Saturday, February 11, 2012

DEIVATHIN KURAL # 126 (Vol # 5) Dated 11 Feb 2012

DEIVATHIN KURAL # 126 (Vol # 5) Dated 11 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 781 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 updated constantly)

741. The Sloka in which our AachaaryaaL’s date of birth is given as 788 to 820 A.D., which is widely quoted by the Orientalists, is as follows:- “nidhi naaga bhavahyabde vibhave maasi maadhave I
sukhla titou dasamyaantu sankaraaryodaya smruta: II” Interpreting the words into numerals, ‘nidhi’ stands for number 9, ‘naaga’ and ‘ibha’ both represent figure 8 as there are eight great snakes ‘naaga’ and eight elephants known as ‘ashta dik gaja-s’ and ‘vahni’ means fire which is three; and so we have the number 9883 which when turned around becomes, 3889. Now, 3889 minus 3102 (the period of Kali Yuga elapsed before the Jesus Christ), gives you 787 A.D. Based on this sloka, they believe 787 A.D. to be date of birth of Sankara. The difference between 788 and 787 A.D. is easily resolved as, the Indian Year takes part of one year of the Christian calendar and part of the next year as it starts somewhere in the middle of April and finishes on 13th or 14th or 15th of next April. The above sloka is taken as clear proof of date of birth of our AachaaryaaL by the Orientalists and their faithful followers in this country, quoting other reasons also in support!
742. These so called researchers say, “In AachaaryaaL’s books, names of so and so are mentioned or the such and such views are quoted or criticised and so, he must be of a time later than theirs. So, his time cannot just be 509 to 477 B.C. at all!” As per their calculations, Buddha’s life time is fixed as being 560 to 480 B.C. as indicated in history books. Buddha had his Nirvana when he was about 50 years of age, which is almost the same time that our AachaaryaaL took Sannyaasa. That would mean that after that only, that is after the time of our AachaaryaaL, Buddhism became famous and another 200 to 300 years later it spread in all directions with the support of Asoka and other kings. After Buddhism had widely spread and taken roots, then only Kumarila Bhatta criticised and countered the principles and practice of that religion. Then only AachaaryaaL comes on the scene, as accepted by them. When such is the case they say, how can we accept AachaaryaaL’s being almost a contemporary of Buddha?
743. At the end of Kumarila Bhatta’s life time, AachaaryaaL has met him. Even if that is taken as a fictitious story, the comprehensive views of Kumarila Bhatta, known as ‘Bhatta Sect’ in Meemaamsai, is well known to Sankara AachaaryaaL and roundly criticised by him in his Bhashyams! So AachaaryaaL is either Bhatta’s contemporary or of a later period; as per the Orientalists and their followers amongst Indian intelligentsia! Kumarila Bhatta has quoted KaaLidaasa, the Sanskrit Poet Laureate. Let us have a look at that!
744. KaaLidaasa Being Quoted by Kumarila Bhatta: Conscience as an Authority. In deciding Dharma as to what is right and what is wrong, Kumarila has analysed in detail, Jaimini’s Meemaamsa Sutras in his ‘Tantra Vaartikam’. This matter has also been discussed in Manu Smruti. Manu says,
“vedo akilo dharma moolam smruti sheele cha tatvidaam I aachaaraschaiva saadhoonaam aatmanasthushtireva cha II” That means, ‘When you are in a quandary, perplexed as to what is right and what is wrong, the proof of authority lies in Vedas, Dharma Saastras, behaviour of Saints and elders and finally your own conscience, in that order’, as prioritised. The eye is the authority for shape, roopa, colour and form. For audio qualities of rhythm, sound, volume and pitch, the ear is the authority. How about Dharma aka righteousness in human situations? They will not be discernible to the senses. In such situations the Sruti aka Vedas are the PramaaNam. So we have to refer to the Vedas. If not found in the Vedas, then you may refer to Smruti aka Dharma Saastraas. If you are still in doubt, then see as to how elders have responded in similar situations. Such elders should be known to be above board in all their dealings with others, whatever their age, caste, power, position and wealth. What such elders say and do becomes the authority. Finally, if you are not able to come to a conclusion still, then your own conscience with your mind bereft of personal likes and dislikes and prejudices that satisfies you without any nagging, should be the final authority, says Manu. Like they say in the Army, ‘fire and forget missile’, or they say in Hindi, ‘Neki kar dharyaa mein daal’! While analysing and discussing this final authority of ‘Manah Saaktchi’ the conscience, Kumarila Bhatta is quoting KaaLidaasa in support.
745. In his drama Saakuntalam, KaaLidaasa talks about it through Dushyanta. Dushyanta is a Kshatriya King. He comes across this beautiful girl Sakuntala in KaNva Rishi’s Aashrama and there is Love on sight. Then it occurs to him that it is wrong for a Kshatriya to fall in love with a Brahmin girl. Then he also thinks that the minds of people with good character, does not vacillate in every which way. The very fact that he felt attracted to this girl, it must be in all righteousness. So he decides that there cannot be anything wrong in his love for Sakuntala. In reality, Sakuntala was a Kshatriya girl being brought up in KaNva Rishi’s Aashrama, being the daughter of Viswamitra (a Kshatriya before becoming a Brhma Rishi) and Menaka. So there was no transgression of Saastraas here, in Dushyanta being in love with Sakuntala. At this point, Dushyanta says, “sataam hi sandeha-padeshu vastushu pramaaNam anta:karaNa pravruttaya:”, (‘Saakuntalam – I.1. Sloka 19) meaning, ‘when in doubt the inner conscience is the authority’!
746. Kumarila Bhatta in one of his analysis quotes KaaLidaasa’s this statement by Dushyanta that in the final reckoning the inner conscience is also an acceptable authority. From this it is ascertained that Kumarila Bhatta chronologically comes after KaaLidaasa and so is AachaaryaaL. As per the Orientalists’ opinion, KaaLidaasa’s chronological time is much later than the 6th Century B.C. If AachaaryaaL was a contemporary or closely after Vikramaaditya, whose time was in the 1st Century B.C., (as Vikramaaditya Sahabdam [or the calendar after his name commences in 57 B.C.]), then he could not have been existing in 509 to 477 B.C. anyhow!
747. Further, there is another view point that KaaLidaasa’s time was during Chandra Gupta Vikramaaditya, later in the 4th Century A.D.! In Megha Sandesam – 14, KaaLidaasa talks about the eight elephants of Dig Gaja-s as ‘Dingnaaga’. Dingnaaga happened to be the one who created a division of Buddhism known as ‘Vaibaasikam. He was of the time period the 6th Century A.D.! So, Kaalidaasa could be of that period and so AachaaryaaL’s time just cannot be some 1200 to 1300 years before in the 6/5th Century Before Christ, claim the Orientalists scholars and their Indian followers of intelligentsia! (Connect up with the fact that Kumarila Bhatta quoted KaaLidaasa and AachaaryaaL’s time is after Kumarila Bhatta!)
748. The Buddhist Views in AachaaryaaL’s Bhashyams. Our AachaaryaaL has criticised Vaibaasikam views of Dingnaaga. There is another division of Buddhism, which takes most of what is in Vaibaasikam as it is and some views changed, known as Souraandikam. Then there is a third division, namely Yogaachaaram aka Vignaana Vaadam created by Asanka and Vasubandu. This also has been countered by our AachaaryaaL. There is another fourth variation known as Maadhyamikam or Sunyavaadam. This has also been criticised by our AachaaryaaL. The main proponent of these views was one Nagarajuna said to be of 2nd Century A.D. When Nagarjuna, Asnka, Dignaaga are all of the 2nd, 4th and 6th Century A.D.respectively; how can it be that AachaaryaaL who criticised them could have been of the period before Jesus Christ? That is their logic.
749. In Kanishka’s time Buddhism was divided into two parts as Mahayaanam and Heenayaanam. Aachaaryaal’s direct disciple Padmapaada, in the explanatory notes that he has written on Aachaaryaal’s Bhashyam on Brhma Sutra, known as ‘Pancha Paadika’ has named Mahayanam and criticised it. They give one more reason as to why they are not able to take back Kanishka further than the 1st Century B.C.
750. Indications of the Period of A.D., in AachaaryaaL’s Devotional Slokas. As they show such internal evidences in the philosophical books by our AachaaryaaL, they also dig out a few from his books on devotion! First of all, they claim that AachaaryaaL being so steeped in Gnaana is not likely to have authored all those devotional poems. The works of others on devotion must have been added on as his, is their view. But when it comes to the aim of countering the majority view that he belongs to the 6th Century B.C., they accept what is suitable to their line of argument and analyse the devotional poems too. In Soundarya Lahari Sloka 75, while praising the value of the breast milk of AmbaaL, AachaaryaaL says, “I think the absolute white Saraswathi is flowing as your milk. It is the gush of divine kindness from your heart that pours out as the nectarine flow, which you gave to a ‘dravida sisu’ (child of the land of Dravida Desam), by which he became a ‘poet laureate’ foremost among all poets!” Thirugnaana Sambandar is the Dravida Sisu being referred and he is the one to whom AmbaaL gave her breast milk, isn’t it? There are clear evidences that this incident is of the 7th Century A.D. at the time of Pallava King Mahendra Varman.
751. The king Mahendra Varman was salvaged from Samana Madam / Jainism and redrawn in to Saivism by Appar. The old man Appar and young child Sambandar are contemporaries though some 50 to 60 years of age separated them. Together they have visited many temples all over Tamil Land and sung in praise of Siva together. The king of Pandyas was known as Koon-Pandyan as he had a bent back and was suffering from an incurable fever. He had converted to Jainism and the whole of Madurai had become a strong-hold of Jains at that time. He was relieved of the fever and bent back by Sambandar’s prayers on his behalf. The Koon-Pandyan came to be known as Ninra Seer Nedumaran (as the king who stood erect), from that time onwards and was re-converted back to Saivism to the delight of his wife Mangayakku Arasi and Minister Kula Chraiyar; both recognised as great devotees of Siva, to be included amongst the 63 Nayanmaars by their own right! All this is known to be of sixth / seventh Century A.D. unalterably. So our AachaaryaaL’s reference to ‘Dravida Sisu’ – aka Thirugnaana Sambandar, in Soundarya Lahari proves beyond doubt that he could not have been of a time before Jesus Christ! That is the view point of Orientalists and their ‘Yes’ men amongst the Indian Intelligentsia!
(To be continued.)



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home