Guest guest Posted July 25, 2008 Report Share Posted July 25, 2008 Dear Advaitin group members, First of all I wish to thank Mr. Ram Chandran for the delightful scoop on the misconceptions of Sanathana Dharma. The article was very illuminating and informative. I had a question that needed some clarification with regards to the precise date of Saint Adi Shankara and I do sincerely hope that this is an appropriate question to ask. It is a well know fact that though modern scholarship has placed Shankara during 788-820 A.D., the accuracy of this is still debatable and cannot be completely verified. Currently it is accepted that if Shankara was born in the year 788 C.E. it naturally follows that he died in the early portion of 8th century, the date converging to 820 C.E. The iron-clad testimony they claim comes from the seer's quotation of Dharmakirti and Hsuan-Tsang, the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim (606- 647 A.D) who in-turn provides accurate clues to Dharmakirti's date. The evidence obtained from Shringeri Peetam's manuscripts also states that Saint Adi Shankara was born in the 14th year of the reign of King Vikramaditya who belonged to the Chalukya Dynasty and ruled Karnataka during the late 7th and the early 8th century A.D. After this point historical evidence regarding Shankara's dates gets even more twisted. Notwithstanding these claims, valid arguments have surfaced regarding the authenticity of these findings. Several leading historians and theologicians have categorically proposed the fact that Adi Shankaracharya was born in the year 509 B.C and attained Moksha in 477 B.C. In my opinion this is a more accurate view because the most noteworthy historical data which bolsters this argument is that saint Adi Shakara propagated the Advaita Vedanta in an era when Sanathana Dharma had lost its appeal. Contrary to this claim- it is well known that during the reign of King Vikramaditya Hinduism was properous and was perhaps at its peak with temples being constructed as well? I had this conversation with Bala Periyaval of Kanchi Mutt last month and he also established the fact that Saint Adi Shankara belonged to 509 B.C. Could I please have some more validations and historical evidence from this group regarding Shankara's dates? I did read an article that stated that history does record the existence of an Abhinava Shankaracharya (modern Shankaracharya) whose life stories are similar to that of the great Saint Sri Adi Shankara and could the authors of the Shankara vijayams and even the modern historians and orientalists superimposed these two personalities and mixed up several details of their lives? Please give me your inputs and more information (if possible) regarding this. The reason for putting forth this question is to ascertain that I would not be inadvertently publishing falsified information online- we are on the process of inaugurating a Sringeri Sharadha Peetam in Michigan and our website would be going live sometime soon. I would greatly appreciate it if I could give some more information regarding this topic before I begin the process of publishing this website. Thank you, Kamakshi Subramaniam advaitin From: ramvchandranDate: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:06:10 +0000 Re: " Hinduism is not a JUST a Way OF Life" by Poojya Gurudev Namaste Sri Krishna Prasad:Thanks for bringing the video clip of Gurudev Swami Chinmananadaji's video clip to the attention of the list. I have just changed the subject title a little to reflect what Swamiji discusses in the clip about Hinduism. The statement that Hinduism represented by its true identity – Sanatana Dharma is the way of life is quite precise. It should be followed by the cautionary corollary – "It is not just like any other religion such as Christianity or Islam with strict static rules and regulations for how to lead our life." Swamiji in the clip implicitly explains that one needs to be careful while making a description of what Hinduism means. Swamiji is fully aware that the Sanatana Dharma is an eternal religion – with no exact date of its origin. Swamiji also points out in the clip the dynamic aspect of Hinduism – that it embraces and tunes the ways of life that is suitable for time and environment. I am bringing these additional point as a clarification what you have brought out and not to be considered as a criticism to your posting.Here are some book references to websites that discuss on the line of thought expressed here.Books:Hinduism Doctrine and way of life by Rajaji , Published by Bharatiya Vidhya Bhavan, Bombay, 1959" Hindu Way of Life" by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Londion, 1927 "Fundamentals of Hindu Faith and Life" Dr. C. P. Ramaswamy Iyer, Madras, 1959Web Sites:http://hinduism.suite101.com/article.cfm/hinduism__a_holistic_way_of_life"Hinduism is not just a theology. It is a holistic way of life. That it includes mythology and philosophy is apparent even to the casual follower. But Hinduism also encompasses disciplines like culture, health, sociology, governance, science, warfare and a lot more.The disciplines are in a sense distinct but inseparable. The situation can be pictured as follows. Consider the disciplines as strands of wool of different colors. Then mentally twist the strands, bundle them, tangle them and knot them into a ball. Hinduism is the entire multi-colored ball. The different strands can be clearly visible but cannot be separated from each other. What this means to us is that we cannot discuss any of the disciplines in isolation because it is necessarily influenced by others."http://hinduism.about.com/od/basics/a/hinduism.htm"Hinduism is a unique faith! The most obvious misconception about Hinduism is that we tend to see it as just another religion. To be precise, Hinduism is a way of life, a dharma. Dharma does not mean religion. It is the law that governs all action. Thus, contrary to popular perception, Hinduism is not just a religion in the tradition sense of the term. Out of this misinterpretation, has come most of the misconceptions about Hinduism."Note: Members feel free to correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation and thanks in advance.With my warmest regards,Ram Chandranadvaitin , "Krishna Prasad" <rkrishp99 wrote:>> Hari OM!> > Dear all,> > Hinduism is not a Way OF Life Poojya Gurudev Removes the misconception in> this Video> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKBMDzK-7_0> With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you. Connect on the go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2008 Report Share Posted July 27, 2008 Kamakshiji, if the Michigan ashram has Sringeri's name then you should stick to their acharya's claim of 7 -8th centuary AD. I do believe on the 5 BC date as one more shankara's math (I think Jothirmath) endorses the same view. Kanchi math's succession also seems to be very convincing. But being the new Michigan ashram is has Sringeri's name we should not create any conflict with the ashram dharmas...truely,sivaHari om tat sat.Kamakshi Subramaniam <skamakshi_stadvaitin Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 2:19:42 PM Re: Saint Adi ShankaraDear Advaitin group members, First of all I wish to thank Mr. Ram Chandran for the delightful scoop on the misconceptions of Sanathana Dharma. The article was very illuminating and informative. I had a question that needed some clarification with regards to the precise date of Saint Adi Shankara and I do sincerely hope that this is an appropriate question to ask. It is a well know fact that though modern scholarship has placed Shankara during 788-820 A.D., the accuracy of this is still debatable and cannot be completely verified. Currently it is accepted that if Shankara was born in the year 788 C.E. it naturally follows that he died in the early portion of 8th century, the date converging to 820 C.E. The iron-clad testimony they claim comes from the seer's quotation of Dharmakirti and Hsuan-Tsang, the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim (606- 647 A.D) who in-turn provides accurate clues to Dharmakirti' s date. The evidence obtained from Shringeri Peetam's manuscripts also states that Saint Adi Shankara was born in the 14th year of the reign of King Vikramaditya who belonged to the Chalukya Dynasty and ruled Karnataka during the late 7th and the early 8th century A.D. After this point historical evidence regarding Shankara's dates gets even more twisted. Notwithstanding these claims, valid arguments have surfaced regarding the authenticity of these findings. Several leading historians and theologicians have categorically proposed the fact that Adi Shankaracharya was born in the year 509 B.C and attained Moksha in 477 B.C. In my opinion this is a more accurate view because the most noteworthy historical data which bolsters this argument is that saint Adi Shakara propagated the Advaita Vedanta in an era when Sanathana Dharma had lost its appeal. Contrary to this claim- it is well known that during the reign of King Vikramaditya Hinduism was properous and was perhaps at its peak with temples being constructed as well? I had this conversation with Bala Periyaval of Kanchi Mutt last month and he also established the fact that Saint Adi Shankara belonged to 509 B.C. Could I please have some more validations and historical evidence from this group regarding Shankara's dates? I did read an article that stated that history does record the existence of an Abhinava Shankaracharya (modern Shankaracharya) whose life stories are similar to that of the great Saint Sri Adi Shankara and could the authors of the Shankara vijayams and even the modern historians and orientalists superimposed these two personalities and mixed up several details of their lives? Please give me your inputs and more information (if possible) regarding this. The reason for putting forth this question is to ascertain that I would not be inadvertently publishing falsified information online- we are on the process of inaugurating a Sringeri Sharadha Peetam in Michigan and our website would be going live sometime soon. I would greatly appreciate it if I could give some more information regarding this topic before I begin the process of publishing this website. Thank you, Kamakshi Subramaniam advaitin@ s.comramvchandran@ Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:06:10 +0000 Re: " Hinduism is not a JUST a Way OF Life" by Poojya Gurudev Namaste Sri Krishna Prasad:Thanks for bringing the video clip of Gurudev Swami Chinmananadaji' s video clip to the attention of the list. I have just changed the subject title a little to reflect what Swamiji discusses in the clip about Hinduism. The statement that Hinduism represented by its true identity – Sanatana Dharma is the way of life is quite precise. It should be followed by the cautionary corollary – "It is not just like any other religion such as Christianity or Islam with strict static rules and regulations for how to lead our life." Swamiji in the clip implicitly explains that one needs to be careful while making a description of what Hinduism means. Swamiji is fully aware that the Sanatana Dharma is an eternal religion – with no exact date of its origin. Swamiji also points out in the clip the dynamic aspect of Hinduism – that it embraces and tunes the ways of life that is suitable for time and environment. I am bringing these additional point as a clarification what you have brought out and not to be considered as a criticism to your posting.Here are some book references to websites that discuss on the line of thought expressed here.Books:Hinduism Doctrine and way of life by Rajaji , Published by Bharatiya Vidhya Bhavan, Bombay, 1959" Hindu Way of Life" by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Londion, 1927 "Fundamentals of Hindu Faith and Life" Dr. C. P. Ramaswamy Iyer, Madras, 1959Web Sites:http://hinduism. suite101. com/article. cfm/hinduism_ _a_holistic_ way_of_life"Hinduism is not just a theology. It is a holistic way of life. That it includes mythology and philosophy is apparent even to the casual follower. But Hinduism also encompasses disciplines like culture, health, sociology, governance, science, warfare and a lot more.The disciplines are in a sense distinct but inseparable. The situation can be pictured as follows. Consider the disciplines as strands of wool of different colors. Then mentally twist the strands, bundle them, tangle them and knot them into a ball. Hinduism is the entire multi-colored ball. The different strands can be clearly visible but cannot be separated from each other. What this means to us is that we cannot discuss any of the disciplines in isolation because it is necessarily influenced by others."http://hinduism. about.com/ od/basics/ a/hinduism. htm"Hinduism is a unique faith! The most obvious misconception about Hinduism is that we tend to see it as just another religion. To be precise, Hinduism is a way of life, a dharma. Dharma does not mean religion. It is the law that governs all action. Thus, contrary to popular perception, Hinduism is not just a religion in the tradition sense of the term. Out of this misinterpretation, has come most of the misconceptions about Hinduism."Note: Members feel free to correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation and thanks in advance.With my warmest regards,Ram Chandranadvaitin@ s.com, "Krishna Prasad" <rkrishp99@. ..> wrote:>> Hari OM!> > Dear all,> > Hinduism is not a Way OF Life Poojya Gurudev Removes the misconception in> this Video> > http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=iKBMDzK- 7_0> With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you. Connect on the go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.