Post 1/4
vijayvaani.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?aid=3250
Attack on Shirdi a political conspiracy
by Sandhya Jain
Where Jain attacks a legitimately appointed Shankaracharya and darkly hints that he's a fraud, all for something that he said that turns out to be demonstrably true. Meanwhile many Hindu readers lost their marbles and are following Jain in her attack of the Shankaracharya, not because they are irked by his statements' alleged political angle or timing, but because of his criticism of Shirdi Sai Baba as being an invalid object of Hindu worship.
The actual topic is already well-discussed in the comments at the link.
Personally, the bit in italics in the following (but *only* the bit in italics) is the story I had heard from several quarters about Shirdi Sai Baba. And it sounds like it may turn out to be just that: a story -
I tend to agree with several of Krishnakumar and Senthil's comments there. And the latter is empirically correct in observing that in India, god(wo)men are becoming cults/replacement theologies: they're certainly replacing the Hindoos' Gods in primacy in modern Hindus' minds. Whether this is owing to actual conspiracy, for which Senthil provides examples, or just due to modern Hindus' gullibility I don't know. The Shankaracharya certainly seems to argue - at least as per Sandhya's transmission of his statements - "that devotion to Sai Baba is a conspiracy to disturb the existing hierarchy of Gods". If true, it's not like he has no reason to disapprove: as per the very chronicle on Shirdi Sai Baba (see VV link) that the latter's devotees proliferate among Hindus, Shirdi Sai Baba apparently got his food 'blessed' by a maulvi, which only further underlines that Shirdi Sai Baba was consciously a muslim (even if truer muslims might takfir him, as they do so many others). Contrary to Sandhya Jain, having food 'blessed' by some maulvi cannot actually be reconciled with Hindus' religion.
Oddly enough critics have fastened on to how the Dwaraka/Badrinath Shankaracharya lists only Rama and Krishna as Hindoo Gods, accusing him of thereby sinisterly ignoring/demoting the Hindoo God that Sandhya Jain calls "Mahadeo" (i.e. Mahadeva). [Not sure why Sandhya Jain suddenly cares: the Hindu Shiva Mahadeva has nothing to do with Jainism and is not a Jain teerthankara, contrary to late Jain back-projections, by which means the likes of Jain Minority Forum - and even Sandhya Jain at one time - tried to impose on Hindoos' religion.] Yet elsewhere at least, the Dwaraka acharya has mentioned a longer list of Hindu Gods for worship: the same list promulgated by the Adi Shankaracharya. As admitted even by an alien, who interviewed the Swami:
paulmason.info/gurudev/sources/text/SwamiSwaroopanand.htm
Also, I suspect - but don't know - that the Dwaraka Shankaracharya made the statement concerning Rama and Krishna in his local language (Hindi?) rather than English, and that it may be dubious translation that renders the statement more absolutist, though I could be wrong. Other than the following news item in newsnation.in - and Sandhya quoting from their potential translation of his words in her article that's posted both at dailypioneer and vijayvaani - the web search engine does not find any other sources for this statement he was to have made:
newsnation.in/article/47750-sai-baba-a-god-a-conspiracy-halt-ayodhya-temple-construction-shankaracharya.html
vijayvaani.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?aid=3250
Attack on Shirdi a political conspiracy
by Sandhya Jain
Where Jain attacks a legitimately appointed Shankaracharya and darkly hints that he's a fraud, all for something that he said that turns out to be demonstrably true. Meanwhile many Hindu readers lost their marbles and are following Jain in her attack of the Shankaracharya, not because they are irked by his statements' alleged political angle or timing, but because of his criticism of Shirdi Sai Baba as being an invalid object of Hindu worship.
The actual topic is already well-discussed in the comments at the link.
Personally, the bit in italics in the following (but *only* the bit in italics) is the story I had heard from several quarters about Shirdi Sai Baba. And it sounds like it may turn out to be just that: a story -
Quote:There are many different stories on Sai Baba; some consider him a Brahmin by birth, even an incarnation of Dattatreya
Krishna
July 01, 2014
I tend to agree with several of Krishnakumar and Senthil's comments there. And the latter is empirically correct in observing that in India, god(wo)men are becoming cults/replacement theologies: they're certainly replacing the Hindoos' Gods in primacy in modern Hindus' minds. Whether this is owing to actual conspiracy, for which Senthil provides examples, or just due to modern Hindus' gullibility I don't know. The Shankaracharya certainly seems to argue - at least as per Sandhya's transmission of his statements - "that devotion to Sai Baba is a conspiracy to disturb the existing hierarchy of Gods". If true, it's not like he has no reason to disapprove: as per the very chronicle on Shirdi Sai Baba (see VV link) that the latter's devotees proliferate among Hindus, Shirdi Sai Baba apparently got his food 'blessed' by a maulvi, which only further underlines that Shirdi Sai Baba was consciously a muslim (even if truer muslims might takfir him, as they do so many others). Contrary to Sandhya Jain, having food 'blessed' by some maulvi cannot actually be reconciled with Hindus' religion.
Oddly enough critics have fastened on to how the Dwaraka/Badrinath Shankaracharya lists only Rama and Krishna as Hindoo Gods, accusing him of thereby sinisterly ignoring/demoting the Hindoo God that Sandhya Jain calls "Mahadeo" (i.e. Mahadeva). [Not sure why Sandhya Jain suddenly cares: the Hindu Shiva Mahadeva has nothing to do with Jainism and is not a Jain teerthankara, contrary to late Jain back-projections, by which means the likes of Jain Minority Forum - and even Sandhya Jain at one time - tried to impose on Hindoos' religion.] Yet elsewhere at least, the Dwaraka acharya has mentioned a longer list of Hindu Gods for worship: the same list promulgated by the Adi Shankaracharya. As admitted even by an alien, who interviewed the Swami:
paulmason.info/gurudev/sources/text/SwamiSwaroopanand.htm
Quote:Thumbnail sketch biography of Swami Swaroopanand SaraswatiSo it's not like the Dwaaraka Shankaracharya actually ignores Shiva as a Hindoo God. Rather he is consistent with Adi Shankaracharya here.
- Compiled by Paul Mason
Swami Swaroopananda was born Pothiram Upadhyay on September 2nd 1924, in the Jabalpur area of Madhya Pradesh. At nine years old he left home to visit the holy places of India, including Varanasi where he eventually studied with Swami Karpatri (aka Hariharananda Saraswati), a disciple of Guru Dev Swami Brahmananda Saraswati. At 19 years old he became a freedom fighter in the 'Quit India' movement (1942) and was known as 'Revolutionary Sadhu' (serving two prison sentences for same of 9 months & 6 months). In 1950 Guru Dev made him a dandi sannyasi.
<read rest at link>
[...]
Transcripted excerpts, pertinent to the lifestory of Guru Dev Shankaracharya Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, from an interview of Shankaracharya of Dwarka, Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati, by Robert Kropinski in Vrindaban, India, October 1986.
[...]
Q: The religion that Guru Dev preached was connected with five forms of God-Devatas-such as Pancha Devupasana and so what relation has it with Vedic Sanatan Dharma (worship of God) as well as in regard to the varna (caste system) and ashram (four stages of life) systems?
Shankaracharya: The Lord, Adi Shankara was a great exponent of Vedic Sanatana Dharma. God, he taught, is grouped into six forms. He preached six types - five based on forms of God like Shiva, Shakti, Vishnu, etc. and one, Nirakar, without form. However, the worship of God without form being extremely difficult was reserved for renunciates. That is what Adi Shankaracharya had instructed.
Bhagavan Shree Shankara revived Vedic Sanatan Dharma. He said God has six forms. So accordingly, Maharaj Ji gave upadesha (initiation) to meditate upon those forms for the sake of our worship.
Also, I suspect - but don't know - that the Dwaraka Shankaracharya made the statement concerning Rama and Krishna in his local language (Hindi?) rather than English, and that it may be dubious translation that renders the statement more absolutist, though I could be wrong. Other than the following news item in newsnation.in - and Sandhya quoting from their potential translation of his words in her article that's posted both at dailypioneer and vijayvaani - the web search engine does not find any other sources for this statement he was to have made:
newsnation.in/article/47750-sai-baba-a-god-a-conspiracy-halt-ayodhya-temple-construction-shankaracharya.html
Quote:Sai Baba is not a God, says Shankaracharya Swaroopanand
By: News Nation Bureau
Updated On: 23, Jun 2014 | 12:14 PM (IST)
New Delhi : Shankaracharya Swaroopanand Saraswati on Monday raised a controversy by declaring that Shirdi's Sai Baba is not a God and should not be given special place in prayers.
He even compared Nirmal Baba with Sai Baba and mentioned that it is a conspiracy to divide existing hierarchy of Gods.
"This is a conspiracy to divide the belief of common man. There are only 2 Gods- Lord Ram and Krishna," he added.
He informed that all those people who don't want the Govt to construct Ayodhya temple are spreading these beliefs that Sai Baba was a God. Even Sai Baba trust is involved in the conspiracy