• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Adi Shankara says only Vishnu-bhaktas get liberation!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bhagavadgeetaa IX-25, given below for ready reference.

यान्ति देवव्रता देवान् पितॄन्यान्ति पितृव्रताः ।
भूतानियान्ति भूतॆज्या यन्ति मद्याजिनोऽपि माम् ॥

yānti devavratā devān pitṝnyānti pitṛvratāḥ |
bhūtāniyānti bhūtejyā yanti madyājino:'pi mām ||

ādiśaṃkara’s bhāṣya on this verse is:

यान्ति गच्छन्ति देवव्रता देवेषुव्रतं नियमो भक्तिः च येषां तॆ देवव्रता देवान् यान्ति । पितॄन् अग्निष्वात्तादीन् यान्ति पितृव्रताः श्राद्धादिक्रियापराः पितृभक्ता
भूतानि विनायक मातृगणचतुर्भगिन्यादीनि यान्ति भूतॆज्या भूतानां पूजकाः
यान्ति मद्याजिना मद्यजन शीला वैष्णवा माम् एव
समाने अपि आयासे माम् एव न भजन्ते अज्ञानात् ।
तेन ते अल्पफलभाजो भवन्ति इत्य्रर्थः ॥


Those who have devotion and vows for the gods (Devavratas) go to the gods and those who are devoted to the manes (pitṛs), Agnishvatta and the rest, and are enthusiastic in performing rites such as śrāddha, go to them. Those who worship the Bhutas such as Vinayaka, the mātṛgaṇa, and the four bhaginis go to them. Those Vishnu-bhaktas who are ever devoted to Me, come to Me only. Even though the effort is equal, the others do not worship me exclusively, owing to their ignorance. Therefore, they enjoy only little results.

Hence we have 'from the horse's mouth', so to say, that Vinayaka is a Bhootha and also that Vishnu-bhaktas alone reach Him (vishnu); others don't.

I hope our highly orthodox members may already be aware of this. I await their learned comments.


<this thread is closed as the quote attributed to adi shankara is from bhagvad gita. As this can give rise to various other issues, i am closing this. If one wants to discuss on the quote and not on other things, please create a new topic with the relevant/proper quote. - Praveen>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is what is called சிண்டு முடிச்சுfying, a favourite pastime of the Tamil Brahmins.

What is quoted is the translation of the verse from Bagavad Gita and not the opinion of Adi Sankara.

:):biggrin1: :):biggrin1:
 
Last edited:
Pranams, Let the Veterans excuse me! IMHO knowing only a drop in the ocean of aanmigam, I submit that Adi Sankarar also wrote Shivanandha Lahari which is a poetic prayer consisting 100 stanzas, where he has praised the All Powerful Almighty Lord Shiva and shared his joy of abiding in the Lord!

Om Shanthi
 
I am not orthodox or well served in scriptures, but this perspective of Gita is wrong.
Krishna the charioteer is not speaking as Human being or Vishnu, He is speaking as the permatma the universal soul.
 

Bhagavadgeetaa IX-25, given below for ready reference.

यान्ति देवव्रता देवान् पितॄन्यान्ति पितृव्रताः ।
भूतानियान्ति भूतॆज्या यन्ति मद्याजिनोऽपि माम् ॥

yānti devavratā devān pitṝnyānti pitṛvratāḥ |
bhūtāniyānti bhūtejyā yanti madyājino:'pi mām ||

ādiśaṃkara’s bhāṣya on this verse is:

यान्ति गच्छन्ति देवव्रता देवेषुव्रतं नियमो भक्तिः च येषां तॆ देवव्रता देवान् यान्ति । पितॄन् अग्निष्वात्तादीन् यान्ति पितृव्रताः श्राद्धादिक्रियापराः पितृभक्ता
भूतानि विनायक मातृगणचतुर्भगिन्यादीनि यान्ति भूतॆज्या भूतानां पूजकाः
यान्ति मद्याजिना मद्यजन शीला वैष्णवा माम् एव
समाने अपि आयासे माम् एव न भजन्ते अज्ञानात् ।
तेन ते अल्पफलभाजो भवन्ति इत्य्रर्थः ॥


Those who have devotion and vows for the gods (Devavratas) go to the gods and those who are devoted to the manes (pitṛs), Agnishvatta and the rest, and are enthusiastic in performing rites such as śrāddha, go to them. Those who worship the Bhutas such as Vinayaka, the mātṛgaṇa, and the four bhaginis go to them. Those Vishnu-bhaktas who are ever devoted to Me, come to Me only. Even though the effort is equal, the others do not worship me exclusively, owing to their ignorance. Therefore, they enjoy only little results.

Hence we have 'from the horse's mouth', so to say, that Vinayaka is a Bhootha and also that Vishnu-bhaktas alone reach Him (vishnu); others don't.

I hope our highly orthodox members may already be aware of this. I await their learned comments.

Interesting. In which book can I find this?

Regarding भूतानि विनायक मातृगणचतुर्भगिन्यादीनि
यान्ति भूतॆज्या भूतानां पूजकाः -- why Adi Shankara classified worship of Vinayaka and matrika deities as bhootas?

The Todala tantra (which contains worship method of Katyayani) also mentions Katyayani as "bhuta-katyayani".

S.C Banerji's book "A Companion to Tantra" translates 'bhuta' as element (mental offering of elements -p.221). So do
Goodall, Dowson and some other writers who translate bhuta (for devis such as Katyayani, Aparna, Kamakshi) as 'element'.

I persume bhuta merely means a spirit or ghost, or element.

Did Adi Shankara opine spirits should not be worshiped? What were his reasons for doing so?

I find Devis are venerated in Jainism. Is it possible Adi Shankara wanted to separate out Jain links and hence reasons were political?

 
1 Gita Sloka every day - Chapter 9 - Rajavidya Rajaguhya Yoga - Sloka 25
[TABLE="class: tr-caption-container, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: tr-caption, align: center"]Lotus feet of Rama[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Yanti deva vratah devan pitrun yanti pitru vratah I
Bhutani yanti bhutejyah yanti matd yajinah api mam II sloka 25
यान्ति देव व्रताः देवान् पितृन् यान्ति पितृव्रुताः I
भूतानी यान्ति भूतेज्याः यान्ति मद्याजिनः अपि मां I I श्लोक 25

Votaries of the devas go to the devas; the votaries of the pitrus go to the pitrus; to the bhutas go to the bhuta worshippers; my votaries come to me.

The water in the pipe can rise to the level of the reservoir to which it is connected. Likewise, the mind of the man rises to the level of the deity whom he adores. The sadhaka should therefore be able to distinguish between the minor deities at various cosmic levels and Iswara, the Ultimate Reality.

The devas are more evolved than men. Their span of embodied life being great, they are called the immortals. But they are also subject to birth and death. BY worshipping them, men may gain longevity and supernatural powers which are all hindrances to bhakti, jnana and mukti.

The pitrus are the manes who form a region of their own. sending holy thoughts for the welfare of the departed ancestors is good; but drifting into ancestor worship is not desirable. Priest craft usually encourages this weakness and credulity in man. The ancestors necessarily get changed with every new birth that man takes. Undue concern therefore for the pitrus is purposeless and detrimental to spiritual growth; it only adds to earthly attachment and bondage.

The bhutas are in the scale of evolution, intermediate between men and devas. By worshipping them the votaries may at best get some psychic powers, leading to vanity and greater bondage to mundane life.

It is the worship of Narayana that is beneficial. It leads to prosperity, perfection and emancipation.

A dyer once had a unique method of colouring clothes. He had a solitary dye tub into which he would dip the clothes brought to him by customers adn give whatever colour they wanted. Red, yellow, blue, green, purple - all these and more colours were produced from the same tub. An intelligent customer who watched these miracles entrusted his cloth to the dyer and requested him to dye it as he liked.
Our mind is the cloth. Narayana is the dyer and the dyeing tub. He gives us what we pray for. The best that we can do is not to ask him for anything but give ourselves over to him. He in his turn gives himself to us.
Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa
http://haricharanam.blogspot.com/2013/02/bhagavad-gita-chapter-9-rajavidya_21.html
 
Last edited:
This is what is called சிண்டு முடிச்சுfying, a favourite pastime of the Tamil Brahmins.

What is quoted is the translation of the verse from Bagavad Gita and not the opinion of Adi Sankara.


Dear Nacchi,

You are doing a disservice by generalizing this to be the behavior of tamil brahmins.

Considering that it is the brahmins who are being சிண்டு முடிச்சுfied, I would say it is an agnostic trying to சிண்டு முடிச்சுfy the faithful!

I hope Sangomjji does not take this post seriously!
 
Last edited:
The name Vishnu appears in many places in religious text.

In fact the name Vishnu is also listed as one of the Adityas in the Vishnu Purana and the Linga Purana.

In the commentary by Adi Shankara he mentions the word Vaishnava.

Vaishnava means follower of Vishnu.

What is meaning of the word Vishnu?

Vishnu is from the root word Vis..meaning to enter/pervade.

The suffix Nu added to it translates to "All Pervading One"


Vishnu has also been described to mean "Vishnu Vishateh" one who enters everywhere.

Yad Vishito Bhavati Tad Vishnurbhavati..that which is free from fetters and bondage is Vishnu.

So for all practical purposes the word Vishnu in this context is a terminology to explain Paramatma.
 
Last edited:
Adi Sankaras bhashya is a bit scarry, not provoking excessive anxiety.

ISKCON uses the words: ghostly planets, black artss, black magic for PISACA worship.
 
Last edited:
The name Vishnu appears in many places in religious text.

In fact the name Vishnu is also listed as one of the Adityas in the Vishnu Purana and the Linga Purana.

In the commentary by Adi Shankara he mentions the word Vaishnava.

Vaishnava means follower of Vishnu.

What is meaning of the word Vishnu?

Vishnu is from the root word Vis..meaning to enter/pervade.

The suffix Nu added to it translates to "All Pervading One"


Vishnu has also been described to mean "Vishnu Vishateh" one who enters everywhere.

Yad Vishito Bhavati Tad Vishnurbhavati..that which is free from fetters and bondage is Vishnu.

So for all practical purposes the word Vishnu in this context is a terminology to explain Paramatma.

In Bengal every Puja or ritual starts with the recitation of Vishnu! Vishnu! Vishnu! Even by Sakthas. The "All Pervading One" is the correct meaning.
 
The name Vishnu appears in many places in religious text.

In fact the name Vishnu is also listed as one of the Adityas in the Vishnu Purana and the Linga Purana.

In the commentary by Adi Shankara he mentions the word Vaishnava.

Vaishnava means follower of Vishnu.

What is meaning of the word Vishnu?

Vishnu is from the root word Vis..meaning to enter/pervade.

The suffix Nu added to it translates to "All Pervading One"


Vishnu has also been described to mean "Vishnu Vishateh" one who enters everywhere.

Yad Vishito Bhavati Tad Vishnurbhavati..that which is free from fetters and bondage is Vishnu.

So for all practical purposes the word Vishnu in this context is a terminology to explain Paramatma.
hi
vishnu means vi dhatoo vyapya rupena yaha purusha saha vishnuhu......viswam vyapya yaha purusha saha vishnuhu....
 
கால பைரவன்;183787 said:
Dear Nacchi,

You are doing a disservice by generalizing this to be the behavior of tamil brahmins.

Considering that it is the brahmins who are being சிண்டு முடிச்சுfied, I would say it is an agnostic trying to சிண்டு முடிச்சுfy the faithful!

I hope Sangomjji does not take this post seriously!

There was something missing from my post. The Smilies. :):biggrin1: :):biggrin1:
 
All of us know the sloka Suklaambaradharam Vishnum .... This sloka is for Vigneswara. There have been discussions about whether this sloka is for Vigneswara or Vishnu because the epithet Vishnu is used.

Here the use of the term Vishnu is Generic meaning the all-pervading, omni-present.

Sukla- (white)
Ambara (sky)
Dharam (clad or dressed)
Vishnum (all-pervading, omni-present)
Sasi Varnam (Grey colored, like the Moon)
Chathurbhujam (with four hands and)
Prasanna (elephant, also means pleasing)
Vadanam (face)
Dhyayethu (upon my meditation)
Sarva (all, each and every)
Vighna (obstacle)
Upasanthaye (be removed, remedied)

Suklambaradharam

This confirms the point that Renuka and others are making.
 
Sanatana dharma has a unified theory which knits all the picks; nitpickers will be wasting their time; sitting and learning at the feet of a guru for kalashepam may (!) help in untangling the knots.


Bhagavadgeetaa IX-25, given below for ready reference.

यान्ति देवव्रता देवान् पितॄन्यान्ति पितृव्रताः ।
भूतानियान्ति भूतॆज्या यन्ति मद्याजिनोऽपि माम् ॥

yānti devavratā devān pitṝnyānti pitṛvratāḥ |
bhūtāniyānti bhūtejyā yanti madyājino:'pi mām ||

ādiśaṃkara’s bhāṣya on this verse is:

यान्ति गच्छन्ति देवव्रता देवेषुव्रतं नियमो भक्तिः च येषां तॆ देवव्रता देवान् यान्ति । पितॄन् अग्निष्वात्तादीन् यान्ति पितृव्रताः श्राद्धादिक्रियापराः पितृभक्ता
भूतानि विनायक मातृगणचतुर्भगिन्यादीनि यान्ति भूतॆज्या भूतानां पूजकाः
यान्ति मद्याजिना मद्यजन शीला वैष्णवा माम् एव
समाने अपि आयासे माम् एव न भजन्ते अज्ञानात् ।
तेन ते अल्पफलभाजो भवन्ति इत्य्रर्थः ॥


Those who have devotion and vows for the gods (Devavratas) go to the gods and those who are devoted to the manes (pitṛs), Agnishvatta and the rest, and are enthusiastic in performing rites such as śrāddha, go to them. Those who worship the Bhutas such as Vinayaka, the mātṛgaṇa, and the four bhaginis go to them. Those Vishnu-bhaktas who are ever devoted to Me, come to Me only. Even though the effort is equal, the others do not worship me exclusively, owing to their ignorance. Therefore, they enjoy only little results.

Hence we have 'from the horse's mouth', so to say, that Vinayaka is a Bhootha and also that Vishnu-bhaktas alone reach Him (vishnu); others don't.

I hope our highly orthodox members may already be aware of this. I await their learned comments.
 
It is rightly said that

Vishnu-bhaktas alone reach Him (vishnu); others don't.
Hence, the corollaries are:

Shiva bhakthAs alone will reach Him (ShivA)

Muruga bhakthAs alone will reach Him (Murugan)

and so on .........

avaravar bhakthi avaravarkku uyarvE :hail:
 
Hi,

Thanks for all the comments. I agree that I am an agnostic type but I don't think anyone here will say Adi Shankara too was an agnostic! In addition, I feel he (Adi shankara) would definitely have known all the interpretations which many here are trying to give to the sloka and its varied meanings. Still he says without any ambiguity that vinayaka, saptamatrukas, chaturnhaginis etc., are "bhootas" (may be elementa or ghost-types) and explains the sloka with the additional meaning that even though the effort is equal, the others do not worship me exclusively, owing to their ignorance. Therefore, they enjoy only little results. Hence is it not clear as daylight that those who worship Siva, Muruga, etc., get only "little results (alpaphala)"?

I am not trying to do any
சிண்டு முடிச்சுfying but am trying to point out the hollowness in our whole system of worship of gods. And, after doing whatever pleases one, every one firmly believes that his/her god will bestow moksham, liberation, etc. Is this not rather foolish, especially when a person of Adishankara's stature himself says that worship of gods other than Krishna will yield only "little results"?

I will now like to know from our esteemed members how they justify their own devotion system/s in the light of Adi Shankara's opinion.
 
Dear Shri Sangom,

For some reason, which I am not aware of, praying Vishnu probably since He is the preserver may yield better results when it comes to attaining liberation. But considering Adi Sankara advocated advaita he would not have really seen any difference between Shiva and Vishnu. So it is not the case of exalting one and lowering the other.
 
Hi,
I will now like to know from our esteemed members how they justify their own devotion system/s in the light of Adi Shankara's opinion.

Professor sangom sir, RR madam has put things in a nut shell. I would only revise and reconfirm, for ages to come, every village/community will have their own beliefs. Adi Shankara was predominantly a south indian. his preachings were in tune with socio-cultural setup of HIS time.

Of late we have had some interesting movies like OH MY GOD, CHENNAIYIL ORU NAAL and the like.

Now my doubt is Sathya Sai, i have never read his preachings, is he Krishna based preacher as well? apologies for my ignorance.
 
Hi,

Thanks for all the comments. I agree that I am an agnostic type but I don't think anyone here will say Adi Shankara too was an agnostic! In addition, I feel he (Adi shankara) would definitely have known all the interpretations which many here are trying to give to the sloka and its varied meanings. Still he says without any ambiguity that vinayaka, saptamatrukas, chaturnhaginis etc., are "bhootas" (may be elementa or ghost-types) and explains the sloka with the additional meaning that even though the effort is equal, the others do not worship me exclusively, owing to their ignorance. Therefore, they enjoy only little results. Hence is it not clear as daylight that those who worship Siva, Muruga, etc., get only "little results (alpaphala)"?

I am not trying to do any
சிண்டு முடிச்சுfying but am trying to point out the hollowness in our whole system of worship of gods. And, after doing whatever pleases one, every one firmly believes that his/her god will bestow moksham, liberation, etc. Is this not rather foolish, especially when a person of Adishankara's stature himself says that worship of gods other than Krishna will yield only "little results"?

I will now like to know from our esteemed members how they justify their own devotion system/s in the light of Adi Shankara's opinion.

This is a quote from Bhagavad Gita. Why is it being attributed to Adi Sankara the commentator? Can a Bhashyakara/commentator differ from the opinion of the text he is writing comments on?
 

I will now like to know from our esteemed members how they justify their own devotion system/s in the light of Adi Shankara's opinion.

Dear Sangom ji,

I do not see any problems in the devotion system with regards to Adi Shankara's opinion.

Adi Shankara was preaching Advaita basically..so technically if a one has the foundation of Advaita one can worship any chosen form without an obsession that only this is right and that is wrong.

Some Bhaktas have the feeling that only their mode of worship will confer liberation and others are doomed.

When our mind is rigidly fixed and not able to understand/comprehend the underlying uniting fabric of Paramatma in each and every form worshiped we are only going to get that form we yearn so much for..in other words we will reach the realm of that form of deity.

The realm is not really a loka where we have all forms around but a realm is a state of mind.
So the subtle body could just be experiencing a projection of his own mind which translates to as a Loka to all of us.

For example..a Christian who only believes that Jesus is his savior is surely not going to '"see" a Vishnu duta upon death.

The mind only sees what the mind knows or what the mind is conditioned to believe.

Most near death experiences are invariably experiences that are heavily influenced by the person's religious believes.

So I guess that was what Adi Shankara was trying to say...that those who hold on tightly to only one believe that only this and not that will confer salvation never realize Paramatma.

So just as Sravna said "it is not the case of exalting one and lowering the other"
 
Last edited:
This is a quote from Bhagavad Gita. Why is it being attributed to Adi Sankara the commentator? Can a Bhashyakara/commentator differ from the opinion of the text he is writing comments on?

Opinions can differ...

Even Stanza 10 Chapter 1 has 2 interpretations:

aparyaptam tad asmakam
balam bhismabhiraksitam
paryaptam tv idam etesam
balam bhimabhiraksitam

The Aparyantam/Paryantam here has 2 interpretations.
 
Adi Sankara is not the founder of Hinduism. Nor Bagavad Gita the Bible. Hinduism does not have a founder or any authoritative text. Our beliefs are not based on any text or teachings of a particular Acharya.

Religious belief is the belief in the reality of the mythological, supernatural, or spiritual aspects of a religion. Where is the hollowness of our beliefs? And why should we justify our devotional system and to whom? What for?

This is a typical Atheist statement. We have heard enough of these kind of statements from the so called rationalists. Repeated attempts to discredit our religious beliefs.
 
There have been discussions in the past about the same topic. I will give the relavant links

1) [Advaita-l] 'VinAyaka' in ShAnkara GItA BhAShyam (This is the start of the thread with lots of messages- you may want to read the subsequent messages in this thread)

2) https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/browse_thread/thread/c787bc9da7896ad3 another discussion thread with just two messages


IMHO there is no right or wrong answer ( not a two valued function!) We continue to learn and digest as much as we can (before we kick the bucket!)
 
Last edited:
Professor sangom sir, RR madam has put things in a nut shell. I would only revise and reconfirm, for ages to come, every village/community will have their own beliefs. Adi Shankara was predominantly a south indian. his preachings were in tune with socio-cultural setup of HIS time.

Of late we have had some interesting movies like OH MY GOD, CHENNAIYIL ORU NAAL and the like.

Now my doubt is Sathya Sai, i have never read his preachings, is he Krishna based preacher as well? apologies for my ignorance.

Smt. Sandhya,

First of all let me say that I am just a lower middleclass retired tabra and not a professor or even a person with high academic qualifications. I am now 72 years old and the experiences in my life and my reading of books etc., have changed me from an ordinary, god-believing tabra to an agnostic. My view about god is, to put it simply, that there is no god other than whatever gives all of us the power of LIFE and makes all these mortal bodies into living beings. All the rest of the beliefs about god are all unreal; may be this is what is called "mAyA" in usual philosophic parlance.

I joined this Forum to get a knowledge about philosophy and philosophical ideas from members of this Forum. I continue as a member still because the more I read the various postings here, the more I get confirmation that my way of thinking what is god, is very correct.

<edited so that the sentiments of others who believe are nt hurt.. thanks. - praveen.>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Adi Sankara is not the founder of Hinduism. Nor Bagavad Gita the Bible. Hinduism does not have a founder or any authoritative text. Our beliefs are not based on any text or teachings of a particular Acharya.

Religious belief is the belief in the reality of the mythological, supernatural, or spiritual aspects of a religion. Where is the hollowness of our beliefs? And why should we justify our devotional system and to whom? What for?

This is a typical Atheist statement. We have heard enough of these kind of statements from the so called rationalists. Repeated attempts to discredit our religious beliefs.

Shri iniyan,

It is sad to observe that religion is slowly making your views more and more rigid and may be, religious fanaticism of a kind is setting in.

If you say Religious belief is the belief in the reality of the mythological, supernatural, or spiritual aspects of a religion. Where is the hollowness of our beliefs? And why should we justify our devotional system and to whom? What for? and are unable to tolerate the comments of a religious Acharya like Shankaracharya saying that those who worship the SaptamAtrikas, Vinayaka, Chaturbhaginis, etc., are worshipping "bhootas" in their ignorance, that such people will go only to such "bhootas" and not to Krishna and also that those who worship the manes, the bhootas etc., will reap only lesser benefits out of their such kind of devotion, does it not reveal intolerance towards the Acharya's words? Then, why do you try to blame atheists and all that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top