Post 3/4
Anyway, Sandhya Jain does seem to have a bone to pick with this Shankaracharya:
- IIRC she previously attacked his statements when, after a natural disaster at a temple site, he had advocated that a Hindoo moorti of a Hindoo God[dess] at a Hindoo temple be immediately reinstalled or re-consecrated or something. Jain felt it was her business to call into question his motives, despite his being an established Hindoo acharya speaking on matters pertaining to Hindoos' Vedic religion (a.o.t. Jainism).
- In a comment to her latest article she even referred to "his evil influence (on the mathams)":
But Sandhya Jain already admits to knowing that the Dwaraka+Badrinath Shankaracharya does accept the Vedic=Hindoo God (a.o.t. Jain clone) Shiva Mahadeva as a Hindoo God. She admits to reading the news that every other Indian would have read too: about the same Shankaracharya protesting the use of the "Har(a) Har(a)" prefix on Modi which belongs to Shiva Mahadeva and is a sort of mantram. [Again, whether his criticism was politically motivated or not, don't know. Although I do note that the "newsnation.in" and other news sources certainly spun it that way: that the Acharya was going to canvas against Modi or something over this. The same "newsnation.in" also promises an article with the Shankaracharya's "angry face" or something... Hardly unmotivated source. But it seems to be the origin for Sandhya's "Rama Krishna" quote. It's not impossible that they deliberately mistranslated his statement on Rama and Krishna being Hindoo Gods.]
And here is Sandhya in the VV article itself admitting that the Shankaracharya took objection to the Hara Hara being randomly applied:
So why Sandhya's pretence that this Shankaracharya would exclude Shiva, when she is aware that the Shankaracharya recognises Mahadeva as a God (and so could have had no other grounds to object to the "Hara Hara" getting attached to Modi)?
Also, why does Jain lecture Hindoos not only about Hindoo acharyas but on Hindoo Gods? And no one tells her to Back Off. [<- EDIT: Sayan Sen told her off.]
Instead people would prefer to align with non-established godmen.
How quickly Hindus gang up against actual acharyas upholding the Vedic religion.
As quickly, I recall, as other modern Hindus turned on their Gods/avataaras. It's just the same malady I suppose, with its effects just trickling further down the hierarchy.
What with modern 'Hindus' swearing by Buddhism, Jainism, dravoodianism (and new-ageisms) - and almost always at the expense of their own religion - what's one more deviation, right?
Anyway, Sandhya Jain does seem to have a bone to pick with this Shankaracharya:
- IIRC she previously attacked his statements when, after a natural disaster at a temple site, he had advocated that a Hindoo moorti of a Hindoo God[dess] at a Hindoo temple be immediately reinstalled or re-consecrated or something. Jain felt it was her business to call into question his motives, despite his being an established Hindoo acharya speaking on matters pertaining to Hindoos' Vedic religion (a.o.t. Jainism).
- In a comment to her latest article she even referred to "his evil influence (on the mathams)":
Quote:[...]
Go and tell your Sankaracharya to at least release the mathams from his evil influence now that we know that he does not accept Mahadeo as a deity. This is truly astonishing. Pah
PS: will be nice to know your real name
Sandhya Jain
July 01, 2014
But Sandhya Jain already admits to knowing that the Dwaraka+Badrinath Shankaracharya does accept the Vedic=Hindoo God (a.o.t. Jain clone) Shiva Mahadeva as a Hindoo God. She admits to reading the news that every other Indian would have read too: about the same Shankaracharya protesting the use of the "Har(a) Har(a)" prefix on Modi which belongs to Shiva Mahadeva and is a sort of mantram. [Again, whether his criticism was politically motivated or not, don't know. Although I do note that the "newsnation.in" and other news sources certainly spun it that way: that the Acharya was going to canvas against Modi or something over this. The same "newsnation.in" also promises an article with the Shankaracharya's "angry face" or something... Hardly unmotivated source. But it seems to be the origin for Sandhya's "Rama Krishna" quote. It's not impossible that they deliberately mistranslated his statement on Rama and Krishna being Hindoo Gods.]
And here is Sandhya in the VV article itself admitting that the Shankaracharya took objection to the Hara Hara being randomly applied:
Quote:Readers may recall that Swami Swaroopanand's animus towards the BJP and its Prime Ministerial candidate is so pronounced that during the recent Lok Sabha campaign he slapped a journalist who asked him about Narendra Modi becoming Prime Minister. Previously, he took objection to the enthusiastic slogan "Har Har Modi" and complained to the RSS chief, who caved in, to the dismay of party workers.Whatever the timing or even reason for the Shankaracharya's complaint, the objective fact remains that that prefix does not belong to Modi, and I'm sure Modi understands why. (And further news had confessed that Modi himself discouraged enthusiastic followers from applying it to him, presumably after hearing of the Shankaracharya's objection.)
So why Sandhya's pretence that this Shankaracharya would exclude Shiva, when she is aware that the Shankaracharya recognises Mahadeva as a God (and so could have had no other grounds to object to the "Hara Hara" getting attached to Modi)?
Also, why does Jain lecture Hindoos not only about Hindoo acharyas but on Hindoo Gods? And no one tells her to Back Off. [<- EDIT: Sayan Sen told her off.]
Instead people would prefer to align with non-established godmen.
How quickly Hindus gang up against actual acharyas upholding the Vedic religion.
As quickly, I recall, as other modern Hindus turned on their Gods/avataaras. It's just the same malady I suppose, with its effects just trickling further down the hierarchy.
What with modern 'Hindus' swearing by Buddhism, Jainism, dravoodianism (and new-ageisms) - and almost always at the expense of their own religion - what's one more deviation, right?