Commonly Asked Questions.

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.







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.


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:

  1. Pratībhāśīka Satyàm.
  2. Vyavahārīka Satyàm.
  3. 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:-

  1. Uttama Pūrūśa.
  2. Sagūṇa Bràhman.
  3. Pivotal Īśvaras among different Īśvaras.
  4. 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.

  1. Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya
  2. Sūrēśvarāchārya
  3. Padmāpadāchārya
  4. Hastamālakāchārya
  5. Vachaspatī Mīśrā
  6. Mandana Mīśrā
  7. Īśvara Tīrtha
  8. Sīmhāgīrī
  9. Nārāyaṇāśrama
  10. Amalānanda.
  11. Anandagiri.
  12. 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:

  1. Prābōdha Sudākāra
  2. Aparōkśānūbhūtī
  3. Praśnōttara Ràtna Mallīka
  4. Śīvānanda Làharī
  5. Bhàja Gōvīndaṃ
  6. Bràhmānūchīntànaṃ
  7. Vīśṇu Sahàsraṇāma bhāśya
  8. Lalītā Trīśatī bhāśya
  9. Nàrasīṃhā tāpīnī bhāśya
  10. 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.

Upadēśà Sahàsrī:
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).

Dakśīṇāmurtī stōtraṃ:
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.

Śīvà Panchākśaraṃ:
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’.

Soūndarya Làharī:
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


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).

Here, we can clearly observe the mindset of an ancient Vaīśnava Gūrū called Yamunāchārya who encourages his followers to ascribe to either one among Pancharātrīka āgamas or Śrūtīs (Vēdas), which is absolutely erroneous thinking. Moreover, Pancharātrīka (Vaīśnava) system is refuted in Bràhma sūtras directly just like how Pāśūpata (Agamic) theology is refuted.

Note:- We do not eulogize worshipping ideologies of Pāśūpata Śaīvism, because Pāśūpata āgamas consists of several ideologies which goes against Vedāntic (Ūpanīśadic) way of viewing Bràhman. However, the supremacy of Lord Pāśūpatī (Śīvà) is the common underpinned conclusion irrespective of variations in spiritual practices.

What are the pivotal contradictory ideas followed by Vaīśnavism?

The Vēdas and Ūpanīśads do not provide “absolute legitimacy” to the Vaīśnava path rather they describe the methodology of ‘worshipping Vīśṇu’ in a least important mode.

Lord Vīśṇu cannot liberate anyone with Mōkśa (Kaīvalya), nowhere in the Vēdas he has been projected as equal or superior to Lord Śīvà.

What about the Bhagvad Gītā of Mahābhārata in which Śrī Krīśṇa (Vīśṇu) proclaims himself as supreme?

It is a indeed a very deep concept, subtle analysis is required to understand it.

  1. Krīśṇa (Vīśṇu) himself admits his inability to discourse Bhagvad Gītā again when requested by Arjuṇa.
  2. Krīśṇa himself admits that he was in absolute yōgīc Union with supreme Bràhman (in other words, with his Antaryāmī Màhēśvara) while iterating the Gītā.
  3. The recollection of the Gītā wasn’t possible by Krīśṇa (Vīśṇu), which was admitted by himself.

The above are the facts which were admitted by Krīśṇa himself, henceforth his inability to discourse the divine knowledge clearly portrays the reality that Gītā wasn’t the words of Krisna essentially.

Lord Krīśṇa being loukīka jīvātma is described in Mahābhārata very clearly.

yasmāt priyataro nāsti mamānyaḥ puruṣo bhuvi | nādeyaṃ yasya me kiṃ cid api dārāḥ sutās tathā ||

Translation:- “Other than Phalguna I have no dearer friend on earth, that friend to whom there is nothing that I cannot give including my very wives and children.

~ Mahabharata 10.12-27

From the above verse which is said by Krīśṇa (Vīśṇu) himself, it can be firmly understood that he is bounded by loukīka (Wordly) affections and encapsulations, on a contrary a Vaīśnava might argue that Krīśṇa being a humane incarnation of Lord Vīśṇu having affectionate svābhāva (nature) with humans is common to which we reply:

“yacca vakṣyati māṃ śakra tanūjastava so’rjunaḥ | bhṛtyavattatkariṣyāmi tava snehena yantritaḥ ||”

Translation:- “Shakra (indra)! Whatever your son Arjuna asks me, I will do as a servant, because I am bound by your affection.”

~ Hari vamsha parva 2.19-101

Krishna being encapsulated by celestial beings like Indra too is clearly depicted in Mahabharata, therefore it can be indubitably understood that Vīśṇu (Krīśṇa) is a loukīka jīvātma bounded by worldly limitations.

Bhagvad Gītā being reiteration of Ishvara gita of Pàramēśvara Śīvà is explained in Kūrma Pūrāṇa by Vēda Vyāsa in a clear and notable manner.

nārāyaṇo ‘pi bhagavān devakītanayo hariḥ | arjunāya svayaṃ sākṣāt dattavānidamuttamam ||” 

Translation:- Also the lord Narayana, who is called Hari, had himself passed on that excellent knowledge to Arjuna in the form of Krishna, the son of devaki

~ Kurma Purana 2.11-131

Vēda Vyāsa explains to Arjuṇa that:-

dṛṣṭavānasi taṃ devaṃ viśvākṣaṃ viśvatomukham pratyakṣameva sarveśaṃ sarvajaganmayam | jñānaṃ tadaiśvaraṃ divyaṃ yathāvad viditaṃ tvayā svayameva hṛṣīkeśaḥ prītyovāca sanātanaḥ ||

Translation:- “[Vyasa says]:You have directly perceived that Lord Rudra who has his eyes everywhere, who has his faces everywhere, who is the very embodiment of the universe. That divine lordly knowledge (of śiva) has been precisely understood by you. That ancient Hrsikesha (Krishna) himself had recounted it to you out of delight”.

~ Kurma Purana 1.28-61

Hence, Bhagvad Gītā essentially being knowledge of Supreme Lord Śīvà (the Antaryāmī of Krīśṇa) is accepted by noble ones as jīvatva of Krīśṇa is notable from Mahābhārata’s Hari vamsha itself, and moreover Kūrma Pūrāṇa authentically explains that Bhagvad Gītā is knowledge of Īśvara himself.

Iśvaragītāsvapi ca īśvarāṃśatvaṃ jīvasya smaryate mamaivāṃśo jīvaloke jīvabhūtaḥ sanātanaḥ iti ||

Translation: In the Isvaragita (Bhagavad-gîtâ) also it is said that the soul is a part of the Lord, ‘an eternal part of me becomes the individual soul in the world of life.

~ Sànkarā bhāshya 2.3.45

Clearly, Ādī Śaṅkarāchārya knows that Bhagvad Gītā is not any different Gītā, rather, it is the very same Śīvà whose Īśvara Gītā is reiterated by himself as Krīśṇa’s Antaryāmī in a new form called Bhagvad Gītā, while maintaining the core message of Vedānta identically.

Are there any strong evidences from Śāstras to prove that Bhagvad Gītā is reiterated by Pàramēśvara himself?

Yes Padma Pūrāṇa which itself being a Vaīśnava Pūrāṇa (by core nature) clearly explains Gītā is nothing but divine form of Lord Śīvà himself.

śayālurasi dugdhābdhau bhagavankena hetunā
udāsīna ivaiśvaryaṃ jagaṃti sthāpayanniva ||

Translation: O revered one, You, despite being the sustainer of the world, you being indifferent (passive) towards your glory, are sleeping on this milky ocean, what’s the reason behind this?”

~ Padma purana Uttara kanda 175:5

When Lakśmī asked the above, Vīśṇu replies that he wasn’t sleeping as such, rather he was in contemplation and was in communion with his true form of Supreme Lord Màhēśvara which is his indwelling Antaryāmī.

nāhaṃ sumukhi nidrālurnijaṃ māheśvaraṃ vapuḥ | dṛśā tatvānuvarttinyā paśyāmyaṃtarnimagnayā ||

Translation: “Oh you of beautiful face, I’m not sleeping, rather, by the vision which sees (follows) the truth, I am contemplating by being fixed (nimagna) in my true form (my antāryamin) who is lord Maheshvara (lord Shiva)“.

~ Padma Purana Uttara kanda 175:7

The above verse is again very significant one. It is in sync with Mahābhārata as well as Kūrma Pūrāṇa incidents. The way in Mahābhārata, Krīśṇa was in communion with Śīvà via Yōga and then delivered Bhagvad Gītā, the way Nārāyàṇa remembered Śīvà and silently called him to the vicinity to recite Īśvara Gītā to the seekers, here Vishnu was again in oneness with Śīvà in his Yōga, and then when Lakśmī started asking questions he stated answering, it is as like as Krishna started answering to Arjuna’s questions in Mahābhārata in Bhagvad Gītā.

Here Lakśmī gets perplexed to know that Vīśṇu was meditating within himself on something superior than him. She asks him to reveal what or who is that who is different and higher than him.

śrīruvāca |
bhavāneva hṛṣīkeśa dhyeyo’si yamināṃ sadā |
tasmāttvattaḥ paraṃ yattacchrotuṃ kautūhalaṃ hi me || carācarāṇāṃ lokānāṃ karttā harttā svayaṃ prabhuḥ yathāsthitastato’nyatvaṃ yadi māṃ bodhayācyuta ||”

Translation: O Hrishikesha! You alone are always to be meditated upon by the self-controlled ones. Therefore, I have a great curiosity to hear from you, about that which is higher than you. O Achuta, tell me if there is something different from you who are the lord, the creator, and the destroyer of the worlds.

~ Padma Purana:UK:175:14-15

Then Vīśṇu replies her saying that his ‘Vīśṇu’ form is actually illusionary (made of Māyā) which is given the tasks of creation, maintenance and withdrawal of the world. He tells her that the nature of his inner self is different from his body, the self is the form of the ‘Īśvara (Śīvà)’, which can be known only through the unity with it. He says that this is what is told in Bhagvad Gītā also.

māyāmayamidaṃ devi vapurme na tu tātvikam sṛṣṭisthityopasaṃhārakriyājālopabṛṃhitam ||
ato’nyadātmanorūpaṃ dvaitādvaitavivarjitam |
bhāvābhāvavinirmuktamādyaṃtarahitaṃ priye śuddha saṃvitprabhālābhaṃ parānaṃdaikasuṃdaramrūpamaiśvaramātmaikyagamyaṃ gītāsu kīrtitam ||”

“[Lord Vishnu said]: O goddess, this my body is illusory and not real, and is augmented with the mass of the acts of creation, maintenance and withdrawal. O dear one, the nature of the self is different form this. It is without duality and unity. It is free from existence and non-existence; and without beginning or end. It is pure consciousness, has acquired luster, is beautiful due to great joy, is the form of the Ishvara (Shiva), can be known only through the unity with the self, and this is what is told in the Gita”.

~ Padma purana uttara kanda 175:16-18

Bhàgvad Gītā’s 18 chapters being different parts of body of Màhēśvara is explained in detail by Vēda Vyāsa in Padma Pūrāṇa.

īśvara uvāca |
śriyaḥ śrutvā vacoyuktamitihāsapuraḥsaram |
ātmānugāminīṃ dṛṣṭiṃ gītāṃ bodhitavānprabhuḥ ||ahamātmā pareśāni parāparavibhedataḥ |dvidhā tataḥ paraḥ sākṣī nirguṇo niṣkalaḥ śivaḥ ||aparaḥ paṃcavaktro’haṃ dvidhā tasyāpi saṃsthitiḥ |
śabdārthabhedato vācyo yathātmāhaṃ maheśvaraḥ ||gītānāṃ vākyarūpeṇa yannirucchidyate dṛḍhaḥ madīyapāśabaṃdho’yaṃ saṃsāraviṣayātmakaḥ ||yadābhyāsaparādhīnau paṃcavaktramaheśvarau |iti tasya vacaḥ śrutvā gītāsāramahodadheḥ ||idaṃ paravibhedena budhyate bhavabhīrubhiḥ |
tamapṛcchadidaṃ lakṣmīraṃgapratyaṃgasaṃsthitam ||māhātmyaṃ setihāsaṃ ca sarvaṃ tasyai nyavedayat |”

“[Lord Shiva said]: Having heard the proper words of Lakshmi, the Vishnu told her the Gita, the vision leading one towards the self, along with an historical account. “O great lordess (Parvati), I am the ‘self’ differentiated in two ways, – as higher and lower. The higher is a witness, attributeless, partless, Shiva. As the lower one, I am ‘panchavaktra (of five faces)’ it also remains in two forms. I, Maheshvara, am the self, am to be explained through the distinction in words and meanings, as, through the words of the Gita, my strong noose of the nature of objects in the worldly existence, is completely cut off; since (realization of my two forms) ‘Panchavaktra’ and ‘Maheshvara’, are dependent on its study“. Hearing these words of him (which were) the great ocean of essence of the Gita, those afraid of the worldly existence know it through the difference between this and that. Lakshmi asked thus to him. He told her about the Mahatmayam (greatness) along with the corresponding historical accounts (stories) in its major and minor details.”.

~ Padma Purana Uttara kanda 175:20-26

Then Vīśṇu explains the svarūpa (form) of Bhagvad Gītā itself. He says the eighteen chapters are the various body parts of the five faced Lord Śīvà. The first five chapters are the five faces of the Lord Śīvà. The next ten chapters are the ten hands. The sixteenth chapter is the belly and the final two i.e., the seventeenth and eighteenth chapters are the two feet of the Lord.

śṛṇu suśroṇi vakṣyāmi gītāsu sthitimātmanaḥ vaktrāṇi paṃca jānīhi paṃcādhyāyānanukramāt |daśādhyāyā bhujāścaika udaraṃ dvau padāṃbuje ||
evamaṣṭādaśādhyāyā vāṅmayī mūrtiraiśvarī |
vijñeyā jñānamātreṇa mahāpātakanāśinī ||
atodhyāyaṃ tadardhaṃ vā ślokamarddhaṃ tadardhakam | abhyasyati sumedhā yaḥ suśarmeva samucyate ||”

“[Lord Vishnu said]: O you, beautiful lady, I’ll tell you about my firm existence in the Gita. The five chapters are the five faces in order. The (next) ten chapters are the (ten) hands; one is the belly, and the (remaining) two are the lotus like feet. Thus the eighteen chapters are the divine forms of words. It, destroying great sins, should be known through knowledge only. Therefore, he, the very intelligent one, who studies a chapter, or half of it, or a verse of a half-verse is liberated like ‘Susharma’”.

~ Padma Purana Uttara kanda 175:26-29

Thus from above discussion it is clear that Vīśṇu who’s a jīvātma understands his true nature as that of Śīvà because he is Śīvà’s own form among his ‘Panchabràhma’ manifestations. Vīśṇu clearly recognizes his ‘Vīśṇu’ form as illusionary and the original form as that of Panchabràhma SàdāŚīvà (when in the illusionary Sagūṇa state) and as attributeless Śīvà (when in the Samādhī sthītī of Nīrgūṇa chētanā). Vīśṇu says Bhagvad Gītā’s all chapters constitute the parts of the body of the Panchabràhma SàdāŚīvà, the supreme being. Thus he clearly indicates that Bhagvad Gītā teaches about the svarūpa (nature) of Supreme Lord Màhēśvara alone.

Then he goes about narrating how some sinner by name ‘Suśarmā’ got liberated by listening the first chapter of Gītā etc. Subsequent discussion focusses on the greatness of each chapter of Gītā by explaining via some stories like how someone by reciting the second chapter of Gītā got liberated. So on so forth, each chapter has a story associated with someone. Hence there is nothing important to our discussion in those verses. Hence we need to close this discussion of Padma Pūrāṇa here.

So conclusively…..

what is the position of Lord Vishnu in Prāchīna-Śaivism?

A jivātma who is bounded by Karmic encapsulations and a divine godhead who plays one of the important roles in controlling the universe. More specifically, Vishnu is adored as the best of bhogis who likes to enjoy the materialism by the grace of Parameshvara, in Śrutis such as Atharvārśika it’s subtly elucidated that “How Vishnu is a greatest aupādhika devata and how great and significant is his upāsana and dhyāna which tends to attain Parameshvara Shiva”.

What is the position of Viśṇu in Virashaivism?

A jivātma, Vīraśaivas who rely upon Vedas and Agamas as equal authority also accepts Vishnu as a Jivatma with extended prowess. However, they give more emphasis to the position of Viśṇu than Daśanāmi Śaivās as they consider that in bhauṭik-prakṛiti Lord Vishnu is the highest deity who has no equal because of the divine grace of Shiva on him.

What is the position of Vishnu in Advaita Vedanta?

An aupādhika devata who’s a divine deity among different saguna iśvarās (as Bhagavatpāda Śaṅkara himself in his 4.3.8 of Brahma sūtra bhāśya says there exists multiple Saguna Iśvarās with same self), unlike essential Śaivisṃ, Advaita considers Viśṇu as shashvata (virtually eternal) deity who also is subjected to creation and destruction as Adi Śaṅkarāchārya himself in his Sarvavedanta siddanta sarasangraha says:-

Sarvasyānityatve sāvayavatven sarvatah siddhe Vaikuṇṭhādiṣhu nityatvamatirbhram eva mūḍhabuddhīnām ||”

Translation:- When it is established that everything made of parts is ephemeral, those of lowly intellect are deluded thinking that vaikuṇṭha (Abode of Vishnu), etc. are eternal.

~ Sarva Vedānta Siddhanta Sara Sangraha 20

Irrespective of Advaitins worshipping Vishnu as eternal addressing him as Uttama Purusha, Saguna Ishvara etc: they also accept that Vishnu as a deity who’s subjected to creation and dissolution.


What is the essential origin of Vaīśnava philosophy?

Vaīśnavism was essentially originated in South Indian places which was subsequently famous in Aryan sector. South Indian Vaīśnavas were worshippers of Pērūmal whereas Aryans (North Indians) identified the respective deity as Vīśṇu/Nārāyàṇa.

Do ancient temples have importance with respect to the identity of the respective deity?

Yes, absolutely. The ancient temples and their worshipping practices plays an important role in concluding the significance of the deity.

Which were the ancient temples of Vīśṇu? Were they folkloric?

The ancient temples of Vīśṇu were limited only upto forested regions of South India, they were established by folkloric poets of Tamil. The major temples were:

  1. Śrī Rangam
  2. Tīrūveka (Kānchī)
  3. Kudalazāgar (Madūraī)
  4. Tīrūpatī (Vēnkāteśvara)
  5. Padmanābha (Trīvandraṃ).

The above are the 5 temples of Vīśṇu which played a significant role in the rise of folkloric Vaīśnavism in South India. However, indologists clearly conclude that only local poets of South India like Ettutokayī, Mulāī, Tholkappiyām, Paripātal etc: worshipped South Indian god ‘Pērūmal’ who was later popularized in Aryan period as a 4 handed deity called ‘Vīśṇu’.

Where were the Vaīśnavite practices active at those folkloric times in South India?

Vaīśnavism was practiced in 5 different geographical divisions of South India, they are as follows – Kūrinchi (Hills), Mullài (forests), Neytāl (seashore), Marutām (croplands) and Pàlāi (desert).

From the above, it’s clearly understandable that ancient (or original) Vaīśnavism was absolutely non-vedic Tamil practice, neither our ancient Śāstras nor our Ūpanīśadik ṛīśīs taught that the Vedāntik study to be practiced in places such as desert or the like.

How can you prove that all Vaīśnava temples of the folkloric Tamil era didn’t have significance before that (Folkloric era)?

Śrīrangam, Tīrūpatī, Kānchī, Madūraī, Ananta Padmanābha etc: which are regarded as oldest temples of Vīśṇu undoubtedly belong to the Tamil folkloric era.

Tīrūpatī (deity worshipped as Vēnkāteśvara today) belongs to the Tamil sangam folkloric literature, the existence of this godhead had no mention prior to local folkloric works like Akānanuru, Pàripātal, Chilāppatikàram, and in purāpporul venpà màlāi which were penned by Tamil poets only. The same goes with other temples like Śrī rangam, Kānchī, Ananta padmanābha etc:

Few local songs by folkloric Tamil poets:


Atop the lofty Venkata Hills
abounding in water from falls
I wish to behold now that form too,
the standing posture of the red-eyed trivikrama
like the rain-bearing cloud with the sun and
the moon standing on either sides, while
a streak of lightning and a rainbow
adorn it! That form has His discus feared by demons
and the milky-white conch
adorning His beautiful lotus-like palms!
The beautiful necklace on His chest
and the golden garment with flowers embedded!”

~ Maturaik kantam, katukan kattai lines 41-51

Kānchī (Tīrūveka)

“There (in tiruvehka), in that place of the Lord reclining on the Adishesha couch, like an elephant resting on a hillside with lilies in full bloom… worship that Lord of unconquerable strength, in that temple that looks like the eternal transcendental abode that is hard to attain.

~ Perumpan Arruppatai, lines 372-392.

Śrī Rangam

“I wish to behold that form which is like
a bluish cloud resting on a hill
golden in colour and vast in size,
of the Lord who bears shrI in His chest
reclining on the thousand-hooded Adishesha
surrounded by many who sing His praise
in the island situated amidst waves
billowing in the river of Kaveri”

~ Maturaik kantam, Kattukan katai lines 35-40

Ananta padmanābha

“With a flower garland buzzing with bees, interlaced with the tulsi leaves, whose chest is preferred by Lakshmi Devi, Lord Vishnu reclines with a chakra that is blindingly effulgent. Worshiping the feet of that Lord…”

Patiroopa Pattu 31.7-12

From the above, one can clearly understand that all these South Indian forms of Vishnu are different created temples by Tamil folkloric poets or rather literature oriented local people of Tamil regional landscape.


What was the basic need of this question and answer section?

This section gives a clear idea to the reader regarding the actual motive of this site in a very simple manner, one who reads and analyses this particular section which is represented in a very uncomplicated mode by us gets systematic understanding before he/she reads our articles.

How can we contact you?

In our Profile page, we have mentioned our contact details, you can connect with us through several social media platforms and even any type of suggestions, confessions and requests are most welcomed in the comment sections.

Finally, give a one line summary of the site.

What to say to the supreme lord Kala who manifest in the form of Bhairava and acts as a fearsome entity to destroy the foes of Shaivas and for the welfare of his pure devotees. We pray to him day and night to protect us from the effects of Maya of the universe and to bless us that our heart always moves in the path of righteousness.

I pray to Lord and my mother Devi to give eternal strength and knowledge to all humble and pure followers of truth and also spare those ignorant bigots who criticize them thinking some other deities are greater or equal to you Oh! Supreme Parents of the universe.

|| Sarvam Sriman Mahadevarpananamastu ||