DEIVATHIN KURAL # 135 (Vol # 5) Dated 29 Feb 2012

DEIVATHIN KURAL # 135 (Vol # 5) Dated 29 Feb 2012

(These e-mails are translations of talks given by PeriyavaaL of Kanchi Kaamakoti Peetam, over a period of some 60 years while he was the pontiff in the earlier part of the last century. These have been published by Vanadi Padippagam, Chennai, in seven volumes of a thousand pages each as Deivathin Kural. Today we are proceeding from the second para on page No 844 of Vol 5 of the Tamil original. The readers may note that here in 'man/he' includes 'woman/she' too mostly. These e-mails are all available at http://Advaitham.blogspot.com updated constantly)
844. With this reason many of the modern day History scholars are objecting to our AachaaryaaL’s life time as 788 to 820 A.D. As per their logic, when the Gupta Dynasty had started in the 4th Century A.D., itself Hinduism had seen a revival and Buddhism had gone down. For these and other reasons they feel that there is scope for predating the time of our AachaaryaaL from 8th Century A.D., to some five centuries before. However if our AachaaryaaL’s time is some 2,500 years earlier than now, after him and after the Gupta period too, Buddhism has survived in this country in some form or the other, isn’t it? Even after the influx of the Muslim Religion and Christianity too Buddhism has continued to survive, if not thrive in this country. So how can you say that Buddhism was packed off to Tibet in 520 B.C. itself? That is the question!
845. It is true that he packed it off at that time and 72 other religions big and small were routed during his time and he reigned as the Jagat Guru for the whole world. But, in this country it has always been the custom and tradition to uphold the freedom and independence of the individual to choose and select whatever he wishes to follow or adopt or practice; in terms of religion and philosophy. So even after our AachaaryaaL’s time there have been people who devoted their time, brains and intelligence in other lines and thought processes and authored books too. Again those religions had sprouted, taken roots, flowered and frutioned! Many kings have supported those religions and constructed places known as Viharas for them to stay, schools and colleges for them to teach and Monasteries. But it was never that all the people had converted to Buddhism or Jainism en masse. There is an adage, ‘yataa raajaa tataa prajaa’, meaning ‘as the king does so do the citizens’; so a percentage might have copied the royalty and some might have sincerely followed the teaching of those religions. But, all of them put together were still only a small percentage of the people of this country! This is not what I am cooking up at all but vouchsafed by many historians of renown.
846. So, just because there are indications of only such Buddhist monuments, of the period within 2,500 years vintage available in our country does not mean that our AachaaryaaL also has to be fitted in to that time frame only. After he had defeated them in various forums, for some number of years only Hindu Religion was dominant. What we see today are those signs of Buddhism that bloomed again and again at various times. Subsequently after our AachaaryaaL also, many great Mahatmas have come into being and refurbished the Hindu Religion. Even after Sri Krishna had put down Adharma and built up Dharma; there was a time when Aadi Sankara had to come on the scene, isn’t it? So, it happened after our AachaaryaaL too. Finally, to some extent Buddhism was contained within their Viharas and Universities around the 7th Century A.D. The point to note is the fact that, the Orientalists’ view that our AachaaryaaL came about in the 8th Century and had a running feud with Buddhism and won that, just does not fit in with the actual history of this sub-continent! In the 8 / 9th Century A.D., some remnant Buddhism and some other sects in the name of Hinduism were all virtually erased by Abhinava Sankara and spread the Hinduism in the Far East countries too, who is mistaken for the Aadi Sankara Bhagawat PaadaaL as we had seen earlier.
847. There is yet another opinion amongst some researchers that our AachaaryaaL’s time is neither 788 – 820 A.D., nor 509 – 477 B.C.; but it is 44 to 12 B.C.! This view has been there in Kannada Desam, supported by some people like Sri.T.S.Narayana Sastry and his ilk. They say that the Buddhists and Jains follow a calendar known as Yudhishtira Sakam. This starts 468 years after Kali Yuga. This Yudhishtira is none other than the eldest of Pandavaas. As per our Hindu belief on hearing about the death of Krishna (that is, on his dropping his mortal coil after finishing his Avatara work), Yudhishtira also started his trek to the Heavens. By that time he had ruled over Hastinapura for some 36 years. Kali Yuga started from then. So as per the Hindu calculations Yudhishtira Sahabdam commences 36 years before Kali, that is, in 3138 B.C. But the Jains and Buddhists start the Yudhishtira Sakam 468 years after the commencement of Kali Yuga, as shown uniformly in all their books!
848. Jainism had taken roots in Kannada Desa from the beginning. Chandra Gupta Mourya in his end days became a Jaina Bikku and came to SravaNabelagola. There he did ‘Praayopavesam’ (fasting unto death) and died. So anyhow, the Yudhishtira Sakam as followed by the Jains and Buddhists came into usage, from that time in Kannada Desa. It is quite possible that, what is said as Kali 2,500 as the time of our AachaaryaaL, could have been mistaken for Jains’ Yudhishtira Sakam 2,600; thus leading to some difference of 466 to 477 years, as per T.S. Narayana Sastry.
849. Then there are people who as a compromise say, “Let us not go back to 6th Century B.C. or go forward to 8th Century A.D. and instead, why not have this 1st Century B.C., as the accepted time of our beloved AachaaryaaL?” PeriyavaaL laughs saying this. For this they give one reason. In our Matam the first seven to eight Mataadipathy-s are supposed to have been in office for some 80 to100 years as recorded in ‘PuNya Sloka Manjari’. This seems to be too exaggerated, just to give them more ‘pracheenatvam’ that is, antiquity and oldness! Just for such a reason, what would have been some 30 or 40 years seem to have been boosted. So, in truth without changing the ‘Prabhavaathi’ cycle of name of the year, month, paksha and titi, if we cut some sixty years from each one of those seven or eight who have been Mataadipathy-s, our AachaaryaaL’s Avataram will come to 44 B.C., they say!
850. Answer to the above Opinion. This view is not acceptable. Having become the Mataadipathy in their young age, those who have lived a life of absolute discipline, observing all the Niyama-s of fasting on the specified days and not indulging in over eating on the other days, if some of them had lived to the ripe old age of 120 even, there is nothing to be surprised. So there is no chance of cooking up their tenure of duty at all! If you take for example my own case, am I not sitting in the same seat for 55 years, challenging nature with physical fitness and mental alertness? So there is no need to pick up the scissors and do any cutting of their dates! (PeriyavaaL made this statement in the year 1963. He handed over the title of Mataadipathy a few years later and dropped his mortal coil in 1994 at the ripe old age of 99!)
851. Evidence from the Dwaraka Peetam. Let us forget about this Matam at Kanchipuram and take the one at Dwaraka. In their Guru Parampara too, Aadi Sankara AachaaryaaL’s time is almost the same. There, the initial dates mentioned are as per the Yudhishtira Sahabdam. There is yet another difference. Our Yudhishtira Sakam is not exactly similar to what is followed by Buddhists and Jains. Having started like that, later they have followed the Vikrama Sakam which commenced in 57 B.C. As per their records too our AachaaryaaL’s life time is to be in 5th Century B.C. with some slight difference. But there is an article in a book known as ‘Vimarsa’, in which one of their Peetaadipathy-s in the last century has written approving what we say, i.e., 509 B.C. as the year of Aadi Sankara Avatara!
852. If in our Kanchi Kaamakoti Matam we have had 68 Swami-s so far, they have a list of 79 Heads. Presently, (in the year 1963 A.D.), the Swami is the 79th in the series in their Guru Parampara. They have a record of which Swami had held the title from which year to which year, like in our Matam. Here from the start till the start of the Year 1 (After the Death of Jesus Christ,) when we have had seven Swamis, they have had 11, out of which only two held the office for more than 60 years. So, lopping off of 60 years from some of the old time Swamis of ours is not the correct solution!
853. The Main Evidence – The Oneness of Recorded Opinion. Finally the main evidence that our AachaaryaaL’s time is starting from 509 B.C. is from the three Sankara Matams of Kanchipuram, Dwaraka and Puri. Sir SubrahmaNya Iyer, whose erudition was recognised by the British Government of long time past, has written in the ‘Theosophist’ Magazine that our AachaaryaaL’s Avatara was in 509 B.C., after a perusal of the documents of the Dwaraka Matam. This has had the approval of Madam Annie Besant and members of the Theosophical Society of Adayar, Madras. Dwaraka Matam had also details of a Copper Plate Saasanam, said to have been given to them in recording an ‘Address by the King of Gujarat Sudhanva, an Amsa of Indra’, at the time of visit by Aadi Sankara Bhagawat PaadaaL. The wording of the Saasanam had been published in a book known as ‘Vimarsa’ in the year 1872. Further, the Sankara Matam of Puri also used to publish a series of books known as ‘Grantha Mala’. The fourth publication in that series was a book known as ‘Yati Dandaiswarya Vidaanam’, in which also Sri Sankara Avatara has been recorded as 509 B.C.! The Matam in Puri, Jagannaath also clearly claim a series of 140 Swamis who have been the Heads of their Matam, starting from 6 – 5th Century B.C.
854. If you have nothing else to do, you could raise a question as to why, the Puri Matam has had 140 Swamis when the Kanchi Matam has had only less than half of it! When in other Matams the very young Bala Brhmachari-s are made the Mataadipathy, in Puri Matam, only middle aged were given the title of the Swami. So the period of their tenure is thus shorter, increasing the number of persons who have been Swamis there. There is no other mysterious reason for the same.
855. In Badrinaath, the Matam established by our AachaaryaaL is known as the Jyotir Matam. They had published a ‘Mata Anusaasanam’ in the year 1946. There also AachaaryaaL’s Avatara is indicated as 509 B.C. This point should be clearly noted that, in each of the Matams established by our AachaaryaaL in South in Kanchipuram, on the Eastern sea shore in Puri Jagannaath, on the Western sea shore in Dwaraka and in the Himalayan North in Badrinaath; each located at a distance of more than a thousand miles away from the other, there is oneness of view that our AachaaryaaL’s Avatara occurred in 509 B.C.! Can you say that the similarity and convergence of views of our Matams are not to be believed and the Orientalists’ research is more trustworthy? It is for each one of you to think about and find an answer.
(To be continued.)
Sambhomahadeva.

DEIVATHIN KURAL # 134 (Vol # 5) Dated 27 Feb 2012

DEIVATHIN KURAL # 134 (Vol # 5) Dated 27 Feb 2012

(These e-mails are translations of talks given by PeriyavaaL of Kanchi Kaamakoti Peetam, over a period of some 60 years while he was the pontiff in the earlier part of the last century. These have been published by Vanadi Padippagam, Chennai, in seven volumes of a thousand pages each as Deivathin Kural. Today we are proceeding from the page No 837 of Vol 5 of the Tamil original. The readers may note that here in 'man/he' includes 'woman/she' too mostly. These e-mails are all available at http://Advaitham.blogspot.com updated constantly)
834. After our AachaaryaaL had completed his 32 years of life, for the next few hundred years the Vedic religion’s flag was flying high. Still after some time again Buddhism, Jainism and religions like Kaapaalikam and crude ritualistic sects like Vaamaachaaram with overtones of cabalism started raising their heads again. Though in the general public AachaaryaaL’s foundation was strong enough, some resurgence of these deviations from the main path was there. Amongst the royal families too, kings who were interested in intellectual discussions on philosophy started supporting Buddhism and Jainism with some amount of following. Some uncivilised people gave way to the secret practices of ‘rahasya anushtaanaas’ of the Vaamaachaaram involving animal and human sacrifices as well as sexual experiments.
835. Some 1,300 years after our AachaaryaaL, Abhinava Sankara became the 38th Mataadipathy of Kanchi Kaamakoti Peetam. Like Aadi Sankara, he also went around the whole country by walk and countered all such sects masquerading as religions by talks, debates and giving Upadesa to the masses. From his life history we learn that he ascended the ‘Sarvagna Peetam’ too. He visited other foreign countries, being honoured and revered by people of all those countries wherever he visited. He is said to have won the hearts of Chinese, people of Thailand and Cambodia in the East and Muslims in the West right up to Afghanistan, especially a place known as Balkh. The book ‘Guru Ratna Mala’ says that he was accepted by them all as their own AachaaryaL, as said in Sloka 66, ‘cheena – turushka – bahlikadyais – swapara – aachaaryataya stutam”! He could have been thought of as the same as Aadi Sankara Bhagawat PaadaaL, in some of Sankara Vijayam books, giving rise to some confusion of mistaken identity between him and the earlier AachaaryaaL, possibly. Some Pundits are of the view that the sloka “nidhinaaga” in fact is about this Sankara.
836. In the ‘Sushama’ of Sankarendra Vilasam, sloka 61, his period of tenure as AachaaryaaL is given in ‘Sanketa Sankhya’. The sloka is, “haayane ata vibhave vrusha mase sukhla paksha Dasami dine madye I sevati dvipa disaanala varshe dishya enamudasoshta visishtaa II”. The second line gives the details of the year. The word ‘sevati’ means ‘nidhi’ that is ‘nava nidhi’, that is number 9; ‘dvipa’ is 8, ‘disa’ is also 8 and ‘anala’ is Agni that is 3. Now you have 9883. You have to turn it around and read it as 3889. Kali Yuga 3889 is the same as 787 – 788 A.D. Now the history books as prompted by the Orientalists also quote this 788 A.D. as the year when Aadi Sankara was born! It is the same year quoted in that ‘nidhi naaga’ slokam too. For long our own people have been thinking this to be the year in which Sankara Avatara took place. Orientalists have developed their theory on the basis of this piece of information about Abhinava Sankara in support of their contention and have taken the help of the ‘Nidhi Naaga’ sloka! Between the two there is total matching in the name of the year, month, fortnight and titi – year Vibhava – Vaikasi month – sukhla paksham – Dasami titi! That means, both the sources are pointing at Abhinava Sankara and not Aadi Sankara Bhagawat PaadaaL!
837. Aadi Sankara’s birth was in the year Nandana as per certain other sources. Here it is Vibhava. True to our claims the 509 B.C. is Nandana and 788 A.D. is Vibhava as per the calculation. That should settle the dispute, beyond any further confusion. Moreover, mostly the dates of birth of Divine Purushas are not known in terms of the year. We keep track of these days in terms the month and paksha and titi only. Some experts and pundits may scratch their heads and find out these things, like uprooting a hill to catch a rat! But we are not concerned about the year, but only about the month. Paksham and titi; so as to be able to celebrate the Jayanthi – such as Chaitra Maasa Sukhla Paksha Navami for Sri Rama; and SravaNa Maasa Krishna Paksha Ashtami for Sri Krishna. In that also the Titi is important – such as, Rama Navami, Krishna Ashtami, Vinayaka Chathurthi and Skanda Shashti.
838. Regarding our AachaaryaaL, we celebrate all over the country his Jayanthi on the Sukhla Paksha Panchami only. These two slokas instead of Panchami mention Dasami. So it has to be two different persons, as in practice it is the Titi that is more important in celebrating the Jayanthi. So, it is surprising that the so called Orientalists and Indian Historians following suit, should have totally ignored this fact! The Titi must tally! For these above reasons some knowledgeable people on the subject believe that the Orientalists and some of our Historians have mistaken Abhinava Sankara who has visited some of the neighbouring foreign countries to be Aadi Sankara Bhagawat PaadaaL. It is Abhinava Sankara who is mentioned in the stone carvings of Cambodia whom Indra Varman claims to be the Guru of his Guru Sivasoman.
839. Other than AachaaryaaL’s main four disciples namely Padma Paada, Sureshwara, Thotaka and Hastaamalaka; there are six other disciples namely Pruthveedava, Chitsukha, Chidvilaasa, Gnaanaskanda, VishNugupta, Anantaananda and Utanga as the six disciples who spread the six religions of GaaNaapatyam, Saaktam, Saivam, Vaishnavam, Souram and Koumaaram. Then there have been many other disciples whose names are given at places. But, nowhere is the name Sivasoman mentioned. How can it be that a Guru who had become the preceptor of a King in a foreign land has not been mentioned? Instead of going for research, if we are purely interested only in Guru’s Grace, we should not be differentiating between Aadi Sankara and Abhinava Sankara. After all it is the same Aadi Sankara who has come again as Abhinava Sankara, isn’t it? So, all the name and fame of the second can be construed to be equally applicable to the first. When you look at our AachaaryaaL as an Avatara of Easwara or God, and have absolute devotion, his Avatara can also be held in the same esteem and can be considered as the original in another form. So Sivasoman could have been one of his disciples only. Are we not all his disciples? Like that why can we not consider the Royal Preceptor of the King of Cambodia some 1,200 years back, as a disciple of Sankara AachaaryaaL himself, in the true sense of devotion? Having packed off our devotion, we are now splitting hair in searching for bits and pieces of evidence in the mire of ‘deciding the time period’ isn’t it? That is why we are lost in that forest of differentiation!
840. A Difference of Opinion amidst the Modern Researchers. Within the researchers of history call them Indologists or Orientalists, there are some who opine that 788 A.D. may not be a correct estimation for some reasons. In the Bhashyam for Brhma Sutra in two places, AachaaryaaL has mentioned Pataliputra. Gupta Dynasty after losing their might shifted their capital to Daneshwara and then Kannouj, at the time of Prabhakara Vardan and Harsha Vardan. Harsha’s time is about 600 to 650 A.D. In that time Huan Tswang who had come there has written that Pataliputra was in utter ruins. Then around 750 A.D. that place was further devastated by floods. Many centuries later only it was repaired and reconstructed and is now known as Patna. If you say that our AachaaryaaL’s time is 788 to 820 A.D., during that period, there was no Pataliputra to talk about. Would he have taken the name of a ruin as an example for a thriving city?
841. There is another big reason to what they say. For many hundreds of years, AachaaryaaL is being praised for his achievement of disputing and countering the principles and procedures of Buddhism. Though Kumarila Bhatta a little earlier and Udayana a little later had done the same thing, AachaaryaaL’s contribution in this respect was much more effective. Though he has not put all his criticisms of Buddhism on paper, in debates with Buddhist scholars wherever it was on the ascendant and by reviving and reinvigorating Sanatana Dharma’s methods and procedures in the society and in Temple Towns of India; he had virtually decimated, annulled and erased the Buddhism as a Religion. Just before his time Buddhism was well on the upswing affecting the day to day life of the common man. He has said so in the Bhashyam for Brhma Sutra – “vainaasikai: sarvo loka aakuleekriyate”. Vainaasika is another name for Buddhists only. He is saying that they were virtually turning the whole world upside down. So, it is clear that in his time Buddhism was a major active force in being!
842. So, what the modern researchers are saying is that by 788 A.D., (to be the time of our AachaaryaaL as claimed by the Orientalists,) cannot be very correct, as by that time Buddhism was a pale copy of its earlier mighty form! Huan Tswang who came in the time of Harsha some 150 years later has commented that Buddhism was on the decline in the country of its origin! Harsha tried to rejuvenate it, but it did not make that much of a difference to the society at large. It attracted only some Bikkus and a fraction of the common man. In 8th Century A.D., some substantial portion of North India and Bengal were being ruled by Paala Vamsa kings who were faithful to Buddhism. They believed in it themselves, but it was not to such an extent as ‘affecting all and sundry’ of the society! Actually in Buddhism those days a lot of secret Tantric Upaasana methods had overtaken the normal and not finding ways of taking firm roots the very religion shifted to Tibet!
843. (Smilingly PeriyavaaL continues his talk.) Please do not think that I am talking like that in support of my party as ‘the Sankara Matam SwamigaL’. Please pick up any standard book on Indian History that by 788 A.D., Buddhism was not such a mighty force in being as it was earlier; agitating the entire social spectrum! In Nalanda University and some monasteries of that religion, it was more in the hands of Bikkus and learned scholars, till the influx of Muslim marauders. In 788 A.D., Buddhism was neither making much of a difference to the common man nor countering the views of Buddhist philosophies would have been considered as much of an achievement by the public. For someone of the standing of our AachaaryaaL to have fought with Buddhism in the state it was in, in 788 A.D., would have evoked only that much admiration as would a shadow boxing display or a Don Quixote’s fight with the windmill!
(To be continued.)
Sambhomahadeva.

DEIVATHIN KURAL # 133 (Vol # 5) Dated 25 Feb 2012

DEIVATHIN KURAL # 133 (Vol # 5) Dated 25 Feb 2012

(These e-mails are translations of talks given by PeriyavaaL of Kanchi Kaamakoti Peetam, over a period of some 60 years while he was the pontiff in the earlier part of the last century. These have been published by Vanadi Padippagam, Chennai, in seven volumes of a thousand pages each as Deivathin Kural. Today we are proceeding from the third para on page No 830 of Vol 5 of the Tamil original. The readers may note that here in 'man/he' includes 'woman/she' too mostly. These e-mails are all available at http://Advaitham.blogspot.com updated constantly)
822. Which Poem or Sloka Was Written by Which Sankara AachaaryaaL? In each of the five Matams established by our AachaaryaaL there have been many Peetaadhipatis who have all been named Sankara AachaaryaaL only. Then there are also other Matams which have come in to being, with their Head being called Sankara AachaaryaaL! In Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam itself there have been 70 Heads as ‘Jagat Guru’, the present one being the 70th in the lineage! They have all had the name ‘Sankara’, even in the name assumed by them after taking Sannyaasa, such as, ‘Krupa Sankara’, ‘Ujjwala Sankara’, ‘Mooka Sankara’, ‘Abhinava Sankara’ and so many more! In Sringeri, they call their Guru with love and respect as ‘Vidya Sankara’. Any one of them could have written the poem ‘Siva Bhujangam’ in which there is a reference to Siruthondar as ‘Suta Drohi’, without claiming any copy-write or authorship. Over time the sloka could have been construed to have been written by the first Aadi Sankara! This one reference thus cannot be the basis of deciding the time of Aadi Sankara Bhagawat PaadaaL!
823. Divine Grace is More Important than doing Research. Slokas, Stotras and prayers written by those who have been heads of such Matams, have been chanted over long number of years with the belief that they are the words of Sankara AachaaryaaL, and they have benefitted many devotees over the years immensely. Actually while chanting those slokas, one does not even bother as to who has written them, as the authorship is irrelevant and immaterial! Come to think of it, you will realise that they are very much his creations in spirit, as it is his inspiration that is the motive. So, there is no need to undo such faith and belief. More such research will only result in erasing the devotion. 824. But when people keep doing all sorts of so called Researches and Discoveries and try to thrust their own views on others as the one and only truth, we feel compelled to at least say that, there could be yet other points of views with equal validity. Today when much emphasis is being laid on establishing the date and time period as though it is very important, I felt the necessity to talk about some of our AachaaryaaL’s writings. Even if we do a lot of research and exactly establish as to who has written what, there can be no doubt that they are all Guru’s Anugraha only. So, this searching is irrelevant as to who is the author of which poem. Practically it is seen that all of those Slokas are our Gurus’ sanctions and our attitude should be one of benefitting by chanting them!
825. How does it matter to us as to who wrote it and when? Guru’s Grace’s effectiveness is not a function of time. Whether very ancient or contemporary of our AachaaryaaL or a Peetaadipathy much later in the lineage, they are all equally adorable and are to be revered. Anybody in the Guru Sthaanam (in the position of a Guru) even today is seen to be capable of granting us Gnaana. So it does not matter whether our Guru the AachaaryaaL was of the 6th Century B.C. or A.D.! That does not affect his powers for Anugraha. Listening to or reading his story, is for us to become deserving of his Grace and Anugraha. That main aim should not be lost sight of!
826. But, it does not mean however that anybody can say anything and get away with it. So, we have to pay some attention to it and try to give a suitable response. There are three things to be careful about such response. Just because they are very vocal and insistent, we should not try to be equally so. If what they say is found to be true, we should open heartedly accept the same. We should never get annoyed or angry with them. Any discussion about our AachaaryaaL should be about removal of doubts and confusion and not permitted to end in hatred. Thirdly Guru’s Grace should remain the foremost aim in our order of priority.
827. The Matter of PoorNa Varman. Let us look at another issue raised by the Orientalists in deciding our AachaaryaaL’s time period in the calendar. In our AachaaryaaL’s Bhashyam to Brhma Sutra, he mentions the name of a king PoorNa Varman and says, “How ridiculous it is to say that before him the one who ruled was the son of an infertile woman”! The Orientalists claim that there was a king by the name of PoorNa Varman in Magadh in the 7th Century A.D. and that AachaaryaaL is referring to him! Can we insist that he was referring to an existing king only? When generally referring to someone in Tamil we say, “Yaaro Ramano, Krishnano, Seshano, Subbano” or in English we say, “Some Tom, Dick and Harry”. These names are not indicative of anyone particularly. Someone’s name has to be taken in giving an example. In many places in his Bhashyams, AachaaryaaL has used names such as some Deva Dutta and Yagnya Dutta. Nobody has bothered to find out who such a person was till date, as they have correctly understood that the name of that person was irrelevant to the message.
828. In this particular case too PoorNa Varman could be some name taken at random. After all what is he driving at? He is saying that we cannot relate an existing reality (sat) with a non-existing unreality (asat), period! Even while giving a name at random, he has used a name which is most appropriate as ‘sat’, which also means ‘PoorNa’ or ‘complete’ as against a non-existing ‘ApoorNa’, (that is the opposite of ‘complete’ which is a zero), to point out the impossibility of, ‘the son of a woman without any offspring!
829. From Huan Tswang it is learnt that ‘Poorna Varman’ as a King of Magadha was a hard core Buddhist. I had told you earlier that he had replanted the Bodhi Tree in Buddha Gaya. An AachaaryaaL who had re-established the Vedaanta philosophy had no need to take the name of a king of a small vassal state. At least if he happened to have been a famous emperor, there is some logic in taking his name. He was of the period of 650 A.D. AachaaryaaL is said to be making this statement around 800 A.D. A person involved in writing a very important thesis such as the Bhashyam for Brhma Sutra, had no chance of remembering a ‘nobody’ like that king, that too, from the opposite camp. He could have made fun of the name ‘PoorNa Varman’ (totality of completeness) for being a proponent of ‘Soonya Vaada’ (Zero Vaada) of Buddhism. But, here he is not making a joke at all, but only using just some name factually, which happens to fit in most beautifully, as explained in the previous para. Without any deep thinking, people make some obtuse comment and it is accepted by the readers with equal denseness!
830. Similar are the questions raised by some Orientalists on some flimsy grounds. One of them is this question, as to why Huan Tswang has failed to mention the name of Sankara? They further ask as to how can it be that Sankara is said to be of a period before Huan Tswang? I told you that Huan Tswang was not at all interested in anything other than Buddhism. He has also not said anything about the Upanishads, Brhma Sutram and Bhagawat Gita, together known as ‘Prasthaana Thrayee’! But the same research scholars have agreed that those scriptures were of a much earlier vintage isn’t it?
831. ‘VidyaraNya Swami’ and ‘Abhinava Sankara’. In the arguments of the research scholars, there are two more points still to be countered. In the stone carvings found in Cambodia, wherein it is said that, the world of intelligentsia is converging and bending their heads in supplication on ‘Bhagawat Sankara’s’ feet like the bees hovering around the bloom of a lotus flower. Who else can it be than Aadi Sankara Bhagawat PaadaaL? From that stone carving, there seems to be confirmation that his period was between end of 8th Century and early 9th Century A.D. That is one argument and another is about the question raised by our doubting Toms, based on the sloka ‘nidhi naage bavahnyabde’, that I have mentioned earlier. These two questions seem to be about one and the same person and so we will give a combined reply.
832. In the Aachaarya Peetams established by our AachaaryaaL, there have been many great Mahatmas of name and fame. Some of the Slokas and Stotras said to be written by Aadi Sankara could have been written by them, as I told you, isn’t it? One name that comes up with much relevance in this respect is that of VidyaraNya Swami. He of the 14th Century A.D. was the cause for the creation of the Vijayanagara Empire. Had he not come on the scene at the important moment, the whole of South India would have been swallowed by the Muslims’ onslaught! Controlling the Muslims, he paved the way for the establishment of a Hindu Empire. Similarly there was also a threat for the Adwaita philosophy to become forgotten by the spread of Madhva cult from Udupi and Veera Saivam from parts of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. This was also blocked by his efforts. He spruced up the Sringeri Matam to function with renewed vigour and established many more such Matams in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. Thus he ensured that our AachaaryaaL’s tradition is revived, rejuvenated and embellished. He authored ‘Panchadasi’, ‘Jeevan Mukti Viveka’ and ‘Vaiyaasika Nyaayamaala’, books of high value of theoretical and practical Adwaitam! With his biological brother, he also wrote the Bhashyam for all the four Vedas called, the ‘SaayaNa Bhashyam’. He is held in much esteem by all followers of Smaarta Sampradaaya.
833. Similarly there was this 38th Mataadipathy of Kanchi Kaamakoti Peetam called ‘Abhinava Sankara’. “Abhinava’ means ‘re-birth of an Avatara’. There was a wide spread belief that Aadi Sankara himself had come again in the form of Abhinava Sankara. So his Sannyaasa name of Dheera Sankarendra Saraswathy was forgotten and he was known as ‘Abhinava Sankara’ only. There are two books on his biography by the name of, ‘Sankarendra Vilaasam’ and ‘Satguru Santaana ParimaLam’. Some of the Sankara Vijayam books could have made errors of mixing up his exploits with that of Aadi Sankara.
(To be continued.)
Sambhomahadeva.

DEIVATHIN KURAL # 132 (Vol # 5) Dated 23 Feb 2012

DEIVATHIN KURAL # 132 (Vol # 5) Dated 23 Feb 2012

(These e-mails are translations of talks given by PeriyavaaL of Kanchi Kaamakoti Peetam, over a period of some 60 years while he was the pontiff in the earlier part of the last century. These have been published by Vanadi Padippagam, Chennai, in seven volumes of a thousand pages each as Deivathin Kural. Today we are proceeding from the third para on page No 824 of Vol 5 of the Tamil original. The readers may note that here in 'man/he' includes 'woman/she' too mostly. These e-mails are all available at http://Advaitham.blogspot.com updated constantly)
809. Buddhists and Jains of the Olden Times. In reply to the objection that if our AachaaryaaL is of the 6th Century B.C., then Buddha and he will become contemporaries, there is another answer that occurs to me. It is the fact that, even Buddha is not the originator of Buddhism. Experts of that religion itself vouchsafe that, ‘Suddhodhana’s son Gautama Buddha is only the 24th Buddha. Before him there have been 23 Buddha-s. So our religion is also, as you say about your Vedas is Anaadi, that is without a discernible origin! In support of this contention there is evidence in the Ramayana.
810. After Rama went away to live in the forest, Bharata went to the forest to persuade Rama to come back, isn’t it? One of the Rishis who accompanied Bharata was Jaabaali. He tries to tell some out of the way logic to somehow make Rama to give up obeying his father’s orders or may be his inner intention was to bring out Rama’s absolute courage of convictions and his unshakeable strong belief in Vedas and Saastraas! His arguments go against the Vedic and borders on agnosticism. Rama gets very annoyed and while putting down Jaabaali’s arguments, calls them Buddhist views like the out and out agnosticism of the Saarvaaka which is also a non-religion in the garb of one! Having roundly criticised Jaabaali’s advices, he says that, “We should not wake up from our sleep looking at the faces of such people even. They should be punished as we punish thieves!” These are very strong words for Rama who is normally extremely soft spoken. (Refer to the 34th Sloka in the 109th Sarga of Ayodhya Kaandam in Vaalmeeki Ramayana. At the end Jaabaali accepts Sri Rama’s words and says that he only spoke as though he believes in Nastik Vaada, because the occasion demanded that he should try and persuade Rama to come back to Ayodhya, somehow!)
811. Here Rama uses the word Buddha and another name normally used amongst Buddhists, ‘Tataagata’. From the above conversation between Sri Rama and Jaabaali, we can make out that this Buddhism was current even in Sri Rama’s time! But Gautama Buddha emphasised the aspects of self control, good attitude and behaviour, respect for elders, control of senses, practice of non-cruelty, deep meditation and Dhyana and Samadhi; that he literally overhauled the objectionable practices of the past, and was considered as the proponent and supporter of Buddhism and not the founder!
812. Similarly the Jains too claim that their religion is very ancient and that out of 24 Teertankara-s the last is Mahavira aka Jaina, who is considered the one who established it as a separate religion. In fact one of the Avatara Purushas mentioned in PuraNas, Rishabha is the first Teertankara. Even the Orientalists, who doubt these, say that the 23rd Teertankara Paarshvanath might have been there in the 9th Century B.C. 813. Moreover, we have to take note of the fact that in Brhma Sutra itself there is criticism of Buddhism. Sri Krishna in Bhagawat Gita says that, “brhmasutra padaschaiva hetumatbir vinischitai:”, that even the words of Brhma Sutra are interpreted in various ways! So people who claim that Brhma Sutra and Bhagawat Gita are all after Buddha only, should pause and think about these statements. There have been many known as Buddhas before Gautama Buddha and also, there have been many Teertankaras before Mahavira. So there is no need to claim that Vyasa who wrote the Brhma Sutra and Sri Krishna who gave out Bhagawat Gita on the battle field of Kurukshetra are of a time period after Buddha!
814. There is one more thing about the Gita sloka just using the phrase ‘brhmasutra’, as quoted in the above para. Our AachaaryaaL in his Bhashyam of Gita says, ‘brahmaNa: soochakaani vaachakaani brhma sutraaNi’, that is, they are words indicating brhmam’. Here Bhagwan Sri Krishna or Vyasa for that matter, are not referring to the famous book of that name, but such words and phrases pointing at Brhmam. Now from the above quote we can draw two opposing conclusions. If you take that phrase ‘brhmasutra’ as referring to the book, then you can come to the conclusion that Brhma Sutra is predated to Gita. If you take the phrase only as pointers to Brhmam, then you can correctly conclude that Gita is much earlier than Brhma Sutra. In Brhma Sutra, the Gita is referred to by the word ‘smaryate’ meaning, ‘that is said so in Smruti’! Then once you get to know that Vyasa is the Author for both, the options are still the whole spectrum spread between, total clarity and absolute confusion!
815. What I wished to point out is the fact that, before we come to any conclusions about the dates of many principled points of views aka Siddhaantam-s, those ideas have always been there in some form, long back in time! Thus Saarvaakam, Soudraantikam, Vaibaasikam, Soonyavaadam and many other Buddhist and Jain Siddhaantams, could have been there at the time of AachaaryaaL already and later Asaanka, Dingnaaga and Naagaarjuna might have rejuvenated and revived those ideas! One more important point to note is that, there is a lot of guess work involved in fixing the dates of these three also in the Christian Calendar, like in the case of KaaLidaasa!
816. In ‘Megha Sandesha’ (Sloka 14) KaaLi Daasa is painting a picture of how the clouds are trying to go higher, beyond the Diggajaas (aka Eight Elephants said to be positioned in the eight directions all around, protecting the outer sphere of the earth). There, instead of Diggajaas, he uses the word ‘Dingnaagaas’, meant to be a slight take on, Dingnaaga to be bypassed, as per the view of some scholars! That would mean Dingnaaga must have been a contemporary or of a time even earlier than, KaaLi Daasa whose date we do not know anyhow!
817. As per Nepal’s Raja VamsaavaLi, Naagaarjuna’s time goes back to the 13th Century B.C.! Thus when we try and fix the time of our AachaaryaaL from those whose time itself is rather vague, it is like using a vague and nebulous landmark as a reference point in Map Reading or ‘a blind man leading and guiding another blind man’!
818. The Matter of Mahayana Branch of Buddhism. The disciple of our AachaaryaaL, Padmapaada has commented on Mahayana branch of Buddhism. We saw earlier that one of the arguments against Our AachaaryaaL having been there in 6th Century B.C. was that, Buddhism got divided in to Mahayana and Hinayana at the time of Kanishka, who is said to have been the Ruler in 1st Century A.D.! Yes, after Buddha attained to Maha Pari NirvaaNam, in Rajagruha, there was huge get together of all the followers of Buddhism. It was during that conference, two opposing set of followers of that religion, namely those of Staviravaada (aka Terravaada) and Maha Sangikam, had a big confrontation; which became Hinayana and Mahayana respectively as we learn from their religious texts. But for a long period of time the two opposing views must have been there for such clear division to take place. So there is no apparent chronological error in Padmapaada commenting on either of those views. Anyhow keeping the Megasthanis incident in mind, if we push the whole history a little back in time, all these questions get struck off!
819. The matter of ‘Dravida Sisu’. Let us look at this matter of ‘Dravida Sisu’! Why go to Thiru Gnaana Smbandar at all? Our AachaaryaaL himself was only a ‘Dravida Sisu’ – that is ‘a Tamil Baby’. In the Malayala Desa of Kerala, they say that he as a small baby drank the Milk of Divinity and got astounding powers of erudition and expression! Near Kaladi there is a small village by the name of MaaNikka Mangalam. There is a temple for AmbaaL by the name of Kaatyayani. Our AachaaryaaL’s father Siva Guru used to go there and do daily Pooja. He used to offer Milk as Neivedyam, from which he used to give a little bit to his son as AmbaaL’s Prasadam on his return home. As a baby he used to think that AmbaaL is partaking the milk being offered and returning some of it for him as Prasadam.
820. One day when his father had to go away, he himself undertook his father’s duty and went to the temple. He did whatever he had known his father to be doing and told AmbaaL, “Mother, please drink the milk!” So as to endow him with the Divine Grace, AmbaaL played a small drama (aka Leela) and drank the whole milk offering. Then when the child was disappointed to see nothing in balance, AmbaaL breast fed him! Such a story is prevalent as ‘Idihyam’ there. In the three bhashyams of ‘Soundarya Lahari’, namely ‘Lakshmidhara’, Sowbhagya Vardinee’ and ‘AruNamodinee’; this is the explanation for ‘Dravida Sisu’. In the book Lakshmidhara, it says, ‘the author of this Stotram as a baby, born in the Dravida Jaati’ as an explanation for Dravida Sisu – ‘dravida Jaati samudbhava baala: etat Stotra karta’. In the other two bhashyams the complete story as above is given in full. So, you cannot hold the view that our AachaaryaaL’s time is after that of Thiru Gnaana Sambandar in the 7th Century A.D.!
821. The Reference to ‘Suta Drohi’. What is answer to the reference to the ‘Suta Drohi’ incident, in which Siruthondar is said to have killed and cut the body of his own son as the food for Bhairava Upaasakar, who had fasted for six months and the point about that AachaaryaaL could not have written poems of Bhakti genre? To say that our AachaaryaaL, who was fully steeped in Gnaana, could not have written devotional poems at all is a wrong assumption. In fact total Gnaana makes one highly devoted and total devotion leads you to Gnaana. Both are Royal paths to divinity. But it is doubtful however if all the devotional poems were his or not. Soundarya Lahari, Sivaananda Lahari, Baja Govindam, SubrahmaNya Bhujangam, Kanaka Dhaara Stotram etcetera are very much his writings only. But in some of them there are inherent question marks. For example there is a sloka ‘Devi Aparaadha KshamaapaNa Stotram’ in which there is this statement, ‘kuputro jaayate kvachidapi kumaataa na bhavati’ to mean, ‘there could be a bad son, but a mother can never be a bad mother’! In that sloka, the author says, “Amma! I have crossed 85 years of age. If you do not give me your grace, whom shall I turn to?” Our AachaaryaaL who lived only for 32 years could not have made that statement at all! Now let us come to the point about the mentioning of ‘Suta Drohi’ in the next issue of Deivathin Kural.
(To be continued.)
Sambhomahadeva.

DEIVATHIN KURAL # 131 (Vol # 5) Dated 21 Feb 2012

DEIVATHIN KURAL # 131 (Vol # 5) Dated 21 Feb 2012

(These e-mails are translations of talks given by PeriyavaaL of Kanchi Kaamakoti Peetam, over a period of some 60 years while he was the pontiff in the earlier part of the last century. These have been published by Vanadi Padippagam, Chennai, in seven volumes of a thousand pages each as Deivathin Kural. Today we are proceeding from the second para on page No 816 of Vol 5 of the Tamil original. The readers may note that here in 'man/he' includes 'woman/she' too mostly. These e-mails are all available at http://Advaitham.blogspot.com updated constantly)
798. As we had seen earlier the Mourya Dynasty started around 1,500 years B.C., isn’t it? Bimbisaara was there another 300 years back as gathered from Matsya PuraNa. His son Ajaata Satru was followed by three or four rulers. Then came Maha Padma Nandan and then follows the Mourya Vamsam. Thus, it means that Bimbisaara was some 300 years prior to Chandra Gupta Mourya that is, sometime between 1800 and 1700 B.C. Since Buddha was his contemporary, his time can also be just there about. So, it would mean that our AachaaryaaL’s Avatara in 509 B.C., is sufficiently later, for Buddhism to have spread and taken roots!
799. Let this whole matter be set aside. (That is, let it be Chandra Gupta I or II or Samudra Gupta of the Gupta Dynasty, be the one who was the King at the time of the visit by Megasthanis in the 4th Century B.C.) As per those who hold the view that Sankara AachaaryaaL’s time was 788 to 820 A.D., his time is some 350 to 400 years after the above mentioned rulers of the Gupta Dynasty. In that period Gupta Dynasty had gone defunct and many others had ruled, followed by the reign of Harsha Vardhana after which another 100 years had passed. Regarding Harsha Vardhana, Maha Kavi BaaNa has written a huge ‘Harsha Charitram’ by which it is learnt that his reign was in the early part of the 7th Century A.D., for some 40 years. Even if they were not ready to accept indigent BaaNa’s words, notes and recordings of Chinese visitor HuanTswang, who was here for some 17 years visiting all Buddhist places of interest, are very much available by which it is confirmed that Harsha’s period was the early part of the 7th Century A.D. So what happened after Harsha, cannot be taken back a thousand years.
800. May be that you can take the events up to Gupta Dynasty by a thousand years back. But even in that, there is a recording of Fa-Hiyan’s notes. The trouble is that, he never made any mention of any of the rulers of his time! He stayed in India for some six years and has confirmed that the land was very peaceful. People respected each other’s right to follow their religion and that there were not many crimes. People could travel without fear of dacoity. He has made only some such generalised observations. So, we will leave him out of this controversy about deciding the dates of Gupta Dynasty. But then, we have to accept that later Harsha’s period and visit of HuanTswang in the 7th Century A.D. cannot be meddled with. There is no chance of taking it back by some 1000 years at all! Then another 150 years later only AachaaryaaL’s time comes. So this whole calculation is beyond any possibilities of dispute. That is the side of the case by the Orientalists who insist that AachaaryaaL’s time is from 788 to 820 A.D. I told you that they quote many other reasons for the same. We have to analyse each one of them singly and decide if their contention is right or wrong.
801. The Reference to KaaLi Daasa. One of their points is that, AachaaryaaL’s elder Kumarila Bhatta has quoted KaaLi Daasa and so, since KaaLi Daasa himself is of a later period (2nd Century B.C.), AachaaryaaL cannot be of 6th Century B.C.! They say that even if you take KaaLi Daasa as far back as possible, he must have been a contemporary of Puahsya Sunga Mitra’s son Agni Mitra, as the hero in ‘MaLavikaagnimitra’ is this Agni Mitra. Pushya Mitra’s time is only the 2nd Century B.C. and so KaaLi Daasa cannot be put back in 6th Century B.C., they say. But, their 2nd Century B.C. calculation is also based on the time of Megasthanis! By that they have fixed the period of Mourya Dynasty and Pushya Mitra was said to have been the Senapathy under the last of the Kings of Mourya Dynasty, who captured power. When the basis of calculation of the Mourya time period has been proved to be possibly wrong, there is no locus standi for this objection anyhow.
802. As per our calculations, Mourya Dynasty was there in 1,500 B.C. The Sunga Dynasty of Pushya Mitra comes some 300 years later in 1200 B.C. KaaLi Daasa comes shortly after that. That fits in with our contention that our AachaaryaaL is of the 6th Century B.C. and he is well within his rights to comment on KaaLi Daasa’s ‘MaaLavikaagnimitra’ hero Agnimitra, as KaaLi Daasa would be identified to have been another six hundred years before him! But because he has written about Kings of Sunga Dynasty does not mean however, that KaaLi Daasa should be a man of that period. Even today, someone can write a Ramayana without being a man of that period. So all that it means is that, Sunga Dynasty could be the upper limit for KaaLi Daasa’s time.
803. For long in this country we have always believed KaaLi Daasa to have been of the period of Vikrama Aaditya and that he was one of the nine famous characters known as ‘Nava Ratna’, or ‘nine gems’. The Vikrama Sahabdam is said to start in 57 B.C. Then how can it be taken back to 6th Century B.C., can be a question. There is yet another view that, there was a Vikrama Aaditya of the period Kali Yuga’s 2,500th year, that is in 6th Century B.C. and that he is the one mentioned in ‘Raja Tarangini’ and that KaaLi Daasa was the poet in his Royal Court. That calculation fits in with our own opinion that our AachaaryaaL was born in 509 B.C. and that KaaLi Daasa was born in the middle of that Century.
804. Whether we believe in our opinion of the common masses of this nation or that of the Western scholars of History, we have to agree that about the time of Vikrama Aaditya nothing can be said with certainty and he remains an enigma and puzzle. About him there are novels such as the ‘Bruhad Katha’, ‘Gaata Sapta Satee’ and other stories. But they do not have authoritative power such as that of PuraNas and Raja Tarangini. In every country, the stories of the adventurous capers and escapades by people like Vikrama Aaditya and Madana Kaama Raajan. But when we look at them as historical characters and try to fit them into the frame work of time, it becomes well neigh impossible! When some such attractive personages happen to come into people’s notice, they tend to add further stories to his name, not all of them real! That is how there are stories about Vikrama Aaditya who ruled from Ujjain and Bhoja Raja who ruled from the city of Tara.
805. Actually there is a strong belief that KaaLi Daasa was a poet in the royal court of Bhoja and not Vikrama Aaditya. When there are two such versions gaining currency in minds of the common folk, what can we do about it? May be one of them is wrong and may be that he was with one for some time and graduated to another! Still a quandary it remains. Looking at these variations, some people say that there were two people with the name as KaaLi Daasa! There were nine gems of characters in Vikrama Aaditya’s court namely, Danvantri, KshpaNaka, Amarasimha, Sanku, VedaLabhatta, Katakarpara, KaaLi Daasa, Varaaha Mihira and Vararuchi! From other sources it is gleaned that these Nine Gems were not contemporaries! When such is the case, how to decide the time of Vikrama Aaditya and KaaLi Daasa? In a book written by one VallaLa, known as ‘Bhoja Prabandam’, KaaLi Daasa is supposed to be one amongst the Nine Gems, who adorned the Royal Court of Bhoja Raaja! They are listed as, Bhava Bhoothi, BaaNa, DhaNdi, Sri Harsha and others, who were all great poets! From other sources it is clear that none of them or at least not all of them were contemporaries!
806. In the time of this historical personage Chandra Gupta Vikrama Aaditya, KaaLi Daasa might have been a courtier as gleaned from some evidences, though not incontrovertibly! KaaLi Daasa could not have been there earlier than Pushya Mitra Sunga, as the upper limit. As far as the lower limit is concerned, we are not able to say anything. BaaNa who was the Poet of the Royal Court of Harsha in ‘Harsha Charitram’ has poured out encomiums of praise on KaaLi Daasa and we know that Harsha was of the early part of the 7th Century A.D. From generally the same period there is a Royal Proclamation wherein KaaLi Daasa is mentioned by name. That is the 2nd Pulikesi’s Saasanam, an inscription on stone in a place known as IhoLe of Saka Varsham 556, which is the same as 634 A.D. Making a rhyme of ‘Ravi Keerti’ and ‘Baaravi Keerti’, it says, “sa vijayataam ravi keerti: kavitaasrita kaaLi daasa baaravi keerti:”, meaning, ‘may victory be his, who is wooed by poetical genius like the brilliance of the sun!’ So, it is clear that the time of KaaLi Daasa was prior to 634 A.D., but we do not know as to how far earlier. From one reference point we can go on to another unknown point. But how can we proceed from an uncertainty? So, from KaaLi Daasa we cannot come to any conclusion of the time of Kumarila Bhatta or our AachaaryaaL!
807. In Kolhapur there was one Appa Saastry who had a Title known as ‘Vidya Vaachaspati’. He has concluded from a study of various references, that KaaLi Daasa, Kumarila Bhatta and our AachaaryaaL were all of the 6th Century B.C., in that order. He has referred to our Saastraas, religious literatures, and books of the Jain Religion. Though when it comes to religion Jainism and Hinduism were at logger heads with each other, in terms of deciding the time frame, they are not contrary to each other. Thus we have to agree on this one opinion gleaned from various opposing sources. That is the end of discussion related to KaaLi Daasa that we started from Para 801 above. Now let us take up the argument about Buddhist conceptualists / philosophers, namely Dingnaaga, Asaanka and Naagaarjuna.
808. Vaibaasikam of Dingnaaga, Soudraandikam of Asaanka and the Soonya Vaadam of Naagaarjuna. All these concepts have been roundly disputed by our AachaaryaaL. The time of these three varies from 2nd to 6th Century A.D. and so it is claimed that our AachaaryaaL must have been of a date after all three of them. It is true that our AachaaryaaL has disputed all these Siddhaantams of Vaibaasikam, Soudraandikam and Soonya Vaadam! But, he has not mentioned any one of these three proponents of Siddhaantam by name. These points of views and many other such Siddhaantams have not been created by those by whom the principles became famous. From time immemorial many such concepts and principles have been there but in a vague form. Some philosopher comes along enlarging, explaining, codifying and giving it shape and substance. So their names and the concept get linked in people’s minds firmly. But, that does not mean that they are the originators of those ideas. Take our own AachaaryaaL. He was a champion of the principle of Adwaitam, but he is not the one who created it!
(To be continued.)
Sambhomahadeva.

DEIVATHIN KURAL # 130 (Vol # 5) Dated 19 Feb 2012

DEIVATHIN KURAL # 130 (Vol # 5) Dated 19 Feb 2012

(These e-mails are translations of talks given by PeriyavaaL of Kanchi Kaamakoti Peetam, over a period of some 60 years while he was the pontiff in the earlier part of the last century. These have been published by Vanadi Padippagam, Chennai, in seven volumes of a thousand pages each as Deivathin Kural. Today we are proceeding from the second para on page No 810 of Vol 5 of the Tamil original. The readers may note that here in 'man/he' includes 'woman/she' too mostly. These e-mails are all available at http://Advaitham.blogspot.com updated constantly)
787. After Alexander it was Selucas Nicador who was the top man in Greece. He also came to India with a huge army and advanced deep into India. However he lost in battle against the forces of Magadh Kingdom based in Pataliputra. So they called it quits and made a pact for peace, leading to even some give and take of marriage proposals amongst the royal families! Later, after he went back to Greece he sent one Megasthanis as his ambassador to the King’s Court in Pataliputra. That Megasthanis has made a record of whatever he saw and heard. The Europeans consider that to be a more authentic document of Indian History! They certainly know that the period of Alexander, Selucas Nicador and Megasthanis were of the 4th Century Before Christ. So they have taken that the King of Pataliputra was also of the same period. Who is that King? He is the one pointed out as Sandracottus by Megasthanis.
788. Identifying this ‘Sandracottus’ as Chandra Gupta Mourya who established and ruled the Mourya Dynasty, the white – men have decided all the other dates of occurrence of Indian History. They simply decided that the one character whom they could correctly identify in the Indian Past as Selucas Nicador, to be of 4th Century Before Christ and Chandra Gupta Mourya to have been of the same period. Relating to that one acceptance, all others have been fitted in such as, Nanda Vamsam (Dynasty) before that, Sisunaaga Dynasty even before that; chandra Gupta Mourya’s son Bindu Saara, his grandson Asoka, the Sunga Vamsam that came after the Mourya-s and so on. Was this decision correctly arrived at or was there an error? This error, if it is an error, how blatant or contrived was it? A big question that needs to be asked!
789. What I have quoted as ‘Sandracottus’ that is Chandra Gupta as mentioned by Megasthanis, is without any prefix or suffix relating to any dynasty. He has also not mentioned the name of the dynasty before him or his son’s name as Bindu Saara. He has only called the Pataliputra as ‘Polibothra’ the capital from where he ruled his Kingdom and how fine and well advanced was his reign. That is why the question arises as to why the Chandra Gupta that Megasthanis has mentioned should be the Mourya and instead why can it not be referring to the Gupta dynasty? He also had his capital at Pataliputra? In them also there were two kings with the same name of Chandra Gupta. The Chandra Gupta II is the historical person who was famous as Chandra Gupta Vikramaaditya! Why can it not be that, Megasthanis met one of these two kings of yore?
790. Based on PuraNas, Raja Tarangini, Nepal’s VamsaavaLi and such references, when we calculate the time of the dynasties which ruled over Magadh such as Chandra Gupta Mourya and the 4th Century B.C. being the time period of Megasthanis; we find that the details just do not match! Chandra Gupta Mourya’s time was approximately 1,500 B.C. and not as fixed by the Orientalists. There is a gap of 1,200 years. We found that in our earlier discussions, regarding our AachaaryaaL’s time also, between our calculation and that of the Orientalists, there is a gap of some 1,300 years! In Vishnu PuraNa it is said that at the start of Kali Yuga, 1,500 years after Parikchit came to power, there was one Maha Padma Nandan, who established the Nanda Dynasty in Magadh. That is, this Nandan ascended the throne in about 1.600 B.C. If the next in power is Chandra Gupta, then his time works out very close to some 3,600 before now, isn’t it? Thus as far as can be discerned from various other sources, the Emperor met by Megasthanis most probably may not have been Chandra Gupta Mourya.
791. As discerned from our ancient documents by experts on the subject, the details of the kings who ruled over Magadh, is as under:-
Baarhadrada Vamsam – 22 Kings – 3102 – 2096 B.C.
Pratyoda Vamsam – 5 Kings – 2096 – 1958 B.C.
Sisunaaga Vamsam – 10 Kings – 1958 – 1598 B.C.
Nanda Vamsam – 2 Kings – 1598 – 1498 B.C.
Mourya Vamsam – 12 Kings – 1498 – 1182 B.C.
Sandracottus referred by Megasthanis could be about one of the Chandragupta-s of the Gupta Dynasty, which comes much later and not Mourya Dynasty. Relate this above statement with what comes hereinafter! As concluded by the Orientalists research scholars Chandra Gupta Mourya is from the early part of the 4th Century B.C.; while Chandragupta from the Gupta Dynasty was ruling from the latter portion of 4th Century A.D., till the early part of the 5th Century A.D.! So, between Chandragupta of Mourya Dynasty and the same named one from the Gupta Dynasty, there is a gap of some seven to eight hundred years! Since it is all guess work, the difference in calculations can even be a thousand years or more!
792. So, if Gupta Dynasty’s Chandra Gupta is the one Megasthanis met, all our historical events will go back some thousand years. That would mean the glory of what Megasthanis described is only in 4th / 5th Century A.D. and our civilization was flying its flag high, in Magadha itself some three thousand years before that from the start of Baarhadrada Dynasty, is it not so? We do not have to pick up a fight with them on this. Actually we should be thankful that people like Sir William Jones and Wilson have searched and found out that Megasthanis has spoken about on Sandracottus aka Chandra Gupta. But subsequently, that we were stupid enough to agree with them without further analysis was a mistake. We do not have to curse them. It was our duty to investigate the veracity of their statements, when they were teaching us our nation’s history and find out if their intentions were noble enough.
793. You may ask a question like this, “In the time of Chandra Gupta Vikramaaditya ‘Fa-hiyan’ from China visited this country, isn’t it? So he must have been of the period 4/5th Century A.D. only. How to take him back to 6th Century B.C.? The interesting thing is that, Fa-hiyan came to India and stayed here for six years, visiting all important places of Buddhist religious significance, writing extensively about his travels, true. But he never bothered about any king or ruler and made no comments about any of them! He did say something about the social life. So from his visit, historians say that he came during Chandra Gupta of the Gupta Dynasty as per the time frame already decided by them and not from what Fa-hiyan had written. So there is no basis for exactly identifying if that visit was during the period of Chandra Gupta of Mourya or Gupta Dynasty!
794. I have neither done much research of my own on this, nor am I qualified to do so. So students and scholars of history should carefully research this subject. There is one Kota Venkatachalam of Vijayawada, who has gone deep in to this matter and has come to the conclusion that Sandracottus is a king of the Gupta Dynasty only. Then Kota Venkatachalam became a renounced Sanyasi under the Adwaita Matam. Mr. G.K Natesa Saastry of Aayurveda College Mylapore, after research into this had also come to the same conclusion. Some other scholars after studying other PuraNas, Nepal’s VamsaavaLi, Raja Tarangini and such books have concluded that contrary to what is given in the History text books, our ancient culture and heritage can be traced much farther back and they have given clear evidence for the same.
795. In the Gupta Dynasty, the son of Chandra Gupta I and the father of Chandra Gupta II, called Samudra Gupta, might have been the one mentioned as Sandracottus by Megasthanis, as per my assessment. The two letters ‘Sa’ in Samudra Gupta and Sandracottus matches clearly. In Greek language phonetics the difference between ‘Sa’ and ‘Cha’ is clearly identified. Could Megasthanis have made a mistake in the first letter itself of a name? The people of Greece of Alexander’s time have said that, there was a King by name Xandrames in Pataliputra during those times. Though we are not able to decipher as to who that was, they say that the Xandra here is Chandra only and not Sandra, while Meghasthanis is mentioning ‘Sandra’!
796. Megasthanis did not read any of our books but, depended on what he heard. The vowels in talking get hidden and the consonants are more clearly discerned. So, naturally the White man as we have seen, makes ‘Thiru Valli KeNi’ into ‘Triplicane’; ‘Thiru’ becoming ‘Tri’, ‘Valli’ becoming ‘pli’ and ‘KeNi’ becoming ‘cane’! In fact we can add many monstrosities to this list of transliteration, like Bengaluru becoming Banglore! Samudra in our people’s diction would have sounded like ‘samdra’ only. That too in Sanskrit, there are many half consonants being combined like, ‘..kra.., ..mda.., ..nda.., ..pra..’ and so on! It is a challenge for even trained hands to do transliteration of Indian words! So, it is quite easily possible for ‘Samudra’ becoming ‘samdra’ in pronunciation and ‘sandra’ in writing in Greek. Anyhow it is all Greek to me! I do not know as to how ‘Gupta’ became ‘cottus’!
797. Thus all told, if everything recedes some thousands years, how can it be that only our AachaaryaaL’s time comes forward to 8th Century A.D.? This should also mean that Buddha’s time would also have to further recede back in time. Even if our AachaaryaaL’s time is considered as Sixth / Fifth B.C., he was not a contemporary of Buddha and it would mean that he comes on the scene only after Buddhism had taken roots in India and after Kumarila Bhatta and Mandana Misra before him had done their all to repudiate and counter that religion!
(To be continued.)
Sambhomahadeva.

DEIVATHIN KURAL # 129 (Vol # 5) Dated 17 Feb 2012

DEIVATHIN KURAL # 129 (Vol # 5) Dated 17 Feb 2012

(These e-mails are translations of talks given by PeriyavaaL of Kanchi Kaamakoti Peetam, over a period of some 60 years while he was the pontiff in the earlier part of the last century. These have been published by Vanadi Padippagam, Chennai, in seven volumes of a thousand pages each as Deivathin Kural. Today we are proceeding from the second para on page No 803 of Vol 5 of the Tamil original. The readers may note that here in 'man/he' includes 'woman/she' too mostly. These e-mails are all available at http://Advaitham.blogspot.com updated constantly)
775. The first thing that they noticed is the fact that, the biggest religion all over South East Asia up to Japan was Buddhism while in its place of origin India, there was only a scattering of Buddhists. At the same time they noticed that Hindus had a respect in for Buddha for his loving heart, abnegation, renouncement and sense of sacrifice! Not only did Hindus have a deep sense of respect for Buddha but, Hindus had included Buddha as one of the Dasa Avatara of Vishnu, they noticed. So they planned to make use of this fact to erode this Hindus’ faith and belief in their own religion of Sanatana Dharma! Before introducing the unknown Jesus Christ to them, by projecting Buddha as a highly venerable ideal, let us make inroads in to the Hindu minds, they could have decided. As Buddhists do not have much of an organization in India, neither will they object to our eulogizing the Buddhist image nor will people convert to that religion wholesale! This is very convenient to us! The one, whom the Hindus call an Avatara, has ridiculed the ideas of Vedic karmas, rituals and division of the society into various compartments of Jaati, caste and further sub divisions. By projecting these we can weaken their hold on their own lot and at a suitable time all we have to say is, ‘for Buddha read Jesus Christ’, pronto! You have a readymade strategic plan!
776. Instead of showing that Indian civilization is only after the advent of Christianity, we can show that it just came into its own just a little earlier before Jesus Christ, and that by Buddha’s influence only any worthwhile mentioning of Indian History became possible! We should depict that Buddha was the most important great man on the horizon of the Indian Panorama. Rama, Krishna and Arjuna were all only characters in their literature and not of any historical relevance. Concepts like Adwaitam and Maya have evolved only from Buddhism. Vishnu in the recumbent posture is from Buddha’s Maha Pari NirvaaNa statue only! Like this, whatever is great in their religion, we will show that they have been derived from Buddhism.
777. As the basis of everything Indian, we will picture paint as to how the background is the Dravidian Culture, which is totally different and from which the Indian culture has drawn heavily and balance have come from the Buddhist ethos. All this should be done nicely as though telling the truth as it is, devoid of any prejudice. The whole thing should be done in such a manner as to completely wean away the entire populace from their pride in the Hindu religion. Then our missionaries are always there ready to rope them in to our Christianity! It is with this Master Plan that the Britishers did all their research and reconstructed our history!
778. The Vedas that the Hindus pride themselves with as sans a beginning and without an end; itself is only some 1,000, to 1,500 prior to Buddha. It is wrong to say that these Vedas were the foundations of their culture. A few hundred years earlier there was a Mohenjo-Daro – Harappa civilization, which might have been a Dravidian Civilization! All those people were over powered and chased out and these people appropriated many of their ways and means! Having started such canard as History, they did many other things as contributions for the past and investing the future! If this is taught to our children from a young age as history, it will get so deeply imbedded in their minds that, after growing up those impressions cannot be erased. All Hindu Saastraas are contrary to reason and logic. They are all too full of blind beliefs and superstitions. Since such views have been well proclaimed and publicised, our own children believe so, and we ourselves have some doubts in their veracity!
779. In our PuraNas there is description of various dynasties and the period / duration of each is given, which we tend to consider as so much fiction and stories of imagination. Those who believe in the Saastraas and PuraNas are thought to be stupidly naive and blindly trusting. All those who believe in our religion are described in such terms that the younger generation do not listen to whatever the older generation has to say and assert, ‘What our Professors and Doctors say is authority’! In fact this is also a superstition only. They do not even think of asking questions such as, ‘by what logic do these so called researchers claim our PuraNas to be false, by what basis do they decide the time frame of our past and is there no other interpretation?’ Whatever these modern educationists say becomes acceptable and our old literature and ideas become fictitious!
780. Our Calculations in Kali Yuga. As said earlier, we will leave the matter of the Kruta – Treta – Dvapara Yugas. The details of all the royal dynasties of Kali Yuga are available. Each kings name and his tenure is clearly given continuously. There is nothing unbelievable in them. In this vast country, as there were not many roads, there could be errors in what is written in one region about another region or state. But, if you make a comprehensive comparative study and analysis, you can come to a concurrence. There is neither the patience to do so nor is there the basic trust in our Saastraas and PuraNas, what to do?
781. Everyday before stating the day’s work of karma, we have been saying something known as ‘Sankalpa’, that is the ‘Decision to do so and so activity’. This is done in every nook and corner of India wherever Brahmins are doing their work. In it, starting from Brhma’s age, coming down to Kali Yuga, the year, season, month, fortnight, Titi, Star of the day, are being mentioned, adding one day every day! Thus we are keeping track of our calendar verbally. In it from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, we are saying this year 1963 A.D., is being mentioned as Kali Yuga 5064. Actually there is a description of the whole Nation from Kashmir to Kanyakumari too, with specific mention of where that particular Sankalpa is being taken, in the land area between which two rivers, is being mentioned. Thus in this imaginary world of Maya, we are fixing the Karma in Time and Space without any scope for misunderstanding! If you say that ‘No, we do not believe all this’, how can we talk sensibly and exchange views?
782. Regarding our AachaaryaaL’s time in Siva Rahasya Itihasa it is mentioned, ‘sahasra dviyaat param’ meaning two thousand years later. Then it does not say exactly how many years later. It seems to have been left out unsaid so that we may exercise our brains about it, may be! That anyhow means some three thousand years before now. In Bhavishya Uttara Purana it is said that his birth was in the end part of the second set of thousand years, ‘kalyaadou dvi sahasraante’. Many other Puranas, books safely guarded over the years in our Matam, other sources, and heard traditionally over the years by our ears (known as KarNa Parampara), we firmly believe that our AachaaryaaL’s life time was Kali Yuga 2593 to 2625, which is the same as 509 to 477 B.C.
783. Our Historical Evidence. Let me tell you a little bit about our historical evidence. In PuraNas there is description of our royal dynasties. In addition some thousand years back one of our poets KalhaNa has made a vast study about the royal dynasties of Kashmir from the beginning to the end, in a book known as ‘Raja Tarangini’. The moment I say, KarNa Parampara, you should not throw it out as some fiction to be discarded. Baselessly our ancestors could not have taken the pains to record such things, say with the sole aim of befooling the future! If compared and related to other such evidences some approximation could be made. If there is a king there will be records of his going to war and pacts of peace and alliances of marriage between royal families and so on. So, this Tarangini which talks about the royal dynasties of Kashmir, also talks about visit by the royalty from the rest of India. In many cases what is given in this Tarangini and details in the PuraNas match.
784. In Nepal similarly there is a record known as, ‘Raja VamsaavaLi’ or what is called in English as ‘Chronicles of Nepal’. One Pundit Bhagwan Laal Indraji has obtained this book from a Buddha Bikku and publicised it. It contains the names of the Kings of Nepal from the time of Maha Bharat. There are many details available from other sources matching to a remarkable extent with what is given in that book! Similarly in Sri Lanka there is book ‘Maha Vamsam’, at least more than 1,500 years old, describing the spread of Buddhism in that island State. Since the Britishers give more credence to the Buddhist books than the Hindu ones, this book is more acceptable to them. Since there have been much mutual exchanges between India and Sri Lanka on the grounds of culture, religion, royalty, wars and pacts of friendship, there are a lot of information about our countrymen too.
785. If we do a comparative study of PuraNas, with Raja Tarangini from Kashmir being one northern corner of India, Nepal’s Raja VamsaavaLi from yet another end, Sri Lanka’s Maha Vamsam from the southern tip of the Indian sub-continent and then see as to where they differ and where they are at concordance. Even stories are based on the general ethos existing and even historical records could be sometimes boosted or exaggerated in some places. So we can do a comparative study with a balanced point of view, can we not? The main question now!
786. The Central Question – Who is the ‘Santra Cottas’ Mentioned by Megasthanis? Let us set aside the deliberate efforts on the part of British Historians to purposefully reduce our pride in our civilization going on from time immemorial till modern times. There is no meaning in going on and on about their partiality. All of them may not be motivated adversely. But what is possible is one man’s mistake or deliberate misreading, could affect other’s judiciousness. It occurs to me that may be there is one error intentional or otherwise, which could have vitiated the whole calculation. In the ancient Indian History, they have fixed one particular date in relation to which the earlier and later events have been dated. It is like a ‘Key’ which opens a ‘Pandora’s box’ of ancient History of India. What is that?
(To be continued.)
Sambhomahadeva.

DEIVATHIN KURAL # 128 (Vol # 5) Dated 15 Feb 2012

DEIVATHIN KURAL # 128 (Vol # 5) Dated 15 Feb 2012

(These e-mails are translations of talks given by PeriyavaaL of Kanchi Kaamakoti Peetam, over a period of some 60 years while he was the pontiff in the earlier part of the last century. These have been published by Vanadi Padippagam, Chennai, in seven volumes of a thousand pages each as Deivathin Kural. Today we are proceeding from the last para on page No 796 of Vol 5 of the Tamil original. The readers may note that here in 'man/he' includes 'woman/she' too mostly. These e-mails are all available at http://Advaitham.blogspot.com updated constantly)
765. In our context, the debate on whether Kruta and Treta Yugas were real or imaginary is irrelevant. ‘After the advent of Kali Yuga, some 2,600 years later our AachaaryaaL’s Avatara took place and that is all’, is our contention, presently. We need not contest the facts about older Yugas and Manvantaras’ calculations. But by saying so, I do not mean that we accept all their criticism about Chatur Yuga calculations also! The civilizations in Europe came into being only a few thousand years back. That too, their progress occurred only after the advent of Christianity some 2000 years back. To a large extent the world domination by the Western countries occurred only after they went to war on what is known as Crusades! Though they are at the peak of what is ultra modern life today, just about 1500 years back these Britishers and Germans were only pirates in the open seas! Only later they settled down in these places and improved their social life and developed languages of their own.
766. I am not interested in ridiculing them. To talk ill of others is worse than all bad forms. To boast about oneself is also not on, as it is only self pride. But when they make fun of our past glories, we are under compulsion to look into why they are doing so! I am talking in that vein. Within some 1,500 years they have shown much miraculous progress in literature, governance, agriculture, trade, science, hygiene and industry, undoubtedly. We have to admire and appreciate these things, of course. We have to note as to how they go deep into all aspects of life and relentlessly follow it up. Many of our Saastraas lying in some corner of India, forgotten in somebody’s house, with the palm leaf manuscripts being eaten away by white ants; have been searched for, located, indexed and published by them only, thus saving them for posterity. For this we owe them much gratitude. We have to learn many things from them such as their capacity for hard work, punctuality, meticulous eye for details and industriousness! At the same time I cannot but comment also on some of their wrong trends, especially when they are out to prove us all dullards and idiots! Instead of going on the offensive, I am only talking defensively in self protection!
767. In what these Orientalists say the main problem is one of attitudinal psychology with a vested interest. Let me explain. However much people may claim to be conducting scientific research from a most impartial stand point, no one is able raise above human compulsions of pride and prejudice! We see practical examples of it amongst ourselves often. We see that there are political parties claiming that they have come forward basically to deeply inter and get rid of all blind beliefs in the society. They claim that they are analysing all the Saastraas and PuraNas from the point of view of ‘Paguthu Arivu’ meaning to ‘separate, differentiate and learn’ and make scathing attacks and look down upon with derision on whatever is said in the Saastraas and PuraNas! They claim themselves to be most forward looking and ultra modern in comparison with the stuck in the mud characters of Sanaatana Dharma! Believing in the words of the white man, they believe that they belong to the Dravida Race and the Brahmin to have come from the Arya Race, who landed amidst them having come over the Khyber Pass.
768. But when it comes to their own, imagined as told by the British Orientalists, any discussion about three subjects, is taboo! Those three subjects are their Mother Race, Mother Land and Mother Tongue. Talking about these three, their ‘Paguthu Arivu’ disappears we do not know where! While cursing those who claim their caste to be higher in status, they claim that ‘there is no other race superior to theirs’, not in terms of all races being equal, but in their own being superior! There is no other language equal or better than theirs! Their culture is not only the oldest and superior, but there is nothing worthy of comparison, they claim! Looking at all this, they seem to suffer from greater amount of superstition, than those who believe in Sanaatana Dharma. Whatever is appreciable and noble in any other language or culture, they claim it to have been borrowed from theirs! In truth, Tamil Language and culture is foremost in give and take, without any narrow mindedness or hesitation, in welcoming all good views, ideas and principles, with love and making it its own! But, while calling themselves to be using ‘Paguthu Arivu’, they claim that they have always given and never taken. When it comes to one’s own, this is the amount of pride and prejudice that comes in the way!
769. The Orientalists who started out claiming themselves to be doing ‘Scientific Research’, are still victims of this ego related pride and prejudice! What was the time that they did all this research of Indian culture and ethos? That was before Indian Independence, when they were the rulers and India was one of their vassal states. Still, they could not just digest the fact that, in the times when they were utterly unaware of what is being civilised, India was far advanced with a grand and mighty culture of its own! They thought that they could see much wrong in the Indian society. First of all, India did not have any knowledge of Science and they had to teach the Indians all about science and a scientific approach. They seem to have no idea of health and hygiene, living in very dirty environment. Their mortality rate is atrocious. Within the society, they have no sense of equality and have too many gradations of caste and creed based on birth! They just could not understand the isolation of a major portion of people as Pariahs. Even those who are educated amongst them seem to be stuck up with their traditional principles and practices.
770. Seeing all this, they said that this country itself is too backward and started with the idea of enlightening us and improve our attitudes and behaviour! When their lives were fast advancing based on ever new findings of science and innovations of industry, this nation had to withstand invasions and undergo Muslim domination. As a result, we had not progressed while forgetting our age old disciplines of sciences, arts, crafts and avenues of enhancing knowledge. Thus we were at awe at their advancement in science and industry. So we fell in their feet and started accepting whatever they said, including about us, our life style, beliefs, practices and culture! We were virtually willing slaves of British people, customs and culture. That being the case, they could not gulp the idea that these very Hindus from very olden times were far advanced in all the fields of human endeavour, till just a few centuries earlier! They could never accept the fact that India was the forerunner and ideal to be admired and followed, once upon a time, despite the apparent evidences plentifully available in terms of literature, huge edifices of temples with intricate carvings depicting the heritage of arts and crafts. The main impediment was their sense of self importance and pride!
771. Not only that. Let me come to their vested interest that I indicated to you earlier. Like the sword hidden in the scabbard, for their secret intentions, acceptance of the reality of our glorious past was an obstacle. It was not only in their interest to win us over politically, but also retain such hold over us forever. Aim plus was to ensure eternal loyalty by converting all Indians to Christianity! Amongst them some might have been politically motivated and some religiously motivated. Put together, their game plan was to show all our Vedas, Saastras, beliefs, principles and practices in a poor light and the people to be blind believers and superstitious! We are thankful and grateful to many of their scholars for having unearthed many of our scriptures, aren’t we? But, if you go into their life histories, you will be shocked as to how their secret plan was to seemingly be with us and pull us in! What the missionaries did openly in spreading their religion locally was only a fraction, compared to the efforts of these scheming strategists!
772. Overtly they emphasised the freedom of individual rights and expression and vouchsafed that they will not interfere in our religious matters right from the Victoria Proclamation. Staying thousands of miles away, when you are ruling over millions of people, you have to be careful in what you say in your proclamations alright. So making a show of being impartial, they did their level best to attract as many to their religion as possible. Moreover, in Christianity, it is considered a part of your duty as a good Christian to convert others to your fold. ‘It is alright even if they do not convert and come to our fold, as long as we cause them leave their own, our purpose is served’, was their attitude. That is, they did their all to make followers of Hindu religion to lose their faith and trust.
773. In the olden times it is a fact that India was far advanced than rest of the countries of the world in all human endeavours. More than our advancement in medicine, literature, trade, agriculture, textiles, science, sculpture, building and construction and other fields, in the field of religious spiritual advancement we had reached far ahead of anybody else in the world, undoubtedly! The point to be noted is that we had made our individual and social life and culture vehicles of expression of our religious beliefs. The undercurrent in all our endeavours, attitudes and behaviour has been our religiousness. Everything including our interactions with others, society and the world has been focussed on our inner flowering. All our great thinkers, Maha Rishis and Munis have been riveted on inversion of oneself than on conversion of others! If foreign religions were to be inserted here, they had to make use of a lot of devious means and measures.
774. Only one in that endeavour is this subversion inserted in the name of history and research, to bring our so called past as close to the time of Jesus Christ as possible. There are many more such devious measures like the one about bringing in the Aryan – Dravidian divide. We will not get side tracked on those issues now. I will talk about them when there is an occasion for doing so. Now let us consider this matter of the time of our AachaaryaaL only, period! As I said, in the very feeling that ‘our religion is very ancient’ there is a psychological satisfaction, isn’t it? We should deny that satisfaction to the Hindus, they decided. To put that decision in to action, in to a workable plan, they got a suitable means from within our land and history and that is the Buddhist Religion!
(To be continued.)
Sambhomahadeva.

DEIVATHIN KURAL # 127 (Vol # 5) Dated 13 Feb 2012

DEIVATHIN KURAL # 127 (Vol # 5) Dated 13 Feb 2012

(These e-mails are translations of talks given by PeriyavaaL of Kanchi Kaamakoti Peetam, over a period of some 60 years while he was the pontiff in the earlier part of the last century. These have been published by Vanadi Padippagam, Chennai, in seven volumes of a thousand pages each as Deivathin Kural. Today we are proceeding from the second para on page No 789 of Vol 5 of the Tamil original. The readers may note that here in 'man/he' includes 'woman/she' too mostly. These e-mails are all available at http://Advaitham.blogspot.com updated constantly)
752. After Mahendra Varma it was Nrusimha Varma who came to power. His Senapathy aka chief of armed forces was Maamaathra Brahmin Paranjoti. It was he that later became a devotee of Siva and famous as Sirutthonda Naayanaar. To test the intensity of his devotion Siva himself came in the guise of a Bhairava Upasaka. He claimed, that as per the customs and traditions of theirs, he partakes food only once in six months. The food has to be made by slaughtering and cooking the only son of a family, he said. His six months of fasting was over and that today he would like to be fed.
753. Siruthondar thought about the request, “Though an outlandish demand, he seems to be a devotee of Siva coming all the way from somewhere in North India to our house, having fasted for six months! Since I have taken upon myself to look after all devotees of Siva, it is my duty to take care of his need. When I have the only son of my own, it is not in the rightness of things to ask any other family to sacrifice their offspring!” Without any hesitation he took his son to the backyard and arranged to get him cut and cooked! His wife, the very mother of the child also did not show any hesitancy! As demanded by the Bhairava, his son SeeraaLan by name who was just five years of age, was killed, cut, cooked and served to the guest of the house. In India they go by the dictum that the ‘Atiti’ the guest, is God in human form! So, they did not even tell the Bhairava guest that it was their own son. When he sat down to start eating, the guest said, “I am not to eat alone. Call your son to sit next to me and eat.”
754. Siruthondar prayed to Siva in his heart, “Oh God! Your Upasaka Bhairava is sitting for eating food. It is my duty to abide by his wishes. It is your responsibility to ensure that this Atiti does not get angry and walk away from eating.” Then he called for his son, “Come SeeraaLa, come here!” To the surprise of the father and mother, their son came running inside. It became apparent that this was a drama played by God who had come in the guise of a Bhairava Upasaka, to prove the high quality of commitment of Siruthondar, to the task of taking care of devotees of Siva, even to the extent of sacrificing one’s own offspring, that too the only child!
755. Our AachaaryaaL has written many Stotras in the metre known as ‘Bujanga Prayatam’ of 12 Aksharaas per line about Ganesha, Kumara aka SubrahmaNya, Devi, Bhavani, Sharada, Vishnu and Rama. Amongst them there is a ‘Siva Bujanga Stotram’ also. In it, in the 13th sloka he says, “I do not know as to how to please you. I am not able to betray anybody’s trust, whereas you have been kind enough to take care of even those who have betrayed their own wife, father or son!” As ‘kanta drohi, suta drohi and pithru drohi’, the sloka has pointed out three Naayanmaars as having been recipients of God’s largesse.
756. ‘Kanta Drohi’ was Iyarppagai Naayanaar – when Siva came in the form of a devotee of Siva (Sivanadiyaar) and asked for his wife to be loaned to him, Iyarppagai Naayanaar promptly obliged! About him, in Thiru Thonda Thogai Sundara Murthy SwamigaL says ‘illaiye ennaada Iyarppagai-kkum adiyen’ meaning that, ‘I am subservient to Iyarppagai also who did not know as to how to say No!’ Then that story also ended on a happy note like the Siruthondar – SeeraaLan episode. But for the information that he was a businessman in Cauveri Poompattinam, there is no other information available about the time of Iyarppagai Naayanaar.
757. The next mentioned ‘Suta Drohi’ is the story of Siruthondar. He was the Army Commander of Nrusimha Varma when he went to war with ChaLukhya kingdom and defeated them in Vaataapi, in the middle of the 7th Century A.D. Then only after getting to know that he was a great devotee of Siva that the king retired him with much respect, celebration and presents and sent him back to his village Thiru Chengattaankudi. Then he got a child and that incident of visit by Sivanadiyaar Bhairava Upaasakar took place, in the latter half of the 7th Century A.D. So it is said that our AachaaryaaL’s time could not have been predated, as he mentions this incident in his Siva Bujangam!
758. ‘Pitru Drohi’ is about Chandikeswara, eulogised as another great Siva devotee! He was conducting Siva Pooja in which he was pouring pots of milk as Abhishekam on Siva lingam. His father angrily objected to his wasteful behaviour and was about to kick one of the pots. The son cut his father’s legs for this offence. Siva appeared personally and resolved the issue. This Brahmin boy known as Vichara Sarma was renamed Chandikeswara from then and made the leader of all devotees of Siva for all times. He was also accepted as part of the Pancha Murthy-s, the Family of Siva that is, Sivaperumaan, AmbaaL, Vinaayakaa, Muruga and the now accepted Chandikeswara! In the Sivan temples, you will find a small Sannidy at the point where all the Abhisheka Teertam from inside the Sanctum Sanctorum pours out through a fount. His time is eons before historical times and so this reference by AachaaryaaL cannot come in the way his belonging to the period of 6th Century B.C.
759. The objection to his belonging to 6th Century arises out of two other references. One is about a king by name PoorNavarman. In Brhma Sutra Bhashyam II.1.18., in saying that ‘to compare ‘sat’ and ‘asat’ is improbable’, he has given an example of, ‘before the coronation of PoorNavarman, the son of an infertile mother was the king!’ The intension of our AachaaryaaL is to bring out the incongruousness of comparing an existing person with an imaginary non-being! From the example we can easily see that the name could have been anybody and irrelevant to the purport of the message. But they went on a wild goose chase to find out as to who the PoorNavarman being referred to could have been, in trying to fix the likely period of the life of our AachaaryaaL!
760. They identified two kings with that name PoorNavarman. In the Far East where Indian influence was apparent long back, there was a PoorNavarman in the island of Java (aka Yaavagam) in the 4th Century A.D. There on a rock his feet have been sculpted as we do the Vishnu Paadam with an inscription comparing that king by that name as being equal to Maha Vishnu. But that name is discarded on the grounds that it is not likely to be well known to the Indian intelligentsia who are likely to read the book like Brhma Sutram. So they continued the search for such a name amongst Indian royalty, setting aside the Java King.
761. Then they identified another PoorNavarman who had ruled over the western part of Magada Desam in the earlier half of the 7th century A.D., as mentioned by the Chinese visitor Hsuan Tsang. So he must have been the person mentioned by AachaaryaaL, the researchers have decided. AachaaryaaL wrote the Brhma Sutra Bhashyam in Kasi that is close to the west part of Magada Desa, closely related to Bhodha Gaya. There a king by the name Sasank, who was an enemy of the Buddhism, had cut the Bhodhi tree. PoorNavarman replanted that tree (may be another sapling in generally the same area) and nourished its growth. The Orientalists and research scholars have concluded that he must have been the PoorNavarman referred by Sankara AachaaryaaL and thereby come to the conclusion that AachaaryaaL must have been of a time later than that!
762. Now about the second such king. Though our AachaaryaaL may not make a reference about a king in the Far East in his Bhashyams or Slokas, there could be some references about AachaaryaaL in the Far East, because our Vedic religion and Buddhism did spread in those places. There are temples of our Gods and Buddha Viharas and statues of our saints, Agasthya, Buddha and Bodhisatva and so on. There are also stone inscriptions about such things in those places. Cambodia is referred in our ancient literatures as Kaambhojam. There a Sanskrit stone inscription was found. It is by one Indra Varma. His Guru’s name was Siva Soman. He is said to have learnt the Sasstraas from one ‘Bhagawan Sankara’ – ‘yenaatheetaani saastraaNi bhagawat sankarahvayaat’ – then the inscription eulogises the greatness of the ‘Bhagawat Sankara’ saying – that his lotus feet are being thickly invested by honey bees – of the heads of highly knowledgeable well read people; meaning that the world of intelligentsia was all virtually in his feet – nissesha soori moordaali-maalaa leedaangri – pankajaat’!
763. This Bhagawan Sankara can be none else other than our Sankara AachaaryaaL the Orientalists decide. They bring out that such a person to be venerated by the whole of ‘Vidvat Samooham’, was not to be found in the whole of Cambodia and that he had to be Sankara Bhagawat PaadaaL in India, saying that ‘Bhagawat Sankara’ and ‘Sankara Bhagawat’ are only two ways of saying the same name! This Indra Varma’s time has been decided to be the latter half of the 9th Century A.D. His Guru Soman might have been some 30 to 40 year elder to him and he could have been a direct disciple of Sankara AachaaryaaL and so his period of time being fixed as A.D. 788 to 820, seems to be absolutely correct they feel!
764. The Orientalists’ Humour and Animus! Having so decided, they make fun of our lack of historical recording that is, chronological keeping of records of past. It is our habit to consider everything old with respect as we often say that ‘old is gold’! As it becomes older and older, its value, divinity, authority and such things keeps increasing due to our blind beliefs, they say. We say that Manu and Maandaata were there so many thousands of millions of year before the time, when the multi cellular life form came in to being as per the modern man of science! We say that the present Chatur Yuga started some 43,32,000 years back . Kruta Yuga lasted for 17,28,000 years, Treta Yuga lasted for 12,96,000 years, Dwapara Yuga went on for 8,64,000 years and Kali Yuga will go on for 4,32,000 years out of which some 5,000 odd years have been completed; we claim. Then we claim that in the olden days, people lived for thousands of years. We do not stop at that, but say that there have been many such cycles of Chatur Yuga and talk in terms of Manvantaram and Kalpam of Lacs of Crores of years! All that is considered as cock and bull stories, full of false claims and bluff! In the same vein, they say that our estimation of the time of our Sankara Bhagawat Paada AachaaryaaL as 509 to 477 B.C., to be wrong and laughable!
(To be continued.)
Sambhomahadeva.