Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhvacharyas

Note to the Reader: This article is neither intended to ridicule any vedantic school of thought nor to shower praises. My intention is always to express the truth at any cost. The three Acharyas did their best to express what God is or what God is not. I have absolutely no doubt that all the three of them were exceptionally great scholars and how much I wish the three of them were contemporaries. I'm neither a scholar of Vedantic literature nor follower of any of the three Acharyas or any other Spiritual Guru. I'm a common man with a completely unbiased mindset. Some of my statements may offend staunch followers of these Acharyas. However what I know is what I know. I have spent close to twenty years trying to understand what God is according to various religions. Based on my experience and numerous discussions I've had with followers of various religions, I've understood certain basic things about religion and God. I'm always interested in understanding limitation of school of thought rather than glorifying somebody. When you read this article, please first forget what caste or religion you belong to and read the statements as they are.

As a common man with unbiased mindset, I don't consider anybody to be a great individual. In the universe, stellar dust is as much important as fully grown star. A lion's roar is as important and glorious as that of honeycomb made by bees. An invisible common cold virus can do great harm to the greatest scientist in the world. To me, a poor family that can manage living with meagre income and still survive is as great as the most intelligent Sanyasi who begs on the streets for religious reasons. The way we live is due to the intelligence we have been blessed with and we have no control over that. This being the case everyone is the creation of this universe and hence equally great. Read the following article with this mindset. Thank you.


Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya are considered to be the pillars of Vedantic tradition of spiritual India. This blog is aimed at clearly understanding the purpose behind rise of these three acharyas and the limitation of their teachings.
Shankaracharya proposed or rather popularized Advaitha Vedanta. Advaitha system of Vedanta was first proposed by Gaudapada who was the Guru of Shankaracharya's Guru Govinda Bhagavatpada. Advaitha means non-dual. Some history scholars believe that Shankaracharya had the intention of traveling all over India and establish Vedantic philosophy against the then popular Buddhist philosophy to save Vedantic tradition from being destroyed by Buddhists. It really didn't matter at that time for Shankaracharya whether Advaitha was the supreme teaching or not. His aim was to wipe out Buddhism in India and save the ancient Vedantic philosophy. At that time the culture was supporting Shankaracharya's intention. There are other scholars who don't subscribe to this theory. In any case, my intention is not to present a legal case study for the sake of argument. He travelled all over India and defeated many spiritual scholars in arguments and established his understanding of Prasthanatraya (Bhagavad Geetha, Brahma Sutra and Upanishads) as the ultimate one. The point to be noted is that most of the scholars defeated by Shankaracharya in arguments were more interested in joining him to defeat Buddhism and establish vedic system of thought rather than to fight against Advaitha. In any case during his time Shankaracharya was undoubtedly a master of Sanskrit and Vedas and an exceptionally good scholar.
Was Shankaracharya an enlightened man? I doubt. I have studied the life histories of many enlightened mystics and I believe that Shankaracharya was an exceptionally good scholar but not enlightened. This may sound like an outrageous statement especially if you are a great follower of Shankara. However, I have the same opinion about the other two Acharyas as well. If Shankara was himself an enlightened man, there was no need for him to have fought to establish Vedantic school of thought and to write commentaries for Bhagavad Geetha and other Prasthanatraya texts. He would have become another Buddha and famous that way. What Shankaracharya did in those days is similar to what J Krishnamurthy or Paramahamsa Yogananda did in our times.
Is Advaitha the ultimate reality? Is it more accurate compared to Vishishtadvaitha and Dvaitha? Well you can go on arguing without end as to which philosophy is better than the other. In my opinion, all the three philosophies fall short of expressing the truth if you go by the interpretation of our contemporary spiritual leaders and scholars. The reason being, absolute truth cannot be justified by taking references from Prasthanatraya. Taking references from these texts would become more of legal justification rather than showing the truth as it is. Spiritual masters are a different class of people altogether. They're not interested in proving anything at all. They're not interested in arguing and establishing their theory as the ultimate. Ramana Maharshi was not a scholar but there was some unknown attraction in him. He was an enlightened mystic. A real Sanyasi. Those who attain moksha live like him. They're least bothered about arguing and establishing a school of thought. Ramakrishna Paramahamsa was another mystic worth mentioning. Actually, Raghavendra Swamy was also of the same category but he was pulled into traditional Sanyasa tradition of Madhvas and so he could not express himself the way he deserved. I'll explain this at the end of this blog.

Ramanujacharya had a totally different experience than Shankaracharya. During the time of Ramanuja, followers of Advaitha tradition in Tamilnadu had distorted the teachings of Shankaracharya so much that Ramanuja started correcting them one by one. The Advaitic scholars in Tamilnadu were more interested in pleasing the local kings and gain from petty activities than delve deep into Advaitic philosophy and teach the same. Also Ramanuja noted that most of the scholars during his time were not really having "Bhakti" towards God and they were more interested in defending Advaitic tradition. Ramanuja had a little feminine touch to his character. He was devoted to Lord Narayana and an exceptionally brilliant scholar of Advaitic philosophy so much so that he was correcting his teachers and eminent scholars at his time. He ultimately did the same thing that Shankaracharya did. He traveled extensively in South India to establish his form of Vedantic Philosophy, arguing with scholars and winning arguments and so on. Finally Vishishtadvaitha took shape and became popular. Ramanuja converted many lower caste Hindus to Brahmins as he believed that a brahmin is by virtue and not by birth. Ramanuja also wrote his commentaries to Prasthanatraya.

So is Vishishtadvaitha the ultimate philosophy? It is again a philosophy born out of countless arguments, commentaries on Prasthanatraya, commentaries on commentaries and so on. Even after Vishishtadvaita we had many different flavors of Advaitha from vedantic scholars. As a spiritual text Vishishtadvaita explains Brahman, the God slightly better than Advaitha. In any case Ramanuja had that inclination towards Bhakti and hence would have experienced spirituality better than the other two Acharyas. But he too was a scholar and not an enlightened mystic.

Madhvacharya's work and life is the most interesting of the three. He took a daring step of explaining Prasthanatraya in the light of Dvaitha philosophy that is philosophically against Advaitha (as per Madhwa scholars) and Vishishtadvaitha. How Madhvacharya came to hit upon this idea is a mysterious one. He introduces Bheda Panchaka as foundation of Dvaitha philosophy. He argued that Jeevatma and Paramatma are separate, Jeevatma and Jeevatma are separate, Jeevatma and Jada are separate, Jada and Jada are separate, Jada and Paramatma are separate. This is exactly opposite of Advaitha that says that there is no distinction between Brahman and Jeeva. Madhvacharya' s philosophy is also called as Tattvavada with an argument that God is the independent reality and God's creation is the dependent reality. His philosophy looks apparently correct. In our normal day to day life we really don't experience Brahman, we feel that we are different from other humans and animals, we feel that inanimate objects are different from us and that inanimate objects are not God. I've explained the advaita and dvaita siddhantas in following paragraphs in detail.
So is Dvaitha the ultimate reality?
After reading numerous life histories of mystics and listening to religious discourses I feel that following is what is true as lived by enlightened mystics: For a person not having attained Moksha, Dvaitha seems to be the reality. For an enlightened man, Advaitha is the reality. What stops a non-enlightened person from experiencing Advaitha is the "thought" that he is separate from the rest of the universe. This separative thought structure is not easy to get rid of and not necessary too. If the thought structure collapses it defeats the very purpose of creation. What is treated as "Saguna Brahman" the Manifest God by Indian philosophers is actually the sum total of all heavenly bodies in this universe including our solar system, the galaxies, quasars, nebulas and so on including living beings on earth. This entirety of universe has a behavior of its own. It has a total life of its own. Some people accidentally become capable of experiencing this unity. Such people are enlightened. The life of an enlightened man is different from that of an ordinary individual. Why some people become enlightened and not all is not known to even enlightened mystics. However if you look at the lives of these enlightened mystics, they are born to extremely religious parents. It is interesting to note that parents being religious don't become enlightened but their rebellious children have a chance !!! Ramana, Ramakrishna, Raghavendra Swamy were all such rebellious mystics.

To give you a crude glimpse of how an enlightened man feels in his day to day life, if a dog barks and heard by this enlightened man, he feels that the barking sound is coming from within him as if he's barking. Not only that, he knows that the dog would start barking before even it starts. He would know your past, present and future the moment you come in the vicinity of his sense organs. Phases of moon have effect on the physiology of his body. Even other planets such as Jupiter and Saturn and their positions affect him (some swellings are observed on the body coinciding with positions of planets). He feels that there is a kind of hole starting from junction of nose and fore-head and back of head. In this hole he would experience light of golden orange color in some countries and blue color in some other countries. Anything he speaks would happen. And most importantly he lives life as it comes rather than thinking about it and managing it. An enlightened man's body undergoes physical changes in chemistry and also they would be physiologically different from ordinary humans. Most importantly an enlightened person is neither male nor female as capacity to reproduce would be gone after Moksha. There are those who believe otherwise. However before any argument starts in your mind please note that when it comes to stating anything about enlightenment, you need an experience of your own. I really don't know how I concluded what I know about enlightenment. The physiological experiences of an enlightened mystic presented in this para are from life histories of mystics. If you go on thinking about God, the fact dawns upon you without your effort. So there is no argument possible and no argument necessary in this. We may go on writing examples from holy texts of various religions. But that doesn't help. We are not living in the times of Ramayana and Mahabharatha or for that matter, the three Acharyas.
None of the three acharyas lived the life of an enlightened mystic. That's why I say that all of them were great scholars but not enlightened mystics. They have left behind their own schools of thought that continue the tradition of arguments and counter arguments to prove their point of view and school of thought. None of these schools of thought have given birth to another Shankara, Ramanuja or Madhva. For that matter even schools of thought from foreign religions such as Christianity have not given birth to another Jesus. In that way all of them have failed. After all, the goal of a teacher is to teach what he knows to his disciples and make them better than himself. Hence a student of Advaitha should actually learn whatever Shankara had known and go beyond. It is like when you are a kid you went to elementary school and learnt whatever that teacher taught. When you completed your PhD, you are more intelligent than your elementary school teacher. Unfortunately we do not go beyond these three Acharyas and realize truth for ourselves. But the good thing about the Acharya's work is that we have access to the commentaries on Brahma Sutras (Brahma Sutras describe what God is not).

Life histories of the three Acharyas mention that they were incarnations of God. All the three Acharyas lived a long time ago. The latest of them - Madhwacharya lived about 800 years ago. The available historical records are very vague just like that of western religious scriptures. Unless the Acharyas have stated details about their avatara background, it is impossible for a third party to tell anything about their incarnation details. This means, unless the one claiming avatara background of Acharyas is a God incarnate himself / herself, there is no way of determining this background. Having said this, it is equally true that ordinary humans cannot master Vedas at the age of eight like Shankaracharya, write commentaries on Prasthanatraya like Madhwacharya and Ramanujacharya. To get a glimpse of the command the Acharyas had on Prasthanatraya, read their commentaries. To understand one word of what they've said, you need to spend months together. There is a very important point we need to note here: when understanding the life of a mystic, it is more important to consider your own experience of having lived life that way. Studying their lives like a historian or a research scholar will never lead to correct understanding. This is the reason why western religious scholars have grossly misunderstood Hinduism.  I cannot comment on the avatara background of the three Acharyas as they're not our contemporaries.

Following is my view on the absolute truth in the light of the three famous vedantic traditions: The absolute reality or absolute truth is called "Nirguna Brahman". Nirguna means absence of any attributable character. Brahman is the reality or God or whatever other suitable name you want to associate it with. The Nirguna Brahman expressed itself as "Saguna Brahman" during the creation of the universe for no logical reason. Saguna Brahman is the universe we live in. It is the same universe that consists of our solar system, milky way galaxy, many other galaxies, quasars, black holes and so on. Saguna Brahman expresses the bheda panchakas of Dvaitha siddhantha that Madhwacharya preached. The bhedas of Dvaitha keep the universe in working order. For e.g. the feeling that man is different from a woman is necessary for pro-creation. Atoms are electrically neutral but their sub atomic particles carry opposing electrical charges. Without different charge states there would be no electricity. So Dvaitha is the property of the universe needed for its sustenance. Since sustenance of the universe is ruled by Lord Vishnu according to Hinduism, Madhwacharya places him as the ultimate God. Nirguna Brahman is the absolute reality. The absolute reality is pure nothingness. This reality can only be experienced by those who attain moksha. At the level of Nirguna Brahman lies the root of the universe. This is the non-dual nature of the universe. This doesn't mean that Saguna Brahman is unreal. The advaitic statement "Brahma Satya Jaganmithya" means that the root of Saguna Brahman is non-dual and that the non-dual reality has expressed itself as divided universe. For the sake of argument, if all living beings and non living things attained moksha at once, the bhedas of the manifest universe vanish and the universe goes back to its primordial state of non-duality. Many scholars misinterpret the word "Jaganmithya" and state that the universe is unreal according to Advaita. Another advaitic statement "Aham Brahmasmi" can only be realized by an enlightened being. This statement doesn't mean that I'm God and hence there is no need to worship any external God. "Aham Brahmasmi" means that at the core, every living being and non living thing is united in non-duality. Note that when the bhedas of Dvaita disappear, the universe is annihilated into nothingness. To realize the nature of the Nirguna Brahman, all the three Acharyas have strongly advocated surrendering oneself to the absolute power of the universe. Many non-advaitic scholars have misinterpreted that Shankaracharya was not in favor of devotion to God since he had stated "Aham Brahmasmi". However the reality is totally opposite. Shankaracharya says "Bhaja Govindam Moodha Matay" which means, oh fool, worship Lord Krishna to realize the truth. So in summary, all the three siddhantas of the three Acharyas are factually correct as far as theory goes. Real understanding is possible if you experiment with reality yourself and in the light of your own experience you understand the three siddhantas. Each siddhanta complements the other rather than opposing it. Dvaita in reality is an extention of Advaita with more precise explanation of the working of the universe rather than opposite of Advaita. Many Madhwa philosophers and Advaitic scholars have misunderstood both Advaita and Dvaita thinking that they're opposite of each other.

Feel free to post your comments. This topic is a bit touchy as we are forced from our childhood to follow one Guru or another. We feel offended and take matters personally if anyone casts doubt on teachings of established spiritual Gurus whom we follow. Just like how it hurts us when someone belittles our parents, it hurts us when someone comments on our religion or caste or spiritual master. It takes enormous courage to come out of that shell and accept statements in unbiased manner. If our parents have done something wrong, we should accept the reality and move on rather than feeling offended if someone exposes the same. Hope you enjoyed the article in the same spirit that I wrote it with.

Thanks for reading.

God Bless You

Sharma M C L



66 comments:

  1. Very nice.... But to go beyond their teachings you need to Practice. You "Understand" when you read, You "Experience" when you practice, You "Realize" when you achieve it :-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. once again you have a framework about the enlightened souls.....how do you know about it and who are you to judge.........dont worry about these and it is a mere time waste....

    ReplyDelete
  3. I like your blog for a novice who is just wanted a introduction into three spirtual teaches. Whether they are enlightened or not is still debatable .......

    ReplyDelete
  4. The arguments can easily be shown to be flawed based on one single premise. You need to prove you have the competency to determine who is enlightened based either on logic or by some other means. You describe a certain physical phenomenon in an englightened. Either you have yourself concluded that or you have read or head somewhere. In either case you have to depend on the opinion of someone who is enlightened to know what enlightenment means. In that case you need to establish to us that the so-called enlightened person was actually enlightened. How would you do it without acknowledging another source. This argument can be continued in a recursive manner leading to no result. The only way to end it is that you assume that some revelation from God himself makes this clear. In that case also you do not know it is really a true revelation or someone invented it at sometime. Hence you have no choice to believe something blindly. So whatever you are saying is based on blind belief in someone or something or blindly believing your owns assumptions are true.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is not necessary that enlightened men loose the ability to reproduce. Krishna was enlightened, so was Rama, but they acted like normal human beings. Enlightenment is an internal state not an external state. There is a stage called JEEVANMUKTA. Probably more reading about it would give you a better idea of the way the acharyas lead their lives

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Krshna and Rama are considered incarnations of Vishnu in Dashavatara and hence Moksha doesn't apply to them.

      Delete
  6. its a stupid statement by u, infect all da acharyas did a good job welfare for da living beings in different degrees,u r not coming to da conclusion of da philosophy, da acharyas works r worth n still helping living entities in different manners, i think u gotta read more to get to know acharyas, stop offending, der is allot to learn.....

    ReplyDelete
  7. All three views are right if reflected upon carefully. It is the perspective that matters. From which level of consciousness are the arguments made. They are all theoretical and only given to work your reason and logic to realize that a truth lies beyond existence as we comprehend it. The truth itself is beyond logic. We rely on methods of comparison, inference and tradition to gain knowledge and build faith in pursuing that Truth. If you analyse the dreamer and waker relationship carefully you can get an idea of how these views differ. The dreamer says the dreamer and waker's mind are different. In fact he has no clue what you are saying, it seems absurd to him. To him all the dream people are different. The waker's mind says everything is one, nothing else exists. The waker's mind speaking to the dreamer says the dreamer is the waker's mind conditioned. Is the dreamer and the walkers mind the same? Yes and no.

    An Enlightened one has merged with the Truth, to understand him or his ways or his experience you need to be Enlightened yourself. So describing his personality is redundant. The personality we see relates to the matter layers and not who He is. Matter layers express as to whatever past momentum he carries, his karma and prarabdha that needs exhaustion. Whether he speaks with logic or sings with devotion or just keeps quiet is not for the individual to judge His state.again taking the example of the dream, a dreamer can never know who has woken up based on mere actions, only a person who has woken up will know.

    Everyone of the masters spoke of a state to Awaken to, that is all that matters. To Realise the Truth is the mission in life what path one chooses makes no difference. In fact a true seeker falls upon the path he is best suited for and has no confusion there in.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I Highly oppose ur way of saying...u say Adi Sankara was not enlightened???? seriously..if u have a look at this mere rotten world u will understand.... All the siddhas in the himalayas think about ATMAN TATVA not dualism which u told...... Im not commenting on MADWACHARIYA.....He is guru i respect with all my heart..but i dont no what state of mind he said about DWAITHA-The dualism in JIVA AND ATMAN.... we are not at that level to understand about what he said....one thing i can say.... We say soul is the god in all people...why do they say cuzz...the atman is god.....

    More over when we go to temple we see IDOL KRISHNA OR RAMA and we workship them cuzz they are pure from impurities....if we think on this point if one tries to pure this mind and body with no bad things he is god tatva...... there is not dualism in IDOL AND US if u are pure in all senses of actions according to dharma.... RESPECT ALL THE GURUS CUZZ THEY HAVE KNOWLEDGE THERE WAY... ITS LIKE MATHEMATICS TEACHER ALL SAYING THE SAME RESULT IN DIFFERENT FORM OF EQUATIONS ALL ARE GURU'S RESPECT THEM...... PLZ PLZ FOR GOD SAKE DONT COMPARE OR DEGRADE THE IMAGE OF ANY GURU...

    Hari om

    ReplyDelete
  9. We must be knowing one thing, Vedas are mother..... whatever is been said by these Gurus are not their mental speculation... Its directly from the scriptures which are Apaurashaya means non -human coming directly from Lord... Its already been tested and experimented we dont need to test them... With imperfect senses we don't even have the capability of seeing our own hand in the dark... How can we judge with our mental speculation.. For Mr. Venu i would like to tell you what Sripad Ramajucharya and Madhavcharya meant by their teachings in simple analogy given in shastras... The spark of fire and the original fire has the same combination , light and heat .. But without the light and heat the fire has no meaning to called it as like that.. so all are in synthesis.. so in quality the spark of fire and the original fire from which the spark has come are same in quality but Not in quantity ...

    ReplyDelete
  10. One more example , a drop of salt from the ocean and the huge lumps of ocean are same in chemical combination but not the quantity , so we are jivatmas the living entity who are same in quality with the Lord but different in quantity as God is unlimited.. All the three acharyas are right and basically are describing the three aspects of the Supreme Lord, because if any of the three are missing from them then how will the Supreme be called as Complete Whole.. The Sun RAys, The sun Globe and the Sun itself are the three aspects of the entire sun but if explained separately are incomplete.. Similary Sankaracharya explained about the Brahman effulgence of the Lord which is the dazzling light from his bodies which he hides from those who are Jnanis, Then comes the Parmatma feature which is the form of one of the Purusa incarnation Ksirodakshayi Visnu residing as parmatma in the heart of every living entity worshipped by Yogis and then comes the original aspect Bhagavan feature worshipped by the Bhaktas and only can be understood by devotional service not by mental speculation...Just how there is predominating deity in the Sun planet the Sun God name Vivashvan, behind every energy there is an energetic person who holds that energy.. All the acharyas above were sent by the Lord Sri Krsna in the different places and circumstances

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i meant huge lumps of salt in the ocean

      Delete
  11. because people are not so intelligent enough to understand everything at a time... It was given to us in dozes... Sankaracharya who came in the 5th century is non other than annincarnation of Lord Shiva , the greatest VAishnava, who was been sent by the Lord to start with beginning of making people believe again on Vedas which disappeared due to atheism... In his commentary he has himself said that the Supreme Personality of Godhead Govinda is beyond the cosmic manifestation.. They are all guided by the caitya guru residing in everyone's heart as parmatma which one gets through mercy. In Bhagavad Gita 4.11 Krsna says ye yatha mam prapadyante
    tams tathaiva bhajamy aham
    mama vartmanuvartante
    manusyah partha sarvasah
    All of them--as they surrender unto Me--I reward accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Prtha.

    and also in Bhagavad Gita he says : Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature and My supreme dominion over all that be.

    So ultimately, we have to know that we are not the controllers and who is in control...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ofcourse respect the acharyas because they are sent by the Supreme.. Just think how many actors who were there 5 decades ago are even known by us or recognized today but these acharyas even though they never worked for publicity are still famous and known among us and respected too, just because they are empowered by the Lord and spreading in their own capacities the glory of Sri Hari.
    What is the use of all this argumentations if you dont know the ultimate goal of life which is to attain the ultimate Love of Sri Krsna..
    I know still some of you won't be convinced and I am not even here to convince anyone here, because people will find their own argumentations to justify their will but The Absolute Truth won't change which has been imparted through the authorative disciplic succession.. Seeing oneself as God Is Mayavaad..We can never equal him.. The Supreme Lord is Sat Cid Ananda and Vigraha and we jivas are Sat Cid Ananda ...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Who do u think u are ?.. how dare u say madhva , shankara and Ramanuja are not enlightened .. Idiot .. You should read the life stories of these great mean to understand what they achieved at the end of their life .. Miracles they performed and how they transformed lifes of so many people .. Stop ur crap blog ..

    ReplyDelete
  14. hi,

    Need to dwelve more in this subject as none of us are knowledgable enough to comment on truyacharyaas or their philosophy. Particularly with our secular education background, understanding these philosophies and commenting on that is quite difficult. It looks like funny translation of Rg Veda by english or germans.

    I would like to place my view based on whatever I have read / heard so far.

    Let us try to understand difference between enlightened vs scholor using the examples given above by Sri Sharma,

    Buddha the so called enlightened is basically propounded his own religious doctrine and started propogating the same.Budha's system is against the veda's.

    Thriacharya's are basically are staunch supporters of veda's and its philosphies. All their works are basically interpretation of Brahman within the doctrine of Veda's. Hence they have not created new religion rather sticked to vedantic religion or sanatana dharma.

    All their interpretation are based on brahma sutra written by our great perceptor Sage VedVyas.

    So with the above arguments we can derive that enlightened are not scholors but scholors can be enlightened.

    In India we have lot of enlightened souls with or without followers but only countable like our thriacharyas who are both enlightened and scholor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Sathiyanarayanan, the word enlightenment in English is a misleading one. It actually doesn't mean Moksha. There is no word in English that conveys an exact meaning of Moksha. We can say that the three Acharyas were enlightened with the knowledge of the Vedas. However enlightenment with knowledge makes one a scholar but Moksha is a state in which all knowledge is drained out as garbage.

      Delete
  15. Sankaracharya is noting....he is avatara of manimath the rakshas in mahabharatha ...he had killed by bhima...in dwarayuga ...but he prayed to lord shiva...to learn the veda...in next avatara ...so shiva had told that my avaysha will come with you ..so that you can learn the veda in next janama ....so he learn veda ...Sankaracharya went to kashi to learn brahmasutra but fact is that all vedas are in the hand of vedavyasa...Sankaracharya stoled that from vedavyasa with the help of shiva..and wrote bhasaya totally opposite to that original bharma sutras ...but vedavyasa is karuna samdara ..he not used his power to oppose him....because vedavyasa know that vayu will take birth as madwa he will correct all mistakes of manimath....as manimath was a rakshasa his aim is to show wrong path to sujana that he did ...don 't follow Sankaracharya policy...if you want read both bharma sutra bhasya written by Sankaracharya and madhwacharya you only come to know the truth......if you follow Sankaracharya means you are going with rakshasa

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Baap Re I have seen many stories for and against acharyas. But this is the limit. Whatever be your 'matha' (opinion), respect all the three acharyas equally else u will be a rakshasa.

      Delete
    2. This how Madhva sect teaches its people about Shankara sect. It's typical talibanism of Hindu Philosphy. For Madhva, caste system is supreme. For them Brahmin's are supreme even though people from other sects accept Madhva Philosphy, still all rituals are to performed by Brahmins. Being a Brahmin myself, this is one of the absurd arguments people like Kavya have. If you look at Maanisha Panchakam, he praises that a Guru is devoid of Brahman or a Shudra, he who is pure is enough to be a guru. If the philosphies of Madhavcharya are designed to seperate people on basis of caste,then who is rakshasa is quite clear. Kavya, all the acharya's are just Scholars. They had their greatness and weakness. They were human beings. They viewed God and vedas like light through prism...each one focussed on one aspect of the Great One and commented/ If Shankara said, the seven colours is an illusion, he is right for there exists one Light which is white and Madhwacharya said, the seven colours and the white light are seperate because you see them seperately although albit the prism. While Ramanujacharya said, whichever is the colour and medium, there is God . These three thoughts are right and wrong as we know Light is both visible and invisible...so please stop this tirade against Shankarcharya....

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. I salute to all acharyas. I am no one to talk about Acharyas. But couldn’t see that some are insulting the acharyas. Do you know if you insult any acharya neither Lord Vishnu nor Lord shiva will accept you. It’s the biggest sin.


      I am a Vaishnavite.. My grandfather has written Sri ramakoti (1.3 crore times). I pray to Lord Vishnu(goddess lakshmi), Lord Shiva, Shakti goddess, Lord Subramanya, Lord Ganesha. I pray to them equally.

      Sri Adi Shankaracharya too is a Vaishnavite. Sri Adi shankara’s parents gave him his name. Their family diety is Lord Krishna. His name doesn’t mean he is devotee of lord shiva only. Adi shankaracharya wrote hymns on all Gods and explained how we should worship every god. His 1st hymn was krishnashtakam.

      What is the difference between we vaishnavites and Muslims, Christians. They all say their god is the only god.

      AdiShankara also wrote
      bhaja govindam, Vishnu shatpadi stotram, nrusimha karavalamba stotram, narayana stotram,

      The other great acharyas ramanju, madhava saw every god as lord Vishnu. That doesn’t mean that other gods were ignored by them. Shankaracharya approach was different in the sense he too sees the same in all gods. But he took that extra effort to explain the concept of multiple gods clearly so that we don’t fight on these things.


      Eeshwara is the ultimate divine power, who does one functionality for the sake of the universe. Venkateshwara is the one who cuts of the sins. Similary Rudreshwara has his own functionality.

      I am explaining how i manage to worship all the dieties with equal devotion. I pray to Lord Shiva in the Night and Lord Venkateshwara in the morning. Before starting my Puja or any activity I pray to Lord Ganesha and to Lord Vishnu. This can be done before any activity.

      For 10 years i wanted to know why they are different. if they are different then whats the difference in what they do.

      Lord Shiva bestows with the energy (in the form of goddess shakti). This happens in the night when we take rest,sleep(lower form of meditation). Now in the day(when you are active) how to utlize that energy is crucial.

      If you use it such way that it follows dharma, then Lord Vishnu who is the project manager(administrator) will see to that you are saved from evil. Else if
      you dont follow the dharma , Lord Vishnu makes sure results are bestowed as per the karma.

      Even if you are shaivaite and dont follow dharma, Lord shiva doesnt interfere in Lord vishnu functioning to deal with that person. For example Ravana. Lord shiva's job was to fill Jeeva Shakti into you and live harmoniously in the universe. Gain the knowledge, let your soul evolve and attain god. You didnt pay heed to Lord Shiva intention and you misused it. So lord vishnu will deal with you.

      Note::If you observe kings, kshatriyas they do meditation and tapasya for many years to attain astra and shastras. Why do they meditate and then only achieve these. Why cant they be alive and be in public and attain those tremendous energy. Because its very tough to do so and i guess least likely to be done.

      ( As per thinking of demons). You cannot worship lord shiva and say i will kill lord vishnu Or Vice versa. because both of them get the energy from Supreme Lord Eeshwara. They are equal with different functionality to do. Worshipping any of them leads to final destination Lord Eeshwara. Lord Eeshwara is all Gods combined. This is whom muslims refer to Allah. And chistians refere to as Jesus's father. The Hindus mastered the art of seeing the same in all Gods and able to worship gods as per the situation.

      For example :: Annamacharya is devotee of lord venkateswara prayed to lord narasimha while he was tied ot being tortured by the king. Because the purpose of Narasimha avatara is to protect his devotees immedeately. Why didn’t he pray to lord venkateswara in that case ?


      Adi shankara was protected by Lord Narasimha when he was attached by kapalikas.









      Delete
  16. You have said all the three views promoted by the three acharyas are not correct. Again you have given your idea about enlightenment. Yes I confirm your idea of enlightenment is true to the way of truth. But these must be the characteristics of a true advaita scholar. This was established by Swami Vivekananda. I can talk about the Shankaracharya, the advaita scholar who promoted the views of advaita vedanta. So first make the views of swami Vivekananda false then try to establish your views on advaita vedanta and Shankaracharya.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Shankracharya told aham brahmasmi...means i am parabrahma...in sankrit parabrahma means lord vishnu ...if you are vishnu then ...what his wife lakshmi belong to you ....your wife ha ha so funny ??so many mistake i show you what sankracharya did ...don 't tell about vivekananad..how much you know about vivekanand...do u know how he died ....??...do you any thing about astik and nastik.....astik means the man who believe in god ...nastik means who say i am god ..like rakshasa.....what shankracharya...and one more thing bhagavgita told to arjuna...by lord krishna....do you arjuna is one of the avatara of jayatheertharu...they are follower of acharya madhwa...and kaliyugada kamadenu and kalaparusha shri raghavendra they also told shankracharya is wrong..... Dvaitha is correct ...i think you know about the power of raghavendra ..swami vivekanand only write some books humanity in normal i read his whole history in book of "vira sanyasi vivekanada" ....he doesn't had asta siddi to help to normal people like us.. but raghavendra had that one....so that why so many bhakta are visiting mantralaya.......i had many books of many great people ...i know vivekananda was follower of shankracharya.......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You fool,you are comparing Raghavendraswamy to Vivekananda & how dare to talk about Shankaracharya.
      Vivekananda never ever say that he will cure the problems of common man,he has not told that he is enlighten person.His job to uplift the Hindhu culture & spread it to abroad.he defeated major scholars from abroad in Chicago & gave full respect for Indian tradition & believes.Dont talk silly on Vivekananda.How many youths are there to follow \Vivekanada ,do you know?Raghavendraswamygalu only shown the miracles & that to in India.I am having great respect on him.but for your argument dont compare with Vivekananda or Shankaracharya.Do you know what Shankaracharya tought us advitha exactly.In his teaching he said very clearly that God is one & only one, he will be seen different charector for diifferent purpose.As a supreme court judge looks in court as a judge,but when he is in house he is like as a family person & in public place he is as if an ordinary person.so brahma,vishnu & shiva all are same even Devi also, but act in different way as different person.But what Madhva is telling God that vishnu is supreme & shiva brahma are different.this is ridiculous.do you know most of present scholars accepted Shankaracharyas opinion.What Madhva was telling this universe is real,parabrahma is real,how it could be,but Shankaracharya told this universe is illusion & parabrahma is real.this is correct,because those days(during shankara or Madhva period)this universe was different including this earth as compare to present world.you might be knowing the science that before 20000 years back all continents were united ,now 7 continents are separated from each other due to continuous drift,it is still going on,now a days during rainy season summer will be there,during winter rainy season will be there,why it is so for.because this due to this universe keep on changing(metamorphosis)so shankara told this universe is not real.this shows very clearly how he realized on those days.by that time everything was fine except Hindhu dharma.By that time our dharma was declaining due to boudda dharma.so shiva incarninated as shankaracharya & he saved hindhu dharma.I know you people critisise always shiavas as well as smarthas.But smarthas always respect both shiva & vishnu equally with that devi.Becuase shankaracharya told us we have to worship different energy though it is from single source.How we are treating the vehicles like bike,car & areoplane or train.the basic fuel is same Diesel .we are admiring different vehicles according its standard & benefits.but source is same.simultaneously we can not ignore the lowest vehicle.because it has its own value.so Shankara told the same thing to our common man dont igniore all the different Gods.All are same but for different purpose god has manifested himself accordingly.
      Sorry for harsh words.
      Sukumar

      April 3, 2014 at 11:58 AM

      Delete
    2. Madhwa and raghavendra philosophies are offshoot of adisankara philosophies

      Delete
    3. Sri Raghavendra Swamy is in samadhi. That means he merged with Parah Brahman. We worship him as God. If he is different from Parah Brahman, how can he merge into Parah Brahman. So what do you call this dwaitha or adwaitha. After merging with Parah Brahman how can it be dwaitha.


      Adi Shankaracharya philosphy is when soul gets rid of all vasanas as explained in atmashtakam. That pure soul is indeed the parah brahmam. if we can achieve that state, we ourselves are parah brahmam. Thats aham brahmasmi.

      Lord vishnu has jagan mohini female avatar. Now what will godess lakshmi be to him. is she still his wife? What relation between them tell me.

      After one stage there is no male or female. Its just nirakara jyothi swarupa. There everything is one. No wife husband exists as its all one. if its one parah brahman, then how come godess lakshmi is different from parah brahman.

      Please explain if lord vishnu and siva dont like each other , how come lord ayyappa was born. What explains existence of guru dattatreya with all the 3 faces and 3 tattva in him.

      Delete
    4. Dear Vijay, what exactly do you understand when you say that someone is in Samadhi? We just have some knowledge about these terminologies. Can you experience what Raghavendra Swamy is experiencing? Whatever state Raghavendra Swamy is in is known only to him. We have no way of knowing it for ourselves. You start understanding these terms in actuality when you live life like them.
      You're referring to Vishnu and Lakshmi. These are puranic characters and normal rules applicable to humans don't apply to them. Puranas are not historical scriptures. They should be read with poetic touch.

      Delete
  18. Now tell me who is great raghavendra or vivekanand...if you give one example i will give you 10 example.... I had ability to prove shankracharya wrong and..i can prove that even Vivekananda also wrong ...do you have ability...to prove that raghavendra swami is wrong ..for you kind information i tell you that raghavendra swami only told that shankracharya was wrong with proof i Had all...do you want i tell you that too ..i don 't understand how fool vivekanand was he had followed that rakshasa....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. raghavendra in his previous birth is prahlada whom got initiated into mediation through lord siva. Madvacharya is a rudramsa saint like adi sankaracharya. Kavya is a bluffing witch.

      Delete
  19. Madhavacharya is not a scholor he is a incarnation of Lord HANUMAN into BHEEMA and next into MADHWACHARYA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you know that? Did lord Hanuman tell you this? I'm not denying that Madhwacharya is an incarnation. I'm only saying that apart from Madhwacharya nobody else can claim this. We listen to discourses of scholars, and they go on talking about the incarnation theories as if they have seen it themselves. We don't even understand what this incarnation is all about. We only have theoretical false idea about it.

      Delete
  20. S madhawacharya is avatara of lord hanuman...do you who is lord hanuman..is the avatara of vayu......i can explain that clearly in chalise(there is some misunderstanding in chalise i will tell the correct meaning of every line if you want)........now come to advaita and dvaitha i tell how is parabrahma is ........just imagine that parabrahma is human body consist of brain legs hand etc ...brain had ability to tell that i am master of everything......... but hands and legs even heart doesn 't have ability that to tell that i am master because brain control every activites of every part of body ...i consider that brain is lord vishnu...he had ability to tell that i am parabrahma...as he told in bhagvadgita...shiva doesn't shown vishwa roopa lord krishna only had showed that one...... because he is only a parabrahma ..... anybody can tell i am parabrahma...but fact is that they can 't show the vishwa roopa like vishnu so i tell that he is only parabrahma not everybody....consider that hands in human body it is like jeevathama But it doesn 't have ability to show all connection between every part ............but brain can shown every connection in human body ...so i tell brain is parabrahma....this is just an example i given here .....i tell how parabrahma look....he is like a light....and one more thing i want to tell you that about asta siddi even rakshas also had asta siddi but they will demolish with them(rakshas) when they die...you are praying to krishna rama and some more god they are not there here with there bodies ...but by telling there names only we can acheive anything what we want.....but telling Raksha's name we can 't achieve anything.......i tell you one truth that raksha's follow the truth path as goddess to acheive asta siddi after acheiving they always tell other wrong path only not truth ... ..that asta Siddi will vanish with them when they die.........

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. You fool,you are comparing Raghavendraswamy to Vivekananda & how dare to talk about Shankaracharya.
      Vivekananda never ever say that he will cure the problems of common man,he has not told that he is enlighten person.His job to uplift the Hindhu culture & spread it to abroad.he defeated major scholars from abroad in Chicago & gave full respect for Indian tradition & believes.Dont talk silly on Vivekananda.How many youths are there to follow \Vivekanada ,do you know?Raghavendraswamygalu only shown the miracles & that to in India.I am having great respect on him.but for your argument dont compare with Vivekananda or Shankaracharya.Do you know what Shankaracharya tought us advitha exactly.In his teaching he said very clearly that God is one & only one, he will be seen different charector for diifferent purpose.As a supreme court judge looks in court as a judge,but when he is in house he is like as a family person & in public place he is as if an ordinary person.so brahma,vishnu & shiva all are same even Devi also, but act in different way as different person.But what Madhva is telling God that vishnu is supreme & shiva brahma are different.this is ridiculous.do you know most of present scholars accepted Shankaracharyas opinion.What Madhva was telling this universe is real,parabrahma is real,how it could be,but Shankaracharya told this universe is illusion & parabrahma is real.this is correct,because those days(during shankara or Madhva period)this universe was different including this earth as compare to present world.you might be knowing the science that before 20000 years back all continents were united ,now 7 continents are separated from each other due to continuous drift,it is still going on,now a days during rainy season summer will be there,during winter rainy season will be there,why it is so for.because this due to this universe keep on changing(metamorphosis)so shankara told this universe is not real.this shows very clearly how he realized on those days.by that time everything was fine except Hindhu dharma.By that time our dharma was declaining due to boudda dharma.so shiva incarninated as shankaracharya & he saved hindhu dharma.I know you people critisise always shiavas as well as smarthas.But smarthas always respect both shiva & vishnu equally with that devi.Becuase shankaracharya told us we have to worship different energy though it is from single source.How we are treating the vehicles like bike,car & areoplane or train.the basic fuel is same Diesel .we are admiring different vehicles according its standard & benefits.but source is same.simultaneously we can not ignore the lowest vehicle.because it has its own value.so Shankara told the same thing to our common man dont igniore all the different Gods.All are same but for different purpose god has manifested himself accordingly.
      Sorry for harsh words.
      Sukumar

      Delete
    3. You fool,you are comparing Raghavendraswamy to Vivekananda & how dare to talk about Shankaracharya.
      Vivekananda never ever say that he will cure the problems of common man,he has not told that he is enlighten person.His job to uplift the Hindhu culture & spread it to abroad.he defeated major scholars from abroad in Chicago & gave full respect for Indian tradition & believes.Dont talk silly on Vivekananda.How many youths are there to follow \Vivekanada ,do you know?Raghavendraswamygalu only shown the miracles & that to in India.I am having great respect on him.but for your argument dont compare with Vivekananda or Shankaracharya.Do you know what Shankaracharya tought us advitha exactly.In his teaching he said very clearly that God is one & only one, he will be seen different charector for diifferent purpose.As a supreme court judge looks in court as a judge,but when he is in house he is like as a family person & in public place he is as if an ordinary person.so brahma,vishnu & shiva all are same even Devi also, but act in different way as different person.But what Madhva is telling God that vishnu is supreme & shiva brahma are different.this is ridiculous.do you know most of present scholars accepted Shankaracharyas opinion.What Madhva was telling this universe is real,parabrahma is real,how it could be,but Shankaracharya told this universe is illusion & parabrahma is real.this is correct,because those days(during shankara or Madhva period)this universe was different including this earth as compare to present world.you might be knowing the science that before 20000 years back all continents were united ,now 7 continents are separated from each other due to continuous drift,it is still going on,now a days during rainy season summer will be there,during winter rainy season will be there,why it is so for.because this due to this universe keep on changing(metamorphosis)so shankara told this universe is not real.this shows very clearly how he realized on those days.by that time everything was fine except Hindhu dharma.By that time our dharma was declaining due to boudda dharma.so shiva incarninated as shankaracharya & he saved hindhu dharma.I know you people critisise always shiavas as well as smarthas.But smarthas always respect both shiva & vishnu equally with that devi.Becuase shankaracharya told us we have to worship different energy though it is from single source.How we are treating the vehicles like bike,car & areoplane or train.the basic fuel is same Diesel .we are admiring different vehicles according its standard & benefits.but source is same.simultaneously we can not ignore the lowest vehicle.because it has its own value.so Shankara told the same thing to our common man dont igniore all the different Gods.All are same but for different purpose god has manifested himself accordingly.
      Sorry for harsh words.
      Sukumar

      Delete
    4. think Kavya and sharma can join together and start their own ashram and propose their own philosophy. It will be better than to criticize the great 3 acharyas.

      Delete
  21. Quote
    Madhvacharya' s philosophy is also called as Tattvavada because his philosophy is based on "Vaada" or arguments.
    Unquote

    Foolish :)

    A man with totally unbiased thoughts, but having least competence on the subject, is still unworthy for consideration. Articles with mistakes as silly as these can be trashed even before finishing reading.

    May God bless you :)

    ReplyDelete
  22. [Quote]
    For a person not having attained Moksha, Dvaitha seems to be the reality. For an enlightened man, Advaitha is the reality. What stops a non-enlightened person from experiencing Advaitha is the "thought" that he is separate from the rest of the universe. This separative thought structure is not easy to get rid of and not necessary too. If the thought structure collapses it defeats the very purpose of creation.
    [Unquote]

    A copy paste of Ramakrishna Mutt's teachings about the philosophies of the three Acharyas which the Acharya's themselves do not accept! Such a travesty :)

    ReplyDelete
  23. Though your article has a lot of factual mistakes and debate-able points, the fact that you start thinking and writing about them is the first step as per Brahmasutras. The uttara mImAmsa starts as "atAto brahma jignyAsA". Regards

    ReplyDelete
  24. By reading Mr. Sharma's view about the Achryatrayas and the discussions of you all regarding Shsrma's views, I have a strong feeling to express my views with my sincere regards to the great acharyas.

    In the first place, Sri. Adishankara went all over India, not to wipe out Buddhism, but to fight against Etheism. I don't oppose when you say that Swami Vivekanada was enlightened. Are you not aware that he also went to Chicago to uphold Hindu Dharma.

    The three acharyas have tried to teach people about Brahman in their own way. If we study their teachings and ideas of Brahman, their ideas are not contradictory, but they are complementary.

    So I think that it is better to quit discussing this matter, as this appears to be more of fighting in nature rather than discussion,

    Long back , our people and rulers fought with each other and fought among themselves and paved the way for the foreigners to rule over for nearly two centuries and we are eating the fruits of those quarrels even today. Now if we fight among themselves as to who is enlightened and who is not or who is more enlightened than the other, we will be left fighting among themselves leaving others grow with our vedantic ideas and get their benefits.

    I have read 'American Veda' written by. " Philip Goldberg" who is a great scholar and has studied Upanishad, Brahma Sutras and Srimad Bhagavad Geetha and he has a great reverence for them. He is not the only one, but so many western scholars and philosophers have such a great regards for our Vedanta and vedantis and enjoying the kernel while we are quarrelling for the outer shell.

    I would like to quote a fe w lines from that book, he says, " instead of having the material wealth of Hindus, if the Britishers had had snatched their spiritual wealth, they would have benefited more.

    In the ladder of spiritual level, we are in the lowest step. To judge such great Mahatmas, we should reach the top most step.

    When Sri Shankara says, ' aham brahmasmi ' , the individual soul is a SMALL PART OF THE ENLIGHTENED SOUL. JUST THAT. There is only One Brahman, no second.

    Please go to, "www.American Veda. Com". And read the book online.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. correct and calm thinking. by 'aham brahmasmi' Acharya meant not himself but everything is (part of) brahma. respect all the 3 acharyas equally.

      Delete
  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Sharmaji how could u miss this
    manobuddhyahaṃkāra chittāni nāhaṃ
    na cha śrotrajihve na cha ghrāṇanetre
    na cha vioma bhūmir na tejo na vāyuḥ
    chidānandarūpaḥ śhivo'ham śhivo'ham
    (Sanskrit:मनोबुद्धयहंकार चित्तानि नाहं, न च श्रोत्रजिव्हे न च घ्राणनेत्रे । न च व्योम भूमिर्न तेजो न वायुः, चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ।। 1 ।। )
    na ca praṇasajño na vai paṃcavāyuḥ
    na vā saptadhātur na vā paṃcakośaḥ
    na vākpāṇipādaṃ na copasthapāyu
    cidānandarūpaḥ śivo'ham śivo'ham
    (Sanskrit:न च प्राणसंज्ञो न वै पंचवायुः, न वा सप्तधातुः न वा पञ्चकोशः । न वाक्पाणिपादं न चोपस्थपायु, चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ।। 2 ।। )
    na me dveşarāgau na me lobhamohau
    mado naiva me naiva mātsaryabhāvaḥ
    na dharmo na cārtho na kāmo na mokşaḥ
    cidānandarūpaḥ śivo'ham śivo'ham
    (Sanskrit:न मे द्वेषरागौ न मे लोभमोहौ, मदो नैव मे नैव मात्सर्यभावः । न धर्मो न चार्थो न कामो न मोक्षः, चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ।। 3 ।। )
    na puṇyaṃ na pāpaṃ na saukhyaṃ na dukhyaṃ
    na mantro na tīrthaṃ na vedā na yajña
    ahaṃ bhojanaṃ naiva bhojyaṃ na bhoktā
    cidānandarūpaḥ śivo'ham śivo'ham
    (Sanskrit:न पुण्यं न पापं न सौख्यं न दुःखं, न मन्त्रो न तीर्थो न वेदा न यज्ञ । अहं भोजनं नैव भोज्यं न भोक्ता, चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ।। 4 ।। )
    na me mṛtyuśaṃkā na me jātibhedaḥ
    pitā naiva me naiva mātā na janmaḥ
    na bandhur na mitraṃ gurunaiva śişyaḥ
    cidānandarūpaḥ śivo'ham śivo'ham
    (Sanskrit:न मे मृत्युशंका न मे जातिभेदः, पिता नैव मे नैव माता न जन्मः । न बन्धुर्न मित्रं गुरूर्नैव शिष्यः, चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ।। 5 ।। )
    ahaṃ nirvikalpo nirākāra rūpo
    vibhutvāca sarvatra sarveṃdriyāṇaṃ
    na cāsangata naiva muktir na meyaḥ
    cidānandarūpaḥ śivo'ham śivo'ham
    (Sanskrit:अहं निर्विकल्पो निराकार रूपो, विभुत्वाच सर्वत्र सर्वेन्द्रियाणाम् । न चासङत नैव मुक्तिर्न मेयः, चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ।। 6 ।। )



    AND HERE SHIVA REFERS TO THE ETERNAL PARA BRAHMAN AND NOT LORD SHIVA and SOME CHEAP PPL TO SPREAD -VE Publicity against Shankara & bias him as Shaiva can think Shiva as Lord Shiva.
    Shankara was thus indeed a true figure of history

    ReplyDelete
  27. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Meaning

    1) I am not mind, nor intellect, nor ego, nor the reflections of inner self (chitta). I am not the five senses. I am beyond that. I am not the ether, nor the earth, nor the fire, nor the wind (the five elements). I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Shivam), love and pure consciousness.
    2) Neither can I be termed as energy (prana), nor five types of breath (vayus), nor the seven material essences, nor the five coverings (pancha-kosha). Neither am I the five instruments of elimination, procreation, motion, grasping, or speaking. I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Shivam), love and pure consciousness.
    3) I have no hatred or dislike, nor affiliation or liking, nor greed, nor delusion, nor pride or haughtiness, nor feelings of envy or jealousy. I have no duty (dharma), nor any money, nor any desire (kama), nor even liberation (moksha). I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Shivam), love and pure consciousness.
    4) I have neither merit (virtue), nor demerit (vice). I do not commit sins or good deeds, nor have happiness or sorrow, pain or pleasure. I do not need mantras, holy places, scriptures (Vedas), rituals or sacrifices (yagnas). I am none of the triad of the observer or one who experiences, the process of observing or experiencing, or any object being observed or experienced. I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Shivam), love and pure consciousness.
    5) I do not have fear of death, as I do not have death. I have no separation from my true self, no doubt about my existence, nor have I discrimination on the basis of birth. I have no father or mother, nor did I have a birth. I am not the relative, nor the friend, nor the guru, nor the disciple. I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Shivam), love and pure consciousness.
    6) I am all pervasive. I am without any attributes, and without any form. I have neither attachment to the world, nor to liberation (mukti). I have no wishes for anything because I am everything, everywhere, every time, always in equilibrium. I am indeed, That eternal knowing and bliss, the auspicious (Shivam), love and pure consciousness.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  30. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hello Sir Sharma How can say Shankara was not spiritually not enlightened??? Just read the nirvana shataka above & find how Shankara answered his guru. This shows his true enlightenment

    @ Kavya
    Some later dvaita scholars wanted to popularize their product DVAITA. So they adopted very cheap means which was to condemn Shankara calling him with all their non sense stories.
    Very Vayu's incarnation as Madvacharya was drive away people from realizing the state of Advaita. You can see it in the works of Yagnavalkya Maharishi
    Madvacharya's later disciples did all kind of false publicity against Advaita & Shankara. They even went to the extent calling Shankara as the son of widow!!! I am really disappointed with this.
    I AM NOT AN ADVAITIAN but I don dare to speak against false means adopted
    Shankara was real gem of an incarnation. SANATANA DHARMA IS SUSTAINING TODAY IN INDIA ONLY BECOZ OF SRI SHANKARA. I am not against Madvacharya or his disciples but I am against those cheap means adopted by some people of the past which is shaking the roots of unity in Hinduism. At last we must do respect all Acharyas. Calling Shankara as a raakshasa is highly unfair and only represents the non acceptance of Shankara and his true tatva, Advaita. (A good cooked up story to defame Shankara done in the past BUT ended in failure)
    Even today Advaita is the most accepted philosophy all over the world. All great men have taken the path of Advaita. Swami Vivekananda may not have done wonders like Raghavendra swami but has surely done wonder in the field of Spiritual relationship. He accepted in the oneness of universe and such men are very rare.
    At last, Shankara directly witnessed the blessings of Lord Lakshmi Narasimha, Sharadamba and Lord Shiva. He worked for the unity of nation. He was above all castes and showed the right path. Even Ramanuja went in this context.
    We need one more Shankaracharya to be reborn to save our Hinduism.
    Hari om

    ReplyDelete
  32. Mr. Sharma, DO NOT spread your evil pre-conceived ideas & notions, wrong information, incorrect stories and false knowledge about Sriman Madhvacharya and his Dwaita or Tattvavada philosophy and also about Madhva Peethadipathis and Madhva Sampradaya. You have NO RIGHT to comment upon Divine Personalities like Sriman Madhvacharya or Sri Ramanujacharya, as neither you have capacity to understand nor you have the capacity to acquire true knowledge about them in this lifetime. STOP your evil ways of analyzing, interpreting and commenting about them through your little brain which is of no use at all. And certainly DO NOT call them as mere scholars as they are enlightened Divine Personalities who came on Earth for the purpose of mankind, which you WILL certainly NOT understand. It is a shame that persons like you exist in our society and dare to comment and demean our Great Gurus of the world. There is no basis for your opinions, understandings and knowledge either in case of our great Acharyas like Sriman Madhvacharya or Sri Ramanujacharya, or, in case of the history and evolution of Hindu religion and culture along with other religions. You have committed a great sin by demeaning our great Gurus, for which you have to certainly beg pardon from ALL our existing Acharyas at the earliest, else, it will be proved that they can be no bigger sinner in this world than you.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Quoote:
    To give you a crude glimpse of how an enlightened man feels in his day to day life, if a dog barks and heard by this enlightened man, he feels that the barking sound is coming from within him as if he's barking.

    Stupid :)

    When a pig is eating shit etc, if the enlightened also has to feel all that, in what way is he enlightened?
    First understand correctly what enlightenment is and then you can conclude if somebody else is enlightened or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your are true that the acharyas are NOT enlightened, only in the sense that they don't feel that they are barking, when you bark in the form of this blog.

      Get well soon.

      Delete
  34. if you cannot convince try to confuse. Here the author is himself a confused one, he sans knowledge of the teachings of our Acharya.s and the article is only to gain attention towards him like modern days BUDDI JEEVI....WHO KNOWS this article may be nominated for Gnana peeta award like the article of Buddi jeevi's. Total farce.....

    ReplyDelete
  35. I believe u should stick to nursery school math Mr Sharma as ur profile says not writing grand articles on Acharyas. U say why should we rely on Prasthanatraya ? Are you Hindu or any other ? Krishna says Shastra alone is pramanya or proof and here you're claiming against these. Start from nursery of sprirituality i.e of praying then come to the higher level of Vedanta.

    ReplyDelete
  36. From ,the posts above, i have learned clearly that people are abusing great ones with out reason. Moola gurus must not be the subject of the debate. If someone finds fault in either of acharyas works then their hatred must come in the form of defying their works ,not in the form of abusing their moola gurus.eg If one finds difficulties in advaita it must first be discussed and clarified.Not just abused with out any strong base for their argument.

    "LET THINGS BE DISCUSSED BEFORE CRITICIZED".

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Some later dvaita scholars wanted to popularize their product DVAITA. So they adopted very cheap means which was to condemn Shankara calling him with all their non sense stories.
    Very Vayu's incarnation as Madvacharya was drive away people from realizing the state of Advaita. You can see it in the works of Yagnavalkya Maharishi
    Madvacharya's later disciples did all kind of false publicity against Advaita & Shankara. They even went to the extent calling Shankara as the son of widow!!! I am really disappointed with this. "

    You are under an illusion ,that the lineage of madhwa did false things to advaita i.e shankara. Please go through the correct works before posting such things.Madhwas never adopted cheap means to condemn advaita.
    These type of thoughts have been awoked by persons who hate madhwa mata.If at all madhwas used cheap means then ,nyayamruta might not have the highest dialectical ,thought provoking,logical,text ever written.Please go through the subject before commenting false rumours.
    The stories you have heard are just false ones,it is clearly due to the hatred of advaitins towars dvaitis,that they create stories and insult us for no actual reason.Its not only the above post ,but i have read even more rediculous stories about madhwa and his lineage which are foolishly created by advaitis to insult dvaitis.
    If the original poster of the comment is unaware of the following fact,then i would be happy if he, after reading my comment, changes his views.
    If he is doing even after knowing the truth ,then the original poster is in ignorance,i request him to change his views.
    Thank you.
    Hari sarvottama.
    Vayu Jeevottama.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Mr suresh anand,

    I hereby conclude that as already said before you are under the illusion that madhwa and his lineage did bad things to condemn shankara and his lineage.
    Its really surprising to hear such sad thoughts from people.Madhwas were not the ones who stated that shankara was a demon, it was already concluded in the puranas.If you are so interested in learning, then please go through padma purana,where it is mentioned that shankara is a demon named manimantha.Madhwas only concluded the already concluded part from the padma purana,they did not create stories.Do you conclude that padma purana is also a cooked up story?Please come out of your ignorance.People accepting advaita does not conclude its supremecy at all, if it was so then christianity would rank first above all sects of relegions.Please don't conclude everything yourselves. All great men did not choose advaita,it was only some who chose it.Infact all great men chose dvaita,as the correct one.My intention is not to defame advaita, it is purely to appose false stories created by them to defame Dvaitis.If at all you seem to have doubts in dvaita,then please bring it in the form of debate,BUT NOT IN THE FORM OF COOKED UP STORIES.
    Thank you.
    Hari Sarvottama.
    Vayu Jeevottama.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. respect all 3 acharyas equally , u may agree or disagree with their 'matha' (opinion)

      Delete
  39. A well written article Sharma ji, it is thought provoking.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I have a question about madwa philosophy
    1) for madwas there are 5 bedas
    *)jada-jada
    *)jiva -jiva
    *)jiva-iswara
    *)jiswara-jada and jiva-jada
    ---------------------------------------...
    BUT TODAYS SCIENCE HAVE PROVED THAT THERE IS NO JADA-JADA BEDA.....i:e according to madhvaacharya ,gold can never become silver....but todays science have proved that by changing electronics configuration we can change gold to silver....WHICH ACCORDING TO MADHVAACHARYA IMPOSSIBLE !!!!!!!...because nothing,or jada loose their prakruthika guna according to madhvacharya,....
    2)jiva-jiva beda:
    accoring to dvaita each jiva is suguna and his prakrutika gunas are his own gunas.
    BUT ACCORDING TO ME PRAKRUTHIKA GUNAS ARE NOT OF ATHMAS AND IS SUPER IMPOSED ON ATHMA,BY READING MY FOLLOWING COMMENTS U PEOPLE COME TO KNOW........
    1)me myself, i am human i see another human in kama,but if i become dog in next janma,i see dog with kama.....so prakruthika guna kama is not atmans guna
    2) bhudhi:
    now when we are human we have high level of bhudhi,but if i become dog in next janma we have bhudhi of the level of dog,so budhi is not atmas guna
    if u go on thinking like that u will come to know that ,these gunas atman got from MAYA of jagath..and is not atmans guna ....so atman is nirgua and jagath is maya............so madwaacharya's jath is truth and 5 bedas are false.......
    CAN YOU PEOPLE PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTION?

    ReplyDelete
  41. ultimate knowledge is sacchidaanada. sacchidaananda is the personality(swarupa) of brahman....which means .....
    sat(always present)....chit(consiousness)......anadnda(bliss) .....when you experience.....this ananda(bliss).......that means your personality have become equal to sacchidaanada....in that state you have become sacchidaanada swarupi.....or in other words.....you have become sacchidaanada rupi brahman .....which is the ultimate knowledge....as vedas says.....
    so....you yourself.....have become sacchidaanada....which is ultimate knowledge....thats why vedas say.....prajgnam brahm....or brahman is knowledge.....and you are brahman.......(aham brahmamaasmi)......this is in breaf......the essence of jgnana yoga....

    ReplyDelete
  42. I am amazed to be responding to a blog started in 2009. Good Job Sharma and if at all your views have changed since 2009, please post it.

    Just for your clarity:

    Many saints including Maha Periyava have stated this "Whichever religion/sect you follow, you will have to follow it with all sincerity and never ever shy away from your day to day duties as written in your scripts"

    Being born as a Vaishnavite, I have to lead a life as per my Shastra. I cannot disobey this. Without a Guru/Acharya, I cannot attain Moksham.

    Conclusion: None of your views were offensive, just that people have to follow certain path to lead a pure life. The 3 acharyas (Ramanuja/Adi Shankara and Madhava) have indeed played a pivotal role in explaining the essence of Vedas. They have lived a life which can only be understood by those who think Vedas are pure!!

    Quote from Purusha Suktam:

    "tasmadviradajayata"
    Meaning: From him emerged the COSMOS

    "tasya tvasta vidadhadrüpameti"
    Meaning: He after creating Brahma, entered the forms created by Him.

    Thank you for initiating this topic.We will continue to learn spiritually and try to reduce our sins by not indulging in wrong deeds.

    With Regards,
    Bala.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Dear Readers, I'm indebted to your comments and suggestions. I have been constantly refining this blog based on reader comments and suggestions from my well wishers. While some of you have taken the content sportively, some others have taken it as personal abuse. Personally, I feel that Moksha cannot be anyone's goal because it is the absolute death or liberation of the Jivatma. For a moment just imagine that you want to get rid of your family, friends, parents, relatives, your office, your spiritual gurus, your beloved Acharya's teachings, your favorite food, movies, travel, career aspirations and anything else that may interest you - it takes enormous courage, isn't it? You as you know yourself come to an end in Moksha. Some of you feel that I don't have any right to talk about the Acharyas and their enlightenment state. If you strictly follow Upanishads, unless you put your own effort in realizing the truth, there is no way you can realize anything at all. What you have heard from third parties about the Acharyas has no value. Your own effort in reading their original teachings and living life like a mystic will help you understand the life they lived. The Acharyas were probably close to enlightenment but not yet there as they still had the desire to popularize their teachings and win over other siddhantas to establish theirs. Mystics overcome all desires, including the one to attain Moksha. Moksha is a state in which all your desires have ended and you have no purpose to live and hence the Jivatma comes to an end. You cannot train yourself to attain Moksha. It automatically comes to the one who is over-fulfilled with life's offerings. I have lived the life recommended by Upanishadic Gurus and that helped me enormously to understand what the Acharyas were talking about. It is difficult for us to clean our brainwashed minds to think independently so we feel offended if someone comments on the life of Acharyas. I strongly recommend you to read the first hand meaning of every Sanskrit word of the main 10 Upanishads and live life like that. If you are the one who just listens to spiritual discourses and reads books written by Swamijis, apply your own sub-caste brand of shape on your forehead, you'll never understand what this blog is talking about. Become your own master and have an open mind to learn, you'll see a completely different world and understand what I'm talking about.

    ReplyDelete