Where dod Krishna said bhakti yoga excluded shudras, tamils, women? How about Gita 9:32? Sridhar was wrong on this and also saying Krishna advocated 'Barnasankara' in Gita. Thanks Mukunda for correctig that. In fact, Krishna completely nefated birth based caste system, where caste is defined by ONLY Gunah and karma.
Thank you guys for sharing your knowledge. I watched it last night and couldn't pause or to watch later. It is quite intriguing and fascinating. Loved how Dushyant explained. I am an ardent fan of Dushyant. I don't know much about Santana Dharma or Vaishnavism. Your video on this kindles me to know more. Keep it going covering various aspects of Santana Dharma. Thanks to all three of you.
Generally I would skip a post which is pretty long and the topic which I have zero knowledge: I must admit, a very simple, and relatable question and answers, I found it very very interesting. Thank you
@@themerumedia yes mukunda please call someone from the Kapila mutt in bihar/jharkhand. It is the only functional mutt of samkhya that is present today
@@themerumedia also if you could call someone who is an active proponent of nyaya or vaishashikha. We want to hear these three darshanas. As too much discourse is on vedanta, yoga and mimansa
@@themerumedia Oh yeah, you think you're such a big big devotee, huh? You're a first-class fool. Why don't you do something useful and go on @TheologyUnleashed and debate the atheists. You're just a materialist not a transcendentalist.
Great work ❤️🙏 Looking forward for many videos and more of krishana singing included lectures. Being young teen I could totally relate to krishana's questions and excellent answers by dushayth ji🔥
Satyakama Jabala in the Chandogya Upanishad is a non-brahmin who becomes brahmin by character: “As a boy, eager for knowledge, he goes to the sage Haridrumata Gautama, requesting the sage's permission to live in his school for Brahmacharya. The teacher asks, "my dear child, what family do you come from?" Satyakama replies that he is of uncertain parentage because his mother does not know the same as she was busy with household duties in the early marriage and his father is no more. The sage declares that the boy's honesty is the mark of a "Brāhmaṇa, true seeker of the knowledge of the Brahman". Sage Gautama accepts him as a student in his school.”
I would believe Sri Ramanujacharya would climb and announce the mantra to all, after all he was a person who I think would rise against discriminatory practices and given it to all. Of course, the existing orthodox elements would have resisted against it and wanted to have the impose their authority on the social order and life of the people with the disgusting varnaa-ashrama system. If God is divine and if we accept he is impartial then there is no place for discriminatory practices. A person should be judged on his conduct in current life as none knows what that person had done in his previous life. Any scripture or supposed to be a divine text, if any of such has such discriminatory verses then it would have been later on interpolations or it was not a divine text in the first place. How can anyone true to himself believe that a person can be judged by what he had done in his previous life. These types of discriminatory practices created by "some" groups in the Sanatana Dharma caused such glorious culture of "live and let live" to break into factions and disintegrate and loose the social fabric of togetherness and oneness. For me, no point in writing a lofty theory as done by Adi Shankara but still remain as a rigid and rabid follower of varnaashrama (the example being his encounter with Chandala). What is the use of writing tomes on impersonal Brahman but still in his life remain attached to discriminatory principles like varnaashrama. Is that not a life of a hyopcrite?
So anything you cannot comprehend is an interpolation. Anyone who practices varnashama is a hypocrite, even if he is someone like Adi Shankara. Got it 👍
people are always confusing smarthas with shaivaites yes smarthas mostly adorn tripundra and some adorn gopi Chandan,smarthas worship Shiva but they don't exclusively worship Shiva they worship all deities as adi Shankara proclaims nirguna brahman(attributeless brahman) as supreme and he constituted panchayatana puja system which requires one to worship Shiva,parvati,narayan,ganesh, suryadev and kartikeya.those who do poojas in Shiva,kartikeya,ganesha temples are sivacharyars whose community is related to Saiva vellalar,they are not smartha brahmins and shaivaites never go to vishnu temple
I always had great trouble in understanding Sri Adi Shankaracharya on what exactly he thought and practiced. For example, he championed the Advaitha Vedanta philosophy (impersonal Brahman) but he did not practice it himself. If Brahman was impersonal and resides in everyone then why didn't he reject "varna"; If he was against the ritualistic doctrine of Mimasa, then why did he bother to conduct final rites for his mother? I feel that in his own terms, he was still in "avidya" and just like any other person needed "Gods" to inspire him and help him out. Incidents like having miraculous encounters with various Devathas like Goddess Lakshmi, Lord Shiva and other Gods (which are embedded in his official biography as per Sringeri Matha), how can this be explained by his "Nirguna" concept of Brahman? In his compositions, he gives vivid physical details and also attributes which are antagonistic to his nirguna brahman concept. I don't think the miraculous encounters with various devathas were not the delusions of Sri Adi Shankaracharya or concocted stories because they are embedded in his official biography. So, in simple terms, the "lofty" principles about "Brahman" being in self is not practiced by the champion of that philosophy itself and looked elsewhere for inspiration to compose his works, then how can a common man be expected to look at self as Brahman? Please don't think that I am critical of Sri Adi Shankaracharya, I respect him a lot for his contributions to bring in people of Sanatana Dharma under one common umbrella and forget their sectarian differences but his philosophy and the way he lived his life doesn't appeal to me, it seems he was a hypocrite in this aspect.
Honestly, the word Hindu means nothing essentially, it’s never even mentioned in the Vedas. Nobody called themselves a Hindu before the caliphate invaded the Sindhu river valley of Āryāvarta, which is presently known as the Sindh province in modern-day Pakistan. The mlecchas pronounced Sindhu as "Hindu" and labeled everybody that was already there as "Hindus." The subsequent mleccha tyrants then labeled everyone that wasn’t a mleccha in nearby areas as "Hindus." Then, some mundane pseudo-intellectuals coined the term "Hinduism" to describe the degraded, atrophied version of Vaidika-dharma that has been practiced throughout Southeast Asia and abroad for the past five millennia. The word Hindu is more of an ethnic pejorative than an accurate term for adherents of said religious system. Which is ironic since most self-described "Hindus" don’t follow Vedic regulations but rather cultural norms.
At 52' he talks about Maya and in turn, Jagat, is to be taken as illusion or mithya is the main error. And for heaven's sake (or if he likes for Vaikunta's sake) Dristi Sristi Vad is absolutely erroneous. Its an unfortunate spin off from orignal works and is based on works sub commentators (Bhamti / Panchpadika etc) of Shankar Bhasya. For example he describes the word Satya as only Truth but that is not as per the definition given in Taitreiyi Upanishad, Anand Valli Bhasya, 2..1.1 which has the precise and unequivocal definition: सत्यमिति यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं न व्यभिचरति, तत्सत्यम्। यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं व्यभिचरति, तदनृतमित्युच्यते। A thing is said to be satya, true, when it does not change (na vyabhicarati) the nature that is ascertained to be its own; and a thing is said to be unreal when it changes the nature that is ascertained to be its own. Thus, in more technical terms he is interpreting satya-anrita-bhyam-anirvachniya सत्य असत्य भ्याम अनिर्वनिय what Shankara does say as sat-asat-bhyam-anirvachniya सदसद्भ्यामनिर्वचनीयं what Shankara has NEVER said. It a very a common error made by most Shankar Vedanta scholars and AFAIK this error that was even prevalent during the days of Sri Ramanujan. In fact based on this misinterpretation all the criticism of Vishista Avaith is valid about "Shankacharys's Asvaith Vedanta". Just that its NOT "Shankarcharya"s" Vedanta as per his bhasya on prasthan-trei. Om @merumedia4249 this is answer to you your question on what exactly was wrong in his interpretation of Shankaracharyas Vedant. For some reason there my reply disappears after a while. Either it's good admin approval that has not been not attended or some technical glitch. But this point needs to be told to get the record straight.
Whatever he said about Adi Shankara is completely erroneous. Its not part of Shankar Bhasya. Its the misconceptions that have floated in the name of Shankar Avaith Vedanta.
@@themerumedia At 52' he talks about Maya and in turn, Jagat, is to be taken as illusion or mithya is the main error. And for heaven's sake (or if he likes for Vaikuntha's sake) Dristi Sristi Vad is absolutely erroneous. Its an unfortunate spin off from orignal works and is based on works sub commentators (Bhamti / Panchpadika etc) of Shankar Bhasya. For example he describes the word Satya as only Truth but that is not as per the definition given in Taitreiyi Upanishad, Anand Valli Bhasya, 2..1.1 which has the precise and unequivocal definition: सत्यमिति यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं न व्यभिचरति, तत्सत्यम्। यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं व्यभिचरति, तदनृतमित्युच्यते। A thing is said to be satya, true, when it does not change (na vyabhicarati) the nature that is ascertained to be its own; and a thing is said to be unreal when it changes the nature that is ascertained to be its own. Thus, in more technical terms he is interpreting satya-anrita-bhyam-anirvachniya सत्य असत्य / सत्य-अनृत -भ्याम अनिर्वनिय what Shankara does say as sat-asat-bhyam-anirvachniya सदसद्भ्यामनिर्वचनीयं what Shankara has NEVER said. It a very a common error made by most Shankar Vedanta scholars and AFAIK this error that was even prevalent during the days of Sri Ramanujan. In fact based on this misinterpretation all the criticism of Vishista Avaith is VALID about "Shankacharys's Advaith Vedanta". Just that its NOT "Shankarcharya"s" Advaith Vedanta strictly and exclusively going by his भाष्यl Bhasya on प्रस्थानत्रयी prasthan-trei. ओम्
Loved the talk by Dushyant ji on Vishishtadvaita 101
Where dod Krishna said bhakti yoga excluded shudras, tamils, women? How about Gita 9:32? Sridhar was wrong on this and also saying Krishna advocated 'Barnasankara' in Gita. Thanks Mukunda for correctig that. In fact, Krishna completely nefated birth based caste system, where caste is defined by ONLY Gunah and karma.
Thank you guys for sharing your knowledge. I watched it last night and couldn't pause or to watch later. It is quite intriguing and fascinating. Loved how Dushyant explained. I am an ardent fan of Dushyant. I don't know much about Santana Dharma or Vaishnavism. Your video on this kindles me to know more. Keep it going covering various aspects of Santana Dharma. Thanks to all three of you.
You are a sincere man, Mukunda
Nice discussion 🌹🌷🌺🌸💐💐🇬🇧🇬🇧🙏🙏🙏
Generally I would skip a post which is pretty long and the topic which I have zero knowledge: I must admit, a very simple, and relatable question and answers, I found it very very interesting. Thank you
Thank you for listening and the comments! If you have anyone you think I should speak to please let me know, also any comments or feedback is great!
We will keep it going. This is knowledge we should all know. 🙏🏾
@@themerumedia yes mukunda please call someone from the Kapila mutt in bihar/jharkhand. It is the only functional mutt of samkhya that is present today
@@themerumedia also if you could call someone who is an active proponent of nyaya or vaishashikha. We want to hear these three darshanas. As too much discourse is on vedanta, yoga and mimansa
@@themerumedia Oh yeah, you think you're such a big big devotee, huh? You're a first-class fool. Why don't you do something useful and go on @TheologyUnleashed and debate the atheists. You're just a materialist not a transcendentalist.
Great work ❤️🙏
Looking forward for many videos and more of krishana singing included lectures. Being young teen I could totally relate to krishana's questions and excellent answers by dushayth ji🔥
Amazing discussion 💯✨
Satyakama Jabala in the Chandogya Upanishad is a non-brahmin who becomes brahmin by character:
“As a boy, eager for knowledge, he goes to the sage Haridrumata Gautama, requesting the sage's permission to live in his school for Brahmacharya. The teacher asks, "my dear child, what family do you come from?" Satyakama replies that he is of uncertain parentage because his mother does not know the same as she was busy with household duties in the early marriage and his father is no more. The sage declares that the boy's honesty is the mark of a "Brāhmaṇa, true seeker of the knowledge of the Brahman". Sage Gautama accepts him as a student in his school.”
Great job keep it up !!!
Sir please tell me bhramins Sri vaishnavas aachi surname is there they are bhramins only aachi surname
The spitting example quoted was very clear & a bit heavy & also funny.
I would believe Sri Ramanujacharya would climb and announce the mantra to all, after all he was a person who I think would rise against discriminatory practices and given it to all. Of course, the existing orthodox elements would have resisted against it and wanted to have the impose their authority on the social order and life of the people with the disgusting varnaa-ashrama system.
If God is divine and if we accept he is impartial then there is no place for discriminatory practices. A person should be judged on his conduct in current life as none knows what that person had done in his previous life. Any scripture or supposed to be a divine text, if any of such has such discriminatory verses then it would have been later on interpolations or it was not a divine text in the first place.
How can anyone true to himself believe that a person can be judged by what he had done in his previous life. These types of discriminatory practices created by "some" groups in the Sanatana Dharma caused such glorious culture of "live and let live" to break into factions and disintegrate and loose the social fabric of togetherness and oneness.
For me, no point in writing a lofty theory as done by Adi Shankara but still remain as a rigid and rabid follower of varnaashrama (the example being his encounter with Chandala). What is the use of writing tomes on impersonal Brahman but still in his life remain attached to discriminatory principles like varnaashrama. Is that not a life of a hyopcrite?
So anything you cannot comprehend is an interpolation.
Anyone who practices varnashama is a hypocrite, even if he is someone like Adi Shankara.
Got it 👍
1:07:06
Krishna Parthasarathy is totally hot. I must attend his concert the next time in the Bay Area
people are always confusing smarthas with shaivaites yes smarthas mostly adorn tripundra and some adorn gopi Chandan,smarthas worship Shiva but they don't exclusively worship Shiva they worship all deities as adi Shankara proclaims nirguna brahman(attributeless brahman) as supreme and he constituted panchayatana puja system which requires one to worship Shiva,parvati,narayan,ganesh,
suryadev and kartikeya.those who do poojas in Shiva,kartikeya,ganesha temples are sivacharyars whose community is related to Saiva vellalar,they are not smartha brahmins and shaivaites never go to vishnu temple
I always had great trouble in understanding Sri Adi Shankaracharya on what exactly he thought and practiced. For example, he championed the Advaitha Vedanta philosophy (impersonal Brahman) but he did not practice it himself. If Brahman was impersonal and resides in everyone then why didn't he reject "varna"; If he was against the ritualistic doctrine of Mimasa, then why did he bother to conduct final rites for his mother?
I feel that in his own terms, he was still in "avidya" and just like any other person needed "Gods" to inspire him and help him out. Incidents like having miraculous encounters with various Devathas like Goddess Lakshmi, Lord Shiva and other Gods (which are embedded in his official biography as per Sringeri Matha), how can this be explained by his "Nirguna" concept of Brahman? In his compositions, he gives vivid physical details and also attributes which are antagonistic to his nirguna brahman concept. I don't think the miraculous encounters with various devathas were not the delusions of Sri Adi Shankaracharya or concocted stories because they are embedded in his official biography.
So, in simple terms, the "lofty" principles about "Brahman" being in self is not practiced by the champion of that philosophy itself and looked elsewhere for inspiration to compose his works, then how can a common man be expected to look at self as Brahman?
Please don't think that I am critical of Sri Adi Shankaracharya, I respect him a lot for his contributions to bring in people of Sanatana Dharma under one common umbrella and forget their sectarian differences but his philosophy and the way he lived his life doesn't appeal to me, it seems he was a hypocrite in this aspect.
Honestly, the word Hindu means nothing essentially, it’s never even mentioned in the Vedas. Nobody called themselves a Hindu before the caliphate invaded the Sindhu river valley of Āryāvarta, which is presently known as the Sindh province in modern-day Pakistan. The mlecchas pronounced Sindhu as "Hindu" and labeled everybody that was already there as "Hindus." The subsequent mleccha tyrants then labeled everyone that wasn’t a mleccha in nearby areas as "Hindus." Then, some mundane pseudo-intellectuals coined the term "Hinduism" to describe the degraded, atrophied version of Vaidika-dharma that has been practiced throughout Southeast Asia and abroad for the past five millennia. The word Hindu is more of an ethnic pejorative than an accurate term for adherents of said religious system. Which is ironic since most self-described "Hindus" don’t follow Vedic regulations but rather cultural norms.
Hindu is a modern identity for an ancient religion.
Poor people think better things great
At 52' he talks about Maya and in turn, Jagat, is to be taken as illusion or mithya is the main error. And for heaven's sake (or if he likes for Vaikunta's sake) Dristi Sristi Vad is absolutely erroneous. Its an unfortunate spin off from orignal works and is based on works sub commentators (Bhamti / Panchpadika etc) of Shankar Bhasya. For example he describes the word Satya as only Truth but that is not as per the definition given in Taitreiyi Upanishad, Anand Valli Bhasya, 2..1.1 which has the precise and unequivocal definition: सत्यमिति यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं न व्यभिचरति, तत्सत्यम्। यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं व्यभिचरति, तदनृतमित्युच्यते। A thing is said to be satya, true, when it does not change (na vyabhicarati) the nature that is ascertained to be its own; and a thing is said to be unreal when it changes the nature that is ascertained to be its own. Thus, in more technical terms he is interpreting satya-anrita-bhyam-anirvachniya सत्य असत्य भ्याम अनिर्वनिय what Shankara does say as sat-asat-bhyam-anirvachniya सदसद्भ्यामनिर्वचनीयं what Shankara has NEVER said. It a very a common error made by most Shankar Vedanta scholars and AFAIK this error that was even prevalent during the days of Sri Ramanujan. In fact based on this misinterpretation all the criticism of Vishista Avaith is valid about "Shankacharys's Asvaith Vedanta". Just that its NOT "Shankarcharya"s" Vedanta as per his bhasya on prasthan-trei. Om
@merumedia4249 this is answer to you your question on what exactly was wrong in his interpretation of Shankaracharyas Vedant. For some reason there my reply disappears after a while. Either it's good admin approval that has not been not attended or some technical glitch. But this point needs to be told to get the record straight.
How you people are scared of OM being recited by "non-dwijas" while Atheist Jains recite it every day thousands of times. Just LFMAO
Whatever he said about Adi Shankara is completely erroneous. Its not part of Shankar Bhasya. Its the misconceptions that have floated in the name of Shankar Avaith Vedanta.
What exactly was wrong?
@@themerumedia
At 52' he talks about Maya and in turn, Jagat, is to be taken as illusion or mithya is the main error. And for heaven's sake (or if he likes for Vaikuntha's sake) Dristi Sristi Vad is absolutely erroneous.
Its an unfortunate spin off from orignal works and is based on works sub commentators (Bhamti / Panchpadika etc) of Shankar Bhasya.
For example he describes the word Satya as only Truth but that is not as per the definition given in Taitreiyi Upanishad, Anand Valli Bhasya, 2..1.1 which has the precise and unequivocal definition:
सत्यमिति यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं न व्यभिचरति, तत्सत्यम्। यद्रूपेण यन्निश्चितं तद्रूपं व्यभिचरति, तदनृतमित्युच्यते।
A thing is said to be satya, true, when it does not change (na vyabhicarati) the nature that is ascertained to be its own; and a thing is said to be unreal when it changes the nature that is ascertained to be its own.
Thus, in more technical terms he is interpreting satya-anrita-bhyam-anirvachniya सत्य असत्य / सत्य-अनृत -भ्याम अनिर्वनिय what Shankara does say
as sat-asat-bhyam-anirvachniya सदसद्भ्यामनिर्वचनीयं what Shankara has NEVER said.
It a very a common error made by most Shankar Vedanta scholars and AFAIK this error that was even prevalent during the days of Sri Ramanujan.
In fact based on this misinterpretation all the criticism of Vishista Avaith is VALID about "Shankacharys's Advaith Vedanta".
Just that its NOT "Shankarcharya"s" Advaith Vedanta strictly and exclusively going by his भाष्यl Bhasya on प्रस्थानत्रयी prasthan-trei.
ओम्
@@themerumediahave replied in a new reply