Is Ramanuja a Demon? Is his Sribhashya a ku-bhashya?

[V Subrahmanian]

Here is an article on the above topic:

https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/demonization-of-ramanujacharya-in-madhwa-books.pdf  

regards

subbu

[Aravinda Rao]

Thank you Subbu ji, 

A very interesting article. They laugh best who laugh last, it is said, but we may add, with or without reason. They have the privilege of laughing at the earlier doctrines. People do so many things to satisfy their egos and the egos of innocent followers for the fault of being born in a tradition. The article has ridiculed Advaita too. As students of Advaita, like those sitting on the hilltop and watching the tumult below (as Vidyaranya says), we can smile at the audacity of such writings. Anyway, the article is worth preserving. 

Aravinda rao.

--
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/CAKk0Te23Kn5OzJ5VpjJK4DVGtJ%2B7wwZVaM2-SBsNjr9FdD4MUQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 2:41 PM Krishna Kashyap via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Interesting article.

I've heard that among Kannadigas (since I am a Bangalorean), smartas
marrying Madhvas is a common practice. Most people dont even question this
practice. Should I understand that these Madhvas who have married Smarthas
have never read, understood, or agreed with these scriptures by Madhva
scholars?

In many cases such Madhva - Smarta marriages happen in the non-scholarly Madhva circles.  Orthodox Madhwas/scholars would not recommend/support such a mix.  There is also this practice in some cases: A Madhva family would take a Smarta girl as their daughter in law and she will (have to) conform to their practices. But they would not give their daughters to the Smarta family.  

Most Smarthas also do not know of the Shankaracharya/Advaiti ninda in the Madhva books. There is also the Raghavendra Swamy following among a very large Smarta community. Again, they do not know of the antithesis: Raghavendra Swamy has praised Madhvacharya as the one whose feet dust will liberate Shiva, etc. And also the Shankara nindaa part.

regards

subbu     

*Best Regards,*

*Krishna Kashyap*

On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 12:06 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> --
> 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/CAKk0Te23Kn5OzJ5VpjJK4DVGtJ%2B7wwZVaM2-SBsNjr9FdD4MUQ%40mail.gmail.com

> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te23Kn5OzJ5VpjJK4DVGtJ%2B7wwZVaM2-SBsNjr9FdD4MUQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listm...@advaita-vedanta.org

[Krishna Kashyap]

Interesting article.

I've heard that among Kannadigas (since I am a Bangalorean), smartas marrying Madhvas is a common practice. Most people dont even question this practice. Should I understand that these Madhvas who have married Smarthas have never read, understood, or agreed with these scriptures by Madhva scholars?

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 12:06 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

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/CAKk0Te23Kn5OzJ5VpjJK4DVGtJ%2B7wwZVaM2-SBsNjr9FdD4MUQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bhaskar YR]

In many cases such Madhva - Smarta marriages happen in the non-scholarly Madhva circles.  Orthodox Madhwas/scholars would not recommend/support such a mix.  There is also this practice in some cases: A Madhva family would take a Smarta girl as their daughter in law and she will (have to) conform to their practices. But they would not give their daughters to the Smarta family.  

 

Most Smarthas also do not know of the Shankaracharya/Advaiti ninda in the Madhva books. There is also the Raghavendra Swamy following among a very large Smarta community. Again, they do not know of the antithesis: Raghavendra Swamy has praised Madhvacharya as the one whose feet dust will liberate Shiva, etc. And also the Shankara nindaa part.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Yes, I agree with this observation.  Most of the smArta-s do not know what shankara himself said 😊 likewise mAdhvA-s too do not know what madhvAchaarya said.  They are simple devotees who want to get rid of troubles in saMsAra and just want to have abundant health, wealth etc. through whatever means.  If someone says pray shankara they do so, if someone else advises to go to maNtraalaya or Shirdi saibaaba they will do so, without any reservations as such.  And those visits and prayers definitely answered them by maNtraalaya gurugaLu or Shirdi saibaaba or shankara bhagavat paada or shiva-vishNu…So they hardly care or concerned about these philosophical differences as long as their material demands are fulfilled 😊 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Krishna Kashyap]

namaste Subbu Ji,

in which work Raghavendra swami says this:

Raghavendra Swamy has praised Madhvacharya as the one whose feet dust will liberate Shiva, etc. And also the Shankara nindaa part.?

Please give a citation.

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Krishna Kashyapji,

Raghavendra Swamiji is considered as a respected Madhva-follower. With all respect to Raghavendra  Swamiji, whenever I see any reference to him, immediately I feel extremely sad to remember that he deserted his young wife to become a sanyashi to follow Sri Madhvacharya's path, and consequently his separated wife died of starving. To my knowledge, a husband can never desert the married wife, without his wife's consent and without making full arrangement of his wife's security and livelihood. I think such behaviour is not acceptable in the Sanatanna Dharma.

Coming to your interesting question to Subbuji, I remember the prayer:

"Shivam Saantam Jagannatham Lokaanugrahakaarakam, Shivameka Param Brahma Shikaraaya namonamah".

In the Sanatana dharma there is none higher than Lord Shiva. Further, in the Sanatana dharma, ultimately Hari and Hara are abheda.

Best wishes

Sunil KB

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CANkLSMnsqnHqCWLjmgXRzWTGZE0L%3DZknWWPpRVRnggsqbQaqyQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Krishna Kashyap]

Namaste Sunil Ji,

I do not know Raghavendra swami's personal biography. Thanks for filling in some details of his married life. Definitely sounds cruel to me.

I am interested in finding out the text reference of where he mentions about Madhvacharya and Shiva. 

Raghavendra swami followed the commentaries by Madhvadharya sincerely. He may have added some additional info from his point of view. His view on Shiva and Madhvacharya, can be probably traced to some statements directly made by Madhvacharya himself.

I dont find it very odd since the school of thought (dvaita)

recognizes hierarchy or devata-taratamya as a fundamental feature, and even knowing this is important for moksha for them. 

In the Dvaita system of philosophy, particularly as expounded by Madhvacharya, the concept of Devata Taratamya (hierarchy of deities) is fundamental. This hierarchy is not arbitrary but is based on the inherent nature and potency of the deities, with Vishnu (Narayana) occupying the supreme position. Yes, the hierarchy of deities (Devata Taratamya) is explicitly mentioned and established in Madhvacharya's own original works. It is a cornerstone of his Dvaita philosophy. Madhvacharya systematically presented this concept, citing various Puranas and Vedic texts as scriptural evidence for the graded superiority of different deities and souls. He meticulously argued against the Advaita notion of all deities (and even individual souls) being ultimately identical to the impersonal Brahman.

Here's a simplified representation of the hierarchy, moving from highest to lowest in terms of inherent bliss, knowledge, and power (though even the lowest are infinitely superior to humans):

1. Lord Vishnu (Narayana/Hari/Krishna): The Supreme God, independent, omniscient, omnipotent, and the source of all existence. All other deities derive their power and authority from Him. He is the ultimate object of worship and meditation.

2. Goddess Lakshmi (Shri/Ramaa): The eternal consort of Vishnu, she is next in rank. She is inherently free from sorrow and embodies all auspicious qualities. She is not a jiva (soul) but an eternal companion and power of Vishnu.

3. Lord Brahma: The creator god, holding the highest rank among jivas (individual souls) and entrusted with the creation of the universe. He is a Mukti-yogya (eligible for liberation) soul.

4. Lord Vayu (Mukhya Prana/Hanuman/Bhima/Madhavacharya): Holds a unique and extremely high position, considered the foremost jiva after Brahma. He is the primary life-force and plays a crucial role in creation, sustenance, and dissolution. Madhvacharya is regarded as an incarnation of Vayu.

5. Lord Shiva (Rudra): The destroyer god, also a very high-ranking jiva.

6. Goddess Saraswati (Bharati): Consort of Brahma, goddess of knowledge.

7. Goddess Parvati (Uma/Gauri): Consort of Shiva.

8. Lord Indra: King of the devas (celestial beings), associated with rain and thunder.

9. Lord Surya (Sun God):

10. Lord Chandra (Moon God):

11. Other Devas: This includes other celestial beings, such as Agni (fire), Varuna (water), Vayu (wind, distinct from Mukhya Prana), Yama (death), Kubera (wealth), Gandharvas, Yakshas, and others, in their respective descending order.

12. Rishis/Sages: Elevated human souls who have attained significant spiritual merit.

13. Humans:

14. Other living beings: Animals, plants, etc.

Key Points about Devata Taratamya:

• Difference in Nature: This hierarchy is not just about power, but about the inherent nature of the souls and their proximity to Vishnu.

• Graded Liberation: The Dvaita system posits that even among liberated souls (Muktas), there is a hierarchy of bliss based on their inherent nature and spiritual efforts.

• Worship: While Vishnu is the supreme object of worship, other deities can be worshipped as emanations or subservient aspects of Vishnu, or to achieve specific material benefits, but always with the understanding of their subordinate position.

• Varying Details: While the broad outlines are consistent, the precise ordering of some deities (especially those lower down) can sometimes have minor variations in different Dvaita texts or commentaries.

It's a complex and detailed system, but the core principle is the absolute supremacy of Vishnu and the graded reality of all other entities.

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB98VtZCpM%2BW1Td-C-HGdUM7xWZmCp25BJfPp5KUxa_R41Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, 18 Sept, 2025, 5:46 pm Krishna Kashyap, <kkashy...@gmail.com> wrote:

namaste Subbu Ji,

in which work Raghavendra swami says this:

Raghavendra Swamy has praised Madhvacharya as the one whose feet dust will liberate Shiva, etc. And also the Shankara nindaa part.?

Please give a citation.

Dear Krishna ji,

In the invocatory verse composed by Raghavendra (Swamy) Tirtha to his prakāśikā to the Tatparyachandrika of Vyasatirtha, the former says, in the second verse cited below: Let foot-dust of Purnaprajna (Madhwacharya) that causes the liberation (nirvāṇagati) of Śarva (Shiva) etc. gods (gīrvāṇa) protect us always.    

https://archive.org/details/tatparya-chandrika-of-vyasa-tirtha-dvaita-vedanta-studies-and-research-foundation/page/2/mode/2up 

समस्तगुणसंपूर्ण सर्वदोषविवर्जितम् । शानिप्रियतमं वन्दे मुक्तिदं कमलापतिम् ॥ १॥

शर्वादिसर्वगीर्वाणनिर्वाणगतिहेतवः । पूर्णप्रज्ञपदाम्भोजपासवः पान्तु नः सदा ॥ २ ॥  

The following was shared with me by a friend: Regarding the Shankara nindā by Raghavendra Tirtha:  The gist of the Kannada write-up is: 

In this link https://srimadhvyasa.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/sanskrit-prameyanavamalika-01062013.pdf  is a book Goodha Bhaava Prakaashika Vyakhya Authored by Sri Raghavendra Theertha, a gloss on Prameya Nava Malika (Anu Madhwa Vijaya ) of Sri Narayana Pandithacharya.  (Raghavendra Tirtha was known as Mahabhāshya Venkta Bhatta in his pre-monastic life, when he wrote the commentary. There he has denigrated Shankara (and by extension, the other pre-Madhwa Sutra bhashya authors). One can see that in the linked pdf provided above.   

ಮಂತ್ರಾಲಯದ ರಾಘವೇಂದ್ರ ಸ್ವಾಮಿಗಳು ಶಂಕರರ ನಿಂದೆಯನ್ನು ಎಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುವವರು ಈ ಕೆಳಗಿನ ಕಿರುಲೇಖನವನ್ನು ನೋಡಬಹುದು.

ನಾರಾಯಣ ಪಂಡಿತನ ಅಣುಮಧ್ವವಿಜಯ ಅಥವಾ ಪ್ರಮೇಯನವಮಾಲಿಕಾ ಎಂಬ ಕಾವ್ಯದ ಮೇಲೆ ಮಹಾಭಾಷ್ಯ ವೆಂಕಟಭಟ್ಟ (ನಂತರ ಇವರೇ ಮಂತ್ರಾಲಯದ ರಾಘವೇಂದ್ರ ಸ್ವಾಮಿಗಳಾದರು) ಬರೆದ ಗೂಢಭಾವಪ್ರಕಾಶಿಕಾ ಎಂಬ ವ್ಯಾಖ್ಯಾನವಿದೆ. ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಬಂದಿರುವ ಶಂಕರನಿಂದಾ ಭಾಗಗಳು-

ಎರಡನೇ ಶ್ಲೋಕದಲ್ಲಿ क्रोधतन्त्रा भूत्वा भूमौ कुशास्त्रं व्याधिषत मणिमत्पूर्वकाः ಎಂದು ನಾರಾಯಣ ಪಂಡಿತ ಹೇಳಿದೆಡೆ, ವೆಂಕಟಭಟ್ಟರು ಹೀಗೆ ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರೆ - "*मणिमदाख्यदैत्यपूर्वकाः क्रोधतन्त्राः कोपपरवशाः सन्तः भूमौ संकरादिनामत्वेनोत्पद्य कुशास्त्रं दुःशास्त्रं व्यधिषताकार्षुः*". ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಶಂಕರರನ್ನೇ ಅವರು ಹೇಳಿರುವುದು ಸುಸ್ಪಷ್ಟ. ಮುಂದಿನ ಶ್ಲೋಕದ ವ್ಯಾಖ್ಯಾನದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಹ "*संकरकृतदुःशास्त्रेण*" ಎಂದು ದೂಷಣೆ ಮುಂದುವರೆಯುತ್ತದೆ.

ಒಂಭತ್ತನೇ ಶ್ಲೋಕದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾರಾಯಣ ಪಂಡಿತ दुष्टभाष्यापनोदी ಎಂದರೆ ವೆಂಕಟಭಟ್ಟ "*दुष्टस्य संस्करस्य भाष्यं दुष्टं च तद्भाष्यं च इति वा*" ಎಂದು ಶಂಕರರನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ಅವರ ಭಾಷ್ಯವನ್ನು ದುಷ್ಟ ಎಂದು ಕರೆದಿರುವುದು ಕಂಡುಬರುತ್ತದೆ. ಹೀಗೆ ಸ್ವಮತಾಭಿನಿವೇಶದಿಂದ ರಾಯರೂ ಸಹ ಅನ್ಯಮತಾಚಾರ್ಯರನ್ನು ನಿಂದೆ ಮಾಡಿರುವುದು ಖೇದಕರ. ಇರಲಿ, ರಾಯರ ಭಕ್ತರಾದರೂ ಇದನ್ನು ಮುಂದುವರೆಸದಿರಲಿ.

ಇತಿ ಶಂ.

warm regards

subbu

[Krishna Kashyap]

thanks Subbu Ji.

I will go through in detail.

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 10:06 AM Krishna Kashyap <kkashy...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Sunil Ji,

I do not know Raghavendra swami's personal biography. Thanks for filling in some details of his married life. Definitely sounds cruel to me.

I am interested in finding out the text reference of where he mentions about Madhvacharya and Shiva. 

Raghavendra swami followed the commentaries by Madhvadharya sincerely. He may have added some additional info from his point of view. His view on Shiva and Madhvacharya, can be probably traced to some statements directly made by Madhvacharya himself.

I dont find it very odd since the school of thought (dvaita)

recognizes hierarchy or devata-taratamya as a fundamental feature, and even knowing this is important for moksha for them. 

In the Dvaita system of philosophy, particularly as expounded by Madhvacharya, the concept of Devata Taratamya (hierarchy of deities) is fundamental. This hierarchy is not arbitrary but is based on the inherent nature and potency of the deities, with Vishnu (Narayana) occupying the supreme position. Yes, the hierarchy of deities (Devata Taratamya) is explicitly mentioned and established in Madhvacharya's own original works. It is a cornerstone of his Dvaita philosophy. Madhvacharya systematically presented this concept, citing various Puranas and Vedic texts as scriptural evidence for the graded superiority of different deities and souls. He meticulously argued against the Advaita notion of all deities (and even individual souls) being ultimately identical to the impersonal Brahman.

Here's a simplified representation of the hierarchy, moving from highest to lowest in terms of inherent bliss, knowledge, and power (though even the lowest are infinitely superior to humans):

1. Lord Vishnu (Narayana/Hari/Krishna): The Supreme God, independent, omniscient, omnipotent, and the source of all existence. All other deities derive their power and authority from Him. He is the ultimate object of worship and meditation.

2. Goddess Lakshmi (Shri/Ramaa): The eternal consort of Vishnu, she is next in rank. She is inherently free from sorrow and embodies all auspicious qualities. She is not a jiva (soul) but an eternal companion and power of Vishnu.

3. Lord Brahma: The creator god, holding the highest rank among jivas (individual souls) and entrusted with the creation of the universe. He is a Mukti-yogya (eligible for liberation) soul.

4. Lord Vayu (Mukhya Prana/Hanuman/Bhima/Madhavacharya): Holds a unique and extremely high position, considered the foremost jiva after Brahma. He is the primary life-force and plays a crucial role in creation, sustenance, and dissolution. Madhvacharya is regarded as an incarnation of Vayu.

Actually it was Madhwa himself who proclaimed himself as the third incarnation of Vayu, the first two being Hanuman and Bhima. He substantiated his claim by picking out many passages from the Rg Veda and other sources. He positioned himself on the lines of the earlier two - who were the greatest contributors, according to him, to the accomplishment of the  purpose of the Rama and Krishna avatara-s.  In this third avatara of Vayu, Madhwa positions himself as the one who serves Veda Vyasa (who is also an avatara of Vishnu, in a way) by demolishing all incorrect doctrines that had come before his advent.

1. Lord Shiva (Rudra): The destroyer god, also a very high-ranking jiva.

2. Goddess Saraswati (Bharati): Consort of Brahma, goddess of knowledge.

Actually Saraswati/Bharati are above Shiva in the Madhwa hierarchy.   

warm regards

subbu  

[Krishna Kashyap]

Namaste Sunil Ji.

I asked aistudio about the "death by starvation of wife of Raghavendra swami""

The answer I got was this:

************************************

No, the widely accepted historical accounts and traditional narratives of Sri Raghavendra Swami do not state that his wife died of starvation.

Here's what the traditional accounts generally say regarding his wife and family:

1. Marriage and Family Life: Prior to taking sanyasa (monastic vows), Sri Raghavendra Swami was known as Venkatacharya. He was married to Smt. Saraswati Bai and had a son named Lakshminarayana. He lived a Grihastha (householder) life for many years, facing financial hardships but dedicated to his studies and family.

2. Taking Sanyasa: When the time came for him to accept sanyasa, it was a significant event. Traditional accounts depict Smt. Saraswati Bai as deeply devoted and initially distressed by the decision, as it meant separation. However, she eventually accepted his spiritual path.

3. Saraswati Bai's Demise: The traditional narrative states that Smt. Saraswati Bai committed suicide by drowning in a well. She did this out of profound grief and devotion, believing that she could not live without him after he took sanyasa.

   • It is said that after her death, her spirit attempted to follow Sri Raghavendra Swami, but he, through his spiritual powers, liberated her and ensured her a good afterlife.

Therefore, the claim that she died of starvation is incorrect according to traditional accounts. Her death is attributed to grief and inability to cope with her husband's transition to a monastic life.

It's important to rely on reputable historical and spiritual texts, as well as the traditions maintained by the Mutt, when discussing such figures.

******************************** AI studio

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 2:36 AM sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB98VtZCpM%2BW1Td-C-HGdUM7xWZmCp25BJfPp5KUxa_R41Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Krishna Kashyap]

This raises an intriguing point about verification. When someone makes such a claim about themselves, it becomes impossible for external parties to confirm it. Even if verification were possible, the validator would need to be higher in the spiritual hierarchy than Vayu himself. By that logic, only Lakshmi and Hari could serve as witnesses.

And I don't recall having any recent conversations with either of them!" 😀😀

Actually it was Madhwa himself who proclaimed himself as the third incarnation of Vayu, the first two being Hanuman and Bhima. He substantiated his claim by picking out many passages from the Rg Veda and other sources. He positioned himself on the lines of the earlier two - who were the greatest contributors, according to him, to the accomplishment of the  purpose of the Rama and Krishna avatara-s.  In this third avatara of Vayu, Madhwa positions himself as the one who serves Veda Vyasa (who is also an avatara of Vishnu, in a way) by demolishing all incorrect doctrines that had come before his advent.

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

--
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/CAKk0Te31ipXmx8cMj6roiucLkmUFoSvm9y3Su-EU978BvD9cig%40mail.gmail.com.

[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).

See all images: https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/bDU7AGFjHRg

Images from the Vidwan's book, etc.:

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.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 5:34 PM Raghav Kumar Dwivedula <raghav...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Subbu ji

Is the denigration of Sri Shankara currently available in any published version of Sri Madhwa’s works. Or do we have to solely rely on the secondary source of this Madhwa scholar who is quoting from a certain book kept with him which is currently non-existent in print. And hence only this Madhva scholar’s claims and quotations are the pramANa. 

Dear Raghav ji,

The denigration of Shankara and Advaitins in such despicable terms is there spread across many Madhwa texts which are all available in public domain.  The particular instance of this Madhwa scholar claiming to be available in Raghavendra Tirtha's Bhagavad Gita commentary called Gita vivruti is somewhat hazy as the printed versions do not have that particular term that the scholar audaciously claims to be present in the text.  

I write the above not to absolve anyone but to say that - hypothetically if the Madhva peethadhipatis disavow and disown all such references of personalized abuse of Sri Shankara, then, by definition, that becomes the Madhwa view. Especially if we don’t have any published work directly available where personalized abuse of Sri Shankara figures. That leaves their peculiar dvaita theology still totally at odds with advaita. But if the current crop of peethadhipatis and scholars do not consider Madhwa to have ever used such words in his works, then I am not complaining!

This is a very laudable situation that you propose: that the present Madhwa pontiffs along with the top brass scholars come together to pass a resolution to ' disavow and disown all such references of personalized abuse of Sri Shankara,' as you nicely put it.  But, unfortunately that would not happen since the very root of such abuse is in Madhwacharya's own works, though not the name of Shankara is taken by him anywhere while giving no room for ambiguity to his followers that it is Shankara and by extension Ramanuja, etc. Those verses are cited in the article first shared with a link. Even though a few individuals among them may like those references to be removed from the original texts where they are at present, the execution of such a move would be stiffly opposed by radicals among them who would like that denigration to be there forever. In other words, the seed for the nindā was sown by Madhwa himself.   

                The fact remains that (if I recollect) Madhva in his iśāvāsya bhāśya says that all advaitins and for good measure,                              even vishishTAdvaitins, go to eternal dark hellish worlds in his commentary on the verse “andham tamaḥ praviśanti ye                    vidyām upāsate” etc.

Yes, it is all over his bhashyas and many other works in one way or the other.  

warm regards

subbu

(Except for the advaita paramparā, most other theologies of Indic origin are irritatingly shallow and dogmatic. Non-Indic theologies like islam are even more outrageous since they openly preach physical violence in addition to eternal damnation. Christianity in its bizarre theological claims and threats of eternal damnation is less violent only since a century or two, but is no less a source of harm to humanity.)

Om

Raghav

[Krishna Kashyap]

I have seen in the Gita Bhashya of Madhvacharya statements that say: 'If anyone meditates or considers that jivatma is the same as Brahman, he will go to Naraka.'  Statements like this are spread in different chapters of Gitabhasya and Gitatatparya, both by Madhvacharya.

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

[Suresh Balaraman]

Whole Bhuloka is created-sustained-transformed, by Lord Brahman, is the ultimate spiritual truth!

Suresh Balaraman

On Sep 19, 2025, at 2:40 PM, Krishna Kashyap <kkashy...@gmail.com> wrote:



--
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/CANkLSMn7j%2BRiM2p-3o-Nxfr2OrAyRw%2BYJWT7YhpD3fs2bm3BfQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Yes, all that appear in the tribhuvan have been created, sustained and transformed  by Brahman and all creations would eventually be ended by Brahman.

Sunil K B

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/D7929793-A0EA-40E9-8F88-137171CA2796%40gmail.com.

[Ram Chandran]

Namaskar:

Yes, all that illusioned to be created, sustained and transformed by Brahman and all such illusions will eventually end at the time of Self-Realization. It is similar to witnessing a movie on the movie theater. Before the movie starts, there was only a blank screen and when the movie ends we see once again a blank screen!

 

With warm regards,

Ram Chandran

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Right. Yes, that is another way of putting it.

Regards

Sunil KB

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/0ecaae57-eb30-4ab9-b229-cf86b0cfa3edn%40googlegroups.com.

[Krishna Kashyap]

It's worth noting that Bellamkonda Ramaraya Kavi uses disrespectful language when referring to Ramanujacharya. In contrast, Visistadvaita scholars consistently maintain respectful discourse when discussing philosophers from other philosophical traditions, regardless of their differences in viewpoint

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAP4HB9_S15%3DNeBtKBiS%2BFLwUYdaSi5P5DbJpBAjn8sxVLNPDvA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Krishna Kashyap]

While contemporary philosophical writers across various schools sometimes employ harsh language, traditional scholars generally maintained respectful discourse by focusing their critiques on opposing viewpoints rather than making personal attacks against the philosophers themselves

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 10:50 AM Krishna Kashyap <kkashy...@gmail.com> wrote:

It's worth noting that Bellamkonda Ramaraya Kavi uses disrespectful language when referring to Ramanujacharya. In contrast, Visistadvaita scholars consistently maintain respectful discourse when discussing philosophers from other philosophical traditions, regardless of their differences in viewpoint

Dear Krishna ji,

I think you are aware of the kind of language Ramanuja himself used at the beginning of the Sribhashya while referring to Shankara:   

In the Sribhashyam of Sri Ramanuja, after the 'mahaa purvapaksha' there is the indictment of Shankara as follows:

//तदिदमौपनिषदपरमपुरुषवरणीयताहेुतुगुणविशेषविरहिणां अनादिपापवासनादूषिताशेषशेमुषीकाणां अनधिगतपदवाक्यस्वरूपतदर्थयाथात्म्यप्रत्यक्षादिसकलप्रमाणवृत्त-तदितिकर्तव्यतारूपसमीचीनन्यायमार्गाणां विकल्पासहविविधकुतर्ककल्ककल्पितमिति न्यायानुगृहीतप्रत्यक्षादिसकलप्रमणवृत्तयाथात्म्यविद्भिः अनादरणीयम् ।//  

Ramanuja accuses Shankara (and Sureshwara and Sarvajnatman): 1. Those unfit to be chosen by the Aupaniṣada Puruṣa (Brahman) 2. As those soaked in immense sinful tendencies 3. As those who are ignorant of the fundamentals of epistemology and its application 4. As those who engage in intolerant fallacious argumentation 5. And therefore all right-knowing/thinking people should reject them 

śrībhāsya: 2.2.27

....वेदवादछद्मप्रच्छन्नबौद्धनिराकरणे निपुणतरं प्रपञ्चितम् ।

//This point has already been set forth in detail in our refutation of those crypto-Bauddhas who take shelter under a pretended Vedic doctrine.//

In the Bhagavadgita 13.2 bhāsya Ramanuja says:

अत एवमादिवादा अनाकलित -- श्रुतिस्मृतीतिहासपुराणन्यायसदाचार -- स्ववाक्यविरोधैः स्ववचःस्थापनदुराग्रहैः अज्ञानिभिः जगन्मोहनाय प्रवर्तिताः इति अनादरणीयाः ।

//Therefore such arguments as these are to be rejected since they stem from ignoramuses who are obsessed with asserting their views that are self-contradictory, with no basis in the Śruit, smṛti, itihāsa, purāna, logic and noble conduct, aimed at deluding the world.//

In the Vedartha sangraha Ramanuja says:

ब्रह्माज्ञानपक्षादपि पापीयानयं भेदाभेदपक्षः

(The school that accepts that there exists both dualism and non-dualism is more sinful than the Advaita school that accepts that the Supreme Brahman itself is the repository of ignorance).

Some such can also be seen in Vedanta Desika's works.  Of course, the crypto-Buddhist charge has been made by Bhaskara, before Ramanuja. 

warm regards

subbu

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

.

[Krishna Kashyap]

namaste subbuji,

Please note: the viewpoints are criticized in Ramanujabhashya, but there is no mention of any personality or name.

This is the difference. Obviously, a philosophical position that is not acceptable will be criticized. This occurs in almost all philosophical texts

On the other hand, Bellamkonda Ramaraya Kavi, mentions the name Ramanuja: in the singular and starts attacking the person more than the philosophical position.

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

--

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/CAKk0Te0x8Nqkz5zr0M%2B%2BSTHB5rodqjYqpePoWRU8azOpg_SV1Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Krishna Kashyap]

condemnation of a viewpoint is totally different from condemnation of a personality who has that viewpoint.

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Krishna ji,

I agree with you that refuting or condemning a view point is quite admissible. But the individual, even if not named, but unambiguously implied, is being stated to be someone endowed with anādi papa vāsanā and ineligible to be accepted by Ishwara. 

At this point of time we may only wish such personal attacks are totally avoided by anyone.

warm regards

subbu  

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CANkLSMm1rNq2n--q4eUPtZaWb2eB9MjKAT%3DxFeQwn1Xk%2BmjZXw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

I think personal atracks are not uncommon. This is from the translation of Brahmasutra Bhasya - 

https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/sbe34208.htm

"Moreover, Buddha by propounding the three mutually contradictory systems, teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only, and general nothingness, has himself made it clear either that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions, or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused"

Yes, the Buddhists too have carried out personal attacks. 

[Krishna Kashyap]

This pattern is indeed characteristic of polemical literature across philosophical traditions. About 40 years ago, during our study of Mallisena Suri's Syad-Vada-Manjari - a foundational text in Jain philosophy - we documented similarly aggressive rhetoric. The caustic language Mallisena employs against Buddhist (Saugata) and Vedantic scholars, particularly those from the Advaita tradition, was so harsh it was genuinely startling.

This demonstrates how polemical works, by their very nature, often prioritize forceful refutation over diplomatic discourse, using sharp language as a rhetorical weapon to discredit opposing philosophical positions. When examining such rhetoric closely, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish whether the attacks are directed at the philosophical systems themselves or have crossed into personal attacks against the individual philosophers.

Best Regards,

Krishna Kashyap

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/307c4e5f-1014-4462-93bb-317fdddc2104n%40googlegroups.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Krishna Kashyapj,

I wish to clarify that the teachings of Buddhism and  Jainism are different.

Historically, the teaching of Jainisn started with Lord Parshvanath in the 8th century BCE and that was followed by the teaching of some additional aspects of Jainism by Lord Mahavir in the 6th century BCE. Though I understand that some of deities known to the Sanatana dharma might be respected in the Jainism, yet to my knowledge neither of the the above two founders have pointed any similarity of Jainsim with the Sanatana dharma.

On the other hand Lord Buddha was born in the 18th century BCE, i.e., Lord Buddha was born about 11 centuries before  Lord Parshvanath. Further Lord Buddha clearly stated that he was preaching the Sanatana dharma only.

Best wishes.

Sunil KB

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CANkLSM%3DQ2jq4CmVBf%2B%3DfTAajii1vq6qXtrVzKY8mceZVsHsjKw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ram Chandran]

Namaskar:

Ultimately Truth and Non-violence are eternal.  However the  definition of non-violence (what is considered by some as offensive may be non-offensive for someone else) constantly changes!  Dharma was never considered as static but it is always dynamic!   Any adoption of Dharmic rules require very careful consideration because they can be overlapping!! For example a father who is also a teacher to his son will be forced to choose one Dharma and abandon other dharma! Dharma also expects everyone to follow the hierarchical rules! Simply speaking, the subject matter is complex and let us not make any judgment on the followers of any philosophy on the basis of one or two observations!  

As a matter of fact, personal attacks can never lead one closer to the Truth!

With my warm regards,
Ram Chandran