ThirujnAnasampandar and JainAs

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Somayaji Rajagopala <SSRVJ at AOL.COM> wrote:

>(2)There is one and only verse (Verse 75) of 100 verses in
>"Soundarya Lahari" where the word"draviaDaSiSu" is used. "Dayaavathaya
>Dattham Dravidasisu-Raasvaadhya Thava yath"(I have NOT used Itaran-or
>Harvard-Kyoto conventions of writing Nagari Libhi in Roman letters-at my
>age
>it is difficult for me to learn all that-kindly excuse).The editor of Lifco
>Publications and "Anna" -editor of Sri.Ramakrishna Publications-have not
>translated the word draviDaSiSu as sri Gjnaana Sambhandar.They have
>translated "draviDaSiSu" as sri.Sankara himself-and I respect their views.

Dear Sir,

I am just pointing out that an interpretation of Saundaryalahari, making
draviDaSiSu = Jnanasambandhar has been put forward in the past. For various
reasons, I don't particularly believe that this is strong evidence one way
or the other. In this context, it is immaterial whether Dravida refers only
to Tamil land or to all of South India. It is not relevant to bring the
Mukapancasati into this discussion, as that is a text dating from the
15th-16th century. Finally, as the attribution of the Saundaryalahari to
Sankaracharya can be (and has been) doubted by critical scholarship, it is
also immaterial what the contemporary Sankaracharyas say about this, however
authoritative their words may be to followers.

The crux of the matter is that Sankaracharya's date can be safely assigned
to around 700 CE. The latest date that has been proposed is 788 CE, based on
some traditional references. None of the earlier dates proposed, from 500
BCE to 500 CE, can be supported with proper evidence. It is very popular
nowadays to claim that Sankaracharya lived in 500 BCE. The objection that
this is actually the period of Gautama Buddha is supposedly answered by
claiming the Buddha's date to be 1800 BCE. Proponents of such views will
have to first convincingly rewrite all of Indian history. Indeed, it has
been pointed out that according to available evidence, Buddha's date should
be brought down to nearer 400 BCE than 500 BCE. So long as there is no
earth-shattering evidence to disprove this, no scholar can be convinced that
Buddha lived in 1800 BCE and that Sankaracharya lived in 500 BCE. So we are
back to some period near 700 CE as the most probable date for Sankaracharya.
All I wish to state is that Jnanasambandhar could not have lived as late as
1100 CE. I am curious to know how you arrive at your relative dating that
places Sankaracharya 400 years before Jnanasambandha.

Vidyasankar

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com