brijyadav@aol.com (Brij Yadav) writes:

> Not true !

This refers to my comment that there is no evidence Ramdas and Shivaji met 
before 1672 A.D.  Even Ranade, (the reference you cite below) who thinks that
earlier date is more probable writes (page 364) : "There is documentary 
evidence on both sides, and it is really difficult to come to a final 
conclusion about the date."

>(The same book is published as "Mysticism in India" by R.D.Ranade, SUNY
>Albany publications 1980)

>The reason for giving Gurudev Ranade's background is that the traditional
>view of Ramdas's influence on Shivaji is based on Dasbodh, Ramdasi
>sampraday and related literature, while Milind's statement is based on
>letters to Divakar Gosavi (which probably Milind himself does not know
>about). 

Thanks for the reference.  I did not know the primary source of the 
argument or the details of the argument.  After reading this, I will
amend my statement to say "There is no conclusive evidence that Shivaji
and Ramdas met before 1672 A.D."  I still believe that Ramdas' influence
on Shivaji has been exaggerated.

I am summarizing Ranade's arguments below.

1. Letter from Kesava Gosavi to Divakar Gosavi dated 1672 A.D. 
   which mentions the "first visit here."

   Interpretation a: First meeting between Ramdas and Shivaji
                     Supports 1672 A.D.

   Interpretation b: First visit to the "Math."
                     May support earlier date.

2. Letter from Bhaskar Gosavi to Divakar Gosawi which describes Shivaji
   inquiring about Ramdas and his place of origin.

   Interpretation a: Shivaji did not know about Ramdas
                     Supports 1672 A.D.

   Interpretation b: Shivaji was "testing" Bhaskar Gosawi's claim of
                     being a follower of Ramdas.
                     May support earlier date.

3. Two supplementary undated letters from Diwakar Gosavi which mention
   Shivaji's initiation in 1649 A.D. in their postscripts.

   Interpretation a: Letters are undated and postscripts could be later
                     additions.
                     Does not support earlier date.

   Interpretation b: The letters are genuine
                     Supports the earlier date.

4. Dasbodh and other literature support earlier meeting date.

   You are making the same point as Ranade.  I dont quite see how an 
   accurate description of the political situation in Maharashtra 
   supports an earlier date.

5. Granting of "Inam Sanad" to a disciple of Ramdas in 1671 A.D.

   Ranade argues that it is absurd to think that a "Sanad" would be
   granted without earlier initiation.  I dont quite see why it is
   absurd.  Shivaji must have granted "Sanads" to many temples and
   maths.

6. A 1678 A.D. document in which Shivaji traces his relationship with
   Shivaji.

   Ranade quotes a this description and argues for an earlier date.
   There is nothing in the description which (IMO) supports his
   argument.

7. 'Vakenishiprakarana', an account written in 1681 A.D. by Antaji
   Vakenavis on instructions by Divakar Gosavi, a disciple of Ramdas,
   does mention that Shivaji and Ramdas met in 1649.

   From my brief perusal of Ranade's book, I dont see any reason why
   this is not considered conclusive evidence.  It is obvious that he
   does not.

>The doubts raised 'by Milind Saraf's 'evidence' can be easily explained.

Not quite.  Even Ranade considers it probable and not conclusive.

>Yet, Sarkari historians are pushing only dubious 'evidence'. Why?

What is with "Sarkari" historians?   This book was published in 1933, 
surely there have been some new research since then.  Does anyone 
know?

-- Milind Saraph