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.
- “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.
- “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.
- “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.
- “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.