'Sri Raghavendra called Adisankara and Smarta-s offspring of harlots.'

[V Subrahmanian]

'Sri Raghavendra called Adisankara and Smartar sons of harlots.'

This is what a renowned Madhva scholar  has said with proof in his Sanskrit and Kannada book.

Sri Raghavendra Tirtha wrote the commentary, Gitavivruti, on the Bhagavad Gita. There in Chapter 16, on some verses of the Gita, about the nature of demons, he says that 'those who say the world is a mithya'...then, when commenting on the verse 16.20 that says ' the will be born in demoniacal wombs (aasura yoni)', he has said in the commentary: that those demoniacal births will be illegitimate ones.

Some slokas in the 16th chapter of the Gita 16th chapter:

असत्यमप्रतिष्ठं ते जगदाहुरनीश्वरम् ।

अपरस्परसम्भूतं किमन्यत्कामहैतुकम् ॥ ८ ॥

एतां दृष्टिमवष्टभ्य नष्टात्मानोऽल्पबुद्धयः ।

प्रभवन्त्युग्रकर्माणः क्षयाय जगतोऽहिताः ॥ ९ ॥

काममाश्रित्य दुष्पूरं दम्भमानमदान्विताः ।

मोहाद्गृहीत्वासद्ग्राहान्प्रवर्तन्तेऽशुचिव्रताः ॥ १० ॥

आसुरीं योनिमापन्ना

मूढा जन्मनि जन्मनि ।

मामप्राप्यैव कौन्तेय

ततो यान्त्यधमां गतिम् ॥ २० ॥

In support of this, the Madhva Vidwan says: Sri Raghavendra reports that 'Adi Shankara and all his followers are thus of demonic birth (through harlots)'.

This Madhva scholar has expressed the opinion (as the purport of what Sri Raghavendra Tirtha has said) that these (Adi Shankara and those who follow his path) are demons because of practices like 'wearing vibhuti and rudraksha suitable for asuras'.

That Vidwan says that Swami Vidyaranya, Appayya Dikshitar etc. are of this monstrous nature.

The pages of the book given below are in Sanskrit and Kannada, so those who know that language can read directly from there.

Admirers of Adi Shankara and followers of his teachings may question themselves whether they agree with Raghavendra Tirtha. The sad part is that countless Smarta-s express devotion to Raghavendra Tirtha, blissfully ignorant of what he has said about Adi Shankara and themselves 😢

Those who know Sanskrit can read the commentary for all the verses there.

None of this is what I am saying on my own. I have said what is in that Madhva Vidwan's book without any exaggeration.

P.S:

Raghavendra's Gita Vivruti text here:

https://archive.org/details/gitavivruti/page/n187/mode/2up (see image below) the word 'adulterous birth' is not found there.

This Madhva Vidwan has shown the meaning of each word for that verse 16.20 as per Raghavendra. Although the commentary for the words 'aasuriim yonim aapannaaH' of the Gita verse is not found in the Vivruti of Raghavendra in the publications available on the net, this Vidwan has given the meaning of 'adulterer' to that word and highlighted it (see the image below) as stated by Raghavendra. While the Vidwan has given one-to-one exact commentary of the Vivruti for the words preceding and succeeding the expression 'aasuriim yonim aapannaaH', he has given the term 'व्यभिचारादिजातशरीरमापन्नाः' (endowed with bodies born of harlotry).

And he concludes that Raghavendra Tirtha himself said this. From this we can make a guess that this word may be present in the Gita Vivruti book in possession of this Vidwan (and not in the present editions).

Image from the Vidwan's book:

Image of the Gita Vivruti relevant portion as is in the edition on the internet:

From the Vidwan's book, Kannada part which says: Raghavendra Tirtha establishes that Shankaracharya is a demon:

This image says: 'The criterion for determining someone as a demon are all applicable to Shankaracharya. These demons will be born in demoniacal wombs, that is, they will be coming with the bodies born of harlotry. So says Raghavendra Tirtha'. The Kannada condensation is made by the author-scholar's son, a contemporary scholar by name Vidwan Ruchiracharya.

Cover page of the book:

Sri Raghavendra Tirtha:

Om Tat Sat

[suresh balaraman]

Very illiterate of Madhavas,I guess

Suresh Balaraman

On Dec 27, 2022, at 2:52 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:



<image.png>

Image of the Gita Vivruti relevant portion as is in the edition on the internet:

<Ragh Gitavivruti 16.20.jpeg>

From the Vidwan's book, Kannada part which says: Raghavendra Tirtha establishes that Shankaracharya is a demon:

<image.png>

This image says: 'The criterion for determining someone as a demon are all applicable to Shankaracharya. These demons will be born in demoniacal wombs, that is, they will be coming with the bodies born of harlotry. So says Raghavendra Tirtha'. The Kannada condensation is made by the author-scholar's son, a contemporary scholar by name Vidwan Ruchiracharya.

<image.png>

Cover page of the book:

<image.png>

Sri Raghavendra Tirtha:

<image.png>

Om Tat Sat

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te3qOEU2nX%2BcrPoDXctqnp2t4PEZGCbQMoW7tNx0Db61vw%40mail.gmail.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Is not Raghavendra the same who deserted his wife,

who was starved and she had to commit suicide. My heart goes to that unfortunate lady, who wsd killed by Raghavendra.

Sent from my iPhone

<image.png>

Image of the Gita Vivruti relevant portion as is in the edition on the internet:

<Ragh Gitavivruti 16.20.jpeg>

From the Vidwan's book, Kannada part which says: Raghavendra Tirtha establishes that Shankaracharya is a demon:

<image.png>

This image says: 'The criterion for determining someone as a demon are all applicable to Shankaracharya. These demons will be born in demoniacal wombs, that is, they will be coming with the bodies born of harlotry. So says Raghavendra Tirtha'. The Kannada condensation is made by the author-scholar's son, a contemporary scholar by name Vidwan Ruchiracharya.

<image.png>

Cover page of the book:

<image.png>

Sri Raghavendra Tirtha:

<image.png>

Om Tat Sat

[Aravinda Rao]

Our Abrahamic brethren are hell bent on destroying all of us, whether Smarta or Madhwa or Vaishnava. We can forget about such comments which were made by old swamis. They were products of their times. It is very sad that even now many swamis are not coming together. (I am a smarta, a follower of advaita, for info)

Members might have seen the new book 'Snakes in the Ganga' by Rajiv Malhotra which explains the strong anti-Hindu activism in the Western universities. The western nations  are themselves sinking but they wish to demolish hinduism before they themselves get demolished. 

Namaskars,

Aravinda Rao

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/D4AFED18-AD3A-48BC-B332-681B1DF5AC58%40gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Arvind prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

We can forget about such comments which were made by old swamis. They were products of their times.

 

Ø     Yes I was about to say this.  Yes it is a fact that mAdhva-s are biased and bigoted and will use every opportunity to belittle the image of our Acharya-s and AV followers.  Shankara refuted sAnkhya-s, bauddha-s and other prevalent doctrines at his time without resorting to any personal attacks.  Then Sri rAmAnuja and vedAnta desika came from Sri Vaishnava sampradaya taken AV as pUrva paxa and tried to refute it but again  without attacking personally.  But these tattvavAdins while taking AV for refutation did not hesitate to attack sampradaya Acharya-s personally.  Yes, it is a fact unfortunately we have accept it.  But why we should also stoop to that level??  If we also engaged in personal bashing what is the difference between advaitins and dvaitins??  Yesterday, one of my friend (who is also advaitin) after seeing Sri Raghavendra Swamy’s observations in his work said those smArta-s worship him as yati, siddha purusha, yogi not as tattvavAdi or Advaita dveshi.  And he continued to observe that though Sri Raghavendra Swamyji might have written against Advaita & acharya-s he is gracing all the devotes who approach him with bhakti & shraddha  irrespective of their respective traditional school of thought.  So atleast at some point of time this personal bashing should stop in vaidika circle and why we the advaitins should not come forward to take that initiative first!!??

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

[S Venkatraman]

Namaste Bhaskarji,

Can you please increase the font size of your posts. It is so small that I find it impossible to read them. Thank you,

Venkat

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/AM7PR06MB65815FCE00E16049743930D784F29%40AM7PR06MB6581.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Venkataraman prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

In my laptop my mails which I receive from group and sent by me are quite readable (Aerial font size 10).  I am increasing the font size in my below mail as suggested by you and sending it again.  Please let me know still you are facing the problem.  I think you can also  increase the font size in your mobile / laptop. 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

Bhaskar YR

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of S Venkatraman
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2022 12:36 PM
To: Advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] 'Sri Raghavendra called Adisankara and Smarta-s offspring of harlots.'

 

Warning

This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments. If this email looks suspicious, report it by clicking 'Report Phishing' button in Outlook. See the SecureWay group in Yammer for more security information.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/A06F6176-A38A-49C0-98DD-00C3479826C2%40gmail.com.

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

I do not have an interest in participating in the debates here, but coming from a family that holds Sri Raghavendra Tirtha in high esteem, I was surprised by the title of the post.

I have read and re-read the post but I could  not find any place where Sri Raghavendra Tirtha actually made bad remarks on Sri Adi Shankara.

If I can summarize the original post - 

1. Sri Raghavendra Tirtha's Gita Vivruti version given on the internet does not contain any derogatory remarks on Sri Adi Shankara.

2. A Madhva scholar has interpreted this work of Sri Raghavendra Tirtha and "derives" bad meanings from it. 

3. The person who wrote the original post assumes that the Madhva scholar has a different version of the Gita Vivruti containing the bad remarks.

I am open to being corrected on this. 

Sri Krishnarpanam

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 1:23 PM Kalyan Chakravarthy <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com> wrote:

I do not have an interest in participating in the debates here, but coming from a family that holds Sri Raghavendra Tirtha in high esteem, I was surprised by the title of the post.

I have read and re-read the post but I could  not find any place where Sri Raghavendra Tirtha actually made bad remarks on Sri Adi Shankara.

If I can summarize the original post - 

1. Sri Raghavendra Tirtha's Gita Vivruti version given on the internet does not contain any derogatory remarks on Sri Adi Shankara.

2. A Madhva scholar has interpreted this work of Sri Raghavendra Tirtha and "derives" bad meanings from it. 

3. The person who wrote the original post assumes that the Madhva scholar has a different version of the Gita Vivruti containing the bad remarks.

I am open to being corrected on this. 

Yes, the 3rd point you make is very important. Raghavendra Tirtha has already made a case for branding those who hold the world to be unreal 'asuras' in the commentary to the 16.8th verse. Then the author of the book builds up on that and concludes that such asuras will be born in 'aasuric wombs' as stated by the 16.20th verse. For what constitutes 'aasuric womb' the author gives that word 'vyabhichaara....' and 'cites' the Gita vivruti for that verse 16.20 by highlighting that word.   

In any case, even if that word is absent in the Gita vivruti, the fact that since Raghavendra Tirtha belongs to that school whose fundamental premise is Shankara is asura, born of vyabhichara. So, there is no surprise even if the printed books on the internet contained that word. He has loyally reflected that first part in his interpretation of the 16.8 unmistakably. Also, the author would have weighed the risk of casting aspersions on his own very highly regarded purvahcarya Raghavendra Tirtha before making such a statement.  In fact he devotes a whole two pages for this very grand climax: vyabhichara birth of Shankara and, by extension, all his followers, citing Raghavendra as an additional pramana. 

An analogy is the basis for my assumption made in point 3: 

Madhva's Gita Bhashya concludes with these two additional verses:

सङ्कराख्यस्य दुयोर्नेर्निस्सृतेन रजस्वला। गीतानारी समीरेण शोधिता हंसरूपिणा।।1।।

मायिनः शलभायन्ते भास्करस्तस्करायते। यस्य तस्मिन्प्राणनाथे यतीन्द्रे भक्तिरस्तु मे।।2। ।।18.78।।

as available even today in the Gujarati Press edition 1930:

and also in the Gitasupersite of iitk.

But the books being printed by Madhva mutts omit those two verses patently extremely derogatory to Shankara.  It is quite possible that the word the author cites and even highlights did form part of the original Gita vivruti but later on removed. The presented printed version does not have just that word but all the words of the Gita verse 16.20 preceding and succeeding that word aasureem yonim.. have the commentary. 

The other aspect of Raghavendra tirtha being extremely offensive to Smartas is: In a mangala shloka to a book he penned as a commentary to a Madhva work, he praises Madhvacharya as one, the dust of whose feet liberate Rudra etc. This is highly reprehensible to Smartas who hold Rudra non-diff from Vishnu, and Para Brahman. For that reason too it is highly improper for Smartas to show any devotion/respect to Raghavendra Tirtha. For Smartas Shankaracharya is verily incarnation of Shiva.  

Om  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/0c27614b-7649-4580-b5f8-dc7fc312352bn%40googlegroups.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Let me clarify that the  2 verses I had cited as part of Madhva's Gita bhashya actually were composed by his disciples and appended to the Bhashya. There is a background story that also has to be noted:

 There is a work of Madhvacharya by name Tattvodyota for which Jayatirtha has commented. That work has a few verses at the end and Jayatirtha records a story behind that. It seems in a debate with Madhvacharya an Advatin being defeated, took to his heels. Madhva's disciples present there were thrilled by that event and composed verses praising Madhvacharya and describing the running away. And they requested Madhva to append those verses which are in praise of their Guru to that work which he acceded to. 

Om

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Sri Bhattacharjya-ji,  Namaste

The views that you hold on Sri Raghavendra Swamy - you are free to hold them. I do not wish to change your views. People have freedom of thought. But please pardon me as I am unable to resist narrating an interesting miracle of Sri Raghavendra Swamy. To those who believe in the saint, this would be a miracle; to those who don't believe, this is not a miracle. 

This incident is believed to have happened more than 100 years after the Samadhi of Sri Raghavendra Tirtha, and involved his conversation from his Samadhi with a British official.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Thomas_Munro,_1st_Baronet

Incidents at Mantralayam and Gandi (Andhra Pradesh)

[The village of Mantralayam in Andhra Pradesh is where the famous Dvaita saint Raghavendra Swami is located. An anecdote of Sir Thomas Munro is told about this place. When Sir Thomas Munro was the Collector of Bellary in 1800, the Madras Government ordered him to procure the annual tax from the Math and Manthralaya village. When the Revenue officials were unable to comply with this order, Sir Thomas Munro visited the Math for investigation. He removed his hat and shoes and entered the sacred precincts. Sri Raghavendra swamy emerged from the Vrindavan and conversed with him for some time, about the resumption of endowment. The Saint was visible and audible only to Munro, who received Mantraskata (God's blessing). The Collector went back and wrote an order in favour of the Math and the village. This notification was published in the Madras Government Gazette in Chapter XI, page 213, with the caption "Manchali Adoni Taluka". This order is still preserved in Fort St. George and Mantralayam.]

There is more to this anecdote than is mentioned above, but I will stop here.

Sri Krishnarpanam

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 10:27 PM Kalyan Chakravarthy <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sri Bhattacharjya-ji,  Namaste

The views that you hold on Sri Raghavendra Swamy - you are free to hold them. I do not wish to change your views. People have freedom of thought. But please pardon me as I am unable to resist narrating an interesting miracle of Sri Raghavendra Swamy. To those who believe in the saint, this would be a miracle; to those who don't believe, this is not a miracle. 

No one has commented on Raghavendra Tirtha's reported miraculous powers.  Such powers are displayed by many exalted persons of Smarta sampradaya too and experienced by many even after those exalted persons have long left this world. What is discussed here is his views towards the Advaita Acharya, his philosophy and those who follow Advaita. It is this aspect that has been highlighted in the article which is of concern to Advaitins.  

regards

subbu 

This incident is believed to have happened more than 100 years after the Samadhi of Sri Raghavendra Tirtha, and involved his conversation from his Samadhi with a British official.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Thomas_Munro,_1st_Baronet

Incidents at Mantralayam and Gandi (Andhra Pradesh)

[The village of Mantralayam in Andhra Pradesh is where the famous Dvaita saint Raghavendra Swami is located. An anecdote of Sir Thomas Munro is told about this place. When Sir Thomas Munro was the Collector of Bellary in 1800, the Madras Government ordered him to procure the annual tax from the Math and Manthralaya village. When the Revenue officials were unable to comply with this order, Sir Thomas Munro visited the Math for investigation. He removed his hat and shoes and entered the sacred precincts. Sri Raghavendra swamy emerged from the Vrindavan and conversed with him for some time, about the resumption of endowment. The Saint was visible and audible only to Munro, who received Mantraskata (God's blessing). The Collector went back and wrote an order in favour of the Math and the village. This notification was published in the Madras Government Gazette in Chapter XI, page 213, with the caption "Manchali Adoni Taluka". This order is still preserved in Fort St. George and Mantralayam.]

There is more to this anecdote than is mentioned above, but I will stop here.

Sri Krishnarpanam

On Wednesday, 28 December, 2022 at 9:42:04 am UTC+5:30 skbhattacharjya wrote:

Is not Raghavendra the same who deserted his wife,

who was starved and she had to commit suicide. My heart goes to that unfortunate lady, who wsd killed by Raghavendra.

Sent from my iPhone

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/8b995a5c-43a0-46d5-b292-c5044e6661ban%40googlegroups.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Subbuji,

Shri Raghavendra was a married man and he deserted his wife, leaving her to herself (i.e., without arranging for her safety and maintenance), and he became a sanytashi. Leaving his wife without her approval/permission  was an inhuman act and no sane person can excuse him for that. When the sage Yajnavalkya left his wife towards the end of his life, he took herpermission and she did did not have to commit suicide, like Shri Raghavendra's wife.

Adi Shankara too left his mother when he was quiteyoung, but only after his mother agreed to his request for her permission  to let him become a sanyashi. His mother died a natural death and Adi Shankakara was at his mother's side, when she passed away and he erformed her cremation and the last rites, like a dutiful son.

Regards.

skb

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1%3DeNNqdTn72U8bdXvr9Zq--xSD9zubOGcqATuoSGv-xw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

There is more to this anecdote than is mentioned above, but I will stop here.

 

 

praNAms Sri Kalyan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Yes miracles are not the yardstick to evaluate the philosophical stand.  Even in Advaita Acharya Parampara, right from bhagavatpAda ( kanakadhaara miracle) various Acharya-s have shown various supernatural powers.  Recent Jagadguru-s like HH Sri Chandrashekhara bhArati, kAnchi paramAchArya, Sri Abhinava VidyAteertha have blessed the needy in a miraculous way at various instances.  Shirdi Saibaaba, satya saibaaba even today after their physical departure showing miracles, currently mAta amrutaanandamayi etc. showing pavaada-s ( I was really surprised and bewildered when I read she would literally suck the puss and blood from the wounds  of leprosy patients to cure them!!??).  So miracles and occult powers shown by various siddha purusha/stree-s but what they taught might not  be as per shruti, smruti and yukti which is final pramANa for those, who follows the verdicts of sanAtana dharma.  And very importantly those mahatma-s also, though teaching something different from each other, did not show any partiality when blessing their devotees.  I don’t think any mahatma has ever said to his or her devotee : follow dvaita/Advaita/my teaching only,  then only get the boon from me 😊 We as the householders, loukika-s, who severely lacking viveka / vairagya with our polluted and perverted conditioned mind should not dare to maliciously adjudge any yati/sanyasi from any school of thoughts. If at all there is a need let us attack their philosophical position and discuss about it in the light of our own school of thought.  Who are we to pass the derogatory and insulting personal comments on yati-s / sanyasi-s / matAdhipati-s??  Who are we to call yati-s, yOgi-s like rAghavendra as ‘wrong’ vendra, maNtralaya as ‘mad’ alaya etc. who are we to say, “throw away rAghavendra swamy photo-s on the street if you have one at home”!!??    Are we, mortals with lot of lust, greed and anger,  qualified enough to pass these type of vedic terrorist comments on any yati-s & sanyasi-s??  If we don’t want to worship other schools Acharya-s, that is fine and let us completely surrender to our guru Parampara and ignore other Acharya-s to that extent only we have rights.  We have absolutely no rights to do yati-ninde just because we are eccentrically and passionately identifying ourselves with one particular school of thought.  Personal attacks, names calling, character assassination totally unwarranted within sanAtana vaidika dharma tradition.  It is immaterial whether other schools and their Acharya-s following it or not.  At, least we the mortals when addressing yati-s in sannyasa Ashrama should keep our mind geeta verse anudvega karam vAkyam satyam Priya hitaM cha yat…….vA~ngmayaM tapa uchyate. 

 

Just my thoughts on anya mateeya yati-ninde.  Though I am die hard follower of bhagavatpAda ( ofcourse within my own household limitation) my mind does not agree to personally attack yati-s / sanyasi-s / matAdhipati-s of other schools though they are conspicuously calling names of our paraMpara Acharya-s.  If at all there is a right to call names of other mata-s it is only sanyasi-s peetAdhipati-s yati-s in our Advaita paraMpara.  But as we all know how pure they are and they never ever deviate from etiquette of yati dharma.   

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Sri Bhaskarji, Namaste

Just curious Bhaskarji, do you know of any specific work composed by Sri Raghavendra Swamy where he makes derogatory comments on Sri Adi Shankara? If you are aware, please bring it to my attention. Thank you.

Sri Krishnarpanam

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Kalyan prabhuji

Hare krishna

 

Frankly I don’t know.  It’s been long time since I stopped reading any dvaita related work.  Even earlier also I used to read ISKCONites literature (notorious mAyAvaadi haters 😊 ) but I stopped that too decades back.  Anyway, for that matter any mention of mAyAvAda, mAyAvAdins, jaganmithyAvAdins in a derogatory way in dvaita works, would suffice to trigger the advaitins and enough to bankrupt our moral and ethical policies 😊

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

Bhaskar YR

 

From: adva...@googlegroups.com <adva...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Kalyan Chakravarthy
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2022 10:11 AM
To: advaitin <adva...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [advaitin] 'Sri Raghavendra called Adisankara and Smarta-s offspring of harlots.'

 

Warning

This email comes from outside of Hitachi Energy. Make sure you verify the sender before clicking any links or downloading/opening attachments. If this email looks suspicious, report it by clicking 'Report Phishing' button in Outlook. See the SecureWay group in Yammer for more security information.

Sri Bhaskarji, Namaste

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/636d0a3d-efd3-4256-b6fd-357f480b1c0bn%40googlegroups.com.

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Thank you for the response, Sri Bhaskarji.

While on the topic of ISKCON, I use ISKCON's hatred of advaita to my advantage. 

Whenever an ISKCON salesman comes to me to sell ISKCON books, I tell him - "Dear Sir, I am a mAyAvAdin". He will usually not bother me after that. 

Sri Krishnarparam 

[V Subrahmanian]

The Madhwa author's son in the book says that Sri Raghavendra Tirtha who is regarded as a divinity by the followers of all the three schools Dvaita, Advaita and Ramanuja, could have declared Adi Shankara a demon on his own right. However he chose to do that on the authority of the 16th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita. Thus we have a renowned Madhwa scholar vouching for Raghavendra Tirtha demonizing Adi Shankara. 

So, we have to accept that the heart of Raghavendra is better known to Madhwas than others. 

regards

subbu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/52c22e16-a73a-4ddf-8784-54c1f4380fc4n%40googlegroups.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Subbuji,

You wrote:

The Madhwa author's son in the book says that Sri Raghavendra Tirtha who is regarded as a divinity by the followers of all the three schools including  Advaita could have declared Adi Shankara a demon, on his own right.

How can there be any validity in any claim by any Madhwa author's son that any  follower of the Advaita school regarded  Sri Raghavendra as a divinity? No follower of the Advaita  would accept any Madhvite claim of Adi Shankara to be a demon. In fact, Adi Shankara was a great advaitin and he was surely a greater Vaishnava too   than Sri Ramanujacharya and Sri Madhvacharya, as Adi Shankara surely knew the dictum "Shivasya Hrdayam Vishnu, Vishnoccha Hrdayam Shiva". In fact, during their avatar, Lord Ram and Lord Krishna, too prayed to Lord Shiva and that shows that Sri Ramanujacharya and Shri Madhvacharya should have worshipped Lord Shiva.

Regards,

Sunil KB

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1njxAW9%3DgyN0vhba_eBQOkdda%2BygAjS2Z-coQ%2BfXypiw%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 7:02 AM sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Subbuji,

You wrote:

The Madhwa author's son in the book says that Sri Raghavendra Tirtha who is regarded as a divinity by the followers of all the three schools including  Advaita could have declared Adi Shankara a demon, on his own right.

How can there be any validity in any claim by any Madhwa author's son that any  follower of the Advaita school regarded  Sri Raghavendra as a divinity?

Dear Sunil ji,

Sadly, the irony is that many Smarta-s, Advaitins, without knowing the Shankara-bashing, Advaiti-ninda, that is well entrenched in the Madhwa works and nurtured  and propagated vibrantly to this day, are great devotees of Raghavendra Swami. They go to Mantralaya, visit the 'brindavana' in the neighborhood, keep his photo at the puja room and worship. Many of these so-called Smartas do not know anything about Shankaracharya, they do not know his Jayanti, his works, etc. But they celebrate Raghavendra Aradhana. This is the height of ignorance and sva-Guru droha. The practice has gone to such an extent that when facts about Shankara/Advaita/Advaitin bashing by Madhwas are laid bare, they don't want to believe it; rather they protest. Such is the deep ignorance that the Advaita community in Karnataka, Andhra and TN is wallowing in.  

regards

subbu

[V Subrahmanian]

I would like to add that there is slowly an awakening that is taking place. Stung by the Shankara-ninda by Madhwas, a few Smarta-s have resolved to give up the Raghavendra Swami worship and have taken steps in that direction. 

[SK]

On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 2:52:21 AM UTC-5 v.subrahmanian wrote:

The sad part is that countless Smarta-s express devotion to Raghavendra Tirtha, blissfully ignorant of what he has said about Adi Shankara and themselves 😢

Above sentiment assumes smarta  as another "caste" and one who born in that household must follow its Advaita philosphy. Let's not forget Dvaita vedanta (which obviously Sree Raghavendra Tirtha follows and perches) is a 'mata' ( a philosophical position) and anybody irrespective of their birth can agree with such a 'mata'  as they see fit and can follow great stalwarts of such school. There is nothing wrong in that. 

It is only to those who, blindly stick to their school of birth, see issue with others and feels has the sentiment of everyone should follow school of their birth.  

Om tat sat.

 

[V Subrahmanian]

I don't quite understand what exactly you are trying to say.  Everyone has the freedom to follow whichever path he has faith and conviction in. But the blanket badmouthing of a whole community as Raghavendra Tirtha has allegedly done, as per the author of that book, is what is in extremely bad taste. Do you agree with the stated position of Raghavendra Tirtha?  

vs

Om tat sat.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/e9690412-4eaf-4316-8dfe-21f7e63e2c3dn%40googlegroups.com.