Sanatana Dharma - Aka Hinduism (1st Bin)

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-prem+Oct 20 2006, 12:06 AM-->QUOTE(prem @ Oct 20 2006, 12:06 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Very interesting article in Sulekha.
The trial of Adi Shankara

http://www.sulekha.com/blogs/blogdisplay.a...ibutor=Moornaam
[right][snapback]59353[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

KInd of answer the critics that we should not act or temporary become like enemies to defeat them.

[Guest]

अग्ङं गलितं पलितं मुण्डं दशनविहीनं जातं तुण्डम्।
वृद्धो याति गृहीत्वा दण्डं तदपि न मुञ्चत्याशापिण्डम्।।
<b>अग्रे वहिः पृष्ठे भानुः</b> रात्रौ चुबुक समर्पित जानुः।
करतल भिक्षस्तरूतल वासः तदपि न मुञ्चत्याशा पाशः।।

Above is part of Sri Adi Shankar's Bhaj govindam. Below is the meaning in Hindi and English. I did not understand the real meaning of this part "पृष्ठे भानुः"

वृद्धावस्था में शरीर जर्जर हो गया है, सिर के बाल सफेद हो गये हैं, दाँत गिर गये हैं, छड़ी के सहारे चलना पड़ता है अर्थात् मृत्यु निकट आ गई है किन्तु आशाओं का बन्धन अब भी नहीं टूटा।
<b>आगे अग्नि, पीछे सूर्य</b> और रात्रि में घुटनों में ठोढ़ी लगाये रहने वाले तथा हाथ पसार कर भीख मांगने वाले और पेड़ के नीचे सोने वाले भी आशा के बन्धनों से मुक्त नहीं हैं।

Old age has decayed the body; hair have grayed; teeth have left; with cane one gets to walk; death knocks at the doors; and yet bondage of hopes have not left you? <b>Fire is ahead, and sun behind</b> ; those who sleep with chin done to knees; and those who beg spreading their palms; as well as those who sleep in open below the trees; are even those free from the bondage of hopes!!

I did not understand the part "fire ahead; and sun behind - अग्रे वहिः पृष्ठे भानुः". For fire ahead, I imagine it indicates - pyre of death awaits ahead? But what does the sun behind mean in that context?

Someone knows the real meaning?

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->fire ahead; and sun behind<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just guessing, if one has one's back turned to the sun, does it mean the sun is setting on one's life (old age)? (The sun of the morning has passed overhead and is sinking behind us.) Or maybe not.

Bodhi, if you weren't yet aware of it, M.S. Subbulakshmi has sung Bhaja Govindam beautifully. It's available on the same CD as her rendition of the Vishnu Sahasranamam.

[Guest]

<!--emo&:eager--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/lmaosmiley.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='lmaosmiley.gif' /><!--endemo--> Fire: to face the enemy
Sun: not to show back to your friend.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Oct 25 2006, 12:42 AM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Oct 25 2006, 12:42 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->fire ahead; and sun behind<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just guessing, if one has one's back turned to the sun, does it mean the sun is setting on one's life (old age)? (The sun of the morning has passed overhead and is sinking behind us.) Or maybe not.

Bodhi, if you weren't yet aware of it, M.S. Subbulakshmi has sung Bhaja Govindam beautifully. It's available on the same CD as her rendition of the Vishnu Sahasranamam.
[right][snapback]59683[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Hmmm...sun behind meaning old age...guess so...

I downloaded the MP3 of this, sung by MSS. really awesome. Thanks Husky.

[Sunder]

<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Oct 25 2006, 07:28 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Oct 25 2006, 07:28 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Old age has decayed the body; hair have grayed; teeth have left; with cane one gets to walk; death knocks at the doors; and yet bondage of hopes have not left you?  <b>Fire is ahead, and sun behind</b> ; those who sleep with chin done to knees; and those who beg spreading their palms; as well as those who sleep in open below the trees; are even those free from the bondage of hopes!!

I did not understand the part "fire ahead; and sun behind - अग्रे वहिः पृष्ठे भानुः".  For fire ahead, I imagine it indicates - pyre of death awaits ahead?  But what does the sun behind mean in that context?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Literally, the verse describes a bhikshuka living under a tree (Taruthala vaasa). The sun has set behind his back, night is falling, he is facing east warming himself by lighting some firewood. He does not have any possession - not even a plate to hold food - as he has food placed on his palm (Karathala Bhiksha). Even while he sits there with his legs drawn up and chin resting on his knees, with absolutely nothing to call his own, he cannot let go of his desires.

Figurative meaning is that Surya is the cause of health and virility. The Bhikshuka (signifying the reader someday) is bereft of health and virility, and the heydays are bygone, and he is now in a forlorn state looking forward to his physical death. Even in such a state, where everything else has forsaken him, he is unable to give up desires and hankering for the objects, name, fame, and the other mundane things.

[Guest]

Sundareshwara,
Hats off. Thank you.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I downloaded the MP3 of this, sung by MSS. really awesome<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Bodhi, like you, I also like listening to shlokas. One of my favourites is Adi Shankaracharya's Mahishasura Mardhini. I don't know that there's one performed by MSS, but there are various very good renditions of it, like that of the Bombay sisters. It makes me feel like a (happy) lion at the end, after having sung about the victorious Mother.

[Guest]

Sunder Ji, this was superb! <!--emo&:cool--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/specool.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='specool.gif' /><!--endemo--> Made my day. Thank You!

Husky, let me find Mahishasura Mardini by MSS at a music site I use.. will let you know if I can locate that... meanwhile I also find Guroshtakam and Madhurushtakam of Sri Adi Sankar (sung by various) and Mundakopanishad sung by Pt Jasraj very awakening.

[Sunder]

Huskynatha, Bodhi ji, if at all there is a hats off, it is hatsoff to Sri Adi Shankaracharya. I only put to english what the great Bhagavatpadal said.

BTW, Mahishasura Mardhini is attributed to Bhagavatpadal, but may not be his work. It is a great soul-stirring rendition nonetheless.

[Guest]

If somebody not already aware of this site: (musicindiaonline):

One can listen to the Various Sanskrit Strotrams sung by established musicians

[acharya]

Indian Culture- Part I

Nearly two years ago, I gifted a Ganapati ka murthi to a British girl in Hongkong. She thanked me but asked me what it stood for. I was stumped, did not know what to say but regained my composure to say its the God of Good Luck. Subsequently, a friend of mine told me what the elephant God stands for. I felt very sheepish and wondered how many of us know the true significance of the gods we worship and the customs we follow. Since then I have been trying to lay my hands on a book that would teach me about the basic truths about Hinduism. Fortunately, I found more than a couple of books that have enlightened me. Writing a complete essay on all aspects of Hinduism and Bharatvarsha would require me to be reborn n number of times.

I have written this essay in a question answer format ie a mother answering her daughters questions. . I take no credit for the essay. I see myself only, as a compiler of facts who is using the net, attempting to share what he has been fortunate to read.

I have relied on the following books to put this together. The Bhagwad Geeta by Swami Chinamayannda, Am I a Hindu by ED Vishwanathan, The Composites Works of Swami Vivekananda, Indian History and Culture by Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan, Symbolism of Hindu Gods and Rituals by A. Parthasarathy.

Q Mama, I want to ask you a lot of questions about Indian religions, history, philosophy.

A Please go ahead.

Q What is it to be a Hindu ?

Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life. Unlike other world religions, it does not prescribe any do's and don'ts. It allows you to live life the way you like. It allows freedom of thought. You do not have to agree with its philosophy unless you are convinced about it. Buddha questioned the authority of the Vedas, Adi Shankaracharya reformed Hinduism, yet not one of these critics was harmed unlike the Sufi saints who proclaimed they were God. It has a very broad encompassing philosophy and is a tolerant religion. It is a relentless pursuit of truth. You have to discover its philosophy yourself. It absorbs new ideas very easily. Unfortunately, some evils like the rigid caste system, superstitions have crept in over the years. By nature, Hindus are not fanatics, violence is abhorred, they forgive their enemies even those who could be a threat to their lives ( Remember how Prithviraj Chauhan set Mahmud Ghazni free inspite of defeating him in battle, only to be killed by the same man later ).You know Hindu religion never persecutes. It is a personal religion. You can pray sitting at home. No need to ask other Hindus to come and pray by using a loudspeaker.

Of the two patriots Mahatma Gandhi and Veer Savarkar, the Mahatma a preacher of non-violence was more popular. Hindus have this great propensity to put the past behind them, move on with their lives( think of your grandfather, a Punjabi refugee who left Lahore without a penny during Partition but is a very wealthy man today), absorb foreigners in to their culture. Quote Allana Iqbal " There has to be something about the entity of this civilisation that has defied destruction despite repeated onslaught by its enemies centuries after centuries. "

Q But why are Hindus slaves of idol worship and a large number of Gods ?

The Vedas do not talk about idol worship. In fact, till about 2000 years ago Hindus never worshipped idols. Idol worship was started by the followers of Lord Buddha. There is a logic to idol worship. Hinduism speaks of one God that is the supreme self in man ie Atman or soul. Different Gods and Goddesses are manifestations of the powers and functions of the one supreme God. The human mind suffers from many diseases that need to be cured by specialists. One God cannot help a Hindu to get rid of all his problems. Every God has his own core competency as Michael Porter says. Man is full of desires. To fulfill these desires he relentlessly pursues acquisition of materialistic objects. Desires create agitations in our minds preventing us from concentrating on any one object. Religion helps us control our desires and concentrate our mind on pursuing the Self within. To make this happen, Hinduism has thought of Gods and rituals, festivals. By this man is reminded of the Supreme even while he is pursuing desires eg the Lord of Wealth is Laxmi. Every stockbroker while trying to make money on the stock market has a statute or photo of the Goddess of wealth in his office to remind him that there are is a touch of divinity in his pursuits. By worshipping an idol you are able to converge your thoughts and mind to improve your power of concentration. This helps us clear our mind of desires making it fit for meditation. It helps us peep into our souls, understand ourselves and form conclusions about right and wrong. Idols are a tool to achieve self realization and nothing else.

Q What is this I have read about Aryan and Dravidian Gods. Were there different Gods ?

Yes, there were different Gods. Aryan gods were Indra, Agni, Varuna, Soma, Surya or Vishnu, Ushas and Dravidian Gods were Shiva, Ma or Parvati, Murugan. There was never any major animosity between their followers. The Tirupati temple in the south is a Vishnuji ka mandir while the temple at Kashi is a Shivji ka mandir. Modern day Hinduism is a synthesis of Aryan and Dravidian cultures. More about that later.

Q Please tell when did other world religions enter India ?

Jews are believed to have come into India in 5 a.d. Christianity came into India in two phases. Phase one was believed to be around the first century a.d. Phase two was with the advent of the Portugese into India in 1498 a.d. During the first phase Christianity was mainly limited to modern day Kerala, these converts were mostly Brahmans and are known as Syrian Catholics. Phase two started with the advent of the Portuguese and the British rule in India ie when Hindus were forcibly converted to Christianity. Rice Christians as Gandhiji called them. Islam entered the Indian sub-continent around the eighth century a.d. when Sind was conquered by the Arabs. However, Islam entered the Indian heartland only after the eleventh century a.d. Indian Muslims are a mixture of Afghans, Mongols and converted Hindus eg Bohri Muslims were originally Gujarati Brahmins.

Q Does Hinduism have a Pope or a founder like Prophet Mohammed ?

A No Hinduism does not have either. There is no central authority in Hinduism whose orders Hindus are bound to follow or nor is there one interpretation of Hindu philosophy. Nobody is excommunicated from Hinduism. Being an open and liberal religion, Hinduism is criticized more than other religions.

Q Then how did Hinduism take birth and evolve ?

An exact date of its birth cannot be given. It is known that Hinduism is as old as this land. Seals of Lord Shiva have been found in Harappa. Some say it is 5000 years old while others say it is 6000 to 7000 years old. I think it is atleast 6000 years old. Ancient India consisted of the Aryans and Dravidians.

The Hindu scriptures were written by the Rishis of ancient times and have got passed down over generations eg the Sage Vyasa, author of the Mahabharat and the Geeta is credited with writing the Vedas too. The word Hindu came originated from the word Sindhu which is another name for the river Indus. May be people who stayed along the Sindhu ( Indus ) came to be known as Hindus.

An ancient name of Hinduism would be Sanathan Dharm meaning that which has no beginning or an end, righteousness for ever. Today going to a temple would make you a follower of Sanathan Dharam. Sects like the Arya Samajis do not believe in idol worship but in the supremacy of the Vedas.

Q Is not Hinduism confusing and contradictory ?

Since Hinduism is subject to so many interpretations, to the ignorant it may appear to be confusing. But the Rishis worked on different aspects to unravel the riddles of the universe. Hinduism has a never had a cleaning up in its history, unlike Christianity. Since the first council in 325 a.d. it has thrown out anyone who did not literally follow the church. Contradictions are seen in every scripture in the world. The Old Testament is in direct contrast to the New one in certain aspects. The Old details all types of sexual activity while the New upholds high morality. The Old demanded and allowed human sacrifices while the New shows a very compassionate God.

Every religion has its share of contradictions. It is incorrect to criticize other religions on the basis of half-baked knowledge. Like Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism are offshoots of Hinduism so also Christianity, Islam are offshoots of Judaism ( religion of the Jews ).

Q Mama tell me something about the Vedas ?

There are four Vedas. The Rig Veda ( of Hyms 1028 in number dedicated to gods like Indra and Agni ), Yajur Veda ( knowledge of rites or can be called a priestly handbook ), Sama Veda ( Veda of Music ) and the Atharva Veda is used as a manual by chief sacrificial priests and Brahmins.

The Rig Veda talks of the cosmic order called RTA. It means cosmic and sacred order. Later it came to be known as Dharma or righteousness forever.

Q Who were the first Law Givers of Hinduism ?

A They were the sages Manu, Yatnavalkya, Parasara and Gauthama. Their books were called Dharma Sutras, the most important one being Manusmriti. The name Manu means, Patriarchal Earth Ruler.

QWere not the statements on women deplorable and those on the caste system even worse ?

A Darling, do not get excited. Please understand that Manu's code was for a society that was just taking birth in North India and not modern day India. In fact on women Manu said " They are to be honored and adorned by fathers and brothers alike. When women are honored Gods rejoice, where they are not all rites are fruitless." You see every religion has put man on a higher pedestal. Man was physically and emotionally stronger. Things have changed today. I believe that the Indian women is emotionally far stronger than the man. She has to take care of work, house, children, hubby and sometimes in-laws. If you read the Old Testament esp Exodus you will see the statements regarding the treatment of slaves. History is a part of every scripture. Every evolving society makes mistakes, thus one cannot pass judgement hastily.

In today's kalyug we admire and envy the prosperity of America and keep on criticising India without realizing that they have become what you see after over 250 yrs of independence while we are in our 52 nd year.

Q Like the Christians have the Bible and the Muslims the Quoran is there a Hindu equivalent ?

Hindus consider the Bhagwad Geeta as the bible equivalent. It is the essence of the Vedas, a summation of the Upanishads. Having read the Geeta once, I can say that it has a solution to every problem. Sometimes, I feel it has more to do with human psychology and less with religion. The Geeta tries to show you the right path without imposing its thoughts on you.

I try and live my life by the following slokha ( verse ) of the Geeta. " Life is full of opposites, pleasure and pain, joy and sorrow, heat and cold, are impermanent in nature, have a beginning and an end, face them bravely, Oh Partha." What it says that our lives will have good days and bad ones, there would be times when we happy and are unhappy. We should not be affected by either of the two situations but learn to live life in equanimity. Its like saying what goes up will always go down.

Two other noteworthy things that I have learnt are the importance of removing desires and selfless work. If I desire, I expect, if I do not get what I want I become unhappy. Then why must I desire. Desires get the mind agitated making me loose peace of mind. If I work, only with the intent of earning the fruits of my action I would be unhappy as I am always expecting success. As we all know none of us can succeed all the time. The Geeta says karm karte jahao without worrying about the fruits of your actions. I have tried to put it simply for you.

Q Did Christianity ever believe in rebirth ?

The doctrine of reincarnation is taken for granted in most parts of Asia. In the West it was widely accepted before being anathematized by the Church at the council of Constantinople in 543 a.d. On account of its reasonableness it is gaining acceptance in the West again.

Q Is the doctrine of Bhakti ( the love of divine ) in Indian the result of Occidental influence?

The bhakti in India is not like the Western bhakti. The central idea of ours is that there is no thought of fear. There is no worship through fear but through love God from the beginning to the end. Bhakti is spoken of in the oldest of the Upanishads which is much older than the Christian ka Bible. The germs of Bhakti are even in the Samhita ( Vedic hyms ). The word bhakti was suggested by the word Shraddha.


http://www.esamskriti.com/html/new_essay_p...&cid=196&sid=34

http://www.esamskriti.com/html/new_essay_p...&cid=197&sid=35
http://www.esamskriti.com/html/new_essay_p...&cid=198&sid=36




Q Mama, did you see the Hyundai ka advt today, it said Sampati Ghar Leha ho. Now what on earth does Sampati stand for ?

A Sat Sampatti stands for :
Sama ie calmness.
Dama ie self control.
Uparati ie detachment.
Titiksa ie endurance.
Samadhi ie creative concentration.
Sraddha ie faith.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Indian Culture- Part I ( http://www.esamskriti.com/html/new_...id=196&sid=34 ) <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Vedas do not talk about idol worship. In fact, till about 2000 years ago Hindus never worshipped idols. Idol worship was started by the followers of Lord Buddha. There is a logic to idol worship.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> What is this eternal dhimmitude that even well-meaning Hindus suffer from?
Didn't Rukmini, Krishna's wife and incarnation of Lakshmi, worship Parvati's vigraham in the temple? Didn't Rama build a Mahalingam and perform puja to Shankara in the very south of India - the site of Rameshwaram today - before crossing to Lanka and beginning his enterprise against Ravana? What would the author of the piece 'Indian Culture Part I' call Rama's puja to the Lingam?
It's a vigraham, not an idol. Ask the christoislamics what idol and idol worship means to them and you'll discover it has a different meaning to what vigraham and puja means to us. That means we are not talking about the same thing. It does not explain why my Jain friend keeps Vigneshwara and Lakshmi vigrahas in their puja-room. Nor does it describe my waking up every morning to look at the various images of Gods near my bed.

And why do we feel we need to be apologetic about 'idol worship' (itself a derogatory phrase that the terrorist religions have given to us)? Need to stop defining ourselves with the terms they've given. That's what leads to dhimmitude.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hinduism speaks of one God that is the supreme self in man ie Atman or soul. Different Gods and Goddesses are manifestations of the powers and functions of the one supreme God.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Besides being seen as an expression of a single aspect of Paramatma, each Hindu God can be considered a full manifestation of Parabrahmam too (Shiva, Uma, Lakshmi, Mahavishnu, Kartikeya, Ganapathi, ...). Many great Hindus in the past have made Ishtadevas out of one of these and have attained Moksha.
Mind-boggling for narrowminded christoislamics, no doubt, who can only understand the world in terms of monotheists and polytheists, dar-ul-harb and dar-ul-islam, saved and unsaved, kafir and faithful.

Hindu beliefs cannot be explained by the narrow terms of polytheism or monotheism. So why do we need to pretend that monotheism is the ideal? It does not even properly approach the meaning of Parabrahmam. Monotheism, in the sense that the Christo west has understood it, is a belief in One True Gawd, because the christoislamics do believe in many gods - although, except for their chosen deity, the other ones are 'false gods' (or even demons). We don't have false gods. Gods are either God or not. (The demiurge of christoislam is entirely manufactured, hence non-existent. Islam has stolen the name of Allah and appropriated it for their invented deity.)

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Aryan gods were Indra, Agni, Varuna, Soma, Surya or Vishnu, Ushas and Dravidian Gods were Shiva, Ma or Parvati, Murugan.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Not again. When will this end? Why do we believe and accept Christos from Europe splitting our pantheon into IE (Oryan) Gods and non-IE Gods?
Where's the proof of
(1) Oryans having existed at all
(2) Oryans having come to India (invaded, migrated, influxed, getting lost...)
(3) Their pantheon - that is, if we don't have evidence of Oryans having existed at all, how do we know they had deities, and who their deities were/what they were like
(4) That the Oryans wrote the Vedas
(5) That the Oryans therefore brought Indra and the other Gods (which the appropriators want to call Oryan) from lalaland (Urheimat)
(6) That there were Dravidians,
(7) Etc., etc., etc.

Before we ever heard of the fabulous fable of the ultramen - I speak of course of the Oryans - did we think Indra and the rest were of a different origin from Shiva, Muruga and the others? That's a no, by the way.

We Hindus live in eternal Dhimmitude, we accept it so easily.
Others tell us monotheism is super and that we are but pathetic little polytheists. So we want to be monotheists without knowing the real meaning. (Old Korean religion was also classified as monotheist by the missionary psychos, even though there were many Korean deities like in Shintoism. But the enforced classification made conversion easier for the christoterrorists.)
Others tell us idol-worship is something bad. We want to keep it, but need to be apologetic about it, all the while misunderstanding what they mean with idol-worship. (It doesn't apply to us or any other non-christoislamics I know.)
Others tell us there were Oryans, that they invaded India and that the Hindu deities we knew since the beginning of Hindu memory can be arbitrarily divided into Oryan and unOryan deities. And we believe it and then write articles on Hinduism parroting the same without any critical reflection.

We're happy to swallow everything others tell us about our religion - even though we and our parents, grandparents and ancestors do in fact know better. We're quite willing to accept all their labels. And we're pleased to view our religion from their perspective, making it 'Hinduism and Indian Culture as told by christoislamic colonial imperialism'. No wonder some people are so confused they are converting to terrorist religions. That that's the intention of christoislamism is no suprise, but I don't know why Hindus are so glad to oblige them.

<b>EDIT:</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Did Christianity ever believe in rebirth ?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Christianity believed in everything that was doing the rounds in the ancient world (made it easier to gain converts). It stole everything from the former beliefs of the regions.
In time, especially in 4th to 5th centuries, the Christos decided to vote on what beliefs and gospels were to be orthodox. Then they threw out stuff they didn't think belonged in Christoism. That lead to the Christoism of subsequent centuries and today. What can one expect from a made-up religion? It has never known what it wants to be. Besides intolerance, I can't think of a single constant, well-defined teaching in christosm.
Reincarnation hardly needs the endorsement of christoism to be considered acceptable.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->We encounter one of the first instances of the Radical Universalist infiltration of Hinduism in the syncretistic teachings of Ram Mohan Roy (1772-1833), the founder of the infamous Brahmo Samaj. A highly controversial figure during his life, Roy was a Bengali pseudo-intellectual who was heavily influenced by the teachings of the Unitarian Church, a heterodox denomination of Christianity.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


In one of the editions of the mahAnirvAna tantra, Roy is mentioned as initiated into the tAntric rites by hariharAnanda sarasvatI and he even has a shaiva (tAntric) wife and a child from her.

When he died, they noticed that he is still wearing the yaGYopavIta.

The followers of Ramakrishna did indeed cause lot of damage.

[acharya]

One aspect of our Hindu society that I am intrigued about is the role of the Shankaracharya. What role does he play, how much in line with the scriptures is his role?

Is it a social mandate or a mandate by scriptures?

Why is it that one finds no mention of a Shankaracharya in the Ramayan and Mahabharat?

How authoritative is the voice of the Shankaracharya in Hindu society?

[Sunder]

<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Dec 29 2006, 12:02 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Dec 29 2006, 12:02 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->One aspect of our Hindu society that I am intrigued about is the role of the Shankaracharya. What role does he play, how much in line with the scriptures is his role?

Is it a social mandate or a mandate by scriptures?

Why is it that one finds no mention of a Shankaracharya in the Ramayan and Mahabharat?

How authoritative is the voice of the Shankaracharya in Hindu society?
[right][snapback]62523[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Acharya Shankara's advent was well after the period of Ramayana or Mahabharatha. There cannot be any mention of it there, though Sri Shankaracharya does refer to Ramayana and Mahabharatha in his works.

Sri Shankara had an incisive logic to rip thru the misinterpretations about Sanathana Dharma and to clarify the true meaning of the Upanishads, and the Vedanta Sutras. Sri Shankara bases Vedas as an authority and Brahman as the only reality.

The voice of Shankara is quite authoritative among intelligentia. If His teachings were to be practised even a little bit, then we would not have these Adharmic politicians and the caste based mudslinging that we have today.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Dec 29 2006, 12:02 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Dec 29 2006, 12:02 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->One aspect of our Hindu society that I am intrigued about is the role of the Shankaracharya. What role does he play, how much in line with the scriptures is his role?

Is it a social mandate or a mandate by scriptures?

Why is it that one finds no mention of a Shankaracharya in the Ramayan and Mahabharat?

How authoritative is the voice of the Shankaracharya in Hindu society?
[right][snapback]62523[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Acharya,
Sunder's reply is based on the assumption that you are referring to the first of them, the Adi Sankara.
However, from your post, it seems you are referring to the heads of the mathas that the Adi Sankara established. Well, their role is to run the mathas. It is a mandate specified by the tradition of these mathas. Why should this require a social or a scriptural mandate?

As for their prominence and larger role in Hindu society today, that may be derived from the large number of devotees that they attract in South India, and the extraordinary personal traits of many of these heads in the last century and a half.

These are not the only mathas in Hinduism though. There exist many other sects, which run their own mathas, some of them very prominent like the Ahobila mutt.

In Hindu society, the voice of a Sankaracharya (i.e., the current or past head of any of the mutts established by the Adi Sankaracharya) is important (not necessarily <i>authoritative</i>) to many South Indian Shaiva devotees.

Sunder and others, please correct me here if I am rong.

[Sunder]

<!--QuoteBegin-vishwas+Dec 29 2006, 04:47 AM-->QUOTE(vishwas @ Dec 29 2006, 04:47 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sunder's reply is based on the assumption that you are referring to the first of them, the Adi Sankara.
[right][snapback]62531[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Vishwas, my assumption stemmed from the following question...

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Why is it that one finds no mention of a Shankaracharya in the Ramayan and Mahabharat?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

Shankaracharyas are heads of the 4 (or 5, or 7 - depending upon what you believe) Adi Shankar Maths which were established by Adi Shankar on farthest corners of India, just before he left his sthool body. To understand the role of these Maths, and their Shankaracharyas, one needs to understand Adi Shankar's role and vision first.

If history of Hindus is to be analyzed, Adi Sankara's name will stand out as that visionary who gave this 'structure' to Hindus which sustained their faith for the centuries which were coming after his time. It was his time, when the onslaught of Islam was just about knocking at the doors of India, and Hindu soceity was severely divided and chaos prevailed all over in the religious and philosophical world. (As well as in political world)

Chaos pervaded all through India in the matter of popular religion and practiced philosophy. People were experiencing sect after sect, such as Charvakas, Lokayathikas, Kapalikas, Shaktas, Sankhyas, Madhyamikas, various Jaina and Bauddhas sects. The number of religions rose as high as seventy-two. That was well so far, but there were intense infights amongst each sect. Chaos and confusion reigned supreme. There was utter superstition and bigotry. Vedas, Upanishadas etc had gone to the background.

That is when Shankar was born. If you ask me, one reason why Islam could not succeed in Islamizing India just like it did in Iran, that one reason will be the birth of Adi Shankar in 788 AD.

Sankar's main contribution to Hindu soceity was unification. Unification with diversity preserved. It gave a complete new life to the religious life of masses. To Hindu nation, it gave that unifying strength that was needed.

So, it was Shankar's vision to establish 10 different definite orders of Sannyasins under the name 'Dasanamis' who add, at the end of their names, any one of the following ten suffixes: Sarasvati, Bharati, Puri (Sringeri Mutt); Tirtha, Asrama (Dwaraka Mutt); Giri, Parvata and Sagar (Joshi Mutt); Vana and Aranya (Govardhana Mutt). The Paramahamsa represents the highest of these grades.

And it was his vision to have a decentralized structure yet unified religion which is accessible to soceity, by establishing Maths on different corners of India. Howmay were these - there are academic disputes over it. Most commonly accepted version is 4: Shringeri in Karnataka, Joshi in Uttaranchal, Dwarka in Gujarat, and Puri in Orissa. Each one of them represented (and specialized in) one of the four Vedas. Sankara placed his four eminent disciples (Sureswara Acharya, Padmapada, Hastamalaka and Trotakacharya) in charge of the Sringeri Mutt, Jagannath Mutt, Dwaraka Mutt and Joshi Mutt respectively. Some additional matths too are attributed to him, like Kanchi, Kashi, Bodhgaya etc...

Later in the Hindu history, these Matths provided the much needed philosophical unity to the society - <b>Many times even political inspiration</b>. For example, Vijayanagar Kingdom's birth is much attributed to the inspiration from Vidyaranya, who was the 14th century Shankaracharya of Shringeri Math. Birth of Vishwa Hindu Parishad is much from the inspiration of the Shankaracharyas and other spiritual leaders.

Today too, Shankaracharyas' powers (and duties) are in unifying the Hindu society, and really is derived from their 'acceptability' by almost all temples, Maths, spiritual leaders, as a common mediator or coordinator. (Notice the title - Jagad Guru). There is no 'authority' though either social, or scriptural. They have successfully kept themselves away from all the politics, and that I think is what has saved this institution so far.

[Bharatvarsh]

Bodhiji there is some controversy over the dating of Adi Shankaracharya, while some mutts accept the AD date, others like the Kanchi Mutt ascribe a date in the BC which means that Buddha's date should be shifted to an earlier period, I have not come to any conclusion but I have read some good arguements against the AD date, one of these posts I am posting here for anyone interested:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Dating AdiSankara - Refuting Dharmakirti's timeline
- by Kalavai Venkat

Adi Sankara is dated to the 8th century AD on the assumption that
Dharmakirti lived in the 7th century AD, and that Sankara cites
Dharmakirti. Is the date of Dharmakirti known with certainty? The
evidences of Fa-hien, Hieun Tsang, I-Tsing and Taranatha are relevant
here. The first 3 are Chinese while the last is Tibetan. Do these
sources help date Dharmakirti with certainty or do they contradict
each other?

1. Hieun Tsang visited India between 629 AD and 645 AD. He mentions
Dharmapala, Chandrapala, Gunamati, Stiramati, Prabhamitra,
Jnanachandra and Silabhadra as the great scholars of Nalanda.
Interestingly, Hieun Tsang fails to mention Dharmakirti as a
contemporary. Some of these names also occur in I-Tsing's list of
scholars "of later period", in which we also find the names of
Dharmakirti, Simhachandra, Prajnagupta, Gunaprabha and Jinaprabha.
[Surendranath Sen, "India Through Chinese Eyes", p. 117]

2. I-Tsing visited India between 671 AD and 695 AD. He has left some
detailed accounts. While he was in India, he met a Chinese scholar,
Wu-Hing, who per I-Tsing had studied the logic of Jina and
Dharmakirti under a teacher that lived in Tiladha [Takakusu, "I-
Tsing", p. xlvi]. One may wonder why Wu-Hing didn't study under
Dharmakirti himself if they were contemporaries. Also, Jina was an
ancient logician, and interestingly Dharmakirti is grouped with him.
Historians have identified Fa-chan of I-Tsing [ibid, p. lix] with
Dharmakirti. One is very curious why Dharmakirti should be
transcribed in Chinese as Fa-chan, esp. when all the scholars listed
above were well versed in Sanskrit. Dharmakirti's teacher, Dharmapala
is not transcribed thus.

I-Tsing tells us that Bhartrihari died around 651 AD, nearly 20 years
before I-Tsing landed in India [ibid, p. xiv]. He also says that
Vritti sutra was composed by Jayaditya, a contemporary of I-Tsing.
Then he says that Patanjali wrote his churni [Bhartrihari calls
Patanjali churnikara] as a commentary on vritti sutra [ibid, p. 178].
This is a glaring contradiction because Patanjali lived atleast 8 or
9 centuries before the time of Jayaditya. I-Tsing was a keen
observer, but he had certain limitations. He stayed with each teacher
for just about 3 or 4 weeks to learn about a text. It seems that he
had comprehended Patanjali incorrectly, and hence his incorrect
observation.

3. Taranatha's account is very interesting. He makes only one
reference to a certain king named Bharthari, which modern historians
believe is a corruption of Bhartrihari [Trans. by Lama
Chimpa, "Taranatha", p. 249]. One wonders why something should be
prima facie treated as corruption.

Taranatha makes several references to Dharmakirti -- rather someone
historians have equated to Dharmakirti. He mentions 2 great scholars
of Nalanda, Chandragomi and Chandrakirti [ibid, p. 211]. The latter,
historians argue, is a misprint for Dharmakirti. One wonders, again,
why a recording should be assumed to be a misprint. Taranatha himself
makes certain assumptions about Dharmakirti. He states that all
earlier records mention Chudamani in South India as the place of
birth of Dharmakirti [ibid, p. 228], but adds, "all insiders [KV:
insider means the Bauddha bhikshus of the monastry] know the birth
place of Dharmakirti as Trimalaya. Therefore, this place must have
been known as the kingdom of Chudamani in the older days." One
wonders, why at all such an assumption is to be made. Is it not more
straight forward to infer that we are talking of 2 Dharmakirtis?

Taranatha makes a reference to a South Indian brahmin scholar
Kumaralila, and repeatedly argues that alone is the correct form
[ibid, p. 226]. Yet, this has not stopped the translators from
equating this Kumaralila with Kumarila. Taranatha says that
Dharmakirti learnt various systems from this Kumaralila. Per
Taranatha, finally, the 2 came to debate each other, and Kumaralila
was defeated. He became a Bauddha [ibid, p. 232]. Any one that is
familiar with Kumarila Bhatta's work will know that he never ended up
as a Bauddha. So, is the equation justified? Are we not talking of 2
individuals?

Taranatha provides an interesting account of Sankaracharya [ibid, p.
232 - 233]. Per this account, the Sankaracharya came to Nalanda and
challenged the Bauddhas for a debate. A debate between Dharmakirti
and the Sankaracharya ensued. The Sankaracharya was completely
defeated, and despite persuasions to the contrary, he jumped into the
Ganga and committed suicide. Before dying, he told his disciple
Bhatta acharya that he would be born as Bhatta's son. He was thus
born. And Bhatta continued his debate with Dharmakirti, while
Dharmakirti converted many of Sankaracharya's original disciples to
Buddhism. Bhatta continued his debate with Dharmakirti. He too was
defeated by Dharmakirti, and committed suicide. The reborn
Sankaracharya fled to the forest in the far east.

Anyone can easily tell that this is not an account of Adi Sankara at
all. Apart from the Tibetan source, other Buddhist schools don't
mention any debate with Sankaracharya. Per advaita traditions,
Sankara neither debated with Dharmakirti, nor committed suicide.
There is no account by Adi Sankara of ordaining any disciple, all of
such accounts originate with Sankara Dig Vijayas. So, the only
logical conclusion to make is that the Dharmakirti of Taranatha
didn't debate Adi Sankara, but another Sankaracharya (probably) in
the advaita tradition. If that were so, Adi Sankara must have lived
further anterior to the time of this Dharmakirti (or Fu-Chan).

4. Fa-Hien visited India between 401 AD and 410 AD. He mentions, in
his Chinese translation of Vajrasuchi upanishad that the Sanskrit
original was composed by Dharmakirti (Fa-Chan in Chinese) [J K
Nariman, "Literary History of Sanskrit Buddhism", p. 185].

One wonders if one should trust Fa-Hien and assign Dharmakirti to 400
AD or earlier, or trust I-Tsing and assign Dharmakirti to around 650
AD. Would it not be better to re-examine the entire equation, and
start asking why Fa-Chan must be equated to Dharmakirti in the first
place? And ask, if there has been more than one Dharmakirti, as
evident from the accounts cited above?

So, it appears, what is cited as an irrefutable syllogism for dating
Adi Sankara to the 8th century AD is no more than a very weak
argument, nay, a bundle of untenable speculations.

Thanks
Kalavai Venkat

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivili...n/message/76739<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this is also discused in KD Sethna's "Ancient India in new light" where he dates Buddha to an earlier period, I haven't read the book yet so I can't really say what his arguements are.

[Guest]

Bharatvarshji, very interesting indeed. I have not paid attention to it before, and always took 788AD for granted. However if memory serves me right at the moment, this date of Adi Shankar is not based purely upon Shankar citing Dharmakirti. Fortunately there are various other sources of being able to corroborate the time of Shankar.

1. His travels to various kingdoms, and addressing various Kings of his time. Some of the famous addresses were made to the Kings of Kashi, Kamrup, and Ujjain.

2. In his Digvijay Abhiyan, he engaged various philosophers from all types of schools in all corners of India - from Kanchi to Ujjain to Patiliputra to Nalanda to Kamrup to Srinagar.... Fortunately, many of those philosophers were very well established in history, Sankar's Shastrartha being big event, we can find a lot of 'trail'. Having several independant references can easily fix the timeline. Jaina records are most useful, and more trustworthy than Bauddha.

3. Being a prominent personality that he was, we should find some mention in the massive literature that was created by Kalidasa, Bhartrihari, if he happened to pre-date Kalidasa or Bhartrihari, and other writers.

4. There are various legends associated to him. Like his act of Kaya-Parivartan or Pran Parivartan, where he left his body and entered the body of a king (from Kamrup?) who had died recently. In kings body he lived for a month with 2 queens of that king, to learn about kaam shastra that was needed for a Shastrartha he had to have with SArada Devi. (He composed a wonderful analysis of Kaam Bhasya). Now the date of this king can be found out, though we shall have to rely upon a legend which is though highly trusted by his followers.

5. This is a subjective point, and I admit may be due to bias. His Bhasya/TIkA of different Upanishads and Shastras is very 'fresh', so to say, or 'new age'. The very expression, style, phrases, are so "new", and mark these apart from BC thought-process and literature. But this can not be counted upon.

All said, like the timeline of Gautama Buddha, that of Adi Sankar is not settled then? Hmmm...