Shankaracharya

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

The Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham (Kanchipuram Shankaracharya Matha) accepts that there were five Shankaracharyas as follows:

 

Adi Shankara -509 B.C.

 

Kripa Shankara - 26 A.D.

 

Ujjwala Shankara - 329 A.D.

 

Muka Shankara - 398 A.D.

 

Abhinava Shankara - 788 A.D.

 

This fifth Shankaracharya (Abhinava) was born in Chidambaram, and disappeared in the Himalayas. Some texts state he died after losing a debate to a Lama in Nepal (the boiling in oil story).

 

The life of this fifth Shankaracharya is described in the text "Anandagiri Shankara Vijaya".

 

According to Kanchipuram Shankaracharya Matha, the "Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya" is a recent book written by the Sringeri Matha; the Sringeri Matha says the same about "Anandagiri Shankara Vijaya" in regards to Kanchipuram Matha.

[Maitreya]

Are they using the term Sankaracarya in a way similar to how a Buddhist might use the term Bodhisattva?

 

This is a new topic to me.I had only heard of Adi Shankara.

[shvu]

 

Shankara quotes Dharmakirti a buddhist scholar who definitely lived in AD. That is enough to reject the Kanchi version. The Sringeri guys are better for they do not provide any dates for Shankara.

 

A big deal has been made of the version of Shankara history as told by the Kanchi Math in the last few years. They promote the Anandiri Shankara Vijaya because the Madhaviya specifically names Sringeri as the Math founded by Shankara in the South and does not talk about the Kanchi math. The important thing to note is that the Anandagiriya Shankara Vijaya is not in existence today. One biography written by Anantanandagiri is falsely mistaken as that of the old Anandagiri. There is a story of a debate between Vyasa and Shankara.

 

Madhaviya version:

 

Vyasa intercepts Shankara during one of his travels and begins to question him. The debate goes on for days and then suddenly one of the disciples realizes what is going on. He then says "If an avatar of Vishnu debates with an avatar of Shiva, where will be the end point? Please stop this". And then it ends.

 

Anantanandagiri version:

 

Vyasa and Shankara debate. At one point, Shankara slaps the old man very hard. Then he instructs one of his disciples to give Vyasa a thrashing. The disciple proceeds to beat up Vyasa and then Vyasa falls down senseless. He is dragged away and Shankara is declared the winner.

 

The latter is more in the tune of putting down Shankara. Like some dvaita version of Shankara [Mani-manjari ?] according to which Shankara was a demon who came in the guise of a human to mislead people. There are several points in favor of the Sringeri Math vis-a-vis the Kanchi Math. Vidyasankar Sundareshan [advaita-vedanta.org] has done some research on this issue and is in the process of coming out with a paper.

 

Cheers

 

[shvu]

 

Are they using the term Sankaracarya in a way similar to how a Buddhist might use the term Bodhisattva? This is a new topic to me.I had only heard of Adi Shankara.

Yes.

 

All the heads of the Shankara Mathas are known as Shankaracharyas. To distinguish the founder from the rest, he is known as Adi Shankara (Adi meaning first).

 

Unfortunately this has lead to much confusion with regard to dates and authorship. A lot of works attributed to the original Shankara are very likely not his.

 

Cheers

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Shankara quotes Dharmakirti a buddhist scholar who definitely lived in AD. That is enough to reject the Kanchi version.

Things that are definite to you may not always be definite or even accepted by others. I do not agree with Kanchipuram Matha's view that their matha is established by Adi Shankara, but I do agree with their view on the five Shankaras, as well as the date for adi shankara (which is also accepted by Dwaraka Shankaracharya Matha, but rejected by Sringeri Matha).

 

Most of the evidence given by Sringeri Matha to establish Shankara's date as 780 A.D. is a list of people whom he quoted. But the flaw in their argument is they accept the Indological date for all these people whom where quoted and not the traditional dates. In practically every single case, the indologists have always rejected traditional dates given for historical personalities in favour of a squeezed in time line of Indian history. Of course this is another topic altogether, and so I won't go off into it at this time.

 

In summary it works like this. First you arbitrarily establish a recent date for a single historical character. Then based on that arbitrary date, you say, "look, Mr. X over there quoted him, so he must be later than him. And over there Mr. Z quoted Mr. X, so he is even later, and Mr. Y quoted Mr. Z..." And it goes on until the entire history of India is based on a few arbitrary dates. Anything traditional is rejected because Mr. X definitely lived in XYZ A.D. since he quoted from that first guy.

 

Are they using the term Sankaracarya in a way similar to how a Buddhist might use the term Bodhisattva?

Even today the heads of the Shankaracharya mathas are given the title Shankaracharya. But it is the Kanchipuram Matha's claim that there were five very prominent Shankara's, perhaps divinely empowered to spread advaita philosophy.

 

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 07-03-2001).]

[shvu]

 

It is quite a long story. But I will try to keep it brief.

 

The westerners [Wilson , Monier Williams]were the people who endorsed the Anantandagiriya Vijaya because it had lesser magic in it! Hence it was the first translated and published biography in 1863 and still remains a popular one.

 

One person named T S Narayana Shastri was the one who first came out with the story that the Madhaviya was a fake (1916). I won't go into the details here. The Kanchi people will naturally reject the Madhaviya for it does not talk about Kanchi, while their claim is that they are the only authentic Math and they alone are Jagadgurus.

 

Regarding Dharmakirti, the discovery is fairly new, by Dr Krishna Warrier. Shankara quotes Dharmakirti in the upadesha sAhasri,

 

Abhinnopi hi buddhyAtmA.... [18.142]

 

which is a direct lift from Dharmakirti's pramAna vinischhaya. Dharmakirti's date is known thru Huen Tsang's record. Bhartrhari [450 AD] is quoted by Kumarila Bhatta who was a contemporary of Shankara. Kumarila also quotes Kalidasa. So thus. Of course, if the upadesha sAhasri is stated to be authored by a later Shankara, then this theory wobbles. But all Mathas are agreed that the US is an authentic work.

 

To give a BC date to Shankara does not tally with Buddha's date of 500 BC. Shankara comments on Buddhism in the form of 4 schools which would have taken quite a few years to happen. There is also the factor of the Dasanami sanyasins affilating only to the 4 Mathas. The critics have no answer to that either.

 

This is a long topic and one guy has managed to find enough info to fill a whole book titled Age of Shankara. Regarding the 788 AD date, all people are agreed now that it was Abhinava Shankara and not Adi Shankara.

 

Cheers

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

...which is a direct lift from Dharmakirti's pramAna vinischhaya.

This is not very substantial. He may be quoting from another source. Practically there are no unique texts that are authored on their own without a foundation in older texts. The fact that a few words managed to appear in both texts isn't exactly the best proof.

 

To give a BC date to Shankara does not tally with Buddha's date of 500 BC. Shankara comments on Buddhism in the form of 4 schools which would have taken quite a few years to happen.

But if one accepts the theory of three buddhas, it does become possible. The Indian history has many people bearing the same names, and sometimes they are lumped into a single identity. According to the Puranas, Buddhism is an eternal un-truth; manifested in every kali yuga. It is never fully lost.

 

Regarding Kanchipuram Matha, I won't get into their debates. It's a waste of time. These people have been fighting in the court for over a hundred years.

 

They are certainly a branch of Sringeri matha. But because of their popularity, they have become more prominent than all the four combined. Their previous acharya (paramacharya) was very powerful, and that is part of the reason of their popularity. The present acharya is not. The next will be.

 

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 07-03-2001).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

This is not very substantial. He may be quoting from another source. Practically there are no unique texts that are authored on their own without a foundation in older texts.

Just as an example, I have seen many verses from Chanakya that are existing almost word for word in Garuda Purana and other texts.

 

One can conclude that Chanakya copied Garuda Purana, or that Garuda Purana copied Chanakya, or that they both are stating a universal principle that has no particular author.

 

[Jagat]

In my work on Jagannath Puri, I have had to think a little about Shankaracharya, mainly because in the Madala Panji, he is involved in the establishment of the Jagannath temple during the reign of Yayati Keshari. This king is generally given dates much later than those of Shankara (788-820), ca. 900.

 

So please explain the difference between Adi Shankara and Abhinava Shankara. Who's who and when.

 

======

 

But these extraordinarily old dates for Shankara are a bit disingenuous, don't you think, JN? There is a tradition of trying to throw things back into the more ancient past as a way of legitimizing one's own tradition. Just think of the "Bhagavata is 5,000 years old" statements that are bandied about in Iskcon. There is almost nothing that can substantiate these claims.

 

I admit that the verse quoting business is a little like trying to cross a stream on stepping stones that sink as soon as you put your foot down. So little in Indian history is clearly dated.

 

Nevertheless, a fabric of Indian history has been built up. For the most part, there are fairly clear mileposts which help us to approximate the times of events, people and works -- even though occasionally a century or two is the closest we can get.

 

As far as your argument about the Chanakya-niti and Garuda-purana are concerned, there are certain problems. First of all, an idea may be eternal, but its expression requires specific words. Though an infinity of monkey typing on an infinity of keyboards may eventually produce the Chanakya-niti or the Garuda-purana, it is usually accepted that there was a specific individual human who composed any given verse.

 

Chanakya-niti is a grab bag of wisdom sayings. It is very unlikely that they were all written by a single individual. I suggest you look at Sternbach's critical edition when trying to assess the history or provenance of a particular verse.

 

Nevertheless, most of the Puranas are not quite as purana as they would have you believe. They too are full of interpolations and borrowings. In this case, I would spontaneously be of the opinion (even without seeing the texts in question) that the GP borrowed from Chanakya, by which I mean a dispersed pool of mostly anonymous wisdom literature that includes works of the Panchatantra-Hitopadesha genre.

 

The Bhagavata has several verses from the Upanishads, Mahabharata and the Gita in it. Do you think that it did not borrow from those sources?

 

Jagat

<small><font color=#dedfdf>

 

[This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 07-04-2001).]

[Gauracandra]

Chanakya-niti is a grab bag of wisdom sayings.

In this case, I would spontaneously be of the opinion (even without seeing the texts in question) that the GP borrowed from Chanakya, by which I mean a dispersed pool of mostly anonymous wisdom literature that includes works of the Panchatantra-Hitopadesha genre.

Based on what you have said, I would think it would be the reversed, with Chanakya reading Garuda Purana, and utilizing some of it in his writings along with other readings. We'll never know the exact dates, but like one forum member pointed out a few months back, a date for a written manuscript does not tell us its maximum age, rather only its minimum age. Prior additions may have been destroyed through the centuries, and the strong oral tradition would suggest it existed even before that.

 

Gauracandra

 

[shvu]

 

So please explain the difference between Adi Shankara and Abhinava Shankara. Who's who and when.

There is an unidentified verse which gives the date for Shankara. It maps to 788 AD and this was assumed to be Adi Shankara by Max Muller and team. But this date is now identified with Abhinava Shankara who apparently is not an immeidate disciple of Shankara. Hence it follows that Shankara lived earlier than this date. All reasonable dates point to somewhere around 600 - 700 AD.

 

Adi Shankara is the person who wrote commentaries on the brahma-sutras, gita and 10 Upanishads. He is THE Shankara. Abhinava is a later person, and I will check if I have something about him.

 

Cheers

 

[Jagat]

Which of the two founded the four Dhams?

[Jagat]

Is this distinction widely accepted? I haven't seen any change in Shankara's dates in current scholarly literature.

 

Flood (1996: 231) writes: "The dates of Shankara cannot be firmly established but some scholars date him between 788 and 820. He certainly cannot have lived before the middle of the seventh century as he refers to the Mimamsaka theologian Kumarila and the Buddhist Dharmakirti who can be dated to that century."

[shvu]

 

If you mean the 4 mathas, they are attributed to Adi Shankara. His 4 main disciples became the first Mathadipatis for the 4 maths. Sringeri has the full list of pontiffs starting from the first one [sureshvara].

 

But just like every other aspect of Shankara's story even this is not for sure and clouded in controversy.

 

Flood (1996: 231) writes: "The dates of Shankara cannot be firmly established but some scholars date him between 788 and 820. He certainly cannot have lived before the middle of the seventh century as he refers to the Mimamsaka theologian Kumarila and the Buddhist Dharmakirti who can be dated to that century."

Which makes it likely that Shankara lived somewhere around 600-700 AD. There is also a tamil version of his story which specifically says that Shankara was born during the time of Vikramaditya of the chalukya dynasty which tallies with this date and the Sringeri version.

 

Cheers

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 07-05-2001).]

[Jagat]

The Madala Panji ascribes the building of the first Jagannath temple to a King Yayati Keshari. This king is said to have been in personal contact with Shankaracharya.

 

Now historians have had a great deal of trouble finding a Yayati Keshari in Orissan history, at least one living during the early 9th century. They generally point to the Somavamshi ruler, Yayati I (922-955), as being the king in question. This fellow was not known to history as “Keshari”, however.

 

In the book Lord Jagannath and Nepal by Aniruddha Das, this Yayati was a Nepali king of the <u>7th century</u>.

 

<blockquote>“Yayati desired that Sankaracharya, who was a great sage, should be the chief of Purushottam Kshetra and that he should establish a Pith on the sandy upland between the Kalpa Vriksha and the sea, where a Sivalinga was already existing (Govardhan Math). He further stated that this piece of land from Ugrasen Mandap, i.e., the antarvedi, to the sea shore be named as Bali Sahi.

 

Sankaracharya replied that he had made Yayati the second Indradyumna and therefore he should install Lord Mahadeva in the form of Balabhadra; the spouse of Mahadev, Yogamaya in the form of Subhadra; and Purushottam as Lord Jagannath. Sudarshan Chakra, the weapon of Lord Krishna should be installed as the deity Sudarshan. For Balabhadra and Subhadra it is necessary to have two Vishnusilas [salagrams]with the symbols of Vaishnavism. On the direction of Sankaracharya one Bharati Acharya was deputed to Nepal to meet with Kind Sankardeva. The Raja agreed to make a gift of Salagram and two were brought to Puri.”</blockquote>

 

Evidently, if these dates for the Nepali king are correct, and this is indeed the Yayati Keshari of the Madala Panji, it might give credence to this earlier date for Shankara.