Ancient Vidya

Kumar Udupa says:

I believe, Mayavada is much later word given after Shankara.

R Jyotsna Rao says:

Thanks a ton for uploading 🙏
Sri Gurubhyo Namaha 🙏🙏

Yogesh Joshi says:

'Mayavada' was older name of adwaita sidhdant ' this is bannaje's imagination. He should show the Mayavada word before shankaracharya 'time and in his own granthas

ecpavan ec says:

Pls provide subtitles

SUDARSHAN RAVI says:

16:35 Has he read atleast the basic books that Sri Adi Shankaracharya has written for 'beginners' . Even a child praying everyday to Ganesha chants the "Ganapati Pancha Ratnam " composed by the Great Acharya .Now is He still a Vaishnava . The absolutely mesmerising Soundarya Lahari ! Who does this idiot think has composed ? What has he to say after he learns that Shivaananda Lahari , Dakshinamurti Stotram, Ardhanaareshwara Stotram , and so on , were all written by the "Vaishnava " that he is referring to .

"Shaastrena jnaanam jaayate " satyam . But this fool does not seem to have read the entire Advaita Shaastram before commenting on such a Towering Personality .

What audacity he has ! Rama Rama . To say ajnanena paramparaa jaayate . This man has lost his mind to even think of such a phrase let alone speak the rubbish . Let many more people expose this stupid's hollowness in his arguments . The problem I see is in the inferiority in people in the audience . They perhaps were carried away by his fluent usage of Samskitam (which ofcourse I wish everybody there had ) He should have debate in the Vidwat Sabhaa where Panditas who speak as fluent as he , challenge him right and left .

So we all must learn Samskritam first and then speak up against the flaws in such people who dare call the Paramparaa to be Ajnaana.

SUDARSHAN RAVI says:

This person tries to create and spread hatred amongst the people and dividing them based on their philosophy too . He says 'Shankara although propounds oneness , distinguishes between shudra and brahmana and men and women . ' That is not at all true .This man should quote or cite the text in which he might have mentioned the same . Just going on blabbering your views as Sri Adi Shankaracharya's is highly condemnable .

In fact Adi Shankaracharya respected all people and never demeaned any community . The famous story of the Chandala is an example to justify that Acharya was so humble enough to do a Sashtanga namaskaara to the BrahmaJnani in the form of a Chandala. He applauded merit and virtues of people and never based on their birth .

This speaker seems to be confused about the Varna vyavastha . He quotes from Bhagavad geeta but does not completely understand the shloka himself . The Lord says गुणकर्मविभागशः Based on both guna and Karma . Quality of Mind and the activities one doe's. The definition of a Brahmana is 'शमो दमस् तपः शौचं क्षान्तिर् आर्जवमेव च । ज्ञानं विज्ञानम् आस्तिक्यम् ब्रह्म कर्म स्वभावजम् ' Bhagavadgeeta 18th chapter. So a person with the above qualities is called a Brahmana . similarly in the following shlokas Sri Krishna defines the others too .

In the analogy that this speaker gives : >60℅ satwika =brahmana etc . a shudra by that definition classifies to be in the category with more tamas . In the Purusha Suktam itself ,which this man might have written a commentary in not having fully understood it, 'वेदाहम् एतं पुरुषं महान्तम् आदित्यवर्णं तमसः परस्तात्' The Supreme Being is beyond the reach of Tamas . So naturally all those who have a greater percent of tamas cannot to that extent reach The Supreme . Therefore Adi Shankaracharya in the Vivekachudami says it is a fortune to become a Brahmana and Brahamanas reach the Supreme . Here again Brahmana refers to a person who has lot of Satwa and negligible tamas .

The word shudra similarly refers to lot of tamas .

A person's parents could have been Satwik and pursued professions which are Satwik (say they were teachers)hence Brahmana ,but he may by nature presently be tamasic and choose to be a labourer , so he would be called a Shudra . Both his parents and himself are equal socially and all privileges are given to both of them . But only spiritually ,since he is presently tamasic (which ofcourse he can change gradually and make himself Satwik thereby developing the intellectual capabilities and sweetness of character essential for spiritual unfoldment ) he will not reap results of spiritual Sadhana . Hence he will not accelerate towards God as fast as a Brahmana(again a Satwika person with rajas and tamas in smaller proportions) does. In this sense it is said a Brahmana reaches Brahman .There is not an iota of 'castism' to be found .Since birth has no role to play at all.

Sri Adi Shankaracharya never has said a man can get Moksha directly and not a woman .If he had said so , why would he give the Truth to his mother on her death bed and it is said she was taken by the attendants of Vishnu and attained Kaivalya ! Also he would not have prostrated to Ubhaya Bharati (said to be a Brahma Vaadini who was at par with Goddess Sarasvati ,hence believed to be Her incarnation) .

Adi Shankaracharya has prescribed Sadhana to all sorts of people depending on their Guna , age , gender , Varna , Ashrama ,place and time . He wishes the upliftment of everybody . So we call Him Jagadguru .

Also we don't validate the teachings of Advaita with Science's facts . We see logic and intellectual acceptability to validate it . Neither do we consider Advaita to be true because modern science (quantum mechanics etc) say so nor did we and do we reject it because science says otherwise . It is not Science that we hold as Pramana but Shruti
. Since ' Modern Science ' has now excluded itself to be only an Objective Analysis of the World and includes the same in the definition of Science , it would serve no use in the Subjective Analysis : The Relation of the Self with the Universe , and with its Creator, (if any , since they still hesitate to believe in an intelligence that should have been the cause of this universe , unless ofcourse they believe something can come out of nothing.Hence we don't accept the biased findings of Science as a Pramaana .

This man says 22:23 Madhwacharya claims that the Paramaanu can be divided . But anyone can claim anything . What is the evidence for it? What can it be divided into? The Aacharya simply escapes by saying it cannot be done by humans ! Then how does he know it can be done?
Similarly at 25:27 how can he say that there is colour in the sky but it cannot be seen ? It is contradictory . Colour means that which triggers the sense of vision. If it cannot be seen then where is the colour?

27:43
Sri Adi Shankaracharya does not use the example of the Ghost in a post , a snake in a rope ,etc and extrapolate the same illusory nature to the Universe. He proves by logic of the Drig Drishya Viveka , Avastha trayam anubhava and others that the Universe cannot be Existent nor completely non-existent . So he calls it Mithya (between Real and non existent) .To make the beginner in the path understand how Mithya is possible , he exemplifies in the Atma Bodha and others. Wrong understanding and biased interpretations is all this man can offer I think . He wishes to portray Sri Adi Shankaracharya to be the ' silly , dull wit ' , ' caste – biased' , 'under hallucination ' throughout his 'dull witted arguments and without actual facts or citations.

SUDARSHAN RAVI says:

Hari Om ,
अपि च एष भ्रान्तः मध्वाचार्येभ्यः परम् आगतेभ्यः द्वैतमतं खण्डितवद्भ्यः महात्मभ्यः पलायते । श्रीमधुसूदनसरस्वतीस्वामिनः श्रीवल्लभाचार्याः , श्रीचैतन्यमहाप्रभवः,श्रीनिम्बकाचार्याः , श्रीरमकृष्णपरमहंसाः, श्रीस्वामी विवेकान्दाः , श्री सदाशिव ब्रह्मेन्द्राः , श्री रमण महर्षि महास्वामिनः , श्री तपोवनम् महास्वामी , श्रीचिन्मयानन्द सरस्वती पूज्याः इत्यादयः सन्तो बहवः एतस्य वक्तुः सङ्कुचितचित्तस्य दृष्ट्या लाघवं यान्ति किम्?

तत् त्वम् असि महावाक्यस्य असाधु समर्थनं चकारैषः । पूर्वं 'व्याप्तम् ' इति नपुंसकलिङ्गः शब्दः अस्ति । अतः तत् इति सूचकं परमात्मा =व्याप्तम् =ब्रह्म =भगवान् । संस्कृतं किञ्चिदपि जानन् बालकः ब्रह्म शब्दस्य निर्वचनं बृहि धातोः व्याप्तौ अर्थे ब्रह्म शब्दः व्युत्पन्नः इति । अतः तत् निर्देशकं नपुंसकलिङ्गे शब्दः भवति ।

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि इत्यस्य व्याख्यां कियत्या दोषयुक्त्या मत्या एषोsकरोत् । हरे राम । एतस्मात् अपलायनीयात् महावाक्यात् पलायितुं कति द्वैतिनः नूतनं व्याकरणम् एव ससर्जुः । एषोपि तादृशः । साक्षात् श्रीमध्वाचार्याः अपि एतस्मात् वाक्यात् पलायितुं तत्र अपि भक्तिम् अध्यारोपयितुं महान्तमेव प्रयत्नं चक्रिरे । किमुत एतेन !? अहं सुबन्तः अस्मद् शब्दस्य प्रथमा विभक्तौ एकवचने इति आकृतयुगात् जानन्ति वैयाकरणाः लोकाः अपि । अमरकोशे अपि अस्मद् शब्दः अव्युत्पन्न प्रातिपदिकम् त्रिषुलिङ्गेषु समानः इति जगाद ।

वेदवाङ्मये संस्कृतवाङ्मये केचन अव्युत्पन्न प्रातिपदिकाः सन्ति इति लोकविदितम् न तु एतेन संस्कृतमातृभाषाकेण विदितम् कथम्? अव्ययानि – च हि एव प्रभृति पदानि अव्युत्पन्नानि किमुत तान्यपि धातुभ्यः उत्पन्नानि । एवं पाणिनिना अपि अकथितां व्युत्पत्तिं 'अहम् ' शब्दस्य एषः कृतः । एतत् पलायनवादः तस्य स्वीयदोषावरणाय कृतः नान्यथा । सायणाचार्यस्य वेदभाष्ये अपि न कुत्रचन अहं शब्दस्य एतादृशं व्याख्यानम् कृतम्। सर्वथा अपि एतद् वाक्यम् आच्छादयितुं प्रयतन्ते द्वैतिनः ।

SUDARSHAN RAVI says:

This ego knows not the art of debate and argumentation.
एषः कार्तस्न्येन विचारमूढः अस्ति । श्रीमद् भगवत् पादान् अयम् एकवचनेन क्वचित् सम्बोधयति । तत् सर्वथा अपि पाप्मनः एव स्वभावः ।

एषः कथं शाङ्करसम्प्रदायम् अजानन् खण्डयितुम् अर्हति । स्वयम् एव आदि शङ्कराचार्याः तदीये मठे प्रतिष्ठापिते पीठारूढाः स्वामिनः 'मम साक्षात् रूपिणः ' इति शशसुः मठाम्नायग्रन्थे । अत एव पीठम् अलङ्कृतवतः अलङ्कुर्वतः शिष्याः भक्ताश्च शङ्कराचार्य इति आदरेण प्रीत्या भक्त्या च व्याहरन्ति । स्वामिनस्तु न कदाचन स्वयं शङ्कराचार्याः इति अघोषयन् अपि तु ते अपि महता भक्त्या आदिगुरूणां शिष्या वयम् इत्येव मन्यन्ते ।

जनाः बौद्ध धर्मस्य प्रभावेण तदानीं जातं यं कमपि सन्न्यासिनं नायकम् अङ्गीचक्रुः इति चेत् वायुः किमर्थं मध्व रूपेण न अवततार तदा मार्गदर्शनाय वैदिकधर्म रक्षणाय च । आदिगुरवस्तु अमानवीय साधकाः बभूवुः , ब्रह्मज्ञानिनोsपि सन्तः वैदिक धर्म समुद्धाराय तदीयगुर्वाज्ञया तं महान्तं परिश्रमं चक्रुः ।न तु प्रख्यात्यै ।

माधवीय शङ्कर दिग्विजयं प्रमाणं मन्यमानः एषः तत्रत्यकथाम् एव न जानाति । तत्र प्रथमे सर्गे एव परमेश्वरः लोककल्याणाय अवततार इति अस्ति । तर्हि आदिशङ्कराचार्याः कथं त्वादृशः 'वैष्णवः ' अभूवन् । ते सन्न्यासिनः इति कारणात् न किमपि लाञ्छनं धारयितुम् आसक्ताः आसन् । कदाचित् यदा तेषाम् वैराग्यम् चतुर्दशापि लोकान् भित्त्वा उदगमत् तदा ते भस्म न दध्रुः । तदा आत्मप्रियाः शिष्याः वैराग्यस्य औन्नत्यं तेषां वर्णयितुं तथा सस्तुवुः ।

किन्तु आदिगुरवः जगद्गुरवः इति हेतोः

"यद्यदाचरति श्रेष्ठस् तत्तदेवेतरो जनः"

ते सामान्याः वैदिकाः इव भस्म अलिम्पन्नेव ।