FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210  
211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   >>   >|  
opposed to the conclusion arrived at by Mr. Wilson, and it does not appear on what grounds their testimony is discredited by him. Mr. Wilson is clearly wrong in stating that an antiquity of 1,600 years is attributed to Sankara by the Sringeri Matham. We have already referred to the account of the Sringeri Matham, and it is precisely similar to the account given by the Kudali Brahmins. We have ascertained that it is so from the agent of the Sringeri Matham at Madras, who has recently published the list of teachers preserved at the said Matham with the dates assigned to them. And further, we are unable to see which "common tradition" makes Sankara "about 1,200 years old." As far as our knowledge goes there is no such common tradition in India. The majority of people in Southern India have, up to this time, been relying on the Sringeri account, and in Northern India there seems to be no common tradition. We have but a mass of contradictory accounts. It is indeed surprising that an Orientalist of Mr. Wilson's pretensions should confound the poet named Sankara and mentioned in Bhoja Prabandha with the great Adwaitee teacher. No Hindu would ever commit such a ridiculous mistake. We are astonished to find some of these European Orientalists quoting now and then some of the statements contained in such books as Bhoja Prabandha, Katha Sarit Sagara, Raja-tarangini and Panchatantra, as if they were historical works. In some other part of his preface Mr. Wilson himself says that this Bhoja Prabandha is altogether untrustworthy, as some of the statements contained therein did not harmonize with his theory about Amarasimha's date; but now he misquotes its statements for the purpose of supporting his conclusion regarding Sankara's date. Surely, consistency is not one of the prominent characteristics of the writings of the majority of European Orientalists. The person mentioned in Bhoja Prabandha is always spoken of under the name of Sankara Kavi (poet), and he is nowhere called Sankaracharya (teacher), and the Adwaitee teacher is never mentioned in any Hindu work under the appellation of Sankara Kavi. It is unnecessary for us to say anything about the Madhwa traditions or the opinion of the Vaishnava Brahmins of Madurah regarding Sankara's date. It is, in our humble opinion, hopeless to expect anything but falsehood regarding Sankara's history and his philosophy from the Madhwas and the Vaishnavas. They are always very
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210  
211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Sankara

 

Sringeri

 

Matham

 

Prabandha

 

Wilson

 

account

 

teacher

 

mentioned

 
common
 

tradition


statements
 

majority

 

contained

 
European
 

Orientalists

 
Adwaitee
 
conclusion
 

opinion

 

Brahmins

 

historical


preface

 

altogether

 
hopeless
 

untrustworthy

 
arrived
 

falsehood

 

Madhwas

 

Vaishnavas

 
Sagara
 

Panchatantra


history

 

tarangini

 

philosophy

 

expect

 

harmonize

 

person

 

spoken

 

writings

 
characteristics
 
prominent

appellation

 

Sankaracharya

 

called

 

consistency

 

Surely

 

Madurah

 

misquotes

 

humble

 

Amarasimha

 

unnecessary