Government wrong on Adi Sankara’s birth year: Kanchi seer

[vgane]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Welcome the initiative of Central Government to celebrate Adi Sankara's birth anniversary as Philosopher's day!

Mumbai, November 23, 2015 [h=1]Government wrong on Adi Sankara’s birth year: Kanchi seer[/h]

• IANS

PTI
The Kanchi seer warmly welcomed the central government’s proposal to celebrate Adi Shankara’s birth anniversary as 'Philospher's Day.'






[h=2]He said the Kanchi Mutt and four other hermitages at Dwarka, Sringeri, Puri and Badri insist that Adi Sankara was born in 509 BC and not 788 AD.[/h]
Jayendra Saraswati, head of the Kancheepuram Mutt in Tamil Nadu, on Monday described as “misrepresentation” the birth year of Adi Sankara as approved by the government.
“The only distortion in the whole proposal is the ‘misrepresentation’ of the birth year of Adi Sankaracharya which was the handiwork of Westerners to post-date any such major event after the birth of Jesus Christ so as to establish their supremacy,” said the Kanchi Seer.
Communicating through his close aide B. Shridhar, he said the Kanchi Mutt and four other hermitages at Dwarka, Sringeri, Puri and Badri insist that Adi Sankara was born in 509 BC and not 788 AD.
He elaborated on two major evidences supporting the pre-Christian era theory — one that all the four mutts have had more than 70 pontiffs and, second, a scientific carbon dating of the river Kaladi in Kerala proved that it flowed just around 2,500 years ago.
“This (second point) is in conformity with the legend that Adi Sankaracharya had persuaded the river to flow into Kaladi, his birthplace in Kerala, to help his mother take a bath in the river without travelling far to reach the river,” he said.
The seer, who completed a nine-day visit to Mumbai on Monday, warmly welcomed the central government’s proposal to celebrate Adi Sankara’s birth anniversary as “Philosopher’s Day” from next year.
“Adi Sankaracharya was India’s most profound philosopher who propagated the theory of Monism or Advaita (non-dualism), which is ultimately the basis of all philosophies. He reunited the fragmented Hinduism and was among the first to think and propagate India as a single entity.”

http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...ras-birth-year-kanchi-seer/article7908827.ece

 

[yesmohan]

Welcome the initiative of Central Government to celebrate Adi Sankara's birth anniversary as Philosopher's day!

Mumbai, November 23, 2015 Government wrong on Adi Sankara’s birth year: Kanchi seer

• IANS

PTI
The Kanchi seer warmly welcomed the central government’s proposal to celebrate Adi Shankara’s birth anniversary as 'Philospher's Day.'






He said the Kanchi Mutt and four other hermitages at Dwarka, Sringeri, Puri and Badri insist that Adi Sankara was born in 509 BC and not 788 AD.


Jayendra Saraswati, head of the Kancheepuram Mutt in Tamil Nadu, on Monday described as “misrepresentation” the birth year of Adi Sankara as approved by the government.
“The only distortion in the whole proposal is the ‘misrepresentation’ of the birth year of Adi Sankaracharya which was the handiwork of Westerners to post-date any such major event after the birth of Jesus Christ so as to establish their supremacy,” said the Kanchi Seer.
Communicating through his close aide B. Shridhar, he said the Kanchi Mutt and four other hermitages at Dwarka, Sringeri, Puri and Badri insist that Adi Sankara was born in 509 BC and not 788 AD.
He elaborated on two major evidences supporting the pre-Christian era theory — one that all the four mutts have had more than 70 pontiffs and, second, a scientific carbon dating of the river Kaladi in Kerala proved that it flowed just around 2,500 years ago.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...ras-birth-year-kanchi-seer/article7908827.ece

Even if the average age of one pontiff is taken as 40 years the total period of 70 pontiffs would be 2800 years.There is every possibility that the claims of the mutts that Adi Sankara was born in 509 BC could have been correct.

 

[sangom]

Even if the average age of one pontiff is taken as 40 years the total period of 70 pontiffs would be 2800 years.There is every possibility that the claims of the mutts that Adi Sankara was born in 509 BC could have been correct.

The date of 788 A.D. is agreed to by most authorities. I also feel Sringeri does not quite agree with the Kanchi bluff. Sringeri reportedly has records of the mutt heads for a very long time.

It is foolish to assume that every swami would have ruled for minimum of 40 years; after all Shankara himself lived for 32 years only!

If the date of 509 BC is accepted, then Shankara should have passed away in 477 BC and the official accepted date of birth of Buddha is 563 BC or 480 BC. Hence that will make Buddha and Shankara almost contemporaries, but no version of Sankara Vijayam even mentions the one meeting the other and defeating Buddhism. Shankara's works refute Buddhism amply. So this would mean that Shankara was not interested in any direct confrontation with Buddha and thus add weightage to the pracchanna bouddha epithet of Sankara which some scholars believe in. Lastly, if ,y memory is correct, Shankara cites/names a few Buddhist scholars who lived much later than Buddha.

For fuller details please read:

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/alt_hindu_msg.html

 

[vgane]

The date of 788 A.D. is agreed to by most authorities. I also feel Sringeri does not quite agree with the Kanchi bluff. Sringeri reportedly has records of the mutt heads for a very long time.

It is foolish to assume that every swami would have ruled for minimum of 40 years; after all Shankara himself lived for 32 years only!

If the date of 509 BC is accepted, then Shankara should have passed away in 477 BC and the official accepted date of birth of Buddha is 563 BC or 480 BC. Hence that will make Buddha and Shankara almost contemporaries, but no version of Sankara Vijayam even mentions the one meeting the other and defeating Buddhism. Shankara's works refute Buddhism amply. So this would mean that Shankara was not interested in any direct confrontation with Buddha and thus add weightage to the pracchanna bouddha epithet of Sankara which some scholars believe in. Lastly, if ,y memory is correct, Shankara cites/names a few Buddhist scholars who lived much later than Buddha.

For fuller details please read:

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/alt_hindu_msg.html

Sangomji,

But as per this article Sringeri Mutt is also for this proposal and not contradicting the Kanchi Acharya

 

[mskmoorthy]

This book may be worth looking into http://www.sunypress.edu/p-1505-shankara-and-indian-philosophy.aspx

Shankara and Indian Philosophy

by Natalia Isayeva SUNY Series in Religious Philosophy., 1992/1993
https://goo.gl/Rr06th
Pages 83-91 discusses the time of his birth (there are only indirect evidences). According to this book the year of his birth is Nandana (26th year of the 60 year cycle) in the lunar month of Vaishaka (AD 568 or 805 - author says most likely 568 AD again citing indirect evidence) A bigger controversy (between Kanchi and Sringeri) is the place of Adi Sankara's death - whether it is Kanchi or Kedarnath.

The book also cites Shri Kunjunni Raja's book and Shri KT Telang (Telang's paper is titled The Date of Sankaracharya)

 

[yesmohan]

The date of 788 A.D. is agreed to by most authorities. I also feel Sringeri does not quite agree with the Kanchi bluff. Sringeri reportedly has records of the mutt heads for a very long time.

It is foolish to assume that every swami would have ruled for minimum of 40 years; after all Shankara himself lived for 32 years only!

If the date of 509 BC is accepted, then Shankara should have passed away in 477 BC and the official accepted date of birth of Buddha is 563 BC or 480 BC. Hence that will make Buddha and Shankara almost contemporaries, but no version of Sankara Vijayam even mentions the one meeting the other and defeating Buddhism. Shankara's works refute Buddhism amply. So this would mean that Shankara was not interested in any direct confrontation with Buddha and thus add weightage to the pracchanna bouddha epithet of Sankara which some scholars believe in. Lastly, if ,y memory is correct, Shankara cites/names a few Buddhist scholars who lived much later than Buddha.

For fuller details please read:

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/alt_hindu_msg.html

Let your assumption / presumption / statement be correct; for that reason why did you see your own image in mirror for attributing it on others?