Post 2/4
Here's apparently a Hindi(?) language interview with this Shankaracharya on the very topic, wish I understood it:
youtube.com/watch?v=v5wEVpkNujI
Shankaracharya Swaroopananda Saraswati against worship of Sai Baba
[media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=v5wEVpkNujI[/media]
The timing may not be good and the political angle may be worrisome, but the Shankaracharya has a point in not recognising Shirdi Sai Baba as a Hindu (or any other) God to be worshipped by Hindus if he is a muslim.
dailypioneer.com/columnists/edit/swami-takes-on-a-sage-devotees-confused.html
(Seems to essentially be a copy of Sandhya Jain's VV article)
Many of the comments and commenters who violently agreed with her at VV seem to have reappeared at DailyPioneer (or vice-versa).
This one comment at DP is however both critical and appears to be unique to DP (didn't see it at VV) - my lips are not moving, someone else is angry:
Don't agree with Sayan Sen wanting to credit Adi Shankara with institutionalising Hinduism either. The Hindu Gods, Vedam, itihaasas and puranas did that. Adi Shankara merely upheld that religion. But nice to see a Bengali (?) in Tamizh regions. And to see a Hindu for once not rolling over to every Indic religion and declaring it is all identical to/the "same" as the sanatana dharma (=Vedic Dharma).
Although it's a bit awkward that the Dwaraka Shankaracharya should insist that Buddha is an avataaram of Vishnu - as in news item below - when Adi Shankaracharya would not have: the Adi Shankaracharya declared Buddha to be misleading the people either through ignorance or by design. I understand that the Dwaraka Shankaracharya is appealing to those Hindu puranas where Buddha ended up being included as an avataaram, but these are late interpolations involving non-Hindus (and which is moreover a serious cause of annoyance to many agitating Buddhist monks). Whether other Hindus agree or not, at least it is not very in line with Adi Shankara's known statement regarding the Buddha: he's not likely to consider Buddha to be Vishnu [other than in the very general advaitic sense of 'everything being brahman' or something].
In the last 2 paragraphs: I think the Dwaraka Shankaracharya is stating that among those who were born or otherwise appeared in human form in human society, only 1. the human-form avataaras of Hindoo Gods and 2. Gurus may be worshipped by the Hindoos, as per what sort of human(-seeming) being is considered worshippable in Hindoos' religion. But he then explains that Shirdi Sai Baba is obviously not an avataaram as per Hindu texts - post-Krishna, only Buddha and Kalki are mentioned in the scriptures as avataaras of Vishnu - and in the para after that he explains why Shirdi Sai Baba can't be a guru either as per the Hindoo=only definition of the word.
(Note he's making a logical argument with reference to Hindu scriptures. Either prove him wrong based on those scriptures he's appealing to or accept that his argument is valid.)
This seems to me to explain why the Shankaracharya specially mentioned Rama and Krishna (rather than just mentioning as "Vishnu"). And Shiva does not have "avataaras" in the strict/literal sense, as Senthil also observed, though Shiva does manifest among humans - as well as animals! - and they are the famous Shiva moorties. Rama and Krishna are avataaras appearing in human-like forms, taking divine "birth" in human dynasties. As such they are the only ones classed among "humans" that Hindus may worship, as well as Gurus.** Doesn't seem a sinister statement to me, let alone one that bans Hindus from worshipping their divine trees etc let alone any other Vedic Gods such as Agni, Vaayu Bhagavaan, Gangaa etc... (But don't know why Sandhya Jain mentioned these Vedic=Hindoo Gods.) The acharya was speaking specifically of what 'human' forms are to be worshipped.
** ADDED:
In southern parts, Ayyappa is an avataaram of ShrI Dharmashaastaa, having appeared in human-like form among humans with the same sort of purpose as his parent Vishnu does with his avataaras: as a way to actively protect and preserve, since that is one half of what Dharmashaastaa does, being one half Vishnu's essence. More such cases in the south. And Balaraama is considered a human-looking avataaram of Vishnu too in southern parts. Parashuraama avataaram is a Rishi, and Rishis are often listed separately from ManuSha. (E.g. IIRC even vigrahas carved by them are listed under Rishi-made vigrahas and hence classed separately from manuSha-made vigrahas or deva-made ones or raakShasa-made ones or swayambhu ones.) Guessing this might be why the Dwaraka Shankaracharya did not mention Parashuraama (?) Else perhaps the Acharya is just listing Rama and Krishna as a sort of shorthand summary, their being the most popular avataaras that are classed as "human" - as opposed to avataaras as any other species of animal.
Surely it's unlikely that the Shankaracharya would have said that - for example - the irresistibly-adorable YagnyaangaH - the Saukara - was not to be worshipped. Why else would Vishnu have taken such an irresistible form otherwise, if not to allow himself to be worshipped as such? It's a four-legged mammal form. It has pettable fur. A soft snout. Absurdly cute ears and tusks. And a tail(!) It's obviously meant for cuddling - I mean poojaa, I said poojaa: it's meant for poojaa. Its entire body - all parts - is literally the yagnya, which is why the same descriptive is also its personal name: Vishnu is named YagnyaangaH since his avataaram as Saukara is literally said to be YagnyaangaH. And a commentary listed as Adi Shankaraachaarya's on the meaning of this name IIRC waxes eloquent in further detail about how the Snouted One is a 1-to-1 mapping of the yagnya, repeating other Hindu texts on the same.
So it seems to me no more likely that the Dwaraka Acharya excluded the other Hindoo Gods as deserving of Hindus' worship - certainly not the particular additional Gods singled out by Shankara Bhagavadpaada - than it is likely for him to have excluded the other avataaras of Vishnu. The form of his argument in his statements in dailybhaskar rather seem to specifically deal with which sorts of "humans" are to be worshipped: Hindoo Gods who took avataaram in human form and Gurus (as per the specific definition of who can and can't qualify to be called a Guru in Hinduism), as he said.
Here's apparently a Hindi(?) language interview with this Shankaracharya on the very topic, wish I understood it:
youtube.com/watch?v=v5wEVpkNujI
Shankaracharya Swaroopananda Saraswati against worship of Sai Baba
[media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=v5wEVpkNujI[/media]
The timing may not be good and the political angle may be worrisome, but the Shankaracharya has a point in not recognising Shirdi Sai Baba as a Hindu (or any other) God to be worshipped by Hindus if he is a muslim.
dailypioneer.com/columnists/edit/swami-takes-on-a-sage-devotees-confused.html
(Seems to essentially be a copy of Sandhya Jain's VV article)
Many of the comments and commenters who violently agreed with her at VV seem to have reappeared at DailyPioneer (or vice-versa).
This one comment at DP is however both critical and appears to be unique to DP (didn't see it at VV) - my lips are not moving, someone else is angry:
Quote:Sayan Sen from TIRUCHCHENDUR
I being a humble follower of Sanatan Dharma as laid down in the Shrutis and Smritis, issue an open challenge to all the followers of that Muslim mystic to prove that their Baba was an Avatara or God according to our holy scriptures. Sandhyaji, you are a Jain and you belong to a Nastika school of philosophy. Your religion is completely at odds with the Vedic Sanatan Dharma. The dominance of your religion and your fellow Nastika religion, Buddhism was ended by the Adi Shankara who institutionalized Hinduism. It is because of the works of him that you belong to a microscopic minority.Hence it is quite conceivable that you bear ill will towrads the Adi Shankara and his successor, Swami Swarupananda. (I don't think that's why Jain has an issue with Swami Swarupananda. E.g. she didn't attack Kanchi Shankaracharyas.) No self-respecting Hindu who has an elementary idea about his religion (not those internet Hindus who do not know even the difference between Shruti and Smriti) will ever like to be lectured about his religion from a Nastika (i.e. Jain) like you. No doubt Nastikas find an ally in that ignorant fakir and his followers. Swami Swarupananda is politically aligned because he is sufficiently educated to be so. It is because of his nationalism that he courted jail in Quit India Movement. Quite unlike this self-styled fakir baba who had no political idea (surely because of his lack of education). This baba was from the Muslim community but no self-respecting Muslim will ever prostrate before his picture or statue and commit heresy/haram. Then are we Hindus so miserable that we will continue to worship this mlechha with our Vedic hymns and rituals thus polluting the sanctity of those hymns and rituals? Isn't it high time that we should kick out the pictures and statues of this baba from our temples and homes and above all from our minds?
Points
40
8 days ago ÷ (1) ÷ (2) ÷ reply (0)
Don't agree with Sayan Sen wanting to credit Adi Shankara with institutionalising Hinduism either. The Hindu Gods, Vedam, itihaasas and puranas did that. Adi Shankara merely upheld that religion. But nice to see a Bengali (?) in Tamizh regions. And to see a Hindu for once not rolling over to every Indic religion and declaring it is all identical to/the "same" as the sanatana dharma (=Vedic Dharma).
Although it's a bit awkward that the Dwaraka Shankaracharya should insist that Buddha is an avataaram of Vishnu - as in news item below - when Adi Shankaracharya would not have: the Adi Shankaracharya declared Buddha to be misleading the people either through ignorance or by design. I understand that the Dwaraka Shankaracharya is appealing to those Hindu puranas where Buddha ended up being included as an avataaram, but these are late interpolations involving non-Hindus (and which is moreover a serious cause of annoyance to many agitating Buddhist monks). Whether other Hindus agree or not, at least it is not very in line with Adi Shankara's known statement regarding the Buddha: he's not likely to consider Buddha to be Vishnu [other than in the very general advaitic sense of 'everything being brahman' or something].
Quote:daily.bhaskar.com/article/NAT-TOP-shankracharya-slams-uma-bharti-for-supporting-sai-babas-worship-asks-union-minis-4663253-NOR.html
Shankracharya slams Uma Bharti for supporting Sai Baba's worship, asks Union Minister not to politicise issue
Bhaskar News | Jun 29, 2014, 15:58PM IST
New Delhi: After BJP leader Uma Bharti backed the worship of Shridi's Sai Baba, Sankaracharya Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati slammed the water resources minister asking her not to "politicise" the issue and "interfere in religious matters".
"By supporting Sai's worship, Uma Bharti is trying to make the issue political. She is a minister, not a God. She has been voted to power to serve people. I ask her not to interfere in religious matters," the Shankracharya told reporters.
On Saturday, Bharti had supported Sai's worship and had said she also has faith in the saint. She added Sai never claimed to be a God or immortal.
Raising questions on the minister's faith in Sai, the Shankracharya said, "The saint the minister follows has also supported my stand on Sai."
The Shankaracharya had kicked-off a controversy on on Monday by asking Sai followers not to worship the saint because he was not God. Comparing Sai Baba with another spiritual leader Nirmal Baba, he even declared the Sai's worship a "conspiracy against Hindus as it divide the hierarchy of Gods".
ââ¬ÅGoing by the Hindu beliefs, only an avatar or a guru can be worshipped. Lord Vishnu is said to possess 24 avatars, as per the Sanatana Dharma philosophy. There is no mention of any other except Buddha and Kalki in the religious text. So, Sai clearly canââ¬â¢t be an avatar," said the Shankracharya.
Shankaracharyaââ¬â¢s second rationale: ââ¬ÅAs far as itââ¬â¢s about following Sai as guru is concerned, he doesnââ¬â¢t fulfill the credentials of the same. Not only did he consume meat and facilitated circumcision operations, he was born into Pandarak society which is comprises of dacoits. For the reason, he canââ¬â¢t be considered as a role model for us.ââ¬Â
File photo: Sankaracharya Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati
In the last 2 paragraphs: I think the Dwaraka Shankaracharya is stating that among those who were born or otherwise appeared in human form in human society, only 1. the human-form avataaras of Hindoo Gods and 2. Gurus may be worshipped by the Hindoos, as per what sort of human(-seeming) being is considered worshippable in Hindoos' religion. But he then explains that Shirdi Sai Baba is obviously not an avataaram as per Hindu texts - post-Krishna, only Buddha and Kalki are mentioned in the scriptures as avataaras of Vishnu - and in the para after that he explains why Shirdi Sai Baba can't be a guru either as per the Hindoo=only definition of the word.
(Note he's making a logical argument with reference to Hindu scriptures. Either prove him wrong based on those scriptures he's appealing to or accept that his argument is valid.)
This seems to me to explain why the Shankaracharya specially mentioned Rama and Krishna (rather than just mentioning as "Vishnu"). And Shiva does not have "avataaras" in the strict/literal sense, as Senthil also observed, though Shiva does manifest among humans - as well as animals! - and they are the famous Shiva moorties. Rama and Krishna are avataaras appearing in human-like forms, taking divine "birth" in human dynasties. As such they are the only ones classed among "humans" that Hindus may worship, as well as Gurus.** Doesn't seem a sinister statement to me, let alone one that bans Hindus from worshipping their divine trees etc let alone any other Vedic Gods such as Agni, Vaayu Bhagavaan, Gangaa etc... (But don't know why Sandhya Jain mentioned these Vedic=Hindoo Gods.) The acharya was speaking specifically of what 'human' forms are to be worshipped.
** ADDED:
In southern parts, Ayyappa is an avataaram of ShrI Dharmashaastaa, having appeared in human-like form among humans with the same sort of purpose as his parent Vishnu does with his avataaras: as a way to actively protect and preserve, since that is one half of what Dharmashaastaa does, being one half Vishnu's essence. More such cases in the south. And Balaraama is considered a human-looking avataaram of Vishnu too in southern parts. Parashuraama avataaram is a Rishi, and Rishis are often listed separately from ManuSha. (E.g. IIRC even vigrahas carved by them are listed under Rishi-made vigrahas and hence classed separately from manuSha-made vigrahas or deva-made ones or raakShasa-made ones or swayambhu ones.) Guessing this might be why the Dwaraka Shankaracharya did not mention Parashuraama (?) Else perhaps the Acharya is just listing Rama and Krishna as a sort of shorthand summary, their being the most popular avataaras that are classed as "human" - as opposed to avataaras as any other species of animal.
Surely it's unlikely that the Shankaracharya would have said that - for example - the irresistibly-adorable YagnyaangaH - the Saukara - was not to be worshipped. Why else would Vishnu have taken such an irresistible form otherwise, if not to allow himself to be worshipped as such? It's a four-legged mammal form. It has pettable fur. A soft snout. Absurdly cute ears and tusks. And a tail(!) It's obviously meant for cuddling - I mean poojaa, I said poojaa: it's meant for poojaa. Its entire body - all parts - is literally the yagnya, which is why the same descriptive is also its personal name: Vishnu is named YagnyaangaH since his avataaram as Saukara is literally said to be YagnyaangaH. And a commentary listed as Adi Shankaraachaarya's on the meaning of this name IIRC waxes eloquent in further detail about how the Snouted One is a 1-to-1 mapping of the yagnya, repeating other Hindu texts on the same.
So it seems to me no more likely that the Dwaraka Acharya excluded the other Hindoo Gods as deserving of Hindus' worship - certainly not the particular additional Gods singled out by Shankara Bhagavadpaada - than it is likely for him to have excluded the other avataaras of Vishnu. The form of his argument in his statements in dailybhaskar rather seem to specifically deal with which sorts of "humans" are to be worshipped: Hindoo Gods who took avataaram in human form and Gurus (as per the specific definition of who can and can't qualify to be called a Guru in Hinduism), as he said.