"ఆదిశంకరులు ఉత్తమ వైష్ణవులా? 'Was Adishankara a great Vaishnava?' Discussion with Sri Lalitaditya Gannavaram with English summary pdf

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste

There was a furore in the YouTube over (Ramanuja) Sri Chinna Jeer's recent remarks about Shankaracharya and the establishing of Amnāya Peeṭhams. Here is a video discussion where Vidwan Sri Lalitaditya Gannavaram of Sringeri answers questions related to 'Was Adishankara a great Vaishnava?' in Telugu. 

For the benefit of those who can't follow Telugu, an English summary and an English translation of the content of the video generated by AI is also presented here.  

https://youtu.be/0dmPgQdEeeU?si=mGUBDwUXII4yh1M8   Video

A summary of the above video in English, checked by me:

https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/shankara-vaishnava-lalitaditya-gannavaram-telugu-video.pdf

Translation of the full video:  I have not checked this document fully.  There could be errors. This contains many references and hence a very useful one:

  

https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/translation-of-lalitaditya-telugu-vaishnava-shankara.pdf-c.pdf

warm regards

subbu

[putran M]

Namaskaram Subbu-ji,

Is the full translation obtained by some AI software - edited by humans later? Do you know which?

I saw your summary. The conclusion 

quote

used names like Viṣṇu or Nārāyaṇa to express the universal, all-pervading Brahman, which is beyond all forms and distinctions.

unquote

contains the crux imu. For other sampradayas, the name-form cognitions denote real distinctions and features of Brahman. For us, the Self is ultimately neti, neti with regard to every special identification. They are adhyasa/imagination on/of the Reality that is "beyond all forms and distinctions". Whatever we dream of Self during the dream, when we wake up we dismiss as untrue even while we affirm our own unchanged Truth/Existence. Except our waking affirmation replaces the dream-world with another body-mind-world dream. Other sampradayas insist this BMW-association is a reality of Brahman and atma; we alone maintain that it is avidya/kalpita/vivarta and Brahman=atma is ultimately free of such attributes or relations. The ramifications are profound. Even if Vishnu is claimed by somebody to be the big-boss and Shiva a "demigod" of lesser status, that narrative reduces to the multifarious dreaming of the Self, a movie on the Screen. It is of zero importance from the standpoint of reality.

The real utility of a particular Ishvara-cognition is if it directs our attention to Ishvara/Brahman chintanam and (eventually after vedanta sravana) to the jnanam "Aham Brahmasmi". For the bhakta, his ishta specially serves this purpose for he merges the many in the One seen as the ishta; going to temples, satsangs, doing his dharma-karya, shastra-sravanam etc. also serve this purpose; whereas spending time on politics, sports, movies do not. So the cognition of the Self as Sri Rama is of higher value for the Rama bhakta because he connects to the higher truth through the Rama cognition and not through Ravana. And likewise for the Shiva-bhakta, the ishta can be Shiva. This is possible because the same Brahman as Ishvara plays as all these nama-rupa appearances and the universe at large.

The jnani realizes Brahman in all cognitions, that the non-dual Self alone is seen in the plane of cognition as Rama, Ravana, Shiva, Shakti etc. and therefore does not harbour high vs low evaluations over the different imaginations of/by/in the Self.

PS. However, I did find the end comment interesting, that we can think Krishna is ishta of Shankaracharya. That may be controversial in itself (though as an aside, like the dating of Shankara).

Quote

He was a Vaiṣṇava who allowed the worship of all deities as means to attain the Supreme Brahman-Atman realization. His family deity in

Kalaḍy is Kr̥ ṣṇa whose temple is there even today. Hence his iṣṭa devatā can be admitted to be that.

Unquote

thollmelukaalkizhu

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1prLjntdB0PH35xAVcVdMtFbUUhp-xaXTD1Dqq2T-FvQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Putran ji,

The 'summary' was generated by AI. Since it did not include a couple of things which the actual video had, I added them.  One is Krishna being the ishta devata of Shankara.  There is a very wide agreement on this, even from the descendents of Shankara's maternal and paternal families that live today in and around Kalady.  The Krishna temple is present there, near the Kalady Sringeri Shankar Mutt and the people of that descendent family manages it. One or two Shankara Vijayams too mention the temple and an incident where Shankara, just before departing to the North in search of his Guru, relocated the temple to its present place. 

In fact the Bh.Gita bhashyam uses the term 'vaishnava':

यान्ति देवव्रता देवान्पितॄन्यान्ति पितृव्रताः ।
भूतानि यान्ति भूतेज्या यान्ति मद्याजिनोऽपि माम् ॥ २५ ॥

9.25 Votaries of the gods reach the gods; the votarites of the manes go to the manes; the worshippers of the spirits reach the spirits; and those who worship Me reach Me.

The relevant part of the bhashyam:  यान्ति मद्याजिनः मद्यजनशीलाः वैष्णवाः मामेव यान्ति । And madyajinah, those who worship Me, those who are given to worshipping Me, the devotees of Visnu; reach mam, Me alone.

It is this usage, among a few others, that led to the misconceived idea among non-Advaitins that Shankara was a Vaishnava.  It is this aspect that was clarified in the video that Shankara was such a Vaishnava who was not opposed to the worship of other Vedic gods. It is this aspect that marks him completely distinct from the sectarian vaishnavas.  That derives from his own definition of what the term 'Vishnu' means, when he commented in the Kathopanishad: The All pervading Nirguna Brahman (of that mantra there, which is to be realized for moksha) who is also known by the name 'Vāsudeva'. These terms have been explained in the video by citing what Shankara has said there. Nowhere has he identified this tattva with the consort of Lakshmi or a resident of Vaikuntha.  

This article of mine is a supplementary reading:

https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/shankara-shanmata-eng.pdf

warm regards

subbu 

warm regards

subbu   

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-ouqvi1eSQjLt_ETxkM0LRom9Jjf%3DNaTU5DN%2B3X-8_dfQ%40mail.gmail.com.