Re: [Advaita-l] Chakilam Venkatesh - Controversy???

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Sangeerth ji & Swagata ji,

The critic (Youtube id: Vishvas Vasuki) seems to belong to Visishtadvaita Sri-Vaishnava sampradayam (non-Advaitin). I would take his criticisms of Advaita (and Advaitin) with a bucket-load of salt and instead reach out to an Advaita acharya to clarify the Advaita position.

Unless you have already done so; prior to getting the clarification (or confirmation) from an Advaita acharya, it is strongly recommended to refrain from denigrating (such as "bringing the pedestal of Sringeri to streets") an Advaita scholar.

Below is my personal opinion:

I just listened to 1 video (https://youtu.be/LIX8SNz-Pl8?si=OWDGfv3ddKeC2TRD) and to me this is the critic's clear misunderstanding, mischaracterization and misrepresentation of Advaita.

Atman in paramarthika sense is indeed absolutely changeless and unmoving. In vyavaharika, due to adhyasa with sukshma and karana shariras, the perceived jivatma transmigrates. This is a clear Advaita stance and the critic has failed to understand the siddhanta prior to criticizing Advaita. The two shlokas from SBG refer to these distinct perspectives. 2.24 is clearly paramarthika whereas 8.24 is vyavaharika. The critic is confusing the two perspectives.

At the 8:54 minute mark the critic says that "some Shankarans (implying Advitins) make Bhagavan Shri Krishna to be an insane person"! Kindly point to an Advaita acharya or Advaita granta where Bhagavan is said to be so!

At the 12:18 minute mark the critic says that "Sankaracharya twisted Veda Vyasa's views very clearly".

At the 15:30 minute mark, there is an attempt by the critic to state Advaita siddhanta as taught by Swami Sankaracharya. The attempt is an inaccurate, misrepresentation of Advaita siddhanta.

One's own misunderstanding of Advaita should not be mischaracterized as a flaw in the siddhanta. Neither does restating one's own sampradhayam perspective imply inaccuracy of Advaita bhashya.
To me, the criticism is baseless, biased and flawed; It doesn't warrant listening to any other of the critic's videos.

If there are questions on quotations / references, that can (and should) be taken up individually & specifically with the teacher directly.

Note: I have not listened to Shri Venkatesh Chakkilam's discourses and hence, notwithstanding accuracy of his Advaita teaching, my opinion is limited to the criticism in the aforementioned video.

prostrations,

Vikram

On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 9:49 AM Swagata Chowdhury via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

I do not believe he is actually associated with *Aham Brahmāsmi*. However,
that organization tends to invite people rather freely—much like Indica.
Indica has, on multiple occasions, invited certain fraudulent individuals
to their programs. Later, some scholars sent them an email, they confirmed
that they would no longer invite him.

In my opinion, it is preferable to invite only those with a genuine
Sanskrit background—whether academic or traditional. And if someone is from
a different field, they should at least have strong recommendations from
respected Sanskrit scholars.

swagata

On Thu, 6 Nov 2025, 1:16 pm Sangeerth P via Advaita-l, <
adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Namaskaram
>
> What is this happening with this Chakillam Venkatesh? Is he really from
> ahambrahmasmi team? He is bringing the pedestal of Sringeri to streets I
> feel by citing sutras which are no where found and slokas from Vishnu
> puranam no where found.
>
> Gita-2-17
> https://youtu.be/LIX8SNz-Pl8?si=cRqz1Ofo8yaxZ0G1
>
> Gita-2-24
> https://youtu.be/tXpUd-mYzNs?si=GWR-UwiQ1ehwIgCa
>
> His arrogance
> https://youtu.be/hjdiTt9ikaI?si=hVOEGldf4bwG8WiD
>
>
> Regards
> Sangeerth P
> 8608658009
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Sangeerth ji,

I am not personally familiar with Shri Venkatesh Chakkilam and therefore cannot comment on his association with various organizations.

If there are genuine doubts regarding the references he has quoted, it would be best to seek clarification directly from him. I am sure there are appropriate means to contact him for such clarifications. Without doing so, drawing conclusions about his intent or approach would be premature.

While the Advaita–Visishtadvaita debate has a long and rich history, the clear misunderstandings of Advaita Siddhanta evident in the critic’s statements (some of which I have already pointed out) significantly weaken the credibility of his criticisms. Consequently, his claims of “inaccurate references” too appear questionable in both accuracy and validity and do not inspire confidence. I do not have the inclination to watch the other videos.

In simple terms, with all due respect to the critic, I personally find his grasp of Advaita Siddhanta insufficiently grounded to support such criticisms. Without correct knowledge and comprehension, any criticism becomes a futile exercise.

prostrations,
Vikram

On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 9:27 PM Sangeerth P <psangeer...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste ji

Thank you for your clarification. But can you please tell about this Chakilam guy? Is he really from Aham Brahmasmi? And he is citing sutras which does not exists at all. Wont this be bringing the reputation of Aham Brahmasmi foundation to streets? Refuting Advaita or Vishishtadvaita has been done for 100 of years wherein one paksha will say you did not understand the opponents paksha. But the errors which Chakkilam ji is pointing to does not go in hand with Advaita acharyas themselves right? Because those kinds of sutras or vishnu purana sloka does not exists is what Vishwas ji is pointing to. How do we understand this fact?  

Regards

Sangeerth P

8608658009

*To me, the criticism is baseless, biased and flawed; It doesn't warrant
listening to any other of the critic's videos.*

If there are questions on quotations / references, that can (and should) be
taken up individually & specifically with the teacher directly.

*Note: I have not listened to Shri Venkatesh Chakkilam's discourses and

hence, notwithstanding accuracy of his Advaita teaching, my opinion is

limited to the criticism in the aforementioned video.*

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 12:46 PM Sangeerth P via Advaita-l <adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Namaskaram

What is this happening with this Chakillam Venkatesh? Is he really from
ahambrahmasmi team? He is bringing the pedestal of Sringeri to streets I
feel by citing sutras which are no where found and slokas from Vishnu
puranam no where found.

Gita-2-17
https://youtu.be/LIX8SNz-Pl8?si=cRqz1Ofo8yaxZ0G1

Gita-2-24
https://youtu.be/tXpUd-mYzNs?si=GWR-UwiQ1ehwIgCa

His arrogance
https://youtu.be/hjdiTt9ikaI?si=hVOEGldf4bwG8WiD

Thank you Sri Vikram ji and Raghav ji for your responses.  

Sri Vishwas makes it appear that he is innocent and that only the others are at fault.  He has no compunction in saying 'Advaitins have serious problems with their philosophy.' See the above 'His arrogance' video from 7.30 onwards. 'They have questions for which they have no answers. because of which they get angry, etc.' He says I claimed that Nirguna Brahman has icchā' and when questioned, I couldn't answer, etc.  and ends that episode by saying 'VS blocked me from the group.'  He is being dishonest by not revealing the amount of discussion that took place where another esteemed member Sri S.Venkataraghavan, who is a member of this group as well, too contributed a lot to the particular discussion, apart from a few others in that Advaitasabhā WhatsApp group. 

The origin of all that was in my citing Shankara's passage (which implies that the Para Brahman of the Vedanta, which is Nirguna Brahman, can take forms for facilitating bhakti/upasana, and through that, Shankara accepts multiple deity forms (in contrast to a very serious mischievous and misconceived notion among non-Advaitins that Shankara preferred and promoted only Vishnu/Narayana/Vasudeva to the exclusion of all other deity-forms).  

स्यात्परमेश्वरस्यापि इच्छावशात् मायामयं रूपं साधकानुग्रहार्थम् । (१.१.७.२०)  Brahman can take, out of will, any illusory form for the sake of benefiting the aspirant.

The context is: The specification of attributes like golden moustache, lotus-eyes, etc. (in a certain Upasana in the Chandogya Upanishad) can't apply to the Para Brahman which is taught in terms of  ‘अशब्दमस्पर्शमरूपमव्ययम्’ (क. उ. १ । ३ । १५)  free from sound, touch etc. In the face of such an objection, the reply is: even Para Brahman of such a specification can assume, out of will, any a-pāramarthika form to help the aspirant in upāsana.  

It is in this background the question arose: Does Nirguna Brahman have a will, icchā?   

  

Such questions cannot be answered in one word. The term 'Iswara, Parameshwara' are used by Shankara in specific senses in specific contexts. An outsider to the sampradaya would hardly know the subtleties involved here. That's what happened in that discussion which left many members annoyed at his behavior. The point is: Sri Vishwas was removed from the group not because he asked questions or that we did not like it. Nor were we unable to answer his questions but it was his uncivil conduct that resulted in his removal.  We had tolerated him on an earlier occasion too when he made disparaging remarks about Shankaracharya and Advaitins. That is his agenda. He has created groups where he freely mocks at Shankaracharya and the siddhanta. Why should a group dedicated to Shankara's Advaita tolerate this, and for how long? He has not disclosed all that in the video he is making.  

Sri Vishwas has created a page dedicated to criticizing Shankara:  

Justification - here

Other related speculation - here. 

He complains about his comments being deleted. I shall relate my recent experience: Sri Dushyant Sridhar in a Tamil video interview https://youtu.be/3-oZqVWGSQM?si=AQm39aRz5erL87IV   at 15.55 onwards makes a claim that in Advaita 'only a male brahmana sannyasin could get mukti' and Ramanuja disagreed with this. When I posted a comment giving the Shankara Bhashya passages that contradicted what Sri Dushyant Sridhar said, it was deleted. Twice more I posted the comment and they deleted it. 

'அந்தணனான துறவியான ஆண் மட்டுமே மோக்ஷம் அடைய முடியும்' என்று ஆதிசங்கரர் கூறவே இல்லை. 1. ப்ரஹ்ம ஸூத்ர பாஷ்யம் 1.3.38 - येषां पुनः पूर्वकृतसंस्कारवशाद्विदुरधर्मव्याधप्रभृतीनां ज्ञानोत्पत्तिः, तेषां न शक्यते फलप्राप्तिः प्रतिषेद्धुम् , ज्ञानस्यैकान्तिकफलत्वात् । ‘श्रावयेच्चतुरो वर्णान्’(म॰भा॰ १२-३२७-४९) इति चेतिहासपुराणाधिगमे चातुर्वर्ण्यस्याधिकारस्मरणात् । वेदपूर्वकस्तु नास्त्यधिकारः शूद्राणामिति स्थितम् ॥ ३८ ॥ இதன் கருத்து: விதுரன், தர்மவ்யாதன் முதலிய ப்ராஹ்மணர் அல்லாதவர்கள் தங்கள் பூர்வ ஜன்மத்தில் செய்த சாதனையின் ஸம்ஸ்காரம் காரணமாக இந்த ஜன்மத்தில் ஞானம் உள்ளவர்களாக இருக்கிறார்கள் (மஹாபாரததில்). அவர்களுக்கு அந்த ஞானத்தின் பலனான மோக்ஷம் இல்லை என்று யாராலும் கூறமுடியாது. 'எல்லா வர்ணத்தாருக்கும் சொல்ல வேண்டும்' என்று மஹாபாரததில் 12.327.49 சொன்னது போல் பரதத்துவத்தை எவரும் (ஆண் பெண் ஜாதி பேதமின்றி) இதிகாச புராணம் மூலமாக அறிந்து முக்தி பெறலாம். இது ஆதிசங்கரர் கூறியது. இது தவிர, ஆதிசங்கரர் மாண்டூக்ய காரிகை 4.95 பாஷ்யத்திலும் - பெண்கள் உள்பட யாரேனும் இந்த பரதத்துவத்தை அறிந்தார்களேயாயின் அவர்களே உலகில் மாபெறும் ஞானிகளாவர் - என்று கூறியுள்ளார்: अजे साम्ये परमार्थतत्त्वे एवमेवेति ये केचित् स्त्र्यादयोऽपि सुनिश्चिता भविष्यन्ति चेत् , त एव हि लोके महाज्ञानाः निरतिशयतत्त्वविषयज्ञाना इत्यर्थः । ஆதலால், ஆதிசங்கரர் மதத்தில் பெண்கள், எல்லா வர்ணத்தவர்களும் ஞானம் பெற்று முக்தியடைய வழியுண்டு.

Here is a condensed English summary in bullet points of the given Tamil passage:

---

• Misconception corrected:
  It is not true that Ādi Śaṅkara said only male renunciates (Brahmin monks) can attain mokṣa (liberation).

---

• From Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya 1.3.38:

  • Śaṅkara states that even non-Brāhmaṇas such as Vidura and Dharma-vyādha, due to the spiritual impressions (saṁskāra-s) from past births, may attain knowledge (jñāna) in this life.

  • The fruit of knowledge (mokṣa) cannot be denied to them, since knowledge inevitably leads to liberation.

  • The Mahābhārata (12.327.49) says “Śrāvayeccaturo varṇān” — all four varṇas are entitled to hear Itihāsa and Purāṇa teachings.

  • Therefore, anyone, regardless of caste or gender, can gain knowledge of Brahman and attain mokṣa through such teachings.

---

• From Māṇḍūkya Kārikā Bhāṣya 4.95:

  • Śaṅkara explicitly includes women and others:
    “Even if women or others become firmly convinced of the supreme truth (paramārtha-tattva), they are indeed great knowers of Truth (mahājñānāḥ), possessing unsurpassed knowledge.”

---

• Conclusion:
  According to Ādi Śaṅkara:

  • Liberation (mokṣa) is open to all, irrespective of gender or caste.

  • What truly matters is knowledge of Brahman, not social position or external identity.

---

The same happened with a Madhwa scholar who claimed the same in another video interview. Even he deleted my comment. 

Advaita has answers for any and all questions that are posed regarding doctrinal points. In most cases it turns out that the questioner is coming with a lot of misconceived ideas and to make him realize that itself is a challenge. There is a proper manner in which such discussions are conducted. When some basic norms are flouted, then a harsh action will have to be taken. 

warm regards

subbu

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Sangeerth ji, Swagata ji,

I understand that your question is limited to the accuracy of Venkatesh ji’s quotations, and not a broader critique of Advaita.

Let me first respond directly to that point by echoing a line I’ve used later below: If indeed Venkatesh ji has misquoted the scriptures (which, as Raghav ji notes, might be the case), the error is regrettable. However..

My concern, however, is deeper and relates to the scope of the criticism being advanced.

There are two dimensions to any critique:
1) the verbal/referential accuracy of quotations and attributions, and
2) the intent/doctrinal position being ascribed to the speaker.

In the three videos you had shared earlier, the critic Vishvas ji repeatedly pushes beyond the first dimension into the second, asserting conclusions about Venkatesh ji’s intent and about Advaita itself. If his concern were only misquotation, the matter could be settled in minutes with errata. The sustained length and tone of his critique indicate that he is, in fact, prosecuting a case against Advaita and Advaitins. That is where my concern lies.

If indeed Venkatesh ji has misquoted the scriptures (which, as Raghav ji notes, might be the case), the error is regrettable. However, given the numerous inaccuracies in Vishvas ji’s own understanding and presentation of Advaita, I find it difficult to believe that Venkatesh ji’s intent or comprehension deviates from Advaita Siddhanta. In general, within non-scholarly discourses, a quotation error is harmful primarily when it drives a doctrinal deviation. Absent such deviation, the misquotations are not as harmful as Vishvas ji (or even your kind self) make it out to be; and the proper remedy is correction, not indictment. Vishvas ji appears to assume the deviation and then retrofits the evidence - hence the scale of his critique.

Through these elaborate attempts, Vishvas ji unfortunately demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of Advaita. His blind belief in his own sampradayam’s criticism of Advaita leaves little room for an open "clarification" discussion. A “clarification” with such a mindset would only turn into a vitanda (pointless debate). True clarification is possible only when there is a willingness to listen and understand.

As an example, Vishvas ji’s extended argument over the words “yena” and “idam” in Bhagavad Gita 2.17 shows this gap clearly. He insists that the verse asserts the plurality of the world rather than the oneness of Atman and Brahman. But Advaita fully accepts experiential plurality - classifying it as the ajnani drishti (view of the ignorant), which aligns with Vishvas ji's views - while teaching that the verse’s true purport is the realization of the oneness underlying that plurality, the jnani drishti. Vishvas ji is entitled to his view, but his disagreement does not make the Advaita interpretation incorrect.

In another instance, Vishvas ji shared a WhatsApp screenshot where he framed an equation: NB + maya = SB, and demanded a one-word “yes” or “no” response. Such an equation is inherently flawed, and its absurdity cannot be explained in a one-word "yes" or "no" response. The left-hand side presupposes the existence of maya, which cannot coexist with Nirguna Brahman (NB). The better formulation would be (SB – maya) + maya = SB, but even this is imperfect, since from the standpoint of Saguna Brahman (SB), maya is an inseparable attribute and cannot truly be subtracted. Therefore, even saying SB – maya = NB is conceptually inaccurate. From the Advaita standpoint, once maya is transcended, the only valid equation is NB = NB, the oneness of Reality itself. This subtlety is often missed by non-Advaitins - and understandably so by Vishvas ji too, as it requires deep internalization rather than argument.

As Subbu ji rightly explains in that screenshot, whenever the scriptures refer to Brahman as Parameshvara, Ishvara, or Paramatma, they are still ultimately pointing to Nirguna Brahman. Depending on the context, Brahman may be described as seemingly conditioned (adhyasa) by attributes to enable teaching within the domain of ordinary perception (vyavahara drishti). The true teaching, however, is to look beyond name, form, and function - to see through maya and recognize the Nirguna Brahman.

Due to ignorance, one identifies as an individual and while so the ever existing NB is perceived to possess maya shakti and is identified as the SB. Attempting to intellectually “remove” maya from Saguna Brahman without transcending ignorance is futile. The attribution of maya to Ishvara arises from one’s own ignorance of the Self. Realize who you truly are first - then the question of who Ishvara is will resolve by itself.

Advaita Siddhanta holds that whether one refers to Jivatma or Paramatma, both ultimately point only to Nirguna Brahman. Just as an earring and a svarna-vimana both point to gold, every name and form — high or low — points only to that one absolute Truth. 

This brief note illustrates the extent of Vishvas ji’s misunderstanding of Advaita Siddhanta & consequent incoherence of his criticisms.

prostrations,

Vikram

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram!

A friend just flagged that Vishvas ji referenced our earlier thread in his recent vlog (https://youtu.be/bJl8wumOIFw?si=jTiu4uv-jYFsNFcf)!

At 13:53 minute mark Vishvas ji poses a challenge - "Can Parameshvara refer to only Nirguna Brahman and not Saguna Brahman? Is there such a place in SankaraBhashya."
At 19:32 mark he adds "Parameshvara never in Shankara-bhashya, to my knowledge, refers to Nirguna Brahman, without Saguna Brahman."
Further at 19:45, "If you find a place where it does refer to Nirguna Brahman without referring to Saguna Brahman please let me know; happy to correct myself."

Within Advaita Siddhanta (AS), other than directly considering Ishvara / Parameshvara mentions as Nirguna Brahman, kindly explain Swami Sankaracharya's use of these terms in the following phrases in BrahmaSutraBhashya (BSB):

BSB-1.1.20 - अपि च, यत्र तु निरस्तसर्वविशेषं पारमेश्वरं रूपमुपदिश्यते, भवति तत्र शास्त्रम् ‘अशब्दमस्पर्शमरूपमव्ययम्’ (क. उ. १ । ३ । १५) इत्यादि
Now, Vishvas ji denies this, stating that "it explicitly deletes visesha from Parameshvara".
But note: nirvisesham is in apposition alongside Parameshvaram and not an adjective of Parameshvaram. So निरस्तसर्वविशेषं पारमेश्वरं रूपम् = “Devoid of all distinctions, Paarameshvara, rupa"; It asserts nirviseshatva of that rupa, but does not syntactically say “the viseshas of Parameshvara are deleted”. Vishvas ji's denial is incorrect; still let it be so. Here are some more.

BSB-1.3.42 - योऽयं विज्ञानमयः प्राणेषु संसारी लक्ष्यते, स वा एष महानज आत्मा परमेश्वर एवास्माभिः प्रतिपादित इत्यर्थः
BSB-4.1.3 - आत्मेत्येव परमेश्वरः प्रतिपत्तव्यः । तथा हि परमेश्वरप्रक्रियायां जाबाला आत्मत्वेनैव एतमुपगच्छन्ति — ‘त्वं वा अहमस्मि भगवो देवतेऽहं वै त्वमसि भगवो देवते’ इति; तथा अन्येऽपि ‘अहं ब्रह्मास्मि’ इत्येवमादय आत्मत्वोपगमा द्रष्टव्याः ।
BSB-4.1.3 - ननु अहमीश्वर एवोक्तः श्रुत्या — यद्येवं प्रतिबुद्धोऽसि, नास्ति कस्यचिदप्रबोधः

A direct reference to Saguna Brahman in the above phrases is meaningless within the context of AS and goes against the siddhanta itself. However, important to note: AS teaches that Nirguna Brahman is avacya (non-describable by words); words function indicatively (lakshana), not as direct descriptors. Demanding a “word that directly describes the description-transcending” is a category mistake. Context and adhyaropa-apavada method are essential to proper understanding; this is Advaita 101.

It is unproductive engaging at length with vehement critiques of Advaita that overlook its foundational principles or to a dry logician who believes that without overcoming one's ignorance, one can purely through mere intellectual/logical exercise transcend maya/avidya and attain moksha. In Advaita, avidya/maya is the root problem; it is not removed by discursive intellectual reasoning alone. Logic clarifies and prepares, but moksha arises only from Brahma-jnana, with Shruti as the sole pramana. If mere syllogism were sufficient, Vedanta would be redundant and the tarkika systems would suffice. Advaita is a Vaidika darshana; the sadhya is aparokshanubhuti, not a conceptual verdict. Debate, therefore, must proceed on Advaita’s own epistemic terms rather than on the premise that logic by itself can transcend maya/avidya.

This is similar to a classical physicist vehemently criticizing quantum physics.

Will stop with just 1 clarification callout. There is a subtle but critical distinction between SB = Maya + NB (Subbu ji's statement) versus NB + maya = SB (Vishvas ji's misrepresentation) in AS. Former is accepted whereas the latter is invalid. The absurdity mentioned in the previous email thread is for expecting a one-word "yes/no" response to this distinction! As a hint, please refer to Srimad Bhagavad Gita 9.4-5. Further discussion can happen if and when Vishvas ji understands & explains this critical distinction. If the distinction is not understood, in the best interest of both our time & effort, I offer my namaskarams to Vishvas ji and let him continue on as he alone sees fit.

prostrations,
Vikram

[Kalyan Chakravarthy]

Namaste Sri Vikramji

Off topic, one question. 

>निरस्तसर्वविशेषं पारमेश्वरं रूपम् = “Devoid of all distinctions, Paarameshvara, rupa"; It asserts nirviseshatva of that rupa,

What does the word rUpam mean here? Nature? 

What would be the best english translation here? 

Best Regards

Kalyan

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Kalyan ji,

Yes, 'rupam' here indicates the nature of the entity under discussion. Swami Gambhirananda ji uses the word "aspect". My read is that - amongst the two perspectives of savisesha-aspect or nirvisesha-aspect of Parameshvawa, this line specifically refers to the nirvisesha-aspect.

prostrations,

Vikram

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 10:33 PM Vikram Jagannathan <vikky...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaskaram Kalyan ji,

Yes, 'rupam' here indicates the nature of the entity under discussion. Swami Gambhirananda ji uses the word "aspect". My read is that - amongst the two perspectives of savisesha-aspect or nirvisesha-aspect of Parameshvawa, this line specifically refers to the nirvisesha-aspect.

We have these usages also in the Bhashya:

अचिद्रूपत्वात् , आत्मनश्च चिद्रूपत्वात् ।     Kenopanishad bhashya

जीवरूपं परित्यज्य स्वं सद्रूपंं यत्परमार्थसत्यम्  Chandogya bhashya

श्रुतिषु आनन्दरूपत्वं विज्ञानघनत्वं  Brahma sutra bhashya

 

संविद्रूपेे प्रमेये च संविदन्या फलं भवेत् ।।   Brih.Up.Bh. vārtika..  

regards

subbu

prostrations,

Vikram

On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 8:06 AM Kalyan Chakravarthy <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Sri Vikramji

Off topic, one question. 

>निरस्तसर्वविशेषं पारमेश्वरं रूपम् = “Devoid of all distinctions, Paarameshvara, rupa"; It asserts nirviseshatva of that rupa,

What does the word rUpam mean here? Nature? 

What would be the best english translation here? 

Best Regards

Kalyan

--
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/CAM7AOLemp1oW%3D4O7K6tf1j2Hf8o_U1Jp_ua8VseuLy%3DPN_%3DBYA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Raghav ji,

Indeed

1. SB *-* māyā = NB ✅ as per advaita
(Negation of the upādhis lands us on NB)

But once NB is arrived at by apavāda,

2. NB *+* māyā = SB ❌ absurd
(NB being non-dual cannot be part of any *transaction* like addition or
even superimposition because there is no other entity other than NB. All
talk of superimposition is at the earlier stage alone.)

Kindly feel free to alter if I did not capture your intended meaning.

Indeed so. Minor clarification - the two representative equations under discussion are NB + maya = SB and SB = maya + NB. When it comes to deep dialectics, the former is incoherent; the latter is methodologically sound. This distinction is foundational for the correct understanding of Advaita Siddhanta (AS). For general conversation / understanding, the distinction can be overlooked and they can be considered as synonymous.

Before going into the details, a quick callout - as you have mentioned SB - maya = NB is valid from AS perspective, as it does mean that negating the maya upadhi from SB lands on NB. However, from a sadhana perspective this is inaccurate as it is futile attempting to negate maya from SB (an entity perceived as distinct from us) prior to us overcoming our own ignorance.

Detailed clarification:
NB + maya = SB (equivalently, NB + avidya = “me/I”) assumes that there is some distinct entity NB that somehow associates with a mysterious maya/avidya and thereby “becomes” a distinct SB. On that framing, AS is depicted as removing/transcending maya, so thatwhat is now perceived by me as SB will then be perceived as NB and somehow I will be merged with NB. Effectively, I will be destroyed and all that would remain is the NB entity alone. Unsurprisingly, a system cast this way invites serious objections; Swami Ramanujacharya, Swami Vedanta Desikan and Swami Vyasatirtha have pioneered in a deep threadbare analysis of such a system and identified its various flaws / inconsistencies.

Advaita’s actual starting point is SB = maya + NB (equivalently, “me/I” = avidya + NB). What is now taken as SB is an adhyasa - a superimposition - of maya/avidya upon NB. The fact that adhyasa is in operation in my day-to-day experience is an undeniable fact. I, due to my current ignorance, superimpose maya on NB to perceive as SB. Classical Advaita describes SB as “maya-avachinna chaitanya”. This is pedagogically sound because teaching begins from the vyavaharika (everyday / current experience) standpoint, within which maya/avidya operates, and then unfolds the Paramarthika (ultimate) Truth - Reality. Understanding the concept of adhyasa is of paramount importance, and hence Swami Shankaracharya starts the Brahma-sutra-Bhashya with the Adhyasa-bhashya.

General comments on the importance & relevance of this distinction:
The persistent underestimation of adhyasa, by non-Advaitins, explains why some question the relevance of the Adhyasa-bhashya or bypass it while claiming to teach an “Advaita view” of the Gita or Upanishads. Some of them, in an attempt to display a reconciliatory tone, patronize adhyasa-bhashya being addressed towards Buddhists and other non-Vaidikas. More on this here - https://archive.org/details/adhyasa-bhashya-reflections-on-scope-and-relevance

Many non-Advaitin presentations of the Advaita purvapaksha start from the perspective of NB and treat SB as really distinct from NB. From there arise questions such as “Where is maya in NB?”, “How can NB be associated with maya?”, and “How can such an association be overcome?” These questions are genuinely valid only if one first posits a real association in NB itself. Advaita does not. The association exists solely from the standpoint of maya/avidya - within the vyavaharika perspective. When maya/avidya is sublated, that projected association collapses with it. Hence Swami Sankaracharya, for every question on the locus of avidya/maya, almost always points the question back to the questioner.

Without this foundational clarity, Advaita can appear inconsistent or “intellectually unsound”. The issue, however, lies in the initial misframing, not in Advaita Siddhanta.

The famous saptavidha-anupapatti has force only if one begins with NB + maya = SB. From the proper pedagogical starting point - SB = maya + NB - those objections can be clarified and rendered invalid in its entirety. Now, this statement does not trivialize the depth of the critique or the care needed in response; it simply identifies the core of the clarification.

In sum: Start with NB + maya = SB, and the criticisms seem apt. Start where Advaita actually begins - SB = maya + NB - and they lose their footing.

A final, respectful note: Advaita Siddhanta equips one to overcome one's own ignorance, if and when they are earnest to overcome their ignorance. For many, who are quite content with their ignorance, AS is perhaps not yet the right sadhana for them. Preparatory disciplines such as chitta-shuddhi (mental-purification) and chitta-ekagrata (focused steadiness of mind) are appropriate steps (through karma, bhakthi and raja yoga) before engaging fully with AS.

prostrations,

Vikram

 

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 11:10 PM Vikram Jagannathan <vikky...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaskaram Raghav ji,

Indeed

1. SB *-* māyā = NB ✅ as per advaita
(Negation of the upādhis lands us on NB)

But once NB is arrived at by apavāda,

2. NB *+* māyā = SB ❌ absurd
(NB being non-dual cannot be part of any *transaction* like addition or
even superimposition because there is no other entity other than NB. All
talk of superimposition is at the earlier stage alone.)

Kindly feel free to alter if I did not capture your intended meaning.

Indeed so. Minor clarification - the two representative equations under discussion are NB + maya = SB and SB = maya + NB. When it comes to deep dialectics, the former is incoherent; the latter is methodologically sound. This distinction is foundational for the correct understanding of Advaita Siddhanta (AS). For general conversation / understanding, the distinction can be overlooked and they can be considered as synonymous.

Before going into the details, a quick callout - as you have mentioned SB - maya = NB is valid from AS perspective, as it does mean that negating the maya upadhi from SB lands on NB. However, from a sadhana perspective this is inaccurate as it is futile attempting to negate maya from SB (an entity perceived as distinct from us) prior to us overcoming our own ignorance.

Detailed clarification:
NB + maya = SB (equivalently, NB + avidya = “me/I”) assumes that there is some distinct entity NB that somehow associates with a mysterious maya/avidya and thereby “becomes” a distinct SB. On that framing, AS is depicted as removing/transcending maya, so thatwhat is now perceived by me as SB will then be perceived as NB and somehow I will be merged with NB. Effectively, I will be destroyed and all that would remain is the NB entity alone. Unsurprisingly, a system cast this way invites serious objections; Swami Ramanujacharya, Swami Vedanta Desikan and Swami Vyasatirtha have pioneered in a deep threadbare analysis of such a system and identified its various flaws / inconsistencies.

A program on the Saptavidha Anupapatti on the Avidya of Advaita - Tirupati

https://www.youtube.com/live/z9iNl-iXzZo?feature=share

The above video contains the following:

1. A brief description by Vidwan Sri K.E.Devanathan of the Saptavidha anupapatti on the Avidya of Advaita raised by Sri Ramanuja in the Sribhashyam

2. The 'defence' by the Advaita side by replying to each of the anupapatti-s by MM Sri Mani Dravid Sastrigal
3. A summing up of the above by noted scholar Vidwan Rajaram Shukla of Varanasi
4. A short discourse on the shastra adhyayana method by the pontiff of the Kanchi Kamakoti maTha HH Sri Vijayendra Saraswati Swaminah.

All the above are in Sanskrit medium.  There is a brief pause during item no.2 above owing to the arrival of the Kanchi Acharya to the venue. After the pause the talk resumes.

The entire video is a great experience in the nuances of Vedanta shastra and nyaya.

warm regards

subbu

 

Advaita’s actual starting point is SB = maya + NB (equivalently, “me/I” = avidya + NB). What is now taken as SB is an adhyasa - a superimposition - of maya/avidya upon NB. The fact that adhyasa is in operation in my day-to-day experience is an undeniable fact. I, due to my current ignorance, superimpose maya on NB to perceive as SB. Classical Advaita describes SB as “maya-avachinna chaitanya”. This is pedagogically sound because teaching begins from the vyavaharika (everyday / current experience) standpoint, within which maya/avidya operates, and then unfolds the Paramarthika (ultimate) Truth - Reality. Understanding the concept of adhyasa is of paramount importance, and hence Swami Shankaracharya starts the Brahma-sutra-Bhashya with the Adhyasa-bhashya.

General comments on the importance & relevance of this distinction:
The persistent underestimation of adhyasa, by non-Advaitins, explains why some question the relevance of the Adhyasa-bhashya or bypass it while claiming to teach an “Advaita view” of the Gita or Upanishads. Some of them, in an attempt to display a reconciliatory tone, patronize adhyasa-bhashya being addressed towards Buddhists and other non-Vaidikas. More on this here - https://archive.org/details/adhyasa-bhashya-reflections-on-scope-and-relevance

Many non-Advaitin presentations of the Advaita purvapaksha start from the perspective of NB and treat SB as really distinct from NB. From there arise questions such as “Where is maya in NB?”, “How can NB be associated with maya?”, and “How can such an association be overcome?” These questions are genuinely valid only if one first posits a real association in NB itself. Advaita does not. The association exists solely from the standpoint of maya/avidya - within the vyavaharika perspective. When maya/avidya is sublated, that projected association collapses with it. Hence Swami Sankaracharya, for every question on the locus of avidya/maya, almost always points the question back to the questioner.

Without this foundational clarity, Advaita can appear inconsistent or “intellectually unsound”. The issue, however, lies in the initial misframing, not in Advaita Siddhanta.

The famous saptavidha-anupapatti has force only if one begins with NB + maya = SB. From the proper pedagogical starting point - SB = maya + NB - those objections can be clarified and rendered invalid in its entirety. Now, this statement does not trivialize the depth of the critique or the care needed in response; it simply identifies the core of the clarification.

In sum: Start with NB + maya = SB, and the criticisms seem apt. Start where Advaita actually begins - SB = maya + NB - and they lose their footing.

A final, respectful note: Advaita Siddhanta equips one to overcome one's own ignorance, if and when they are earnest to overcome their ignorance. For many, who are quite content with their ignorance, AS is perhaps not yet the right sadhana for them. Preparatory disciplines such as chitta-shuddhi (mental-purification) and chitta-ekagrata (focused steadiness of mind) are appropriate steps (through karma, bhakthi and raja yoga) before engaging fully with AS.

prostrations,

Vikram

 

--

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/CAM7AOLeS8vX-Z8dNH%2B%2BT8C9p8P83GN4pqQJLKRgKWRZRo_KJgQ%40mail.gmail.com.