This particular section answers the most commonly asked questions by our humble supporters and aims to give a clear idea for the reader regarding the pivotal motive of our site. Here we have answered almost all the questions which commonly appears in the minds of our absolute truth seekers in a simple format without any complexity, even more questions are welcomed in the comment sections which will be answered either in this section or in the article section with neat & clear elaboration. Let the truth alone prosper.
DECODING OF MISINTERPRETATIONS ON ADI SHANKARACHARYA.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VAISHNAVA MATHA AND SANATANA DHARMA.
VAISHNAVISM AND IT’S ESSENTIAL FOLKLORIC NATURE
RATIONALE FOR THIS SITE.
What is the purpose of this site?
To show that Śaīvism alone is the purest form of Sanātana Dhàrma and defend it from frequent attacks done by some modern organisations and the innocent people influenced by such organisations.
Is this site aimed as a response to any others?
Although this site’s pivotal focus deals with establishment of truth for our humble spiritual youth, it debunks the erroneous misinterpretations and misinformation propagated by few self proclaimed neo-hindus who are actually absolutely fancy (or rather fanatic in nature). Just like how the Sun illumines the universe with his radiance and simultaneously destroys the dark murk, when the truth is established all absurd propagandas get destroyed eventually.
Whom are you referring here as self proclaimed Neo-Hindus?
When our Sanātana Dhàrma rapidly progressed in different parts of Bhārata~Varśa (India) there also existed few ideologies who’s main intention was not to uphold the Dhàrma but rather to seek the attention of innocent people by preaching fancy misinformation, our effort also deals with debunking such flawed ideologies and make people (followers of such ideologies) understand the supreme truth that Pàramātma Vīśvanātha alone is Supreme.
Who are you to establish the truth, what gives you the authority?
We are a group of humble Natha Śaīvas who follow Vedānta darshana of Natha parampara who wish to highlight that the true greatness of Sanātana Dhàrma lies in acknowledging Parātva (Supremacy) of Lord Śīvà alone. Any follower of Shaiva siddantha irrespective of his sect or methodology of view point towards Shastras possesses this authority.
Does this site conduct debate on the importance of āstīka Darshaṇas or try to debunk Vīśīśṭādvàītaṃ or Dvàītaṃ or any other ideology?
The main motive of our site is to establish Shiva-paratva which is the ultimate conclusion of Vedanta and the other 5 vaidika darshanas. However, we can find innumerous attacks by many vicious Anti-Shaiva and Anti-shankara people who try to demean and misapprehend Advaita Vedanta and Shaiva siddantha in a miserable manner which unfortunately is being partially succesful in brainwashing or influencing current day spiritual youth massively, such people who don’t even know ‘ABC’ of Vedanta and Shastras but are trying to preach Anti-Advaitic and Anti-Shaivite content need to be exposed and we believe that it’s of utmost necessity. Hence, even though we are not conducting any debates or the like related to Vedānta darshanas in our site, we surely try to uphold the supremacy of Advaita Vedanta darshana and legacy of Adi Shankaracharya and his lineage against all the attacks made by avaidikas in the form of Dvaitins and the like.
Does this site provide information about general Śaīva matters like Bhàktī, Jnāna, Samādhī etc:?
Generally no! But if question arises such as “How to worship other Dēvatā by seeing Paramēśvara himself as their supreme indweller”? OR ” How to meditate on the Antaryāmī of Vīśṇu (or Krīśṇa) i.e meditation on Màhēśvara himself in temples of Vīśṇu”?, it could be related to scope of our motive and we would like to answer it.
What is the actual scope of your effort?
The scope of our site is to establish the supreme truth that Lord Śīvà alone is the supreme god according to our Prāchīna Sanātana Vaīdīka Dhàrma and we also establish the fact of baddha jīvatva (encapsulated livelihood) of Vīśṇu who’s created by Lord himself and is subjected to birth and death.
Does this site demean or disregard Śrī Vīśṇu?
Absolutely no. On the contemporary, it establishes the true positions of ‘Śrī Lakśmī’ and ‘Śrī Vīśṇu’ as baddha jīvātmas (who are bounded by saṃsāra), Īśvarapadasēvakas (subservients of lotus feet of Lord), Dhàrma Pālakas (Followers of righteousness) which is hardly either demeaning or disregarding. Those people who being influenced by modern Hinduism (aka Neo-Hinduism) and ascribe supremacy or equality of them with the Lord who are not so in nature are demeaning them.
So basically your main motive is to debunk Vaīśnavism, isn’t it?
On contrary we would like to prove that Vaīśnavism and all it’s so called branches which are spreading erroneous misinformation among our modern youth today is a new agenda started since 10th century CE by some people who were psychologically influenced due to sectarian conflicts irrespective of it’s ancient roots (Pancha~Rātrīka) which were absolutely Avaīdīka (non-vedic) and related to folkloric practices in few southern parts of India.
We would like to address our Vaīśnava friends as unfortunately indoctrinated people who don’t know the limitations of Vīśṇu and ‘Vaīśnava Śāstras’ in Vedic standards. A shell appears like a diamond when viewed from a far distance due to reflection of sunlight, that doesn’t mean it is so, similarly the limited Lordly qualifications and eligibilities possessed by ‘Śrī Vīśṇu’ doesn’t make him supreme, hence our effort deals with decoding the prima-facie view – Vīśṇu is supreme Lord.
What are the authorities you use?
We use all the 6 pramānas as our authority namely Pratyakṣa (perception), Anumāna (inference), Upamāna (comparison and analogy), Arthāpatti (postulation, derivation from circumstances), Anūpalabdhī (non-perception, negative/cognitive proof) and Śabda (word) to prove the truth that Supremacy of Lord Śīvà is the absolute conclusion of Śrūtīs and Smrītīs.
What do you expect from the readers?
We have complete faith on our readers that they are absolute truth seekers and humble people who has great respect for the Dhàrma. We expect our readers to have open mindset and sincere intent.
DECODING OF MISINTERPRETATIONS ON ADI SHANKARACHARYA.
Why is Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya misinterpreted by later so called self proclaimed Vedāntins?
Not only our Bhārata~Varśa (India), the entire universe remembers the glory of Bhagvad Śaṅkara and his unmatchable service to Sanātana Dhàrma, but after his legendary era (as time progressed), there existed numerous self proclaimed Vedāntik practices (which were just limited to sectarian rivalry essentially) who started to oppose (or rather criticize) Advàīta Vedānta in various angles, some obnoxious people even criticized Bhagvad Śaṅkara personally which was basically the result of intolerance of his unreal glory. Now in modern times, Bhagvad Śaṅkara is interpreted by followers of so called self proclaimed Vedāntik propounders (who were not so actually by nature) however they want. Hence, to propagate the absurd ideologies, the so called self proclaimed Vedāntik people have started to misinterpret Śaṅkarāchārya in an erroneous manner.
What are the fundamental tenets of Advàīta sīddhāntam?
It is usually summarized as follows: Attributeless Nīrgūṇa Bràhman, which is pure consciousness, is the only truth while the entire universe, with its multitude of objects and beings and experiences of duality, is false. Advàīta sīddhāntam says that this is the ultimate teaching of the Śrūtī (especially ūpanīśads).
What is Daśanāmī Śaīva sampradāya and how is it related to Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya?
Daśanāmī Śaīva sampradāya is an extremely ancient Vedic practice which has no origin unlike other later (or modern) so called sampradāyas which have a particular propounder, it’s the purest form of Sanātana paramparā which was being followed by different astika darśanas (majorly three, namely Sānkhya, Yōga and Vedānta) since Vedic civilization. It was practiced by ancient gūrūs and sannyāsīs in ten different forms of spiritual environment namely Gīrī (mountain), Pūrī (tract), Bhāratī (land), Vana (woods), Āraṇya (forest), Sāgara (seashore), Āśrama (spiritual exertion), Sarasvatī (wisdom of nature), Tīrtha (place of pilgrimage), and Parvata (mountain) depicting the Harmony with infinite vastness of nature, hence it’s called as Daśanāmī sampradāya.
Adī Śaṅkarāchārya was a virtual proponent of Daśanāmī Śaīva sampradāya who saw Lord Śīvà alone as the absolute superimposition of the Nīrgūṇa chētanā (Incorporeal consciousness), he organized a group of Ekadandi Sanyasis to rebuild the eternal Sanātana Vaīdīka paramparā after destroying the heterodox schools (Bauddha and Jaina Dhàrmas), even though the mūla-Śaīvism and the interior ideologies of different astika darśanas doesn’t accept Bhagvad Śaṅkara’s few Vedāntik terminologies like “Universe is maya” or “Supreme soul (Brahman in Vedanta specifically) is impalpable”, they believe that those were few tactics brought by Bhagvad Śaṅkara just to defend Vedic authority against Heterodox schools (specifically Bauddha Dhàrma).
Did Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya establish Shanmata, worship of different gods?
Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya did establish the worshipping system of different Vedic deities and even Vīśṇu, Dēvī etc: but he being Śanmata Sthāpakāchārya and establishing the equal worship of 6 different deities namely Sūrya Dēva, Śrī Vīśṇu, Skànda, Gànapatī, Dēvī and Pàramēśvara himself is doubtful as no genuine evidences depict it.
How do you say Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya didn’t establish equality of 6 different gods? Are you offending the modern Smārthas?
Absolutely no! We are not offending the modern Smārthas, We are just establishing the truth that Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya had special worshipping ideologies for different godheads and never depicted their equality.
For example, Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya says that Sūrya is to be known just as eye of the Supreme Lord and he becomes worthy of worship just because of the fact that the Supreme Lord shines as absolute Antaryāmī of him which is described in Ūpanīśads (Bràhma sūtra Śaṅkara bhāśya 1.2.17) but according to modern Smārthas Sūrya is the Supreme God. The position and prominence of worship of different godheads in Śaṅkara’s system of Vedānta is discussed below in a little detailed format.
If Adī Śaṅkarāchārya didn’t preach Śanmata aīkyata, then why do modern Smārthas follow it?
We need to understand the fact that Indologists and all researchers conclude the legacy of Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya as a mystic concept, according to several genuine indological researches, there were 4 different personalities in the name of Śaṅkara between 5th to 9th centuries CE other than Adī Śaṅkarāchārya (who was the original Śaṅkara) namely Krīpā Śaṅkara, Ujjvala Śaṅkara, Muka Śaṅkara and Abhīnava Śaṅkara who were also decently influential personalities during those times, hence the researches conclude that the practices which are active in current Smārtha/Iyer brahmins but inconsistent with the purest form of teachings propagated by Adī Śaṅkara were undoubtedly influenced by some other Śaṅkara’s followers subsequent to 14th century.
According to Advaita sīddhāntam of Ādi Śaṅkara, the supreme soul is one, so how do you say there exists taratamya (hierarchy) among different godheads?
Advàīta sīddhāntam of Adī Śaṅkarāchārya basically deals with 3 types of realities, namely:
- Pratībhāśīka Satyàm.
- Vyavahārīka Satyàm.
- Paramārthika Satyàm.
Here Pratībhāśīka Satyàm refers to apparent reality or creation of mind, Vyavahārīka Satyàm refers to virtual reality or creation of Īśvara (God), Paramārthika Satyàm refers to Supreme reality where Bràhman alone remains.
Even though, in the Paramārthika tattva everything is one devoid of duality according to Śaṅkara, the basic taratamya exists in Śaṅkara system too (in Vyavahārīka Satyàm) which is discussed below little elaboratively.
Adī Śaṅkarāchārya is widely regarded as Non-sectarian Vedāntīn who was unbiased Śīvà-Vīśṇu aīkyata follower but how do you prove your stance that Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya was a Daśanāmī Śaīva sannyāsī?
According to Mūla Śaīva Dhàrma, Vīśṇu is a baddha jīvātma who is bounded by saṃsāra but according to Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya Lord Vīśṇu is an eternal (Śāṣvata) Dēvatā who is:-
- Uttama Pūrūśa.
- Sagūṇa Bràhman.
- Pivotal Īśvaras among different Īśvaras.
- Ādī Gūrū.
Uttama Pūrūśa denotes Śrī Vīśṇu’s Dhārmīka(righteousness) which is unreal and unmatchable by any other jīvātma, Sagūṇa Bràhman denotes his eligibility to provide Sayūjya mūktī (which is discussed in 3rd adhīkārana of 4th chapter of Śaṅkara bhāśya) and Aīśvaryatva (6 complete powers of Lordship) which makes him pivotal Īśvara among other several other controllers (Īśvaras) like Bràhmā, Īndra, Sūrya etc:
Moreover, the position of the particular deity varies in different sampradāyas, for example according to Adināth sampradāya, Śrī Vīśṇu is a Kāraṇa Dēvatā (presiding deity) who’s Śāṣvata (eternal) but according to several other branches of Śaīvism Śrī Vīśṇu is a baddha jīvātma which is consistent with the ideology of Prāchīna taratamya followed by ancient gūrūs and ṛīśīs.
However, even according to Advàīta sīddhāntam the Śāṣvatatva (eternality) of Sagūṇa or Kārya Bràhman is also temporary and gets destroyed during the absolute dissolution (Śaṅkara bhāśya on Kathōpanīśad 2.3.16-19)
Can you comment on the Śrī Vaīśnava folklore community which is horrendously misinterpreting Śaṅkarāchārya’s ideas to somehow dogmatise that Śaṅkara was a Vaīśnava?
According to a sect of South India called Śrī Vaīśnavism synonymously known as Iyengarism which is a folklore community of South India, Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya is a Vaīśnava who considered Lord Vīśṇu alone as Sagūṇa Bràhman. This is basically their counter to modern day Smārthas who are essentially Śīvà-Vīśṇu abhēda followers but worship Śīvà as prime God.
Rūdrà (Śīvà or Śaṅkarāchārya) is well known for spreading delusional doctrines and mislead mankind into darkness.~ Yamuna (Agama Pramana)
We doubt that these utopian people who belongs to the mentioned folklore community at least even know about what their own so called guru named Yamuna has opinionated on Bhagvad Śaṅkarāchārya, as you can see in the above quotation their own guru criticizes Śaṅkarāchārya as a form of Śīvà who propagated delusional doctrine.
These people are the greatest examples to prove that “Half baked knowledge is extremely dangerous”. However instead of refuting them in this Question and Answer section we would like to establish the truth directly which can be checked in article section of the site, as the saying goes “Watering the plants not only nourishes the roots but also eliminates the weeds”.
Why do you consider only those Advàītīns who existed prior to 13th century only as realistic (Prāchīna) Advàītīns?
As we had discussed in one of the above questions, researches have successfully proved that there existed multiple people in the name of Śaṅkara, the biographies on Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya’s lifestyle were written during 14th century by various people like Mādhava (Vīdyāranya) or Chītsūkha etc: these biographies became extremely famous and influential among Advaiṭins subsequent to 14th century, but here the interesting thing is that the biographies (digvijayams) which were penned by different people attributing it to Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya had many confusions that who is real Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya, although today mādhavīya śaṅkara dīgvījayaṃ is accepted throughout the country, it has many inconsistent theories with respect to śaṅkara’s ideologies (which are present in his authentic works) which are of purest form of Advaitic caliber. Hence we accept only those Advàītīns who lived prior to 15th CE as genuine and perfect followers of Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya.
Who are the genuine and realistic Advaitic scholars who existed prior to 13th century?
There were many Advaitic scholars who were great and influential by their nature, but we would like to name those people who were extremely influential and their works are glorified even today.
- Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya
- Vachaspatī Mīśrā
- Mandana Mīśrā
- Īśvara Tīrtha
- Swami Vidyaranya.
So, these are the 10-12 most influential Advaitic legends whom we consider as most genuine and realistic sāmpradāyīka Advaiṭins (Puruśa-vāḍis).
Are all works attributed to Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya today actually penned by achārya himself?
Undoubtedly No, there are only few authentic works penned by Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya available today for us and rest all are later day works which are misattributed to Śaṅkara subsequent to 15th century.
Can you list all the inauthentic works attributed to Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya in later days?
There are hundreds of stōtras (devotional hymns) which are misattributed to Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya today, apart from that some of the inauthentic works are:
- Prābōdha Sudākāra
- Praśnōttara Ràtna Mallīka
- Śīvānanda Làharī
- Bhàja Gōvīndaṃ
- Vīśṇu Sahàsraṇāma bhāśya
- Lalītā Trīśatī bhāśya
- Nàrasīṃhā tāpīnī bhāśya
- Śvētāśvatarōpanīśad bhāśya
These are some of the inauthentic works attributed to Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya today which has no reference prior to 14th century.
Which are the authentic works of Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya?
Bhāśya grànthas (Commentaries):
- Bràhma sūtra bhāśya
- Daśōpanīśad bhāśya
- Gītā bhāśya
Prakāraṇa Granthas (Comprehensive works):
- Upadēśa Sahasrī
- Pràpancha sāra śāstra
- Sàrvavēdānta sīddhānta sāra saṅgraha
Stōtra Granthas (Hymnal compositions):
- Dakśīṇāmūrtī stōtraṃ
- Śīvà Panchākśaram
- Soūndarya Làharī.
How do you conclude that these are the authentic works penned by Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya himself? Do they all really have reference from Prāchīna Advàītīns?
Yes, All the 10 above mentioned works are of highest authenticity and are undoubtedly penned by Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya himself, so how do we prove it? Here we go.
This work which consists of 100 conclusive teachings of Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya has been explained by Sūrēśvarāchārya in his Naīśkarmya sīddhī’s various teachings.
Prapancha sāra śāstra:
This is a most unknown (or rather underrated) work penned by Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya. This work deals with the parts of tantras and agamas which are highly consistent with Vedic terminologies, in this work Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya also explains the importance and significance of most powerful vedic mantras such as Mahāmrītyūnjaya Màntra, Gāyatrī màntra etc: This work has been commented by achārya Padmāpada as who was the direct disciple of Śaṅkara himself as ‘Vīvāraṇa’, also several verses from this text has been quoted by Śrī Amalānanda (1295 CE) in his work called Vedānta Kàlpataru (commentary on Bhāmatī of Vàchaspatī Mīśrā).
Sàrvavēdānta sīddhānta sāra saṅgraha:
Tōtakāchārya who was also a direct disciple of Śaṅkarāchārya himself quotes many verses from this work in his ‘Śrūtī sāra samūddhāraṇa(Vedic conclusion of eternal truth).
A beautiful hymnal composition which glorifies the transcendental divine form of Supreme Lord himself, this stotram is commented by Sūrēśvarāchārya again as ‘Manasōllāsa vārtīkā’ which also has further commentaries from other Advaitins like Ramatirtha, Sūrēśvarāchārya was also known as vārtīkākāra who wrote vārtīkās on Bṛhadāranyakōpanīśad, Taīttīrīyōpanīśad, Dakśīṇāmurtī stōtraṃ.
Different Supreme aspects of Lord has been beautifully composed by Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya in this stōtraṃ, it has been commented by Padmāpadāchārya as ‘Śrī Panchākśarī vīdyā’.
This 100 versed stōtraṃ which glorifies Dēvī (energetic aspect of supreme Lord) has been translated to Tamil Language by a person called Vīrāī kavīrāja pandīt as ‘Abhīramī Pādal’. Apart from this there are more than 36 commentaries on the Soūndarya Làharī in Saṅskrīt itself, among the better known are commentaries by Lakśmīdhārā, Kāmēśvarasūrī, Kaīvalyāśrama and Dīndīmā.
Did Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya or any other Advàīta Vedāntīn prior to 13th century establish Śīvà-Vīśṇu aīkya vāda?
Absolutely No! Neither Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya nor any of his 4 disciples have established Śīvà-Vīśṇu aīkya vāda in any of their authentic works.
All the ancient Advàīta Vedāntīns offering a prayer to Vīśṇu during the Invocation or before commencement of any commentary or writings indicates that Lord Vīśṇu was treated as a greatest and eternal Gūrū Dēvatā who blesses the Vedāntīns with Jnāna (which is also explained by Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya in his Gītā bhāśya), that doesn’t mean Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya or any of his ancient followers held Vishnu as equal to Supreme Bhàgvān Chàndramoūlīśvara in any manner.
Where has Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya proved the supremacy of Lord Śīvà?
In the Vīśvānarah/Vàīśvānara adhīkāraṇa of Bràhma sūtra 2nd Chapter, Adi Śaṅkarāchārya explicitly proves that Vàīśvānara is none other than Supreme Lord Avīmūkta of Varanasī and Vàīśvānara vīdyā is superimposed form of eternal Bràhmajnāna talked in Ūpanīśads. Apart from this Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya establishes supremacy of Lord Śīvà in:
- Praśnōpanīśad bhāśya 2.9
- Bràhma sūtra bhāśya 4.1.3
- Several parts of Prapancha sāra śāstra.
Which are the texts penned by Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya and ancient Advàītīns are kept as authority by you extensively to prove that Prāchīna Advaitic system compulsorily ascribed to Daśanāmī Śaīva sampradāya?
- Prapancha sāra śāstra (By Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya)
- Manasōllasa vārtīkā (By Sūrēśvarāchārya)
- Vīvāraṇa (By Padmāpadāchārya)
- Śrī Panchākśarī vīdyā (By Padmāpadāchārya)
- Ūpanīśad Dīpīkās (Nārāyaṇāśrama)
What do you interpret on the people who tries to prove illogical equality between Harī and Harà?
Even though Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya’s Advàīta system of absolute non-duality doesn’t consider Vīśṇu as a jīvātma (in sāmpradāyīka mode), he’s never equated with Lord Śīvà who’s the absolute superimposition of Supreme Bràhman, even Abhīnava Gupta of 10th century CE being a Kaśmīrī Śaīva comments upon the Bhàgvad Gītā and interprets Vīśṇu’s position as a Kāraṇa Dēvatā (presiding deity).
Similarly in Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya’s system, Vīśṇu is treated as pivotal among different Sagūṇa Īśvaras who is the supreme controller among all celestial controllers (deities), it’s clearly notable from 4.3.8 of Śaṅkara bhāśya that he (Śaṅkarāchārya) accepted the existence of multiple Sagūṇa Īśvaras.
However, Śaṅkara’s system views Vīśṇu as a Sagūṇa Dēvatā who’s upādhī baddha (encapsulated by a limitation), in the Śaṅkara bhāśya’s Krama mūktī section (4th chapter) it’s clearly explained that Vīśṇu is a Sagūṇa Dēvatā with shūddha sàttva upādhī (unaffected by maya/nescience) who liberates Jīvas by giving partial mūktī which is termed as ‘Sāyūjya’, and the Jīvas who are liberated by Vīśṇu or Sagūṇa Bràhman will be encapsulated by Māyā again after absolute dissolution.
Sūrēśvarāchārya (also known as Vārtīkākāra) was the first disciple of Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya himself who wrote several vārtīkās (or gist type commentaries) on different works of his Gūrū (Śaṅkara), among those Manasōllasa vārtīkā which is a commentary of Dakśīṇāmurtī stōtraṃ of Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya describes the actual and absolute mode of viewing Lord Pàramēśvara Śīvà in Vedānta Darshaṇa, after reading and analysing that beautiful masterpiece with a sincere intent and open mindedness, one can clearly understand equating Dēvatās like Bràhmā, Vīśṇu etc: with supreme Lord goes completely contradictory to Vedānta and all other ancient ideologies of Sanātana Dhàrma.
Hence, we can conclude that those people who urge equality between Harī and Harà in the name of Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya are either influenced by later Advàītīns (Subsequent to 14th century) or narrow minded people who are exhibiting ‘Harmony stunt’ midst of the sectarian fights which are to be considered as prima-facies.
However, we here as a group of truth propagators have ideal motive of upholding eternity of Shaiva Dharma as whole and Adi Shankaracharya’s matters are considered by us for the only reason to defend attacks on Advaita system in internet! Though our genesis lies in sampradāya following Adi Shankaracharya and his teachings, we are not covering any deep.Advaita Vedantic matters
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VAISHNAVA MATHA AND SANATANA DHARMA.
What is the rudimental difference between Vaīśnava/Pancharātrīka ideology and Sanātana Śaīva Dharma?
Daśanāmī Śaīva sāmpradāyīka ancient followers and their successors were followers of Vedic Darshaṇas whereas Pancharātrīka (or Vaīśnavas) were South Indian folklore people at their origin.
Vaīśnavas worship Vīśṇu who is also a Vedic Dēvatā, does it mean Vaīśnavas are vedic?
According to Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya and ancient Advàītīns, Vaīśnavatva actually refers to worship of Vīśṇu for the sake of ‘blessings (in a mode of Gūrū) to attain ‘Lord’ and ‘Sāyūjya mūktī’.
Nārāyaṇāśrama a scholarly Prāchīna (Ancient) Advàīta Vedāntīn who wrote Dīpīkās on several other Ūpanīśads (apart from 10 principle upanishads) explains in his Dipika on Vāsūdēvōpanīśad that ‘Śrī Vīśṇu’ who is adored by Bràhmādī Dēvatās liberates a jīvātma from Prapanchīka Māyā (worldly illusion) and gives him mūktī so that the jīvātma gets his path cleared to attain supreme Jnāna, whereas he in his Dīpīkā on Atharvarśīrōpanīśad says ”Bràhmā and Vīśṇu remains unworthy of being adored if they do not worship and serve Supreme Lord Màhēśvara” and he also says ”Śrī Vīśṇu, by meditating on Màhēśvara, gets the power to redeem those who rely on him from their miseries”, further Śrī Nārāyaṇāśrama explains that “Pràṇava (Omkāra) of Śrūtīs (Vēda) is Màhēśvara on whom Vīśṇu meditates upon and surrenders to in order to provide knowledge of Bràhmajnāna”.
However, irrespective of position of Vīśṇu according to Daśanāmī sampradāya his clear inferiority is depicted in Vedic and Upanishadic terms. Hence Vaīśnavism which worship Vīśṇu as supreme or equal to Lord Śīvà is absolutely non-vedic without a doubt.
How does viewing Śrī Vīśṇu as superior Lord goes against Vedas?
The Vedas clearly say ‘janītōta vīśṇōh (RV IX:96-5)’, ‘Harīṃ Harantaṃànuyāntī dēvā: (TA 3:15-1)’ etc: which clearly makes us understand that there’s no point in assuming Vīśṇu as near to Supreme Lord, even older Ūpanīśadik texts like Atharvarśīka, Kālāgnīrūdrà, Kathārūdrà etc: (which are quoted by Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya himself also) clearly explains the position of Vīśṇu in Vēdas.
How can we conclude that taking Vīśṇu as supreme goes against Vedāntik Darshaṇa?
The Vedāntik (the time period of Ūpanīśadik ṛīśīs) held supremacy of Lord Màhēśvara alone.
Vedāntik ṛīśīs – Jābāla, Śvētāśvatara, Màītrēya, Angīrasa, Lopāmūdra, Yagnavalkya, Pīppālada, Saūnaka etc: considered Lord Śīvà alone as Supreme Bràhman, none of them eulogised Vīśṇu as supreme.
Conclusively, why is Vaīśnava matha is to be considered as non vedic?
There are several reasons, but the major points must be noted here. Firstly Vaīśnavism was a folklore sect which gained fame because of Dravidian and Aryan interpretations on it, secondly when it comes to the concept of comparison between any Śāstras with Vēdas (Śrūtīs) a true Vedic follower chooses Vedic authority as pivotal over any other śāstra. But the Vaīśnavas say:
Therefore, even if there were a conflict between the Bhagavan’s doctrine (Pancharatrika agamas) and the Veda, there still would be option between them (anyone can be chosen over the other).~ Agama Pramanya (Yamunacharya).