The saviors that Shankara never asked for

The saviors that Shankara never asked for

In his answer to this question, a gentleman who, supposedly has a degree in sanskrit, written 10 books or so (hearsay) and despite claiming to be follow a particular sect, cannot digest the beliefs of his sect in the words of Manu, rushes to the defense of Adi Shankara.

This gentleman pictures himself to be a protector of advaita, a wise scholar who believes he is the champion of the non-sectarian hordes on that site because ‘learned’ people encouraged him to stay on in it, where they are the exact reason why it became sectarian and bigoted. He believes parroting the same statement like “Judgment devoid of logic destroys dharma” while he comfortably does the exact thing that he accuses others of.

  1. “Adi Shankaracharya was born around 1000 years before Sri Chaitanya. When did Sri Krishna order and when did Shiva say it and when was it recorded? ”
    • How innocent. He says it is stated in Padma Purana… no, let me correct that. Thinking to be smart, he says that Chaitanya Caritamrta quotes Chaitanya Mahaprabhu to have said a verse from Padma Purana. And he asks when did Krishna order it and so on. So basically, he denies the authenticity of Padma Purana. But that is to be expected from someone who believes in the contradicatory, avadika and fanciful tales/ Siddhanta propagated by the Ramakrishna Mutt as well as the newer Bhagavatam followers. If he doesn’t believe in the authenticity of the verse, it is up to him to prove it was not said so. Instead, he acts as if he is fair and innocent.
  2. “Mahaprabhu was a monk of the dasanami sect and so His Adi-Guru is Adi Shankaracharya. Is it believable that He would utter such words that indirectly means that His Adi-Guru was basically a preacher of false doctrine? And that He did it knowingly means He was untruthful! ”
    • Mahaprabhu just quoted the purana. But the scholar’s raving statement is quite misleading. Though Mahaprabhu took sanyaasa from a mayavadi sanyaasin, he never considered himself to be a dasanami or did he waver in his in propagation of Krishna Bhakti. The fact that he never took a dasanami name proves this is sentimental outburst devoid of value or facts. On top of it, he claims Mahaprabhu was untruthful. Of course, to someone who is deep inside Maya will believe that too.
  3. “Sri Chaitanya instructs ” Anya Deva, anya sastra ninda naa koribe” meaning never criticise other god and other scripture”. That goes with the character of a scholar and devotee and an Avatar like Him. Is it possible for Him to quote such a sloka from such a Purana? ”
    • Another sentimental word jugglery. These kind of people take their weak mental imagery and impose it on someone of Mahaprabhu’s stature. There is no ninda of another deity nor of another sastra in the quoted puranic verse. But it is not surprising that someone who claims Krishna was not Krishna when he spoke the Gita, who plays second fiddle to nonsense like Vishnu avatara’s came from nails and so on will obviously act in this way.
  4. “Without Sankaracharya, the Sanatana dharma would have not survived. Is it possible for Sri Chaitanyadev not to know these? Even the Puri-dhama or Sri Sri Jagannathakshetra where Sri Chaitanya was staying at and ‘saying’ the above was re-established by Sri Adi Sankaracharya.He also wrote the beautiful Jagannathastakam as per popular belief. The one who preaches ‘Trinaadapi sunichena taroriva sahishnuna’,.. is it possible for Him to utter such words against Adi Sahnkara? ”
    • The pinnacle of logical falacies and sophistry. If Adi Shankara hadn’t come, dharma would never have survived it seems. So little faith and belief this gentleman has in the words of Sri Krishna (of course, he doesn’t consider Krishna to be God). Adi Shankara did play a major role in protecting dharma, no doubt. If it were not him, there were so many other Vaishnavacaryas who came after him who would have done the same thing and their role is sustaining Dharma was immense. But then this logical fallacy is full of malicious intent. He wants to discredit Mahaprabhu as well as the other Acharyas while seeming to claim cheap moral superiority.

The learned gentleman doesn’t stop with his twisting. He throws in a googly that Chaitanya Caritamrita was written when none of his direct disciples were alive and hence are of doubtful authenticity. Can we then say all the Shankara Vijayas are also of doubtful authenticity? After all, they were too written several centuries after Adi Shankara departed from this world. But, no! When it comes to Shankara, everything they say is correct. Others, well… to hell with them. All are wrong. How very scholarly!

The parting shot is this: ” All these are coming from the dark days of the middle ages “

I can only laugh at this statement. Mahaprabhu’s advent made that age in to a golden one. His impact continues to this day, the dharma being shouldered by millions who take his word and names in every breath. I don’t even exclude the advaitins. But these cheap, sentimental outpourings in the name of defending Adi Shankara only give credence to the pseudoadvaita and not to real advaita.

The arrogance is abundant, the sophistry is glaring and the willful ignorance is deep in such answers. That is all.

Shanmatha and Panchayatana: Why attribute them to Adi-Shankara?

Shanmatha and Panchayatana: Why attribute them to Adi-Shankara?

(Adapted from my answer here)

There seems to be tacit acceptance among smarthas these days that if anything is attributed to Adi-Shankara, they just nod and keep mum. One such attribution is on Shankaracharya being the sthapaka of Shanmathas and Panchayatana. This blog post documents my search for answers on this topic.

Being redirected from this page on the Narayanastra blog, I checked up on the reference given for Sri Shankaracharya’s Brahmasutra Bhasya 1.2.17 (Thibaut’s translation):

‘He rests with his rays in him’–still Selfhood cannot be ascribed to the sun, on account of his externality (parâgrûpatva). Immortality, &c. also cannot be predicated of him, as Scripture speaks of his origin and his dissolution. For the (so-called) deathlessness of the gods only means their (comparatively) long existence. And their lordly power also is based on the highest Lord and does not naturally belong to them; as the mantra declares, ‘From terror of it (Brahman) the wind blows, from terror the sun rises; from terror of it Agni and Indra, yea, Death runs as the fifth.’

I went and looked where this verse was explained and ended up here, the Kathopanisad Bhasya v2.3.3 of Sri Shankaracharya.

bhayādasyāgnistapati bhayāttapati sūryaḥ | bhayādindraśca vāyuśca mṛtyurdhāvati pañcamaḥ || 3 ||

  1. From fear of him, fire burns; from fear, the sun shines; from fear, Indra and Wind; and Death, the fifth, speeds.

So, it seems counter to logic to claim that Sri Shankaracharya founded, or integrated in to advaita, a matha which had Surya as a supreme deity when he clearly differentiates Surya to be one of the “servants trembling from fear of the master” and not an Ishvara or aspect of Brahman.

Here’s a good summary link on the worship of Surya in vedic literature.

Addition 2:

I had come across a compilation of exchanges between scholars, published under the name “Sankararum, Vainavamum” (Sri Shankara and Vaishnavism), around 1960s-1970s, which pretty much revolved around this exact question. The entire text is in Tamil, so I will basically post a few snippets with my translation (staying true to the original to the best of my capacity).

Pg 21 of the file, pg 34 of the text: Sri Umapati Jagadisha Sharma writes in a letter: “Sri Vidyaranya wrote that “There are none to respect the statements of Ganapatyas, Kapalikas have run and hidden somewhere, Saivam has turned “ashivam” (I can’t put the exact meaning of the word in this context), Arhamatham got denounced, Shaktamatham became illfated, there is no one to nourish Vaishnavism. All this is only because of the merciless attack by Sankaracharya’s suktis”. The response to this from Brahmasri Varahur Kalayasundara sastri (the scholar who responded on behalf of advaitins) on pg 87 of the text is very much unconvincing.

Now, I couldn’t trace out the source for Sri Vidyaranya’s statement. But assuming this exists, it certainly comes across as odd that Shankaracharya, as an avatara of Lord Shiva, would actually establish the same 6 schools that which he purportedly decimated.

Pg 48 of the file, pg 51 in the text: Varahur Sri Kalayanasundara sastri makes a statement that they (advaitins, and by extension, Sri Shankara) do not/did not consider the six deities as parabrahman but only amshas of the nirvisesha parabrahman.

Pg 65 of the file, pg 85 of the text: Varahur Sastri also makes a claim that there were originally mathams which had Indra, Brahma and even Vayu as their supreme deity.

That does bring up the question as to why the shanmathas selected only the aforementioned 6 deities, and not any of the other devatas/deities as stated by Varahur sastri.

Sri Varahur Sastri mentions in places that he had published a book by the name of “Sankararum, Shanmathamum” (Sri Shankara and the Shanmathas) in 3 parts, where he claims to have proven that it was indeed Sri Adi Shankara who established the 6 mathams. Unfortunately, I am unable to trace that book as well. (If anyone can direct me to the books, I would be grateful).

Addition 3 (Jan 12, 2019)

Stumbled across another interesting page. This page gives a completely different angle on Panchayatana puja.

The tendency of rapprochement in orthodox religious sphere in pañcadevopāsanā i.e., the worship of five deities as advocated by the Smārtas.

So, basically the author starts out saying that the system would have been initiated to bring about “harmony” among different systems. That is believable.

After stating that the smartha system was initiated by both Shaivas and Vaishnavas, the author gives a jist of the evolution of the system.

The worship of Shiva with Sun, Shakti, Gaṇeśa and Viṣṇu was performed in the Miśra Pāśupata school. This is the same as Smārta Pañcadevopāsanā:

रविं शम्भुं तथा शक्तिं विघ्नेशं च जनार्दनम् | यजन्ति समभावेन मिश्रपाशुपतं हि तत् ||

The later Smārta treatises such as as Smṛtimuktāphala prescribe the daily worship of these five deities for a householder:

आदित्यमम्बिकां विष्णुं गणनाथं महेश्वरम् | पञ्चयज्ञपरो नित्यं गृहस्थः पञ्च पूजयेत् ||

It is sometimes stated that the system in this form was popularized by the Advaita teacher Shaṅkara but it is extremely doubtful.

The author believes that the first step in moving to a pentad (Panchopasana) system was the introduction of the Trinity or the Trimurthis as we know them.

The first stage in the development of the pentad cult was the evolution of trinity composed of Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Shiva.

Then follows the description of temples with different deities as part of the evolving triumvarate or quadrumvarate then to finally panchadevopasana.

There were different versions of Panchayatana, evidently.

The Kilait Cp. of Somavarman in the middle of eleventh century A.D. invokes five deities, Brahmā, Gaṇapati, Viṣṇu, Shakti and Shiva. But this pentad is not of the Smārta variety as Sūrya has been substituted here by Brahmā.

And then he ends with the conclusion thus:

It may, therefore, be concluded that the system of five deities as envisaged by the Smārtas came into vogue by eleventh century A.D. and that it indicates the rapprochment of the Vedic and āgamic tendencies. The views that Pañcadevopāsanā was introduced by Shaṅkarācārya is evidently incorrect.

The conclusion that many, including me, have arrived at is that Sri Shankara could not have instituted such systems when his siddhanta as found in his key works runs counter to the paths. But as it would be with all things in spirituality and philosophy, each one is attracted to what is agreeable to them at that point in time, determined and guided by their karmas and gunas.

I will close my post here, for now, since most of the other material I have on hand are not in English and translating all those is not going to be practical. Hopefully, if anything, this post might have kindled the need for a search by others so that Sri Adi Shankara Bhagavatpada’s true legacies are brought out.

The Scourge called Pseudo-advaitins

The Scourge called Pseudo-advaitins

(Adapted from my answer here)

Advaita, during the course of time, has been morphed in to a confused, hodge podge of philosophical diversions.

In the this book, on page 604, the Sringeri Shankaracharya says:

They will do well to bear in mind the declaration of the Kaṭha-upaniṣad, “One who has not desisted from bad conduct, whose senses are not under control, whose mind is not concentrated and whose mind is not free from hankering for the result of concentration cannot attain the Ātman through knowledge.”

This statement basically buries all the new age movements who claim to show oneness through myriad of meditations or the ones which claim to give diksha through sexual experiences or the ones that say “oh you don’t have to follow any rules”, “you are God, you just don’t know it”. None of them are grounded in siddhanta but only in money and toxic fame.

In this page, Swami Sivananda is quoted:

“The superstructure of Vedanta can only be built when the foundation has been laid strongly by the practice of Yama-Niyama, when the heart has been purified thoroughly through untiring selfless service and Upasana or worship of Saguna Brahman.”

So, one who does not practice yama-niyamas and shirks worship of Saguna Brahman, as identified by Shankaracharya, is certainly a pseudo-advaitin.

I came across a rather curious site here. Though I am not entirely comfortable with the whole site, it does a pretty good job of explaining what is pseudo-advaita. I will summarize it.

  1. Engaging in sophistry, in trying to glean meanings from scriptures on their own or from questionable sources.
  2. Trying to always show oneself as rooted in non-dualism out of plain ego. This is highlighted by the constipated compulsion to always talk about paramarthika level for everything when entirely in this reality
  3. Mechanically acting out detachment, while hooked to firmly in this material world
  4. Applying dual-nondual definitions indiscriminately to everything except what it is truly meant to denote
  5. Preaching to others about duality and nonduality when it is very clear that they themselves haven’t renounced anything in this world.
  6. Condemning devotional service as maya or selectively showing devotion while claiming nonduality

There are a few things to be elaborated from the above. Generally, advaitins nowadays have strong personal preferences on ishta devata. Technically, it should be fine, seeing how they should see everything as (theoretically) just the same. But without actually realizing oneness, denigrating another’s preference of ishta devata, even when that choice is soundly grounded in vedantic conclusions, as sectarian and intolerant is a sure sign of a pseudo-advaitin.

Then comes the confused, unconscious hypocrisy of vociferously stating all devas are equal, and in the same breath claiming superiority for a particular devata. That all devatas are equal itself is not a position held by Adi-Shankara as seen in his Gita Bhasya (Ref 1, 2) and other works of his.

Another common symptom of pseudo-advaitin is when someone says “Seeing Shiva and Vishnu as different itself is dualism since they both are parabrahman”. It only betrays the immaturity of such a speaker because advaita and other siddhantas do not even deal with that type of comparison. The siddhantas are only concerned about nature of brahman. (Of course there is another huge debate raging on who Adi-Shankara considered as saguna brahman, though several of his own sampradayic disciples as well as acharyas from other traditions have clarified on that point ad infinitum, but on internet forums it is just an inconvenient truth.)

In this paper on “Misconceptions about Advaita”, David Frawley (A) Pandit Vamadeva Shastri makes a very important statement:

“However, if we read traditional Advaitic texts, we get quite a different impression. The question of the aptitude or adhikara of the student is an important topic dealt with at the beginning of the teaching. The requirements can be quite stringent and daunting, if not downright discouraging. One should first renounce the world, practice brahmacharya, and gain proficiency in other yogas like karma yoga, bhakti yoga, raja yoga, and so on (the sadhana-chatushtya). One can examine texts like the Vedanta Sara I.6-26 for a detailed description. While probably no one ever met all of these requirements before starting the practice of self-inquiry, they do at least encourage humility, not only on the part of the student, but also on the part of the teacher who may also not have met all these requirements!”

So, this basically reiterates what several scholars, that I have heard, hold as a deviation in practice, albeit one that is unavoidable in this age: if one wants to practice advaita truly, the process begins with, not ends with, renouncing this world. A pseudo-advaitin neither renounces the world nor embodies the humility needed to accept their inability to do so. There are some examples for people taking sanyaasa though they were not direct disciples of a Shankaracharya. Here is an example where a staunch follower took up sanyaasa, though not directly from another yati. There are other examples where people take up sanyaasa shortly before passing away, but evidence is mostly anecdotal.

A few final observations:

It has become a new fad these days to believe that with mere mastery of a few languages esp. Sanskrit, and a few sciences, they can hold themselves to the level of the great acharyas. One shameful example of this phenomenon was the declaration on twitter by one such ‘Arya Acharya’ that Lord Rama was not biological son of King Dasaratha. Other instances are happening today with so called followers of advaita going overboard due to influence from other traditions and come up with completely unacceptable and shameful works like the one shown here.

pseudoadvaitin crazy

On top of this, when faced with facts from Adi-shankara’s own words and works, they resort of word play and grammar to twist the acharya’s words to their convenience. In instances, they even insult Shankaracharya’s teaching, and by extension the acharya himself, while claiming to follow his siddhanta. Unfortunately, a pseudo-advaitin won’t hesitate to brand others as abrahamic, sectarian, hatemonger and what not (that other can even be a fellow advaitin) simply because others disagree with their own concocted views.

Srimad Bhagavatam on Kali Yuga – Part 1

Srimad Bhagavatam on Kali Yuga – Part 1

This post is going to be rather simple. Read on.

Canto 12 Chapter 2 Verse 2

vittam eva kalau nṝṇāṁ janmācāra-guṇodayaḥ/ dharma-nyāya-vyavasthāyāṁ kāraṇaṁ balam eva hi

In Kali-yuga, wealth alone will be considered the sign of a man’s good birth, proper behavior and fine qualities. And law and justice will be applied only on the basis of one’s power.

Self explanatory. We have too many examples in India (and elsewhere) that prove this statement 100%.

Canto 12 Chapter 2 Verse 3

dāmpatye ’bhirucir hetur māyaiva vyāvahārike/ strītve puṁstve ca hi ratir vipratve sūtram eva hi

Men and women will live together merely because of superficial attraction, and success in business will depend on deceit. Womanliness and manliness will be judged according to one’s expertise in sex, and a man will be known as a brāhmaṇa just by his wearing a thread.

The live-in partners phenomenon is a symptom of the deep rot that is happening in our societies. The emphasis on physical attraction and sexual prowess have overridden the quest for persons with values, integrity and character. That actually contributes to the increase in live-in phenomenon. The yagnopavitam issue a lot more deeper and warrants a post on its own. But suffice to say that most born in brahmana families in this age, be it men or women, are actually unfit to be even part of the other 3 varnas.

Canto 12 Chapter 2 Verse 3

liṅgam evāśrama-khyātāv anyonyāpatti-kāraṇam/ avṛttyā nyāya-daurbalyaṁ pāṇḍitye cāpalaṁ vacaḥ

A person’s spiritual position will be ascertained merely according to external symbols, and on that same basis people will change from one spiritual order to the next. A person’s propriety will be seriously questioned if he does not earn a good living. And one who is very clever at juggling words will be considered a learned scholar.

Ascertaining the spiritual position of a person is a joint exercise between that person and their Guru. And in very, very,very rare cases, between the person and Bhagavan himself. But in Kali yuga, this has been reduced to wearing of external symbols, rather than internal transformation. We can see this very easily. The false humility, always smiling facade, the constant deification and its acceptance without any sastric challenge or basis, all of these point to this fact. Gone are times when poverty was actually a virtue to be upheld in order to maintain a class of people to would steer the society. Nowadays, it is only money and power that have a voice. Sophistry is the norm for spiritual discourses, with most lacking in substance, purity in deliverance and/or sincerity in the audience.

To be continued.

Dravidian to Dharma

Dravidian to Dharma

*Rant Begin*

What’s the noise all about:

It is MK’s birthday. The senile ‘leader’, the raft of dravidian people in the ocean of aryan subterfuge. As usual, his ‘kazhaga udanpirappugal’ are flocking to his house to ‘wish him a long life’, may be with the confidence that it is unlikely. The man is 94 years old, cannot move on his own, can’t speak. You know, old age and disease have finally got to him. Well, he may not believe in being a ‘jivātma’ but surely he at least now knows that his time is coming to an end.  *Poof*… nothingness. I am sure he is looking forward to being rid of his consorts, and the baggage they begot him.

The scene as it is:

The streets are lined with tubelights, with electricity stolen from the distribution boxes. There are loudspeakers blaring ‘songs’ in praise of Anna, Periyar and MK. Not near his house, but in unremarkable pockets all over the areas nearby.

I happened to have the misfortune of being forced listen to some of those. Even if for a few minutes. And thoughts came rushing in to my mind. These songs express gratitude to the ‘God of hearts’, ‘Father of Rationals’… they weave garlands of epithets, in ‘glowing’ words that would make some puke in disgust. The singers actually ‘cry’ to imitate the pain that this ‘separation’ causes for ‘people’.

Bulky men and women in red-black bordered dresses line up in front of Sri Venugopalaswamy temple in Gopalapuram. Rather than pay their respects to the Lord, they bend their backs to a mound of flesh and bones. Mind it, these are not the typical atheists. Most of them are closet followers of some religion. The worst are those I call the  “black shirt gang”. The last remaining vestiges of a movement built on hate towards brahmins, stale in their outlook, rotten in their speech and long bereft of any moral sense or leadership.

This is the same crowd that puts down Hinduism for its ‘regressive and oppressive’ practices, makes fun of ‘devotional’ songs, claims Rama and Krishna to be figments of imagination. Seems like, to them, spirituality is a mass delusion. Together with the dravidian kazhagams, they have tried to build an alternate reality where Tamil language is a god, Jesus, Allah, Mohammed, Buddha, Marx, Che Guevara, Lenin, Stalin are all role models. Further, in their addiction to power, they spew liberal gibberish now and then to give an illusion that they are relevant in these times.

What the reality is:

Now, think on this carefully. These ‘dravidian supremacists’ aren’t against the ‘aryan’ concept of worship and religiosity. Rather, they just want themselves or their ‘great leaders’ to be the object of that worship. In fact, they are so ‘large hearted’, they will allow, even welcome, worship of Jesus, Allah or any other ‘god’ concept. Just not sanatana dharma. This unholy nexus between the dravidian politicians and the merchants of love (cultural uprooting) and peace (simply death) is the foremost scourge that looms on the land that prospered under and symbolized Dharma.

It is natural human tendency to be subordinate to something or someone. Is that not true? The dravidian philosophy stalwarts just want the people to be ‘slaves’ to their ‘gods’. They have no interest in protecting Tamil, but claim to speak for all tamil folk. They want people to be subordinate to their money, power, perverted versions of history and rascals passing off as intellectuals. Hence, they are no better than the parasites that ravage our lands, culture and minds under the guise of charity, good news or wrath of some ‘god’.

The time approaches:

The so called stalwart leaders are ending their miserable existence one by one. Their ‘armies’ are being thrown in to chaos, with factions bursting out from the crevices of corruption, loathing and jealousy. While the disease of minority appeasement is unlikely to disappear (we can thank the congress bootlickers for that), Truth of Dharma has now a chance to be reinstated. The false idealogies propagated by the chief charlatans of the ‘dravidian’ political movement will have to die without a whimper. And in that silence, Truth will be have to be heard resoundingly in people’s minds. That day is not, hopefully, not too far off.

Let the backbone of this politics be broken like a bamboo that breaks under the tusks of the majestic elephant of Dharma; May its roots rot and die, never to spring up again; May the fumes spread by this poison tree, that befuddles brains of people, be swept away by the gales of Truth.

Let Dharma be reinstated again. To be protected by us. To protect us.

*Rant Over*

Uri attacks and the pakistan ‘artists’

Uri attacks and the pakistan ‘artists’

Many pakistan actors earn their bread and butter using Indian money. And so they are expected to release a statement condemning the Uri attack.

This topic has been going on and on over the internet channels ad nauseum. So many ’eminent’ intellectuals have taken to both sides of the fence on this topic.

My view is that regardless of whether they condemn or not, chuck them out! They are part of the ‘trade’ that we engage with Pakistan. As part of the global initiative to isolate Pakistan, we should STOP ALL economic transactions with that country. For those who shed crocodile tears on giving peace a chance blah blah blah, go and stand as human shields to the terrorists at the LOC and get yourself shot in your nether parts.

No need for war… just squeeze them enough that the bloody barbarians who lead that country choke in their own vomit. Yes, the ‘innocents’ will suffer, but that’s the price they have to pay for not cleaning up their own garbage.

Guru or God?

Guru or God?

I have been seeing some very odd things in a section of the Iyer community these days. And what I am saying here would surely stir a hornet’s nest, if not understood properly.

The Kanchi mutt has a significant following… and some families are ‘fanatic’ followers… and I don’t mean that in a bad way. The late pontiff, HH Chandrashekarendra Saraswati, the 68th head of the mutt, is revered as a Jagadguru even among non brahmins as Paramacharyal or Periyavaa. There are so many blogs, articles, books etc. on the life of Paramacharya and the list of ‘miracles’ attributed to him keeep growing.

The odd thing I mentioned is this: nowadays, there seems to be a growing (or becoming more vocal) group of people who claim to be devotees of Paramacharya, and worship him as a god. They hold namasankeertanams in his name, compose various slokas and songs on him… all that can be explained away, but now some even have begun claiming him as an incarnation and propagating the idea that he is God himself. I won’t be surprised if in a few years time, someone comes up with some pramanas from the vedic scriptures purporting their claim to be right!

Worship of Guru is pretty standard in Sanatana Dharma. There are numerous instances where importance of Guru has been indicated in our scriptures. But all those are done only with Guru in the status of the Lord’s representative.

Paramcharyal can be revered as a Guru (by those who accept him as such), as a Saint (by the masses, no need for any papal seal on this one!!)… and even as a powerful yogi endowed with mystical potency (by all the anecdotes). But to claim him to be God is completely ridiculous. In doing this, this group of ‘devotees’ are setting the stage to legitimizing the claims of people like Nithyananda, Kalki, the various babas etc.

When Sanatana dharma and it’s traditions are facing the onslaught from other forces, this type of new fangled practices will only weaken it.

Ada kadavule! Oh my Isha!

Ada kadavule! Oh my Isha!

Isha Foundation has been in the news for wrong reasons lately. Parents are filing complaints with the police claiming that their ‘children’ (all aged 18+) are being brainwashed and are being held against their will.

If an adult, major citizen, wants to be part of an organization and get deep in to it, I think his/her parents have no fricking business saying otherwise. They need to stop being ‘protective’… and also stop thinking about this as ‘lost money’ or ‘economic support’. I might sound harsh… but seriously, if those guys and gals want to be that way, mind your business and let them be.

Of course, all the above can be ignored IF and ONLY IF there is HARD proof that they are being physically abused, raped, or getting drugged or forced in to illegal stuff.

But, as a general advice, Dear parents, stop interfering with your childrens’ lives! You had a chance to bring them to a path that you considered ideal… now that chance is gone. So stop fretting about them. Look forward to spending rest of your life well and fruitfully.

That being said, dear children of parents, in your quest for knowledge and bliss, don’t forget that you have an blood obligation to those who have sacrificed their lives for your good. In your quest to find the truth (be it Isha, Krishna, Allah or Christ), don’t ignore your parents when you have the chance to serve them well. Once they are gone from this world, no amount of self realization will help bury the guilt.

Ignore the burkini

Ignore the burkini

Dear French bros and sistas,

If you are very worried about your country being islamized, target the root cause rather than the symptom.

Burkini is a symptom. Understood?