI is not correct.

This is further reinforced by the fact that vidyAraNya's guru is always

mentioned as vidyASankara, and not bhAratI tIrtha, who preceded vidyAraNya

at Sr.ngeri. This information is based upon the colophons of the philosophical

works of vidyAraNya, the authorship of which is beyond doubt. Now, if you

look at the dates Swami Tapasyananda gives for vidyASankara, it is clear that

vidyAraNya could not have become a sannyAsI as late as the 1380's.

 

Regards,

 

S. Vidyasankar

[Guest guest]

Vidyasankar writes:

 

*** This is not what the Sringeri traditions and more reliable historical

*** records say.

 

What specifically do the Muttam records show? Do they have dates? I am

aware, though not that well, that Muttam records (I am not sure if it

is the Kanchi Kamakoti peetam where this applies) have a probelm of

omissions and duplications (due to names that repeat commonly). What

reliability is there in these dates?

 

*** Even if the author mAdhava is the same as vidyAraNya, the verse does not

*** identify which king it was that he praised, nor when he composed this

*** Sankara-vijayam. The reference to praising kings is too general and not

*** conclusive.

 

It is certainly understandable that the author chooses not to mention the

kings name, becausee it was irrelevant (of what use would that specific

information be to anyone).

 

 

Re: Gotras

 

What *incontrovertible* proof is there that Madhava's brother, Sayana,

was not a "dutta"? Perhaps he was indeed Vidyaranya's brother, but his gotra

was different, owing to being a given away. After all, so little is

known about the poorvashrama life of the muttadhipatis. Since the

gotram of Vidyaranya has not been established, it seems impossible to

conclude one way or the other based purely on teh grounds of gotra.

 

But let me ask the following question. Suppose that Vidyaranya was on

the dharma-simhasana. Why would it be impossible for him to have

agreed to assist/advising the king inthe capacity of a minister? After

all, sages of the Vedic times, were men of the state (e.g. Vasistha).

Would this not solve all the problems?

 

To add support to this "theory," I quote from the late Kanchi Kamoti

Peetadhpathi, Sri Swami Chandrasherendra Saraswati, (in the book

"Acharyas Call: His Holiness Jagadgurus's Madras Discourses 1957-1960,

Part I compiled by V. Ramakrishna Iyer, p. 31")

 

"Coming to later times, we find the jurisdictional Vijayanagar Empire

extended to Kanyakumari. The one person who helped to found and build

up this great empire was Vidyaranya, a **sanyasi**. He is the author

of Vedad Bhasya, commentaries on the Vedas and several philosophic

works.... The Vijayanagar empire was also built on the foundations of

our religious principles. Generals like Gopanna did yeoman service in

the protection and construction of numerous temples. When danger

threatened the temple of Ranganatha at Sri Rangam, Gopanna gave

protection to it. Sr Vedanta Desika has composed a verse expressing

gratitude to Gopanna for this service.... In this way, Sri Vidyaranya

helped up to biuld this empire on the solid strrenght of our sastras."

 

Not only is this from whom I consider a HIGHLY reliable source, it

also establishes that the Vidyaranya of Vijayanagara Empire and

Vedanta Desika were contempories.

 

*** Of course. If it is the vairAgya of vedAnta deSika that is sought to be

*** emphasized, what you say is true. However, when referring to

*** vidyAraNya, who is considered a jIvanmukta and a jagadguru by the

*** advaitins, it is perhaps advisable to be more careful in the choice of

*** words than to call him a court official or a minister of the

*** vijayangar kingdom.

 

I do see why the dates are of concern to those who are followers of

Sringeri Peetam. One could raises qurestions about the character of

the muttadhipatis who were formerly men of the world. However, I see

no such problem or need for concern, as perhaps you do.

 

I say all this, not out of vitandavada, but only to point out that,

from my "naive" reading, there is no overwhelming reason to discount

the hypothesis that Vidyaranya, the muttadipathi of Sringeri Mutt, was the

same Vidyaranya who was the chief minister associated with the

Vijayanagar empire.

 

You dismiss the introductory verses as irrelevant. I do not do so that

lightly. I don't see what other explanation one can construe with that, other

than that he was involved in the kingdon.

 

Frankly, the writing of a senior acharya, whose words are

relatively faithfully preserved are in, some senses stronger than any

information such as gotra because the latter is not so important and

can be easily forgotten or mistaken.

 

One here is faced with a dilemma. On one hand, we have Sri

Vaishnanva hagiography indicating the link between Vedanta Desika and

Vidyaranya. I have read this in more than one location, so I a believe

that it is a relatively prevalent legend. There is a perfectly feasible

corraboration of this. However, you are suggesting that the Sri

Vaishanavas (at least Vadagalais) discard key elements of their

acharyas life.

 

Agreeable, not all legends are true. I cannot establish that all thje

legends of Ramanuja and Vedanta Desika are true, beyond a reasonable

doubt. It is finally a matter of faith as to what we believe and to

what strength we believe them. But I believe that you must, with equal

fairness, consider the same for legends associated with Sankara

Muttams.

 

sk

[Guest guest]

Sumanth, it seems you are arguing for the sake of

arguing in this post. Vidyasankar has presented rather

substantial evidence that Vidyaranya the mathadhipati

of Sringeri Matha could not have been a mere court

official of the Vijayanagara empire. Adumbrations

about Vasishta and others aside, the practice of

sannyasis during this time period was to live by

themselves or in a matham, certainly not to actively

involve themselves in the day to day administration of a

kingdom.

 

At any rate, Vidyasankar is surmising that Madhava

(the author of the Sankara Vijayam) is different from

Vidyaranya the sannyasi. That is all. This Vidyaranya Swami

may certainly have requested Swami Desikan to seek

assistance from the Vijayanagara kingdom; we all

accept this possibility, and that it is a very telling

story. The question was really as to the status of

Vidyaranya vis-a-vis the Vijayangara kingdom.

 

* What *incontrovertible* proof is there that Madhava's brother, Sayana,

* was not a "dutta"? Perhaps he was indeed Vidyaranya's brother, but his gotra

* was different, owing to being a given away.

 

It is virtually impossible to prove a negative.

This is a rather strange theory, anyhow.

 

* To add support to this "theory," I quote from the late Kanchi Kamoti

* Peetadhpathi, Sri Swami Chandrasherendra Saraswati, (in the book

* "Acharyas Call: His Holiness Jagadgurus's Madras Discourses 1957-1960,

* Part I compiled by V. Ramakrishna Iyer, p. 31")

 

With no disrespect to Kanchi Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati

intended, I would put a great deal more faith in the Sringeri

Matha historical tradition based upon their own historical

records than the oral tradition of a rival mutt. Sri Chandrasekharendra

Saraswati Swami is himself reflecting his understanding of

the historical record, and is speaking in a comparatively informal

context.

 

Finally, it is the norm of both traditional and western scholars

to use gotra to establish the identity of people. This is why

Desikar's acharya is referred to as ``Atreya Ramanuja'', to

distinguish him from Ramanuja the author of the Sri Bhashya,

who (I believe) was vAdhUla gotra.

 

* ... it

* also establishes that the Vidyaranya of Vijayanagara Empire and

* Vedanta Desika were contempories.

 

This has been fully accepted by everyone involved in this

discussion.

 

Whether or not one believes in this story, Desikar's detachment

from the world stands in no need of corroboration. His

verses describing his feeling of vairAgya speak for

themselves.

 

Mani

 

P.S. It should be obvious that the mere acceptance of a story

by a section of people does not make it absolutely true. It is

sometimes the case that these stories are concocted to fan

sectarian fires. For example, some Vadagalai Sri Vaishnavas

are of the opinion that the identification of Ramanuja with

Adi Sesha has been propagated by Thengalai Sri Vaishnavas

to further the theory that Manavala Mamuni is the reincarnation

of Ramanuja. Manavala Mamuni is invariably shown with the

hood of adisesha above his image, and the equation of him

with adisesha occurs quite early in the hagiographical literature

after his death.

 

At any rate, the point is that the greatness of these

souls first lies in the work they performed in service

of the Lord. Only for these reasons have they been elevated

by their devout followers as amsas of the Divine, not

the other way around.

[Guest guest]

skaushik wrote:

> What specifically do the Muttam records show? Do they have dates? I am

> aware, though not that well, that Muttam records (I am not sure if it

> is the Kanchi Kamakoti peetam where this applies) have a probelm of

> omissions and duplications (due to names that repeat commonly). What

> reliability is there in these dates?

 

I do not know specific details from the Sr.ngeri maTha records. However,

I do know that they have specific dates in their records for the period

following the 14th century. These dates are highly reliable, because they

have been compared with records relating to the mahArAjAs of vijayanagar,

the nAyakas of kelADi and ikkeri, and then the rAjAs of Mysore. The maTha

itself has in its possession records written in some plant dye on cloth,

which is preserved by coating the cloth with a thin coat of melted beeswax.

These are called kaDitas, and there are additional kaDitas of the Sr.ngeri

maTha in the Govt. Oriental Manuscripts Library (GOML) Madras, and in the

Mysore palace collection. As for the Kanchi peetham's records and their

reliability, it is too controversial, and I don't want to get into that now.

> What *incontrovertible* proof is there that Madhava's brother, Sayana,

> was not a "dutta"? Perhaps he was indeed Vidyaranya's brother, but his gotra

> was different, owing to being a given away. After all, so little is

 

The incontrovertible proof against this is found in the verse describing

Sayana, Madhava and Bhoganatha as sons of SrImatI and mAyaNa of the Angirasa

gotra. This is found in the vedabhAshya manuscripts. As such, the gotra

information is too specific to be lightly discarded. I should think that if

there is any gotra information about any author in any Indian text, that

should be taken fairly seriously, more so than other hagiographical glories

of the author.

> But let me ask the following question. Suppose that Vidyaranya was on

> the dharma-simhasana. Why would it be impossible for him to have

> agreed to assist/advising the king inthe capacity of a minister? After

 

Agreed to assist/advise, yes. As a minister, no. There are other examples in

Indian history, like Sivaji and Ramadas, Vyasaraya and Krishnadevaraya, and

so on.

> all, sages of the Vedic times, were men of the state (e.g. Vasistha).

> Would this not solve all the problems?

 

Maybe, but note that vedic r.shis were not sannyAsIs. Vasishtha was a

married man. Also, his involvement with the state was not in the capacity

of a minister, but as the guru/purohita of the Ikshvaku dynasty. The

minister, during Dasaratha's time, was not Vasishtha, but Sumantra.

 

I am not denying that Vidyaranya was involved in an advisory capacity in

the foundation of the Vijayanagar empire. After all, his involvement is

acknowledged by the title "karNATaka simhAsana pratishThApanAcArya", that

has been subsequently applied to his successors at Sr.ngeri also. What

I doubt is that his involvement extended to the level of daily administration

and other kinds of duties that a minister is supposed to do. Also, there is

no doubt that Vidyaranya and Vedanta Desika were contemporaries. It is also

quite possible that Vidyaranya suggested to Vedanta Desika to seek patronage

at the court. But for this, we only have tradition to go by. In many instances,

that is all we have, agreed. But with our modern "scientific mind" it is

sometimes satisfying if tradition is also corroborated by independent sources

of information. After all, the tradition in question deals with historical

personalities, who lived at a time from which we have fairly reliable historical

records.

> I do see why the dates are of concern to those who are followers of

> Sringeri Peetam. One could raises qurestions about the character of

> the muttadhipatis who were formerly men of the world. However, I see

> no such problem or need for concern, as perhaps you do.

 

No, there is no concern about the maThAdhipati having formerly been a man

of the world. After all, every sannyAsI was a man of the world before he

took to sannyAsa. No, my interest in this issue is quite simple. There are

many legends associated with vidyAtIrtha, bhAratI tIrtha and vidyAraNya, some

of which originate from Sr.ngeri, and others which seem to originate elsewhere.

Given my interest in advaita and advaitins, I just like to separate plausible

fact from what is purely legendary. Not that it serves any spiritual purpose,

but this is only to clarify historical details.

> Frankly, the writing of a senior acharya, whose words are

> relatively faithfully preserved are in, some senses stronger than any

> information such as gotra because the latter is not so important and

> can be easily forgotten or mistaken.

 

It is not my intention to say that this AcArya is right, that one is wrong

at all, however senior or junior they may be. But I assume that all the

AcAryas in question know all the relevant details fairly well.

> One here is faced with a dilemma. On one hand, we have Sri

> Vaishnanva hagiography indicating the link between Vedanta Desika and

> Vidyaranya. I have read this in more than one location, so I a believe

> that it is a relatively prevalent legend. There is a perfectly feasible

> corraboration of this. However, you are suggesting that the Sri

> Vaishanavas (at least Vadagalais) discard key elements of their

> acharyas life.

 

Not at all. In most of our traditions, we have nothing more than hagiography

to rely upon. I have never denied the contemporaneity of Vidyaranya and

Vedanta Desika.

> Agreeable, not all legends are true. I cannot establish that all thje

> legends of Ramanuja and Vedanta Desika are true, beyond a reasonable

> doubt. It is finally a matter of faith as to what we believe and to

> what strength we believe them. But I believe that you must, with equal

> fairness, consider the same for legends associated with Sankara

> Muttams.

 

Of course. The controversy over the credentials of the Kanchi matham is

obviously not possible without there being some doubt about the legends

of the Sankara mathams. This controversy has also forced both followers of

the Sringeri and the Kanchi mathams to look at their own legends critically.

However, I do not agree that belief in the legends of the maThams is a

matter of faith. Frankly, when I am told that so and so AcArya is a jIvanmukta,

I don't accept it without examining the life of that AcArya carefully. This

might just be conceit or pride on my part. I can accept a devotee's stories

of personal spiritual benefit obtained in a conversation with an AcArya. The

moment universal claims are made, I step back and put my critical thinking

cap on. To me, acceptance of the legends specific to one maTha or the other

seems more like willing suspension of disbelief, rather than positive belief

or faith. Faith in the guru is fine, but I don't agree that it has to translate

into faith in the legends of the maTham he is associated with. The legends are

peripheral detail, the truth value of which is inconsequential, in terms of

calling oneself a disciple of a guru. I therefore draw a distinction between

being a follower of a maTham, which is nothing more than some sort of loose

accreditation, and being a disciple of an AcArya who happens to be a

maThAdhipati, which is much more intensely personal.

 

As for the value of the legends of various maThams in increasing the

controversies or solving the questions of historical dates of various

personalities, please see http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~vidya/advaita/

dating-Sankara.html. The last paragraph and especially the last sentence

illustrate my attitudes towards the stories associated with the various

Sankara maThams.

 

S. Vidyasankar