tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559723930575740149.post3991846635891630195..comments2024-03-18T03:36:29.926+05:30Comments on Controversies in History: Date of ShankaraModa Sattvahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16790418181426022089noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559723930575740149.post-71846840291606761562016-03-24T11:09:20.148+05:302016-03-24T11:09:20.148+05:30The latest article on Adi Sankaracharya by Vedavee...The latest article on Adi Sankaracharya by Vedaveer Arya ji, as per his research both peethas (Kanchi and Sringeri) versions is True and False. Kanchi peetha version of Adi Sankara Date is true (6th Cen BC) and Sringeri peetha version of Adi Sankara date is 14th year of Vikrama Saka is half true - He is Vidya Sankra and as per his research Adi Sankara did not established any peethas although Adi Sankara brahmibhava happened in Kanchi. Vidya Sankara established four mathas in first cen AD and probably his disciple Sarvajna established Kanchi after Vidya Sankara (Sri Krishna Deva Raya inscriptions mentioned Kanchi Sankara Acharya). He studied several inscriptions of Sringeri, Kanchi and Kudali as well as compared literary sources. Please follow the link - http://itihasabharati.blogspot.in/2016/02/normal-0-false-false-false-en-in-x-none.htmlvenkatram raohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03432856646696544290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559723930575740149.post-33204550379403860032016-02-07T10:56:29.373+05:302016-02-07T10:56:29.373+05:30The Problem is same , You will not look at points ...The Problem is same , You will not look at points not favorable to you, you will only look at points favoring your arguments. Now sringeri mutt is not agreeing to your point of view, So it is villain mutt. You will throw mud at it.Moda Sattvahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16790418181426022089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559723930575740149.post-29453510286879168462016-02-07T00:34:49.898+05:302016-02-07T00:34:49.898+05:30u too have many things to say abont shringeri ...u too have many things to say abont shringeri is not that old as they claim.after 1960 they are claiming 788 AD as DOB of adi shankara . But till then in 1904 on the wall of temple in kalady the then swamiji who opened it 44 AD was mentioned. IN1865 A COURT AFFIDAIT FILED BY AGENT OF SHRINGERI MUTT WHICH CLAIMED THAT IT HAS 66 ACHARYAS AND IT IS MORE THAN 2000 YEARS OLD . PLS NOTE THIS INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN W R ANTARKARS RESEARCH THESIS.FURTHER KALADY A PLACE WAS NOT SEARCHED BY SHRINGERI MUTT SWAMIJI AS THEY CLAIM SO. BUT IT IS THE RAJA OF TRIVENDRUM WHO HAD MET CHANDRASHEKARENDRA SARASWATHI IN 1905 OR SO BUT THE THE SEER WAS VERY YOUNG TO TAKE THAT RESPONSIBILITY SENT RAJA OR HIS REPRESENTATIVES TO SHRINGERI MUTT TO BRING LIGHT ON KALADY AND CONSTRUCT A SHRINE THERE.WHY THEY CLAIM SO. THIS INFORMATION OF RAJA MEETING KANCHI SEER WITH THIS PURPOSE IS WRITTEN IN ONE DAIRY OWNED BY THE FAMILY OF LATE SHRI CHANDRASHEKARENDRA SARASWATHI WHO DIED IN 1904.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01137695925660755781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559723930575740149.post-48199072698581083032016-02-06T18:57:14.985+05:302016-02-06T18:57:14.985+05:30It looks like you will read only supporting your v...It looks like you will read only supporting your views.Moda Sattvahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16790418181426022089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559723930575740149.post-42890387713317798422016-02-06T18:48:11.798+05:302016-02-06T18:48:11.798+05:30You have not answered any of the questions raised....You have not answered any of the questions raised. Now since Sringeri mutt does not hold the same view as you, makes it villain according to you. This type of dismissing anything that does not support view and making anybody not supporting you view as villain shows the true nature of Kanchi mutt supporters. If you really have have evidence, provide in few sentences, why give so many links and tell that truth is buried there somewhere. You feel that, people will bury yourself in the deluge of pages you have provided, I don't think so. If you don't come to the point, you don't have a point, Of course you don't like me , but when did that affected me? Moda Sattvahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16790418181426022089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559723930575740149.post-18564049696850496602016-02-05T22:40:09.225+05:302016-02-05T22:40:09.225+05:30It is like Sringeri Mutt. Till begining of 20th ce...It is like Sringeri Mutt. Till begining of 20th century Sringeri Acharya's were restrained from stirring out of Sringeri by Kudali Mutt. Thanks to such weak arguments today Christians claim Adi Shankarar copied Jesus. Sringeri has no answer to why other Mutts have more than 70 Acharyas. Once Sringeri claimed Sureshacharya lived ~800 years only when people scoffed at this claim they changed dates. What happened to this Unfortunately this blog is one sided alternate viewpoints are just discarded. If allowed I can cite numerous edicts and reference how Sringeri started singing a different tune since 1960'sRVShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00928767434630007370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559723930575740149.post-71993063619821494952016-02-05T20:03:30.644+05:302016-02-05T20:03:30.644+05:30See these and learn the true date is 509BCE 2. htt...See these and learn the true date is 509BCE 2. http://www.scribd.com/doc/54926591/Sri-Sankara-Bhagavatpada-and-Sri-Kanchi-Kamakoti-Sankaracharya-Math-a-Sarvajna-Peetham.<br />3. http://www.worldcat.org/title/traditional-age-of-sri-sankaracharya-and-the-maths/oclc/21599559/editions?referer=di&editionsView=true.<br />4. http://tinyurl.com/j6myvas<br />5. https://www.scribd.com/doc/159541505/Age-of-Sankara<br />6. https://www.scribd.com/doc/280916745/The-Traditional-Age-of-Sri-Sankaracharya-and-the-Mathas<br />7. https://www.scribd.com/doc/298071250/Nagareshu-KanchiRVShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00928767434630007370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559723930575740149.post-12452595376158671892016-01-28T15:30:48.210+05:302016-01-28T15:30:48.210+05:30InterestingInterestingInformationhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10826996171001086881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559723930575740149.post-13931917435904976862016-01-17T12:11:34.500+05:302016-01-17T12:11:34.500+05:30There is perhaps another point to consider:
Adi S...There is perhaps another point to consider:<br /><br />Adi Shankaracharya was supposed to have defeated all of the prevailing philosophies of the time and re-established the primacy of Sanatan Dharma with Advaita Vedanta as the core teaching of the Upanishads.<br /><br />We know from the travels of Fa Hien and Hsuan Tsang that Buddhism was flourishing in India. Apparently, Buddhism went into a steady decline after Adi Shankaracharya completed his digvijaya (Shri Chandrashekharendra Sarasvati Swamiji also credits the Nyaya school with constantly having chipped away at Buddhist theology and philosophy, in his book Hindu Dharma, prior to the coming of Adi Shankara). <br /><br />To conclude 509 BC as the date of Adi Shankara puts us in a bind. Adi Shankara comes around 509 BC, Buddhism completely declines within a few years of his coming, the 4 Amnaaya Peethas are established and Vedic Dharma is resurrected.<br /><br />Then, Buddhism suddenly prospers again??!! Fa Hien and Hsuan Tsang mention many monasteries and several thousands of monks, wherever they go. <br /><br />Just logically, it is hard to imagine Buddhism having resurrected in India within a few hundred years of Adi Shankara's coming, only to decline again starting 8th and 9th century AD. We cannot come to this conclusion without simultaneously concluding that Adi Shankara's impact wasn't as great as our tradition considers it to be. However, that cannot be the case as our tradition is very clear on Adi Shankara's contribution and the decline of Buddhism in India. So, an earlier (than 7th-8th century) date for Adi Shankara is untenable.Anjanihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15711245428028973049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559723930575740149.post-73971603982848725012015-06-02T16:40:03.756+05:302015-06-02T16:40:03.756+05:30Sri Adi Sankara and his contemporary disciple Sri ...Sri Adi Sankara and his contemporary disciple Sri Sureswaracharya have commented on the buddhist scholar Dharmakirti by name whose historicity has been fixed as 7th century AD as per Tibet history. So Sri Sankara could have flourished only after that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559723930575740149.post-7694376663961369262014-09-23T11:10:55.874+05:302014-09-23T11:10:55.874+05:30What Happened to Kumarila from Assam Argument. What Happened to Kumarila from Assam Argument. Moda Sattvahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16790418181426022089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559723930575740149.post-40698306624730461692014-09-22T21:08:46.217+05:302014-09-22T21:08:46.217+05:30Kumarilla is from North India, maost likely a Mith...Kumarilla is from North India, maost likely a Mithila. Then how did he get a nephew in southern India?Akaula Kaulahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11449199805102117928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559723930575740149.post-36713096833113690472014-05-02T06:03:36.965+05:302014-05-02T06:03:36.965+05:30TS Sasrty's book "The Age of Sankara"...TS Sasrty's book "The Age of Sankara" - link below:<br />http://www.indicstudies.us/History/Chronologyproject/Age%20of%20Sankara1.pdf<br />Sundarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03563514676195338461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559723930575740149.post-59263461732940861642014-04-28T10:16:28.232+05:302014-04-28T10:16:28.232+05:30There is great deal of Confusion over when this Yu...There is great deal of Confusion over when this Yudhistra Sake Starts. I Go by date of 3102BC for the Start of Kaliyuga and that means Yudhistra Sake starts at 3153BC. The Crowning of Yudhistar. Now where do you put Shankara Date. 2157 + 468 =2625. How do you get 468.<br /><br />Now the Problem is due to how you calculate yudhistar Sake. There is another old Saka Era. When Yudhister saka is calculated it is calculated from old Saka Era. But today, that saka era has been substituted by new Saka Era (78AD). So we have lot of Confusion. <br /><br />Chronolgy <br />http://controversialhistory.blogspot.in/p/indian-chronology.html#.U13Z3IGSxT4<br /><br />Have you read another articule on two Buddhas. <br />Is Gautama Buddha Avatar of Vishnu<br />http://controversialhistory.blogspot.in/2014/03/is-gautama-buddha-avatar-of-vishnu.html#.U13beIGSxT5Moda Sattvahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16790418181426022089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559723930575740149.post-21107560166570719602014-04-28T07:30:37.434+05:302014-04-28T07:30:37.434+05:30Sorry for the delay in response. I am not sure you...Sorry for the delay in response. I am not sure your comment was after reading his "Choronoloyg of Nepal" - Chapter 16. Immaterial of how many shakara vijayas. he quotes the yuthistra year mentioned in the poems. In fact - he in most places merely refers to "Age of Shankara" book bu T.S. Narayana Sastry. Sastry in his book accepts about almost about 10 sankara vijayas But that is not what mattered to them in arriving at the age but what the poem says. Kota shows from the poems and the meaning of the words from the poems - show the age of Adi Shankar. For example - the words<br />Rishirbana stadha bhumirmarthyakshau - Rishi=7, Bana=5, bhumi=1 maryaksha=2 - reverse order = 2157 yudhistra saka which 2157+468 =2625 of kali which is 477 BC as the year of death of Shankara. Kotaji shows different years from different poems of different peopl on difference insidents.<br />Though I have read both the books (by sastry and Kotaji), I know you do a thorough job before concluding. so please do so - if you have not already.<br />Sundarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03563514676195338461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559723930575740149.post-79849831342584026572014-03-13T11:44:25.941+05:302014-03-13T11:44:25.941+05:30I have Great Regard for Kota Venkatachalam. His an...I have Great Regard for Kota Venkatachalam. His analysis of Puranas and arriving at dates is impressive. Now coming to your point How did Kota venkatachalam come to support kanchi mutt claims, based on the book Brihat shankara Vijaya. There are many Shankaravijayas. See below article . http://www.kamakotimandali.com/advaita/truefacts.htmlModa Sattvahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16790418181426022089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559723930575740149.post-79611966100484999062014-03-12T03:56:12.985+05:302014-03-12T03:56:12.985+05:30I already submitted once. I presume you did not se...I already submitted once. I presume you did not see it publish. Giving that benefit of doubt let me try once again.<br />You seem to accept kota venkatachalam's work on date of buddha and maurya who has also established the date of shankara based on chronology of nepal. you may want to read that before you conclude.Sundarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03563514676195338461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559723930575740149.post-39066835439378811082012-09-08T00:28:29.375+05:302012-09-08T00:28:29.375+05:30AdiShankara Debated with Mandana Misral (8th centu...AdiShankara Debated with Mandana Misral (8th century AD). In this debate Adi Shankara Quotes Dharmakirti work Vijnanavada, which is confirmed by sureSvara<br /><br />Dharmakirti is South Indian , who went to study In Nalanda under his uncle Kumarila Bhatta and became Teacher there. He explained Dignaga in a work called VijnanavadaModa Sattvahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16790418181426022089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559723930575740149.post-52050247328645165572012-09-06T18:15:23.416+05:302012-09-06T18:15:23.416+05:30which Dharmakirti did Shankara refer to? that'...which Dharmakirti did Shankara refer to? that's a question as well RamachandranS20https://www.blogger.com/profile/10785476015414098418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559723930575740149.post-30061137258047088162011-12-08T20:14:55.461+05:302011-12-08T20:14:55.461+05:30pls note i dont have any anger nor any pre ju...pls note i dont have any anger nor any pre judices. for further study material on vikramaditya and other related matters refer search .....dating shankara by vishwanath shastry on web. further i dont have anything to say to any peethams now at presentramachandrakamathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08753973652318665498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559723930575740149.post-59367489002213372532011-12-08T16:32:59.522+05:302011-12-08T16:32:59.522+05:30Ramachandra kamat or whatever name you call yourse...Ramachandra kamat or whatever name you call yourself, Your arguement is just one side, there are various sides. What is the date of vikramditya, there are about a dozen vikramadityas. How do you say they all refer to Sakari vikramaditya. Because you dont agree with me or you are angry, I dont have to agree to your view. My view at present is on sound basis. Why dont you convince Sringeri mutt to change the viewModa Sattvahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16790418181426022089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559723930575740149.post-34185323178931709782011-12-07T19:36:01.161+05:302011-12-07T19:36:01.161+05:30do you know ? shringeri till 1940 was clai...do you know ? shringeri till 1940 was claiming 44BC AS SHANKARA DATE . LATER AFTER 1950 IT STARTED TO DATE SHANKARA AS 788-820 AD. WHAT A FUN.IT IS STATED SO IN W R ANTARKARS RESEARCH THESIS. THERE IS A REFERENCE IN THE THESIS THAT SHRINGERI AGENT IN 1845 SUBMITTED A AFFIDAVIT IN KERALA COURT IN A DISPUTE' THAT IT IS 2000+ YEARS OLD AND HAS GOT 66 SWAMIJI SHANKARACHARYAS LIST. BUT NOW THE PRESENT REIGN LINEAGE IS 36. WHAT A WONDER..... WHAT DOCUMENTARY EVIDEBCES ENABLED THE THEN SECRETARY RELIGIOUS AND ENDOWMENTS COMMISSION TO POSTULATE 788 AS SHANKARA DATE? EVEN IF YOU TREAT VIKRAMADITYA II OF CHALUKYA DYNASTY THE DATE DOES NOT SUIT TO SHRINGERI ASTRONOMICAL DATE ALSO. PLEASE NOTE ALL THE SHANKARITE PEETAMS EXCEPT SHRINGERI ARE OF ONE STAND SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL THAT IS 509BC WHICH CAN NOT BE NEGLECTED EVEN SINGLY SHRINGER PEETAM DECLARES AS ACCEPTED. THE EVIDENCES PRESENTLY AVALABLE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO GIVE A FINAL WORD ON DATE . TILL FURTHER HISTORICAL EVIDENCING IS MADE IN FUTURE DAYS PLEASE BE HAPPY WITH THE PRESENT ONE EVIDENCED DATE. REMEMBER THE CASE OF RIVER SARASWATHI WHICH WAS DECLARED AS RIVER IN MYTH NOW PROVED THAT THE EXISTENCE OF RIVER SARASWATHI AS A HARD CORE TRUTH. LIKE WISE SHANKARA DATE TOO.......ramachandrakamathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08753973652318665498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559723930575740149.post-81636362965566574172011-12-07T16:47:10.231+05:302011-12-07T16:47:10.231+05:30Dharmakirti does not refer to Shankara, Shankara r...Dharmakirti does not refer to Shankara, Shankara refers to Dharmakirti. Get your facts right sundar, stop speculationModa Sattvahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16790418181426022089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559723930575740149.post-52774034875804666032011-12-07T16:21:41.582+05:302011-12-07T16:21:41.582+05:30All acharyas are called after original Sankara.
Th...All acharyas are called after original Sankara.<br />Then whom did Dharmakirti refer to?sundarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11724331081747135853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2559723930575740149.post-29929202390617275262011-05-03T09:43:52.686+05:302011-05-03T09:43:52.686+05:30Mr. Kamath your Article does not give any evidence...Mr. Kamath your Article does not give any evidence for 509BC date. Even if the other three mutts tell this date, there should be a basis for the same. The Same is never presented. <br /><br />My Logic is simple Dharmakirti is mentioned by Adi Shankara, then he comes after Dharmakirti. Dharmakirti date is confirmed by Independent source Hieun Tsang. <br /><br />If the date can be proved to be 509BC, I will gladly accept it. The present evidence point to 8th century AD only.Moda Sattvahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16790418181426022089noreply@blogger.com