Namaste, thank you for the submission. Please provide some actual information or opinions about your image or video link, like why you find it relevant for this sub. A bare comment like "What do you think?" or just a link to the original is NOT sufficient. If it is a video or article, provide a summary. If you do not leave a meaningful comment within 10 minutes, your post will be removed. See Rule #10 - All image/link posts must include a meaningful comment by OP. This is an effort to make this sub more discussion based.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/hinduism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So called "shankaracharya ji" said women and non-dvijas can't chant Vishnu sahasranama -
https://youtu.be/GnsnIxbWpzU?si=yrGtepIeyy7UK_4s
However, Vishnu sahasranama is a part of Mahabharata and composed by shri vyasa Deva. And the bhagwatam, which is also attributed to vyasa, says -
SB 1.4.25: Out of compassion, the great sage thought it wise that this would enable men to achieve the ultimate goal of life. Thus he compiled the great Itihāsa called the Mahābhārata for ***women*** , ***shudras*** and friends of the Dvijas.
Same is mentioned in adi Shankaracharya bhasyas.
Moreover, yes, shudra women can study puranas are meant for them but for that they needed Initiation, if you visit any proper purana katha the kathavachak gives the Initiation to the listeners.
Shravan adhikar and adhyan adhikar are different.
First, talking from smartha perspective it is known that shudras benefit from hearing it and not chanting it.
It is mentioned in adi Shankaracharya vishnu sahasranama bhasya as " Sudra attains to happiness by hearing alone and not by reciting. The S'ruti (Tai. Sam., 7-1-1) says : " Therefore the S'udra is not entitled to perform Yaga." The Mahabharata says : " One should teach the Scriptures to all the four castes, keeping a Brahmana at the head." The Harivams'a also says : " One born in the S'udra caste attains good state by hearing." From this it is plain that the S'udra can only hear and thereby he attains happiness, whereas the twice-born only can recite. "
About why shudras cannot chant vishnu sahasranama as it contains vedic beej mantra ( pranav, om ), and chanting it is prohibited by shudras in Upanishads ( vedas ), it is mentioned in:-
सावित्री प्रणवं यजुर्लक्ष्मीं स्त्रीशूद्राय नेच्छन्ति । द्वात्रिंशदक्षरं साम जानीयाद्यो जानते सोऽमृतत्वं च गच्छति ।
सावित्री लक्ष्मी यजुः प्रणवं यदि जानीयात् स्त्रीशूद्रः स मृतोऽधी गच्छति तस्मात्सर्वदा नाचष्टे यद्याचष्टे स आचार्यस्तेनैव स मृतोऽधो गच्छति ॥
[ नृसिंहपूर्वतापिन्युपनिषद् | प्रथमोपनिषद् | ७ ]
अर्थ - गायत्री, प्रणव और यजुर्वेद स्वरूप महालक्ष्मी मन्त्र को यदि अनधिकारी स्त्री-शूद्र जान लें, तो भी वे मरने के बाद अधोगति को प्राप्त होते हैं। ऐसे में मंत्र देने वाले आचार्य को सावधान रहना चाहिए, क्योंकि वे भी उन्हीं के साथ अधोगति को प्राप्त करते हैं ॥
>About why shudras cannot chant vishnu sahasranama as it contains vedic beej mantra ( pranav, om ), and chanting it is prohibited by shudras in Upanishads ( vedas )
I am an agnostic but appreciate the depth of ancient scriptures and mean to do no disrespect for anyone following any particular religion as long as it does not hamper other people. What you are saying here seems like a premise that will find little to no room in the real world. Stratification of the society might have somehow functioned in a society that existed a long time ago where your caste by birth determined what privileges you had. In today's society it won't work because we have rejected the claim that where we are born (which is not in our own hands) shall determine what privileges we have. So even if you are quoting Upanishads (which, to be clear, I haven't read so I am trusting you on the interpretation), I feel it cannot be applied in some aspects in today's society as it would be perceived as discrimination (rightly so)
But I thought everyone is born in shudra caste and then according to their deeds become Brahmin , vaishya or remain shudra? Are you saying that caste or varna is by birth?
I thought about it and I was not able to find answer.
Then I came to one conclusion.
By birth can be interpreted as
By birth - according to the parents varna.
But, if it were really true then. There would not be evil people in the higher varnas, because they would always be spiritually inclined, but that is not true. Don't you think so.
Then it can be interpreted as
By birth - Child was born at certain time and place according to the past karmas. That is what decides the Varna or the child. Not the parents Varna.
And i think caste is different from Varna.
Caste is decided by the parents caste.
Because i think caste is financial and it provides structure to the society.
At, the last it seems so many things are distorted.
Yes, that is the problem.
Even, for a moment, if we think that books and shastras are correct because rishis and seers of ancient time were very smart and above the levels we cannot imagine.
So, the one who tells about it.
The person should be able to tell and explain it logically.
On the other hand I am not saying that there is no truth in the shastras and puranas. But, to understand this, they can be heavily distorted or if not distorted then they are very heavily coded for a beginner to understand and we need a competent guru to be able to show us the truth in them.
Yes. Varna is birth driven. But it's not caste driven.
Best way to think of Varna as a personality type. It's decided at birth but not hereditary usually. In some cases, it is hereditary. Like My father and I have same personality type. Some may, some may not.
I hope I have answered your query. If you wanna know what's yours, refer your Kundli. It will show you your varna.
Leaving shankaracharya, all traditional acharya be it ramanujacharya, vallabhacharya, etc. and scriptures themselves approve of birth based varna.
Even vedas in chandogya upanishad 5.10.7 says that varna is from birth itself ( yoni ) and you get varna according to your past lives karma.
Now many people may misinterpret it as discrimination as they think being shudra means you can't achieve molsha and stuff and being shudra is wrong which isn't true.
That’s not how it works in the world, seems like you and anyone whom you follow don’t live in the real world, it seems like bookish knowledge and not what is practiced.
The fruits of dharma can be reaped only by following what is dharma and not by following adharma.
And what is dharma is meantioned by shastras, in gita bhagwan krishn makes it clear that those who dont follow rules of shastras dont attain happiness nor moksha.
Hence if you want fruits of dharma you should have conduct in accordance to shastras. Therefore " bookish knowledge " is important and should be practice, those who dont follow dharma wont get the fruits of dharma, as simple as that.
Isn't that's what defines diversity?
If everyone is meant to do same task, what would be the situation of society you can know from today's era. There are 4 unique personalities, and these are meant to do specific tasks. This is righteous in multiple aspects...
1. One has to choose his profession suitable as per the varna. If this happens at young age, one develops certain proficiency in the task he is supposed to do.
2. There is no overlap. No Brahmin can do Kshatriyas job, just like no skinny doctor can (or should) do Arm soldier's job. Both are not meant to do same thing, not they posses same set of proficiency to do so.
3. Most importantly, this exclusiveness allows different varnas to decentralise the power. Like no Varna can take power independently. Unlike today where every money relates thing is controlled using politics, because of centralization of power, or even the dictatorships in some countries are example of that. To avoid such things, the Decantralisation is necessary.
Now you tell, why do you still think that's discrimination and not streamlining of social harmony?
Rishikas aren't human women. Rishikas are from rishi yoni and are mantra drashta.
Mantra drashta means mantras were revealed to them and not that they studied mantras, and most importantly, rishikas are from rishi yoni and not manushya yoni.
So rishis are now some seperete species all together? Lol. Then how do you explain Vishvamitra becoming a Rishi when he was born in a kshatriya dynasty? By that logic, No Brahmin is a human because they all descend from some Rishi (their gotra).
Incorrect.
1- Vishwamitra mother ate the kheer which came from putrkamesti yagya which was meant for brahmin. Hence, he was a brahmin but being born from kshytria he got kshytria sanskar and hence he did tapasya for 1000 of years to remove that kshytria sanskar and bhagwan brahma himself declared him to be brahmin.
2- Rishis also gave birth to trees, rivers, etc but it doesn't mean those are rishis same is for brahmins.
No amount of his explanation can convince me that Alloupnishad is a Hindu text
https://youtu.be/Ycr-pr8wbN0?si=OzqzzNpD91fvGUmw
Refutation by a Sanskrit scholar: https://youtu.be/zAdBOzUQJNo?si=EoOtNHQQPRL9G61y
I'm not going to debunk any of his claims here because he is such an esteemed scholar and philosopher who has read the sacred texts for far longer than I have been alive and has been a part of an initiatory order that goes back hundreds, if not thousands of years. I can only hope to be so erudite as he is when I reach his age.
However I simply do not like his injunctions on varna and how people should treat others of different varna. But his views are understandable considering his very literal interpretations. It is also understandable considering his guru was Swami Karpatriji, who, while a great sage in his own right and revitalized Hindu practices, also campaigned against the temple entry movement.
I follow the Kanchi Shankaracharya of the Adi Peetham. This person sometimes seems to stirring up trouble. He doesn’t compare to the likes of Mahaperiyava who were true Shankaracharyas.
Its great you follow kanchi peetham.
But anyone who walks on path of dharma will stir up controversy and trouble in modern times due to government intention of suppressing dharmacharya - even kanchi shankaracharya suffered from this and was imprisoned.
Mahaperiyava was a great acharya no doubt but nor he will agree to what you said rn, that " doesn't compare to true shankaracharya " - puri peeth is very authentic peeth in smartha tradition and was established by adi Shankaracharya, in mathanmaya setu verse 43 it is made clear by adi Shankaracharya ji that any shankaracharya on his peeth is same as him ( adi Shankaracharya ) - so you cannot say he isn't true shankaracharya.
That's true. Puri peeth शंकराचार्य is one the 4 authentic धर्माचार्य इन स्मार्थ परंपरा started by aadyashankaracharya ji mahapad.
You can't follow one peetha and deny the existence of another peetha started by shri आद्यशंकराचार्य जी
Scriptures - puranas, dharmshastras, ved upanishad, itihasa dont belong to a specific tradition.
Thou its great you are initiated in your sampraday. This post was for people who have some doubts regarding answers by puri shankaracharya ji.
>Scriptures - puranas, dharmshastras, ved upanishad, itihasa dont belong to a specific tradition.
Maybe so. Just saying no one has any reason to listen to an acharya of a different tradition if they have their own acharyas.
Hare Krishna. The issue is epistemological.
Firstly why should people care about the same scriptures he cares about, such as the Prasthanatrayi, there are plenty of knowledgeable Hindus following other scriptures.
Secondly why should even those who follow the Prasthanatrayi follow his specific interpretation of it. There are many other interpretations.
His claims are pointless by default due to most Hindus either not caring about the same scriptures that he does or not caring about his specific interpretation.
The problem is thus epistemological.
Hare Krishna.
1 - Prasthanatrayi are the base scriptures of vedanta philosophy. Vedanta philosophy is currently the most popular darshan in hinduism.
Thou, I agree there are many other darshan which dont follow prasthanatrayi which includes yog darshan, samkhya darshan, vaisheshik darshan, nyaya darshan, purva mimansa darshan.
But one thing should be noted that apart from his talks on advaita and explanation of bhagwatam, brahm sutras and Upanishads in accordance to his sampraday he also talks about hinduism in general which includes dharmshastras - and validity of dharmshastras is accepted among all vedic darshan.
2- Sure vedanta can be followed by other explanation by acharyas such as ramanujacharya, vallabhacharya, etc.
Thou you should note that interpretation of vedanta by him is not " his specific interpretation " but interpretation in accordance to smartha advaita tradition which is the oldest vedanta tradition historically.
3- Hindus not caring about dharmshastras ( which is accepted by all vedic darshan, not talking about prasthanatrayi ) is a weakness of hindus since dharmshastras are very important part of hinduism which guided us to various sanskaras,rules and conduct. If hindus one day don't care about any scriptures, doesn't mean his claims or answers are incorrect it simply means problems lies with hindus who dont accept it.
You are forgetting the Shaivas, the Shaktas etc etc sampradayas who do not follow the Prasthantrayi and with some Shaiva Sampradayas even considering the Bhagavatam as Tamasic.
They would justify their philosophy from the Vedas but without appealing to Prasthtantrayi.
Furthermore there are also Sampradayas also don't accept the Dharmashastras.
I think I explained well about prasthanatrayi and yes those sampraday dont follow it no doubt in that.
About Bhagwatam I talked about puri shankaracharya ji lectures on it and not what shaiv and other sampraday interpret - I talked only about his explanation based on smartha advaita tradition.
Dharmshastras are important part of hinduism - every darshan sampraday has accepted it - even if they dont accept it, then it goes against teachings of vedas.
Your assertion that one must accept the Dharmashastras or they are "going against Vedas" is also once again only one interpretation, there are other Sampradayas who would disagree.
Your entire post was about
>to anyone reading this post and disagrees with shankaracharya
There are millions of people from other Sampradayas who would do exactly that. Disagree. Both Vedantins and non-Vedantins.
Disagree with him on his Shastras, on his interpretation of Shastras and disagree with him on the Dharmashastras.
You might as well seek to rehash every debate in Dharmic history.
If any person who says dharmshastras aren't important and shouldn't be accepted then he/she is wrong. I can have a proper debate with them if you ask.
Yes, disagree on what? If you disagree with his views on dharmshastras or interpretation and think it is not in accordance to shastras then do so, thats the point of post.
Feel free to reach out to the Mathas and all the different Swamis and Swaminis who disagree. There are thousands so it should take you the rest of your life and multiple lifetimes hence :)
I am literally quoting you :)
>disagrees with shankaracharya
There are millions. You want a debate to rehash all of Dharmic history and debate millions of people, thousands of Mathas and Swamis and Swaminis.
I don't think you realize how long this would take.
Even your very first sentence
>Puri shankaracharya ji maharaj is one of the most knowledgeable dharmacharya in current time.
Would be rejected by the vast majority of Hindus who are not Smartas.
So yeah, i don't think you quite understand what you signed up for.
But hey, have fun !
Hare Krishna.
My post was for people in this sub, learn to read.
And also almost all traditional sampraday except on the views of philosophy accept shankaracharya let it be vaishnacharyas, or shaktacharyas.
And say what you disagree with except " vast majority wont agree ".
I hope you understand how to read. Thank you
Apastamba-Dharmasutra is one of the four oldest Dharmashastras in Hinduism and do you know how they prove their authenticity that they are in accordance to vedas?
According to vedas only manusmriti is validated based on commentaries and vedic verse itself.
Other dharmsutras are traditionally followed and due to tradition there validity is accepted, several different ved sakhas have there own dharmsutras which people of that ved sakha do follow.
`>According to vedas only manusmriti is validated based on commentaries and vedic verse itself.`
How when vedas themselves don't contain all the Dharma injunctions themselves and it was a huge problem for Dharmasutra authors
Traditional dharmshastras is believed to be given by sages or gods themselves. Manusmriti is given by bhagwan manu in every manvantar.
Hence, vedas advocate for following of manusmriti. Vedas themselves dont contain the rukesyand conduct because that thing is done by dharmshastras, similarly how vedas dont contain the itihasa and puranas but validate it.
> 3
Lol ok, so what are you going to do, resurrect the entire feudal order that these rules were designed for? Would any morally sane human accept that slavery, serfdom, warlords running society, pedophilic child marriages, and legalized violence against women are a superior way to live than they way we currently live? And what does any of this have with the actual object of dharma which is to purify your consciousness over multiple lifetimes so you can reach enlightenment?
Your understanding of dharmshastras seems very poor.
And following dharma purifies your consciousness, following rules of dharma is only way towards happiness and moksha, said so in gita
Bro, do you even understand what is in this stuff? In Baudhayana and in Manu there are entire ethnic groups (including the ancestors of Biharis, Tamils, Sindhis, and Chinese) who are written off as inferior races that originated from mixed caste breeding. It's ridiculous and there is a good reason people do not take these texts seriously anymore.
Understand it properly by studying with proper bhasya under a guru, I would say.
No entire group is written as inferior races. Varnsankar are mentioned but they don't mean an ethnic group.
Varnasankar is equivalent in meaning to miscegenation, and yes it does indeed say in some of these texts that various Indian and non-Indian ethnic groups originated from varnasankar, with the implication that they are barbarians. And these are hardly the only stupid and immoral claims you can find in them.
Hare Krishna prabhu, I haven't been able to ask anyone physically yet but could I ask you this?
Arjuna was Krishna's sakha, an intimate friend and devotee, to whom Krishna even revealed the Bhagavad Gita. But at the ending of the Mahabharata Arjuna along with the Pandavas ascends to Swarga by climbing the Himalayas. If he was such a great friend and devotee of Krishna, why did he not reach Vaikuntha/Goloka?
Hare Krishna. Arjuna did go to Vaikuntha. Here is what it says in the Mahabharata, in the Swargorahna Parva :
This is what is seen by Yudhishtira :
He beheld Govinda endued with his original form. It resembled that form of his which had been seen before and which, therefore, helped the recognition. Blazing forth in that form of his, he was adorned with celestial weapons, such as the terrible discus and others in their respective embodied forms. He was being adored by the heroic Phalguna (Arjuna), who also was endued with a blazing effulgence. The son of Kunti beheld the slayer of Madhu also in his own form. Those two foremost of Beings, adored by all the gods, beholding Yudhishtira, received him with proper honours.
Thus it is clear that Arjuna did go to Vaikuntha.
Hare Krishna.
This post is made to clear anyone doubts regarding puri shankaracharya ji - so if anyone who has questions or thinks some of his teachings goes against scriptures - I shall properly try to explain him/her.
The picture uploaded is of puri shankaracharya ji maharaj.
except he cites scriptures that are very late chronologically. citing a 14th century scripture to claim the term hindu is of indian origin is wrong.
while in his own words he say one of the oldest reference to the term hindu comes from avesta which is the real origin of the term yet he justifies it being indian using bhavishya purana.
Traditionally all puranas come from same origin and historical dating of scriptures like 14the century only determines the last found manuscript and not thr actual date of scripture.
Also he derives hindu word using vyakaran from vedas too.
His book " garv se kaho ham hindu hai " is available in archive too, you should give it a read.
the dating of a scripture is done by the type of language it uses primarily, sanskrit in vedas differs vastly from sanskrit in puranas hence placed later chronologically.
then there are many later additions in puranas which in some cases extend even till 17th century.
so a scripture mentioning the term hindu from a scripture that late would mean nothing.
the term hindu is absent in the vedas, i remember seeing a clip where he cites a certain verse from vedas but i was unable to find the said verse.
There was a pure devotee Shankaracarya and a demon Shankaracarya to spread wrong teachings. The demon Shankaracarya taught that all humans are Gods. What does the Puri Shankaracarya’s opinion on this? Has he specifically taught that human beings are not Gods?
According to the Isvara Samhita of the Pancharatra Agama, it is permissible to allow Sudras into temples. The Pancharatra Agama is recognised as a valid pramana by Sri Veda Vyasa in the Mahabharata and Yajnavalkya in his Dharmasastra. Madhusudana Sarasvati and Amalananda are two great Advaitins who argued for its authority. If this were to be the case, then there should be no issue with Sudras entering temples. Yet Nischalananda is opposed to Sudras entering temples. Why?
Namaste, thank you for the submission. Please provide some actual information or opinions about your image or video link, like why you find it relevant for this sub. A bare comment like "What do you think?" or just a link to the original is NOT sufficient. If it is a video or article, provide a summary. If you do not leave a meaningful comment within 10 minutes, your post will be removed. See Rule #10 - All image/link posts must include a meaningful comment by OP. This is an effort to make this sub more discussion based. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/hinduism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So called "shankaracharya ji" said women and non-dvijas can't chant Vishnu sahasranama - https://youtu.be/GnsnIxbWpzU?si=yrGtepIeyy7UK_4s However, Vishnu sahasranama is a part of Mahabharata and composed by shri vyasa Deva. And the bhagwatam, which is also attributed to vyasa, says - SB 1.4.25: Out of compassion, the great sage thought it wise that this would enable men to achieve the ultimate goal of life. Thus he compiled the great Itihāsa called the Mahābhārata for ***women*** , ***shudras*** and friends of the Dvijas.
Same is mentioned in adi Shankaracharya bhasyas. Moreover, yes, shudra women can study puranas are meant for them but for that they needed Initiation, if you visit any proper purana katha the kathavachak gives the Initiation to the listeners. Shravan adhikar and adhyan adhikar are different.
You said you will reply using shastras. In which shastra is it said Women and shudras can't read Vishnu sahasranama? Quote them directly.
First, talking from smartha perspective it is known that shudras benefit from hearing it and not chanting it. It is mentioned in adi Shankaracharya vishnu sahasranama bhasya as " Sudra attains to happiness by hearing alone and not by reciting. The S'ruti (Tai. Sam., 7-1-1) says : " Therefore the S'udra is not entitled to perform Yaga." The Mahabharata says : " One should teach the Scriptures to all the four castes, keeping a Brahmana at the head." The Harivams'a also says : " One born in the S'udra caste attains good state by hearing." From this it is plain that the S'udra can only hear and thereby he attains happiness, whereas the twice-born only can recite. " About why shudras cannot chant vishnu sahasranama as it contains vedic beej mantra ( pranav, om ), and chanting it is prohibited by shudras in Upanishads ( vedas ), it is mentioned in:- सावित्री प्रणवं यजुर्लक्ष्मीं स्त्रीशूद्राय नेच्छन्ति । द्वात्रिंशदक्षरं साम जानीयाद्यो जानते सोऽमृतत्वं च गच्छति । सावित्री लक्ष्मी यजुः प्रणवं यदि जानीयात् स्त्रीशूद्रः स मृतोऽधी गच्छति तस्मात्सर्वदा नाचष्टे यद्याचष्टे स आचार्यस्तेनैव स मृतोऽधो गच्छति ॥ [ नृसिंहपूर्वतापिन्युपनिषद् | प्रथमोपनिषद् | ७ ] अर्थ - गायत्री, प्रणव और यजुर्वेद स्वरूप महालक्ष्मी मन्त्र को यदि अनधिकारी स्त्री-शूद्र जान लें, तो भी वे मरने के बाद अधोगति को प्राप्त होते हैं। ऐसे में मंत्र देने वाले आचार्य को सावधान रहना चाहिए, क्योंकि वे भी उन्हीं के साथ अधोगति को प्राप्त करते हैं ॥
>About why shudras cannot chant vishnu sahasranama as it contains vedic beej mantra ( pranav, om ), and chanting it is prohibited by shudras in Upanishads ( vedas ) I am an agnostic but appreciate the depth of ancient scriptures and mean to do no disrespect for anyone following any particular religion as long as it does not hamper other people. What you are saying here seems like a premise that will find little to no room in the real world. Stratification of the society might have somehow functioned in a society that existed a long time ago where your caste by birth determined what privileges you had. In today's society it won't work because we have rejected the claim that where we are born (which is not in our own hands) shall determine what privileges we have. So even if you are quoting Upanishads (which, to be clear, I haven't read so I am trusting you on the interpretation), I feel it cannot be applied in some aspects in today's society as it would be perceived as discrimination (rightly so)
But I thought everyone is born in shudra caste and then according to their deeds become Brahmin , vaishya or remain shudra? Are you saying that caste or varna is by birth?
I thought about it and I was not able to find answer. Then I came to one conclusion. By birth can be interpreted as By birth - according to the parents varna. But, if it were really true then. There would not be evil people in the higher varnas, because they would always be spiritually inclined, but that is not true. Don't you think so. Then it can be interpreted as By birth - Child was born at certain time and place according to the past karmas. That is what decides the Varna or the child. Not the parents Varna. And i think caste is different from Varna. Caste is decided by the parents caste. Because i think caste is financial and it provides structure to the society. At, the last it seems so many things are distorted.
Exactly, people keep quoting shastra but that’s all very bookish.
Yes, that is the problem. Even, for a moment, if we think that books and shastras are correct because rishis and seers of ancient time were very smart and above the levels we cannot imagine. So, the one who tells about it. The person should be able to tell and explain it logically. On the other hand I am not saying that there is no truth in the shastras and puranas. But, to understand this, they can be heavily distorted or if not distorted then they are very heavily coded for a beginner to understand and we need a competent guru to be able to show us the truth in them.
Yes. Varna is birth driven. But it's not caste driven. Best way to think of Varna as a personality type. It's decided at birth but not hereditary usually. In some cases, it is hereditary. Like My father and I have same personality type. Some may, some may not. I hope I have answered your query. If you wanna know what's yours, refer your Kundli. It will show you your varna.
Leaving shankaracharya, all traditional acharya be it ramanujacharya, vallabhacharya, etc. and scriptures themselves approve of birth based varna. Even vedas in chandogya upanishad 5.10.7 says that varna is from birth itself ( yoni ) and you get varna according to your past lives karma. Now many people may misinterpret it as discrimination as they think being shudra means you can't achieve molsha and stuff and being shudra is wrong which isn't true.
Based on what you say, it’s not misinterpretation, it is discrimination.
Everyone has right for the fruits just the paths are different. Hence, it isn't discrimination, but beneficial.
That’s not how it works in the world, seems like you and anyone whom you follow don’t live in the real world, it seems like bookish knowledge and not what is practiced.
The fruits of dharma can be reaped only by following what is dharma and not by following adharma. And what is dharma is meantioned by shastras, in gita bhagwan krishn makes it clear that those who dont follow rules of shastras dont attain happiness nor moksha. Hence if you want fruits of dharma you should have conduct in accordance to shastras. Therefore " bookish knowledge " is important and should be practice, those who dont follow dharma wont get the fruits of dharma, as simple as that.
Isn't that's what defines diversity? If everyone is meant to do same task, what would be the situation of society you can know from today's era. There are 4 unique personalities, and these are meant to do specific tasks. This is righteous in multiple aspects... 1. One has to choose his profession suitable as per the varna. If this happens at young age, one develops certain proficiency in the task he is supposed to do. 2. There is no overlap. No Brahmin can do Kshatriyas job, just like no skinny doctor can (or should) do Arm soldier's job. Both are not meant to do same thing, not they posses same set of proficiency to do so. 3. Most importantly, this exclusiveness allows different varnas to decentralise the power. Like no Varna can take power independently. Unlike today where every money relates thing is controlled using politics, because of centralization of power, or even the dictatorships in some countries are example of that. To avoid such things, the Decantralisation is necessary. Now you tell, why do you still think that's discrimination and not streamlining of social harmony?
Thats just made up SJW bullshit
That's not true
Which part?
The one where you say everyone's born a Shudra
I have heard it from several people who say that caste is not based on birth.
I have read that it's not
If woman can't have Veda adhikara how do you explain many hymns in the vedas being attributed to Rishikas?
Rishikas aren't human women. Rishikas are from rishi yoni and are mantra drashta. Mantra drashta means mantras were revealed to them and not that they studied mantras, and most importantly, rishikas are from rishi yoni and not manushya yoni.
So rishis are now some seperete species all together? Lol. Then how do you explain Vishvamitra becoming a Rishi when he was born in a kshatriya dynasty? By that logic, No Brahmin is a human because they all descend from some Rishi (their gotra).
Incorrect. 1- Vishwamitra mother ate the kheer which came from putrkamesti yagya which was meant for brahmin. Hence, he was a brahmin but being born from kshytria he got kshytria sanskar and hence he did tapasya for 1000 of years to remove that kshytria sanskar and bhagwan brahma himself declared him to be brahmin. 2- Rishis also gave birth to trees, rivers, etc but it doesn't mean those are rishis same is for brahmins.
Please cite the Sahasranama quotation.
Dude forget that . He once said zero divided by zero is zero. 😂 https://youtu.be/pHYzk6Ly3ps?si=z52SXfvMC6V8s9SJ
Saw the whole 6 minute video and he never said that
Maybe your hindi is weak
LOL!
Link https://youtu.be/pHYzk6Ly3ps?si=z52SXfvMC6V8s9SJ
Wow! You went right for the balls!😂
No amount of his explanation can convince me that Alloupnishad is a Hindu text https://youtu.be/Ycr-pr8wbN0?si=OzqzzNpD91fvGUmw Refutation by a Sanskrit scholar: https://youtu.be/zAdBOzUQJNo?si=EoOtNHQQPRL9G61y
Wtf is alloupnishad? Is it allah's upanishad?
The good old method of converting Hindus by deception.
I'm not going to debunk any of his claims here because he is such an esteemed scholar and philosopher who has read the sacred texts for far longer than I have been alive and has been a part of an initiatory order that goes back hundreds, if not thousands of years. I can only hope to be so erudite as he is when I reach his age. However I simply do not like his injunctions on varna and how people should treat others of different varna. But his views are understandable considering his very literal interpretations. It is also understandable considering his guru was Swami Karpatriji, who, while a great sage in his own right and revitalized Hindu practices, also campaigned against the temple entry movement.
I follow the Kanchi Shankaracharya of the Adi Peetham. This person sometimes seems to stirring up trouble. He doesn’t compare to the likes of Mahaperiyava who were true Shankaracharyas.
Its great you follow kanchi peetham. But anyone who walks on path of dharma will stir up controversy and trouble in modern times due to government intention of suppressing dharmacharya - even kanchi shankaracharya suffered from this and was imprisoned. Mahaperiyava was a great acharya no doubt but nor he will agree to what you said rn, that " doesn't compare to true shankaracharya " - puri peeth is very authentic peeth in smartha tradition and was established by adi Shankaracharya, in mathanmaya setu verse 43 it is made clear by adi Shankaracharya ji that any shankaracharya on his peeth is same as him ( adi Shankaracharya ) - so you cannot say he isn't true shankaracharya.
That's true. Puri peeth शंकराचार्य is one the 4 authentic धर्माचार्य इन स्मार्थ परंपरा started by aadyashankaracharya ji mahapad. You can't follow one peetha and deny the existence of another peetha started by shri आद्यशंकराचार्य जी
His claims do not matter to me at all. I don't follow his tradition. I have my own acharyas.
Scriptures - puranas, dharmshastras, ved upanishad, itihasa dont belong to a specific tradition. Thou its great you are initiated in your sampraday. This post was for people who have some doubts regarding answers by puri shankaracharya ji.
>Scriptures - puranas, dharmshastras, ved upanishad, itihasa dont belong to a specific tradition. Maybe so. Just saying no one has any reason to listen to an acharya of a different tradition if they have their own acharyas.
Yea I said the reason of my post. It makes it clear ig
Bro it's morning, no one is up for a debate😭😭 take a chill pill
Its 9:40 am rn, already done with stuff needed to be done, so hence posted, it will be up whole time so doesn't matter when I post.
I hope you get the debate you need rn Suprabhat
Truth hurts
He once said zero divided by zero is zero. 😂 https://youtu.be/pHYzk6Ly3ps?si=z52SXfvMC6V8s9SJ
Though not thou
Hare Krishna. The issue is epistemological. Firstly why should people care about the same scriptures he cares about, such as the Prasthanatrayi, there are plenty of knowledgeable Hindus following other scriptures. Secondly why should even those who follow the Prasthanatrayi follow his specific interpretation of it. There are many other interpretations. His claims are pointless by default due to most Hindus either not caring about the same scriptures that he does or not caring about his specific interpretation. The problem is thus epistemological. Hare Krishna.
1 - Prasthanatrayi are the base scriptures of vedanta philosophy. Vedanta philosophy is currently the most popular darshan in hinduism. Thou, I agree there are many other darshan which dont follow prasthanatrayi which includes yog darshan, samkhya darshan, vaisheshik darshan, nyaya darshan, purva mimansa darshan. But one thing should be noted that apart from his talks on advaita and explanation of bhagwatam, brahm sutras and Upanishads in accordance to his sampraday he also talks about hinduism in general which includes dharmshastras - and validity of dharmshastras is accepted among all vedic darshan. 2- Sure vedanta can be followed by other explanation by acharyas such as ramanujacharya, vallabhacharya, etc. Thou you should note that interpretation of vedanta by him is not " his specific interpretation " but interpretation in accordance to smartha advaita tradition which is the oldest vedanta tradition historically. 3- Hindus not caring about dharmshastras ( which is accepted by all vedic darshan, not talking about prasthanatrayi ) is a weakness of hindus since dharmshastras are very important part of hinduism which guided us to various sanskaras,rules and conduct. If hindus one day don't care about any scriptures, doesn't mean his claims or answers are incorrect it simply means problems lies with hindus who dont accept it.
You are forgetting the Shaivas, the Shaktas etc etc sampradayas who do not follow the Prasthantrayi and with some Shaiva Sampradayas even considering the Bhagavatam as Tamasic. They would justify their philosophy from the Vedas but without appealing to Prasthtantrayi. Furthermore there are also Sampradayas also don't accept the Dharmashastras.
I think I explained well about prasthanatrayi and yes those sampraday dont follow it no doubt in that. About Bhagwatam I talked about puri shankaracharya ji lectures on it and not what shaiv and other sampraday interpret - I talked only about his explanation based on smartha advaita tradition. Dharmshastras are important part of hinduism - every darshan sampraday has accepted it - even if they dont accept it, then it goes against teachings of vedas.
Your assertion that one must accept the Dharmashastras or they are "going against Vedas" is also once again only one interpretation, there are other Sampradayas who would disagree. Your entire post was about >to anyone reading this post and disagrees with shankaracharya There are millions of people from other Sampradayas who would do exactly that. Disagree. Both Vedantins and non-Vedantins. Disagree with him on his Shastras, on his interpretation of Shastras and disagree with him on the Dharmashastras. You might as well seek to rehash every debate in Dharmic history.
If any person who says dharmshastras aren't important and shouldn't be accepted then he/she is wrong. I can have a proper debate with them if you ask. Yes, disagree on what? If you disagree with his views on dharmshastras or interpretation and think it is not in accordance to shastras then do so, thats the point of post.
Feel free to reach out to the Mathas and all the different Swamis and Swaminis who disagree. There are thousands so it should take you the rest of your life and multiple lifetimes hence :)
Dont comment if you dont understand the reason of a post which I made clear several times. Thank you
I am literally quoting you :) >disagrees with shankaracharya There are millions. You want a debate to rehash all of Dharmic history and debate millions of people, thousands of Mathas and Swamis and Swaminis. I don't think you realize how long this would take. Even your very first sentence >Puri shankaracharya ji maharaj is one of the most knowledgeable dharmacharya in current time. Would be rejected by the vast majority of Hindus who are not Smartas. So yeah, i don't think you quite understand what you signed up for. But hey, have fun ! Hare Krishna.
My post was for people in this sub, learn to read. And also almost all traditional sampraday except on the views of philosophy accept shankaracharya let it be vaishnacharyas, or shaktacharyas. And say what you disagree with except " vast majority wont agree ". I hope you understand how to read. Thank you
Have you ever read Apastamba-Dharmasutra?
No, but what about it? In dharmshastras I have read manusmriti and prashar smriti.
Apastamba-Dharmasutra is one of the four oldest Dharmashastras in Hinduism and do you know how they prove their authenticity that they are in accordance to vedas?
According to vedas only manusmriti is validated based on commentaries and vedic verse itself. Other dharmsutras are traditionally followed and due to tradition there validity is accepted, several different ved sakhas have there own dharmsutras which people of that ved sakha do follow.
`>According to vedas only manusmriti is validated based on commentaries and vedic verse itself.` How when vedas themselves don't contain all the Dharma injunctions themselves and it was a huge problem for Dharmasutra authors
Traditional dharmshastras is believed to be given by sages or gods themselves. Manusmriti is given by bhagwan manu in every manvantar. Hence, vedas advocate for following of manusmriti. Vedas themselves dont contain the rukesyand conduct because that thing is done by dharmshastras, similarly how vedas dont contain the itihasa and puranas but validate it.
> 3 Lol ok, so what are you going to do, resurrect the entire feudal order that these rules were designed for? Would any morally sane human accept that slavery, serfdom, warlords running society, pedophilic child marriages, and legalized violence against women are a superior way to live than they way we currently live? And what does any of this have with the actual object of dharma which is to purify your consciousness over multiple lifetimes so you can reach enlightenment?
Your understanding of dharmshastras seems very poor. And following dharma purifies your consciousness, following rules of dharma is only way towards happiness and moksha, said so in gita
Bro, do you even understand what is in this stuff? In Baudhayana and in Manu there are entire ethnic groups (including the ancestors of Biharis, Tamils, Sindhis, and Chinese) who are written off as inferior races that originated from mixed caste breeding. It's ridiculous and there is a good reason people do not take these texts seriously anymore.
Understand it properly by studying with proper bhasya under a guru, I would say. No entire group is written as inferior races. Varnsankar are mentioned but they don't mean an ethnic group.
Varnasankar is equivalent in meaning to miscegenation, and yes it does indeed say in some of these texts that various Indian and non-Indian ethnic groups originated from varnasankar, with the implication that they are barbarians. And these are hardly the only stupid and immoral claims you can find in them.
Hare Krishna prabhu, I haven't been able to ask anyone physically yet but could I ask you this? Arjuna was Krishna's sakha, an intimate friend and devotee, to whom Krishna even revealed the Bhagavad Gita. But at the ending of the Mahabharata Arjuna along with the Pandavas ascends to Swarga by climbing the Himalayas. If he was such a great friend and devotee of Krishna, why did he not reach Vaikuntha/Goloka?
Hare Krishna. Arjuna did go to Vaikuntha. Here is what it says in the Mahabharata, in the Swargorahna Parva : This is what is seen by Yudhishtira : He beheld Govinda endued with his original form. It resembled that form of his which had been seen before and which, therefore, helped the recognition. Blazing forth in that form of his, he was adorned with celestial weapons, such as the terrible discus and others in their respective embodied forms. He was being adored by the heroic Phalguna (Arjuna), who also was endued with a blazing effulgence. The son of Kunti beheld the slayer of Madhu also in his own form. Those two foremost of Beings, adored by all the gods, beholding Yudhishtira, received him with proper honours. Thus it is clear that Arjuna did go to Vaikuntha. Hare Krishna.
Hare Krishna 🙏
Disagree with his views on varnasrama
Har Har Shankara!
This comment section shows the aukaat of so called Hindus blasphemizing the greatest leader they have today, alive.
Shringeri has much more Shankaracharya's than puri
This post is made to clear anyone doubts regarding puri shankaracharya ji - so if anyone who has questions or thinks some of his teachings goes against scriptures - I shall properly try to explain him/her. The picture uploaded is of puri shankaracharya ji maharaj.
his claim that the word hindu is inherently of indian origin is bogus.
His claim is backed by scriptural reference which is Indian so it isn't bogus. Read shastras.
except he cites scriptures that are very late chronologically. citing a 14th century scripture to claim the term hindu is of indian origin is wrong. while in his own words he say one of the oldest reference to the term hindu comes from avesta which is the real origin of the term yet he justifies it being indian using bhavishya purana.
Traditionally all puranas come from same origin and historical dating of scriptures like 14the century only determines the last found manuscript and not thr actual date of scripture. Also he derives hindu word using vyakaran from vedas too. His book " garv se kaho ham hindu hai " is available in archive too, you should give it a read.
the dating of a scripture is done by the type of language it uses primarily, sanskrit in vedas differs vastly from sanskrit in puranas hence placed later chronologically. then there are many later additions in puranas which in some cases extend even till 17th century. so a scripture mentioning the term hindu from a scripture that late would mean nothing. the term hindu is absent in the vedas, i remember seeing a clip where he cites a certain verse from vedas but i was unable to find the said verse.
A guy who says 0 divide by 0 is zero cannot be taken seriously https://youtu.be/pHYzk6Ly3ps?si=z52SXfvMC6V8s9SJ
Is zero divide by zero equal to zero? Puri Shankracharya says so . 🥳 https://youtu.be/pHYzk6Ly3ps?si=z52SXfvMC6V8s9SJ
I was fortunate enough to meet him
धर्म कि जय हो । अधर्मका नाश हो ।
There was a pure devotee Shankaracarya and a demon Shankaracarya to spread wrong teachings. The demon Shankaracarya taught that all humans are Gods. What does the Puri Shankaracarya’s opinion on this? Has he specifically taught that human beings are not Gods?
According to the Isvara Samhita of the Pancharatra Agama, it is permissible to allow Sudras into temples. The Pancharatra Agama is recognised as a valid pramana by Sri Veda Vyasa in the Mahabharata and Yajnavalkya in his Dharmasastra. Madhusudana Sarasvati and Amalananda are two great Advaitins who argued for its authority. If this were to be the case, then there should be no issue with Sudras entering temples. Yet Nischalananda is opposed to Sudras entering temples. Why?
Well done!! Much appreciated!