Is Sri ShankarAcharya a Demon??!! - 3

In the following video, the Dvaita scholar is continuing to provide more reasons to prove Sri Adi Shankaracharya as an incarnation of the demon, Maniman   : 

ಅದ್ವೈತಿ ಭಕ್ತನು ಜಗನ್ಮಾತೆಯರ ಪಾತಿವ್ರತ್ಯವನ್ನು ನಾಶ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಾನೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ ಶಂಕರರು ಗೌರವಕ್ಕೆ ಅರ್ಹರೇ?

Here is a high level summary of the above video:

In the Soundarya lahari, Acharya Shankara has written that a true Advaitic devotee of the Devi, will get to become equal to Brahma and Vishnu and will enjoy the company of their consort godesses like Saraswathi, Lakshmi and Rathi and will even attract them with his beauty, so much that they would even shirk from their Paativratyam or chastity. So, this is obviously demonic and proves that Shankara is the demon, Maniman.

Advaitin's Reply: 

This may apparantly appear to be demonic when the text is seen through the lens of Rajas and Tamas. But from the sattvic view point, the Advaitic Bhakta is only a child of the divine parents of Ishwara and Parvati who is the mAya shakti. The Advaitic devotee who is actually a jnAni is just a witness for the passtimes of the Ishwara and His mAyA shakti, manifesting in the form of all the many gods and godesses like Brahma-Saraswathi, Vishnu-Lakshmi and Manmatha-Rathi and so on. The devotion of such a devotee-JnAni who is a non-doer and non-enjoyer (with no karthrutva or bhoktrutva ) is nothing but an expression of pure love to the divinity, similar to Gopika bhakti towards Sri Krishna. That kind of a spiritual or pure devotion should never be reduced or compared to the mundane human lust. 

He could be considered "equal" to Brahma, Vishnu and Manmatha only in similarity of their auspicious gunas or attributes. Advaitic devotee's sankalpa aligns or becomes one with that of Ishwara, which is always directed towards loka kalyana, jagat or dharma rakshana. The entire world of nature or prakruti is the Mother and Ishwara as the husband, is her protector. Like wise, Advaita jnAni who is their child, is also a protector of Dharma or Jagat or Prakruthi who is also in the form of his mother. The Vishnu Purana clearly states that all feminine forms are of Lakshmi and all masculine forms are Vishnu. All the godesses like Saraswathi, Lakshmi, Rathi and so on are different forms of the mother only for an Advaita jnAni-Bhakta. So as a protector of his Mother, he can be considered as her "husband" also. The words 'sapatna" or "samana" in Soundarya lahari, should only be interpreted in this sattvic way. There is only pure unadulterated love or prema between Ishwara and his consort in the spiritual realm with no tinge of earthly "lust". 

The Vedic mantra that is used in marriages states - "AtmA vai putra nAmAsi" which means that the husband himself is born as the son from his consort. The devotee is a child and Ishwara and his consort Shakti are his divine parents. The reference to the advaitic devotee "enjoying" the company of the godesses should only be taken as a child enjoying the company of it's mother. The so called "shirking from pAtivratyam or chastity" of the divine mothers, is nothing but the pure motherly love and appreciation of the devotee child, who, due to his constant contemplation, acquires similar gunas and attributes of his divine father, Ishwara! 

So, there is no such thing as shirking from Paativratyam or chastity, on the part of the divine mothers and there is no such thing as advaitic devotee becoming equal to Brahma or Vishnu.

Objection: Then why did Shankara not explicitly state the Advaitic devotee as the child of the Mother? He himself has interpreted the word "sapatna" as a "shatru" or enemy, elsewhere. So the above interpretation goes against that.

Explanation: Yes, in the act of protecting His mother (Parkruthi / Nature / Dharma) Advaitic jnAni bhakta could also be considered as a "enemy" or "competitor" for Ishwara in a positive sense, because such a jnAni, unlike Ishwara, will not hate his haters also, just like sage Vasishta tolerating all the hardhips caused by Vishwamitra! 

Namaste

Suresh

Is Sri ShankarAcharya a Demon??!! - 2

 

In this Youtube Video - Advaitins cannot even realize Advaita with Sri Shankara - a Dvaita scholar is trying to claim Sri Shankara is indeed a demon by name Maniman.

Here is a highlevel summary of the above Video:

In the Madhva siddhanta, Acharya Sri Shankara is considered to be a reincarnation of a demon called Maniman. Obviously, Advaitins are considering this as an insult to their Acharya and they are asking to review and re-edit all such texts where this claim is made and remove all such derogatory remarks against Acharya Sri Shankara. The Shiroor Mutt swamiji from the Madhva tradition, who is currently in charge of the paryaya system in the Udupi Krishna temple, has agreed to do the same. But many fanatic Dvaita scholars are opposing Sri Shiroor Mutt Swamiji's move and are trying to support the claim that Sri Adi Shankaracharya is an incarnation of the demon, Maniman. 

This is a very dangerous development that can divide and fragment Hindus, destroy Sanatana Hindu dharma. So here is a humble attempt to refute fanatic Dvaitin's claim, in the above Youtube video, with the sole intention to bring Harmony among all the different Vedic Hindu traditions.

Dvaitin's first argument:

As per the transitive law in Mathemeatics, if a = b and c = b, then it follows that a = c. Accordingly, if Shankara = Brahman and Maniman = Brahman then what it is the problem for Advaitins in accepting Shankara = Maniman?

Advaitin's reply: 

The above is a very childish argument, because based on the same logic, it follows that even Madhva = Maniman and every Maadhva = Maniman! 

The Advaitic Brahman is the Universal Self in which every particular self is rooted. There is no separate identification for the inividual self. All names and forms like Shankara and Maniman only point to the Universal non-dual Self which is beyond names and forms, and is everywhere! 

The difference in names, forms and gunas or attributes are not denied and accepted as transactional reality and there is no "equality" as such between any particular name or form in transaction. So Dvaitin's claim that Shankara = Maniman, which is not even supported by any scriptural statement, stands refuted!

Dvaitin's second argument:

We Dvaitins, the followers of Madhva, accept there is no swagata bheda between any form of Vishnu. We accept aikya or oneness in all the infinite forms of Vishnu - like the Matsya, Kurma, Varaaha, Narasimha, Raama, Krishna and so on. Likewise, we accept oneness between all the many forms of Shiva - like the Shiva, Rudra, Kashi Vishwanatha, Somanaatheshwara, Kailaseshwara, Ashwatthaama, Durvasa, Shukamuni and so on.  Similarly we accept oneness in the form of Vayu, Hanuma, Bheema and so on...

We Madhvas meditate on the above oneness of deities. Can Advaitins do the same with Shankara and Maniman? Advaitin's cannot practice what they preach!!

Advaitin's reply:

Advaitins meditate on the oness of the entire universe (Vishwa) with the Atman which is explicitly taught in the Mandukya upanishath. They SEE the entire universe in the Self and the Self in the Universe which is very experietial. They SEE Brahman through all names and forms. But difference in names, forms and qualities is accepted in transaction. So the oneness in all the Vishnu's forms, Shiva's forms and other devata's forms are all accepted. Ultimately the oneness of the Ishwara with the entire universe is also accepted as per BhagavadGita, VishnuSahasranAma dhyana sloka and Purusha Sukta. Are Dvaitins ready to accept this universal form of the Lord?

Dvaitins preach Ishwara is swatantra (independent) and Jiva is paratantra (dependent). In transaction, every jiva is absolutely dependent on the universe for existence. So it follows that the entire universe is Ishwara and all jivas are not external to Him. Every name and form has no separate existence apart from the Universe. When the entire Universe is realized as the ONE universal form of Ishwara, Advaita automatically gets established. 

If Dvaitin's accept the oneness of Vishnu who is present in all Jiva and Jada, as their inner Self (paramAtma) - then it leads to Advaita only. The self (jiva or atman) has to separate identification apart from Ishwara/Brahman who is everywhere.

Dvaita is indirectly teaching Advaita only.

 

Namaste

Suresh

Is Sri ShankarAcharya a Demon??!! - 1

 

Acharya Shankara is very well known as the savior of Vedic Hindu religion who established the philosophy of non-dualism or Advaita by intellectually debating and defeating all other non-Vedic schools of philosophy including Buddhism, that were prevalent during his time.

Later on, other Acharyas like Ramanuja and Madhva found problems with Advaita and propounded the VishishtAdvaita and Dvaita or Tattvavada schools of Vedanta.

Dvaita saints and scholars vehemently opposed Advaita and have produced many scholarly works refuting Advaita and VishishtAdviata also.

Sri Madhvacharya, in is his work called “Mahabharata taatparya Nirnaya” has mentioned that Shri Shankara in his previous life was a demon called Maniman who got killed by Bhima in the Mahabharata. The same Maniman took birth again as Sri Shankara, a brahmin saint in Kaliyuga and preached the Advaita philosophy that essentially teaches “I am God” which is said to be demonic and therefore goes against the Veda and the Vedic Supreme God Vishnu.

Later, another scholar from the Dvaita school, Sri Narayana panditacharya, in his book called “Mani Manjari” has made derogatory remarks against Sri Shankara. He has referred to Shankara as “Sankara” which means “One who is corrupted” and also mentioned that his mother was a characterless woman.

Recently, in the Udupi Sri Krishna Mata, which is the most sacred place for the Madhva school, some children gave a presentation on the “Mani Manjari” mentioning Sri Shankara as the demon Maniman in his previous life. This obviously has pained all the many saints and scholars devoted to Sri Shankara’s Advaita tradition and they all strongly objected to this incident.

The current Dvaita saint from the Shiroor Mutt tradition, who is currently in charge of the Udupi Mutt, positively responded to this and he invited the same children again and requested them to apologize for the incident and also eulogized Sri Shankara thereby helping to bring peace and harmony between the two schools of Vedanta. They also mentioned the need to review and cleanup such texts in the Dvaita tradition by removing such controversial topics.

But this has not gone well with few other Madhva scholars and they have openly condemned Sri Shiroor Mutt Swamiji for having gone against the Madhwa tradition and have put out couple of videos on the Youtube, arguing in favor of Sri Madhva’s writings that Sri Shankara is indeed an incarnation of the demon Maniman. They have also openly challenged Advaitins and followers of Sri Shankara to try to answer their questions. Few Advaitins have tried to counter but I found that was not good enough and intellectually sound. 

This kind of internal quarrels between the followers of Sri Madhwa and Sri Shankara is not good for the Hindu society, especially in the light of Hindu hatred and in particular Brahmin hatred that is very much prevalent in the recent times. Many Abrahamic religions may also take advantage of this situation to further breakup the Hindu society and convert innocent Hindus.

So, with the sole intention to save Hindu unity and protect Sanatana Dharma, I will try to answer the questions posed by Dvaitins in my next few blogs.

Namaste

Suresh

 

Does Truth exist ??!!

Many so called “scholars” who are essentially communists, minority appeasers and Hindu haters, are trying to make their last-ditch efforts to stop Hindus trying to re-claim their sacred temple sites at Ayodhya, Kashi, Mathura and thousands of such holy places, where the original temples have been destroyed and illegal structures have been built on top of them.

They say that there cannot be such a thing as Truth itself. Because everything is changing. Even in Science, nothing is absolute. The theory of one scientist can be disproved by another one later. Same thing can be said about other disciplines also. Historical truths, as claimed to be true by many research scholars, could also be proved wrong by another better historian. So, it is not fair for Hindus to claim their religious sites, based on some “historical research” that may provide proof of destruction of temples and building of non-Hindu structures on top of them. It could be other way also!

Refutation:  

This is a simple case of infinite regress, as this argument can go endlessly, remain inconclusive, supporting the oppressors, thereby denying justice to victims. Whatever the current Truth is, based on the available data and logical conclusion, must be accepted and honored, until it is disproved by another one!  

This is also a case of self-contradiction! Because, based on their own argument, whatever they are claiming can never be True also. Hindus also can use the same argument and claim all non-Hindu sites as Hindu, until it is disproved!

Are they ready?

Namaste

Suresh