Shankara

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Even Shankaracharya never rebuffed the people spreading Islam in Sindh through utterly inhuman ways.

But the traditional date for Shankara (according to his biographies) is around 2000 years ago. That should predate the spreading of islam within India.

[Love]

I hoipe you are not talking of the dates as per the Hinud calendar or something. The dates I refer to are as per the Christian claendar as that is pretty much the standard these days. I understand that Shankaracharya was born around 788 A.D. and departed near 820 A.D. This is also the time when Muslim invaders from Arab first started their rule in Sindh/ Afghanistan, which used to be predominantly Hindus that time. If you would like to have a look, please just do a search for Shankaracharya on the web (use ). For more authentic sources please consult any quality history book whcih may tell you the approximate period in which Shankaracharya was on Earth.

Cheers

Love

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Originally posted by Love:

I understand that Shankaracharya was born around 788 A.D. and departed near 820 A.D.

Thanks for the reply. I guess you are referring to the common indologists dates. The traditionla biographies of Shankara say he lived 2,000 years ago (I don't have the text right here, so I'm not quoting the exact date in relation to the Christian calander. If anyone wants it I can open up the trunks and pull it out.) It is odd that he would never even mention the existence of Islam or the invasions in any of his writings, nor of his immediate disciples, if he actually lived at the time given by the indologists. The British and German indologists had an agenda to put most of Indias history after the coming of Christ, so they adjusted all the dates with that in mind. It was another aspect of imperialism and subjugation.

[shvu]

 

I understand that Shankaracharya was born around 788 A.D. and departed near 820 A.D.

That is right. This is the current historical date for Shankara as fixed by Indologists. But there is some controversy here because several scholars believe that this date is actually that of Abhinava Shankara who is different from Adi-Shankara. This confusion is because, all the Matha pontiffs were titled as Shankaracharyas.

 

Neither is the date of 44 BC a true one. It is false because Shankara quotes scholars who definitely lived after Christ. This date was promoted by some Indian scolars who mistook the period of Shankara to be that of Vikramaditya of the North. The Sringeri Math clarified that they never gave this date to Shankara.

 

The most plausible period of Shankara seems to be somewhere in the range of 500 AD to 750 AD.

 

Cheers

 

[Love]

Hello Jndasji,

 

If it is not too much can you please provide me with the reference - the biography name, where I can find this biography, author, etc - about Shankaracharya being born about 2000 years back. Also, I assume it will tell me a lot about Shankarachrya himself.

 

As far as not referring to Muslims is concerned may be beacuse of the fact that his works I understand are of philosophical nature and references to Muslims were not required there. Besides, his aim seemed to be establishing Hinduism in the way he perceived it and spending his energies on discussing Islam would have diverted his force elsewhere.

 

Is there also some story about Shankaracharya living inside a king's body for some time to keep the king;s body alive? If this story can be subtantiated by some biography or so, can wenot know the date for Shankaracharya as per the date for that king?

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Neither is the date of 44 BC a true one. It is false because Shankara quotes scholars who definitely lived after Christ.

This logic is faulty. If one of the date of Shankara was manipulated and made recent, the same can be the case for all the other people identified by the indologists. And this just so happens to be the case if we accept the traditional biographies of these personalities. For example, the Alvars have their dates of birth recorded in detail, and some are from up to five thousand years ago. yet the indologists want to put them all 1000 years ago. The same is the case for almost any historical personality form ancient India. The indologists make all of them as being after Christ. Why? Because otherwise it wouldn't fit in with their world view.

 

What is the evidence that a person like Shankara lived in 800 A.D.? Is there a single ancient book or writing that points to a corresponding date? The answer is no. So this date was just scooped out of the air by indologists, as are the other dates for occurrences in Indian history.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Originally posted by Love:

If it is not too much can you please provide me with the reference - the biography name, where I can find this biography, author, etc - about Shankaracharya being born about 2000 years back. Also, I assume it will tell me a lot about Shankarachrya himself.

I will certainly post some information for you. But it may take a little while. I have to go into "the trunks". We have a lot of old trunks here full of old books, manuscripts and documents. It is a time consuming process because there is no order to it.

 

Is there also some story about Shankaracharya living inside a king's body for some time to keep the king;s body alive? If this story can be subtantiated by some biography or so, can wenot know the date for Shankaracharya as per the date for that king?

There is a story something like that, where Shankaracharya enters the body of a king in order to win a debate. But any name you pick out of ancient Indian history will be subjected to the same re-dating by the western indologists. To them everything happened after Christ; it must have, because their religion is the one true faith. Anything that appears to be older actually isn't.

 

 

[shvu]

 

The logic is pretty simple. The Vijayams don't give any dates for Shankara. The source is, the Sringeri Records say that Shankara was born during the 14th year of the rule of Vikramaditya. It does not necessarily mean the 2000 year old Vikramaditya as there have been many Vikramadityas in India and the Sringeri math people are clear about that. This along with "whom did Shankara quote?" and "who quoted Shankara?" are the only means to arrive at his date.

 

Shankara quotes Dharmakirti et al., who definitely lived after Christ. Besides the Sringeri Math has had an unbroken chain of pontiffs staring from Sureshvara, who was a direct disciple of Shankara. If the 44 BC date has to be accepted, then one has to reckon for the 800 year gap between Shankara and his disciple. There are numerous reasons for rejecting the 2000 year old date and I can go on.

 

Finally Indians themselves have been experts at manipulating texts as evident from all the interpolation in the Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Puranas. So it is hardly surprising that Indologists do not accept Indian dates or Indian versions of history in toto. To add, Max Muller did not conjure up dates off his hat and has given logical reasons for arriving at dates. So strong, that till date, the scholars from the opposition camp have failed to prove his dates wrong. Instead of harping about how biased the Indologists were, Indian scholars should prove Max Muller's dates wrong. Until they do that, their claims hold no water. Som fanatic Indians keep claiming that Max Muller was biased, his dates were wrong, etc based on hearsay, without having read a single book on Indology.

 

Cheers

 

[Love]

Well, I think there is partial truth to your statement about indologists fixing the dates. It may have occured because if you look at ancient India, history was never given much importance as per the Western concept, where they are very particular about their history. Indians believed in constant rejuvenation and remembering history for them was like carrying a dead body upon one's shoulders. So, whatever history has been built up has been only from prejudiced people, like indologists, or mediocre Indian historians who were themselves in turn impressed by the Western dictum on Indian hostory. That is a misfortune for us. However, if that were the case only that indologists wanted to fit things into their world view, why would Ashoka be not dated after Christ, or Buddha, Mahavira for that matter. I end to agree with you but find it incredulous to believe that dates may have been manipulated to such a large extent without some genuine Hindu scholars noting them!

I would none-the-less appreciate it very much if you can find some time, at your own leisure, and provide me with the source for the dating you mentioned for Shankaracharya.

Thanks

[shvu]

 

why would Ashoka be not dated after Christ, or Buddha, Mahavira for that matter. I end to agree with you but find it incredulous to believe that dates may have been manipulated to such a large extent without some genuine Hindu scholars noting them!

Touchè.

 

It is obvious that claims about Indologists manipulating dates have no basis. These dates were fixed over a hundred years back. Since then, the Indian scholars (who have raised objections to these dates) have had ample time to prove them wrong. The fact that they failed to do so, says it all. Now they are content with complaining about biased Indologists.

 

It is also true that some Indians have had this bad habit of trying to show things older than they were. They seem to have had an idea that "the older the date, the better".

 

Cheers

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 05-29-2001).]