Venkatesh Chakkilam

IS THIS THE MARYĀDĀ TAUGHT BY MADHVA HEADS AND MADHVA MAṬHAS TO THEIR FOLLOWERS?

If yes , they are clearly not a part of Hinduism and never FOR Hindu Unity .

You ‪@shrinidhisinganamalli4623‬ do not know how to address a scholar, resort to abuse, and still expect to be entertained! You have asked me a question for which I responded respectfully and yet you abuse me in a different comment

The same person ‪@shrinidhisinganamalli4623‬ who has now called me a “FOOL” and accused me of making videos for views should understand one thing.

Should I also ask, “Was Madhva a FOOL for writing abusive works merely to gain Fame?” Even if I believe there is truth to such a question, my maturity prevents me from making such stupid remarks.

I back my arguments with PRAMĀṆAM, and that Pramāṇam is ŚRUTI.

So, do not mistake your birth in a Vaiṣṇava household, your cult rituals, or the burning of symbols on your shoulders for a moral or spiritual high ground over Siddhas and Jñānis.

There have been lives dedicated to Vedānta. I have been engaged in Śāstra Adhyayana and Adhyāpana for the last 12 years, without charging even ₹1. This is a life dedicated to the pursuit and teaching of Śāstra.

Not like Madhvas building CULT temples and looting people—and worse, the Rāmānujas.

You folks should remember-> Money-hungry cults, all put together, cannot stand for a moment before Sarasvatī.

Knowledge is Satyam, and that alone prevails.

You may think you are fooling people under the disguise of “Vaikuṇṭha,” driven by money and power. But it is you who may ultimately end up being the fool at the end of life, as our Ācārya says:

“नहि नहि रक्षति डुकृञ्करणे”

Be careful about whom you address and maintain Maryādā.

A scholar can use harsh terminology while scrutinizing commentaries and engaging in debates. Common people can learn from such scrutiny or cheerlead the scholars. But if you are unable to learn, that does not give you the right to resort to name-calling and abuse—especially when your own scholarly stature is nowhere near the level required to address the subject.

Your Madhva may be Indra or Chandra to you. But the moment he comments on Vedānta Śāstra, his commentary becomes open to scrutiny.

And when there is no support in Vedānta Śāstra for Madhva’s conception of Mokṣa as “Vaikuṇṭha,” that claim will be questioned, and the Siddhānta will be exposed and rejected as RUBBISH AND BOGUS.

ŚRUTI IS THE PRAMĀṆAM. Not birth, not rituals, not sectarian identity, not blind loyalty to a predecessor, and certainly not abusive language.

Knowledge will stand. Satyam will Prevail and that is Advaitam alone .

- Vedānta Ācārya Veṅkaṭeśa Chakkilam

4 days ago |[YT] | 24

Venkatesh Chakkilam

1. The Nārāyaṇa Upaniṣad is not accepted by Vaiṣṇavas themselves as one of the principal Upaniṣads.

2. What the Nārāyaṇa Upaniṣad says is that “Upāsakas go to Vaikuṇṭha.” No, Bramha Jnanam or its result Moksha is mentioned here in this context.

3. Why is Point 2 important? Because the purpose of the Upaniṣads is not to describe Upāsanās and the Lokas attained by Upāsakas.

4. The Upaniṣads reveal Brahman. The knowledge (Jñāna) of Brahman is the principal purpose of the Upaniṣads, not the Upāsanā of Brahman. (Refer to Rāmānuja’s Śrī Bhāṣya — he makes a categorical blunder at this very stage.)

5. So, I appreciate your Āstikya Buddhi in commenting on this. However, my argument, although it may appear very simple, is highly technical. Even major Vaiṣṇava scholars are banging their heads trying to solve this, keep quiet when challenged or hide this whole argument in a pile of abuse and cross questioning- as they are afraid of having the misdeeds of their predecessors exposed.

6. If Vaikuṇṭha is genuinely derived from the Nārāyaṇa Upaniṣad as MOKSHA by Madhva and Rāmānuja, we should find them commenting extensively on that Upaniṣad and quoting it left, right, and centre.
Sadly, neither of these scenarios is evident.

4 days ago |[YT] | 15

Venkatesh Chakkilam

TO NAGENDRA aka VISHWA NANDINI and his CHEERLEADERS .

In the latest video Nagendra Says

- “Advaita’s Position must be examined THROUGH PrapañcasāraTantra “


I ask - Why must the Advaita Vedānta position be examined through Prapañcasāra Tantra when its authorship by Jagadguru Ādi Śaṅkarācārya itself has not been established? Is this an argument or Buffoonery ?

The entire “Madhva LANKA” of Nagendra is built without first proving the authorship of the text he is using to attack Śaṅkara!

If you want to examine Advaita Vedānta, examine it through the Prasthānatrayī — the Upaniṣads, Bhagavad Gītā, and Brahma Sūtras — along with Śaṅkara’s Upaniṣad Bhāṣyas, Bhagavad Gītā Bhāṣya, and Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya.

Moreover, I have already challenged you to show me even one statement in the Prasthānatrayī establishing that attaining Vaikuṇṭha, where Viṣṇu supposedly resides, is mokṣa. I’m waiting for your response and you’ll not be dealt softly if you FAIL to show even one mention of the word “VAIKUNTHA” - Vishnu abode , from the entire Prasthanatraya Shastras . You will not be dealt with humbly if you go blabber some Pancharatrik Garbage co-relations of what is said in Sruti- to Cult aims and agendas . We will see to it that - you along with your Bogus Madhva Tantrik Siddhanta will be COMPLETELY DONE AND DUSTED and your real faces will be exposed to the world .

So, are you admitting that you are incapable of confronting Advaita Vedānta directly and therefore resort to attacking Tantric texts whose authorship you attribute to Jagadguru Ādi Śaṅkarācārya without establishing that attribution?

Here lies the grave misconception of Nagendra and his Madhva cult.

Just as Madhvas follow Pāñcarātra Tantric texts , burn their shoulders every year - while presenting their doctrine as Dvaita Vedānta, they assume that the Advaita Sampradāya must likewise follow Prapañcasāra Tantra as its authoritative expression of Advaita Vedānta.

This is a fundamental blunder — a clownish misunderstanding of what Vedānta actually is.

Advaita Vedānta derives its authority directly from Śruti — the Upaniṣads — and the other two sources of the Prasthānatrayī: the Bhagavad Gītā and the Brahma Sūtras.

Having understood the teaching of Vedānta Śāstra, one understands that mokṣa is the recognition of one’s true nature through jñāna, culminating in jīvanmukti — not the attainment of a particular loka through Tantric rituals.

Therefore, stop confusing Tantric ritual traditions with the actual teaching of Advaita Vedānta.

If you wish to refute Advaita, refute its Prasthānatrayī-based siddhānta. Do not substitute a disputed Tantric text for the very śāstra on which Advaita Vedānta stands.

- Vedanta Acharya Venkatesh Chakkilam

6 days ago |[YT] | 24

Venkatesh Chakkilam

Stories - Facts - Vedanta Shastra : Let’s understand.

“Vyasa” coming to certify anyone is all part of the
written for glorification. Pramāṇa does not depend on Stories or any prophet—whether an Ādiśeṣa Avatāra or a Vāyu Avatāra.

Vedānta Śāstra talks about a Jñānī—the one who is Śrotriya (one who has a proper Guru) and Brahmaniṣṭha (refer to Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad). Even this, sadly, is abused by Satanic Cults like ISKON using words like “Bonafide Sampradāya.”

So yes, cults that started between the 11th century and the present day will have to resort to a lot of trickery, fairy tales, and prophet miracles to establish and retain their power.

They are also vulnerable and cannot stand questioning and enquiry. As you can see, look at the amount of abuse and hate directed towards me when I question them.

If it is a valid Paramparā and not a cult, there would be no such rage or outrage— but, because it is all FLUFF, you find them abusing , mocking and attacking rather than answering with Pramanam . They simply do not want their authority to be questioned.

Anyways, Advaita stands as the infallible truth, directly revealed through the original source of Pramāṇa: ŚRUTI.

- Vedanta Acharya Venkatesh Chakkilam

6 days ago |[YT] | 25

Venkatesh Chakkilam

You are repeating the same elementary confusion even after the distinction has been explained. Let me make it painfully clear.

1. Tantra is not automatically Avaidika. The criterion is its conformity with Śruti.

If a Tantric practice is consistent with Śruti, it can be accommodated within a Vaidika framework. Advaita does not need to reject every Āgama, every mantra, or every form of Devī worship.

But if a particular Tantric doctrine contradicts the teaching of Śruti, you cannot establish its Vaidikatva merely by calling it an Āgama or pointing to a respected institution that practises it.

Śruti is the standard; the mere existence of a tradition is not proof of its conformity with Śruti.

2. Your argument about the Ubhaya Jagadgurus initiating devotees into Bālā Tripurasundarī or practising Samayācāra proves nothing about the validity of every Tantric doctrine.

I have never argued that nobody in an Advaita maṭha practises Śrīvidyā. The question is whether a particular practice or doctrine is consistent with Vedānta Śāstra and whether it constitutes an independent means of mokṣa.

You are confusing institutional practice with philosophical justification.

If you believe a particular practice contradicts Śruti, demonstrate the contradiction. If you believe it is consistent with Śruti, explain how. Merely mentioning the names of Jagadgurus is not a substitute for either argument.

3. Now apply the same standard to Pāñcarātra.

The issue is not whether Pāñcarātra calls itself Vedic, whether its adherents perform elaborate rituals, or whether its followers have a long-standing religious tradition.

The issue is whether its specific theological claims are consistent with the Prasthānatrayī.

Where a particular Pāñcarātra doctrine conflicts with the teaching of Śruti, it cannot be rescued merely by appealing to tradition. The same standard applies to every Śākta, Śaiva, Vaiṣṇava, and Advaita-associated Āgama.

Regarding the five Saṃskāras, the Caturvyūha doctrine, and Pāñcarātra theology, each claim must be examined in its actual textual context. You cannot establish that every Pāñcarātra practice, rule, and doctrine is Avaidika simply by attaching that label to the entire tradition. Equally, Pāñcarātrikas cannot establish Vaidikatva merely by asserting it.

Produce the relevant doctrine, cite the relevant Śruti, and demonstrate the contradiction. That is śāstrārtha.

4. Your appeal to Saundaryalaharī does not settle the dispute either.

Let us grant, for the sake of argument, the traditional attribution of Saundaryalaharī to Ādi Śaṅkarācārya. You still have to establish that the author of this hymn is historically the same author as the Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya author, and then demonstrate how the relevant teachings are consistent with one another.

Even granting both claims, the conclusion that every Tantric doctrine is Vaidika does not follow.

A text associated with a respected ācārya does not automatically validate every doctrine found in every text attributed to that ācārya. The actual teachings must be examined.

5. Here is the fundamental distinction you keep refusing to understand.

My position is not that all Tantra is Avaidika. My position is that conformity with Śruti is the criterion by which a doctrine must be assessed.

If a Śākta tradition teaches nonduality in conformity with the Upaniṣads, that teaching can be examined on its merits. If a Pāñcarātra text advances a doctrine that genuinely contradicts Śruti, that particular doctrine must be challenged on its merits.

You cannot demand that Advaitins accept every doctrine associated with Tantra simply because some Advaita institutions practise Śrīvidyā.

Stop arguing from labels, institutional authority, and selective attribution. Bring the actual texts, establish the authorship where it matters, cite the relevant Śruti, and demonstrate the philosophical consistency or contradiction.

Until then, your accusations about my supposed hatred of Āgamas are irrelevant. This is a question of pramāṇa and siddhānta, not personal preference.

I do not need to reject Tantra wholesale. I need only reject doctrines that cannot withstand examination against Śruti. And you cannot establish that a doctrine withstands that examination merely by shouting that it is Vedic.

- Vedanta Acharya Venkatesh Chakkilam

6 days ago |[YT] | 15

Venkatesh Chakkilam

UNRAVELING MADHVA DOGMAS ONE BY ONE .

The below comments exposes a fundamental confusion between historical authorship, institutional practice, and the philosophical means of mokṣa. Let us examine your claims properly instead of indulging in your confirmation bias.

1. The first question: Can you establish that the author of the Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya also authored Saundaryalaharī and Prapañcasāra Tantra?

The author of the Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya is the Ādi Śaṅkarācārya of the Advaita Vedānta sampradāya. But when you attribute Saundaryalaharī and Prapañcasāra Tantra to the same Jagadguru, you are making an additional historical claim. That claim requires evidence.

What is your basis for identifying the authors as the same person? Can you establish the attribution through reliable textual transmission, historical evidence, or a demonstrable connection between the works?

More importantly, can you establish a meaningful similarity between the philosophical positions expressed in these texts and the teachings of the Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya?

You cannot simply take the name Śaṅkara, attach it to multiple works, assume that every attribution is historically established, and then use those works to dictate what Advaita Vedānta must accept.

If the authorship is disputed or insufficiently established, you must address that issue before using the attribution as decisive evidence. If you claim the authorship is established, present your evidence. An attribution is a claim to be substantiated, not a substitute for substantiation.

Until you establish the necessary connection, your argument does not proceed merely by repeating the traditional attribution.

2. Your argument about Śṛṅgeri and Kāñcī is a textbook example of confirmation bias.

You have a very funny idea about Advaita.

We are not Pancharātrikas who need to adopt Tantric exercises after studying Vedānta Śāstra as though Tantra were a necessary additional means of attaining mokṣa.

My argument was never that nobody in an Advaita institution practises Śrīvidyā. My argument concerns whether such practices are necessary or independently sufficient means of mokṣa according to Vedānta Śāstra.

You have substituted a different question for the one being discussed.

You observe that certain Advaita maṭhas practise Śrīvidyā, interpret that observation through your preconceived assumptions, and then declare that Advaita has been refuted.

That is confirmation bias: you begin with the conclusion you want and selectively interpret the evidence to support it.

The existence of a practice establishes that the practice exists. It does not, by itself, establish its necessity for liberation, its independent efficacy as a means of mokṣa, or the historical authorship of every text associated with it.

Learn to distinguish ācāra from siddhānta before lecturing others about their own sampradāya.

3. Now let us examine the epistemological problem your argument creates.

If you insist that the traditional attribution of Saundaryalaharī and Prapañcasāra Tantra is sufficient proof that the author of the Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya composed them, then what is the standard by which you accept that attribution?

If you appeal to historical records, textual transmission, linguistic evidence, or demonstrable similarities, present that evidence and let it be examined.

But if you simply assume the attribution because it supports your pre-existing position, you are doing precisely what you accuse others of doing.

You cannot demand rigorous proof from Advaitins while exempting your own claims from the same standard.

The burden of establishing a historical claim rests on the person advancing it. A traditional attribution deserves examination, not automatic acceptance or automatic rejection.

4. And if you want to discuss pramāṇa, you cannot selectively invoke it.

You cannot dismiss the importance of direct perception when it is inconvenient and then invoke an allegedly established fact about the practices of present-day maṭhas as though that observation settles a question of philosophical authorship or the means of mokṣa.

Pratyakṣa can establish an appropriate perceptual fact—for example, that a particular ritual is being performed. But it does not, merely by that observation, establish who authored a text centuries ago or whether a ritual is an independent means of liberation.

Those conclusions require evidence appropriate to the claims being made.

A pramāṇa has a proper domain. An observation does not magically prove every conclusion you wish to derive from it.

5. Now let us turn to Madhvācārya and the Bhagavad Gītā Bhāṣya, 2.13.

You are invoking standards of evidence against Advaita. Are you prepared to apply the same intellectual discipline to your own ācārya?

You need to establish the exact Sanskrit wording and context of the expression you cite as sarvābhimatir eva prāmāṇyam before building an argument around it. Do not paraphrase a difficult epistemological statement and then attack your paraphrase as though it were the original text.

If Madhva’s position is that universal or widespread acceptance establishes validity, the immediate question is: Does widespread acceptance by itself establish truth?

If a belief is widely accepted but contradicted by stronger evidence, does its popularity make it true? If two mutually contradictory doctrines are each accepted by their respective communities, does each become true merely because its adherents accept it?

Obviously, popularity alone cannot settle a philosophical dispute.

But do not confuse this criticism with a claim that Madhva necessarily rejects pratyakṣa as a pramāṇa. Dvaita Vedānta does recognise perception as a pramāṇa. The real issue is the precise interpretation and epistemological role of the expression you have cited.

So let us examine Madhva’s actual words, their context, and the relevant commentary before pretending that a phrase has settled the debate.

6. Finally, answer the questions instead of throwing accusations.

* What is your evidence that the author of the Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya also authored Saundaryalaharī and Prapañcasāra Tantra?
* What establishes the relevant textual and philosophical connection between those works?
* How does the daily performance of Śrīvidyā worship prove that Tantra is a necessary or independent means of mokṣa?
* What exactly does Madhva say in his Gītā Bhāṣya on 2.13, and what does the expression you cite mean in context?

These are legitimate questions. Calling someone ignorant does not answer any of them.

Stop confusing an attribution with proof, a ritual with a means of liberation, and your assumptions with established conclusions. Apply the same standards of evidence to your own tradition that you demand from others. Otherwise, your accusation of confirmation bias is merely a confession of the very method you are using.

Skip the Carousel

1 2

1 week ago |[YT] | 16

Venkatesh Chakkilam

వేణు స్వామి అసలు రంగులు

జ్ఞానేశ్ కుమార్ జైలుకు వెళ్తారా? వేణు స్వామి జోస్యం నిజమవుతుందా? తెలంగాణ రాజకీయాలు, కాంగ్రెస్, రాహుల్ గాంధీ, SIR వివాదం, ఎన్నికల కమిషన్‌పై వస్తున్న ఆరోపణల వెనుక అసలు కథ ఏమిటి?

🔴 జ్యోతిష్యమా? రాజకీయమా? అసలు నిజం ఏమిటి?

ఆచార్య వెంకటేష్ చక్కిలం గారి సంచలన విశ్లేషణ!

#VenuSwamy #VenkateshChakkilam #TelanganaPolitics #RahulGandhi #SIRControversy

1 week ago |[YT] | 5

Venkatesh Chakkilam

Why Do Some Madhva Comments Reveal a Deeper Psychological Problem?

“I am a simple man. I see this dog post a new video, I come, spit at him and his upbringing, and leave.”

This is how one commenter described his own approach to engaging with my videos. Seven other Madhvas liked the comment.

But there is another dimension worth examining: the use of hidden identities and fake or spam accounts to spread hostility while avoiding accountability.

1. Insults are not arguments.

If my interpretation of Vedānta Śāstra is wrong, demonstrate it through Śruti, Yukti, and proper Śāstric reasoning. Attacking someone’s character or upbringing does not establish the validity of your siddhānta.

2. The psychological dimension: hostility without accountability.

Why do some people resort to abusive comments, anonymous identities, or suspected fake accounts when engaging in philosophical disagreements?

Such behaviour can reflect insecurity, group conformity, or an unwillingness to defend one’s convictions openly. A hidden identity can make it easier to insult someone without facing the responsibility that comes with a direct, reasoned debate.

Of course, anonymity alone does not prove a psychological problem, and we cannot diagnose an individual from a comment. The real issue is the pattern of behaviour: personal attacks replacing arguments, hostility replacing reasoning, and concealment being used to evade accountability.

3. Is this philosophical conviction or inherited conditioning?

When a person responds to a challenge with rage and contempt instead of examining the evidence, it is reasonable to ask whether the position has been critically examined or merely inherited through social conditioning.

No philosophical tradition becomes true simply because someone was born into a family that follows it.

4. Where is the Śāstric evidence?

My challenge remains the same: establish your claims through Vedānta Śāstra.

If Vaikuṇṭha is presented as the ultimate mokṣa taught by the Prasthānatrayī, show the relevant Śruti, Brahma Sūtra, or Bhagavad Gītā passage and establish that interpretation through proper bhāṣya and reasoning.

Repeating a sectarian conclusion does not make it a Vedāntic conclusion.

5. Seven likes do not establish truth.

The number of people who approve of an insult is irrelevant to its philosophical validity. Neither popularity, community loyalty, nor centuries of repetition can replace pramāṇa.

My position is clear.

As many times as one repeats a claim, and however passionately one defends it, repetition cannot substitute for Śāstric evidence.

Śāstram alone is pramāṇam in determining Vedāntic truth.

If you disagree, bring the evidence. Present the pūrvapakṣa. Establish your siddhānta. Defend your interpretation.

Do not hide behind abuse, suspected fake accounts, or anonymous hostility and mistake it for philosophical victory.

I am here for Śāstrārtha—not character assassination, not anonymous harassment, and not an exchange of insults.

Let the debate be decided by Śāstra and reasoning, not by rage or the number of accounts mobilised to express it.

— Vedānta Āchārya Venkatesh Chakkilam

1 week ago |[YT] | 38

Venkatesh Chakkilam

Looking at your query: Who qualifies one to be Brahman?

Let me explain this with an analogy.

In an examination, who qualifies a student to receive a particular grade? Similarly, who qualifies someone as a Jñānī?

There are two scenarios:

1. Ajñānī (अज्ञानी)

If an Ajñānī is qualifying a Jñānī, then that qualification cannot be considered valid.

That is precisely why we have so many godmen, fake avatars, and babas claiming spiritual authority. For example, Vāyu Jīvottama Madhva.

2. Jñānī (ज्ञानी)

Now, a Jñānī would have to recognize another as a Jñānī.

But sadly, Brahma Vidyā is not a political movement like Vaishnavism, where external physical identifiers—Urdhva Puṇḍra, Śaṅkha-Cakra marks burnt onto the shoulders, etc.—are used to identify someone as a Vaishnava.

Brahma Vidyā is specifically for a Vairāgī (वैरागी), and ultimately, Bhagavān alone is the one who truly qualifies.

As the Bhagavad Gītā says:

“स महात्मा सुदुर्लभः” — Sa mahātmā sudurlabhaḥ.

1 week ago |[YT] | 14

Venkatesh Chakkilam

PUBLIC NOTICE

यह एक सार्वजनिक सूचना है। हम सभी अखाड़ों, संत-महात्माओं और सनातन धर्म के साधु समाज को साथ लेकर देशव्यापी, शांतिपूर्ण एवं वैधानिक आंदोलन की तैयारी कर रहे हैं, जिसका उद्देश्य रमणानंद जैसे कथित अवैदिक एवं सनातन-विरोधी तत्वों के विरुद्ध शास्त्रीय एवं संस्थागत स्तर पर आवाज़ उठाना है—विशेषकर उन गंभीर आरोपों के संदर्भ में जिनमें रमणानंद द्वारा श्री शृंगेरी शारदा पीठ एवं जगद्गुरु शंकराचार्य जी के प्रति आपत्तिजनक आचरण किए जाने की बात सामने आई है। इस विषय में उपस्थित सभी अखाड़ों, महंतों, महामंडलेश्वरों, पीठाधीश्वरों एवं मठाधीश्वरों को यह औपचारिक पूर्व-सूचना दी जा रही है। विस्तृत प्रतिनिधित्व (representation) एवं आधिकारिक नोटिस शीघ्र ही संबंधित संत-महात्माओं एवं संस्थाओं को भेजा जाएगा। अतः भविष्य में ऐसे कार्यक्रमों में भाग लेने से पूर्व कृपया संबंधित व्यक्ति के शास्त्रीय मत, आचार एवं सार्वजनिक गतिविधियों की पूर्ण जानकारी अवश्य प्राप्त करें।


5 अक्टूबर 2026 को आयोजित “सनातन धर्म सहस्र सूत्र” ग्रंथ-विमोचन समारोह में उपस्थित सभी पूज्य संत-महात्माओं का ध्यान एक अत्यंत गंभीर विषय की ओर आकर्षित करना चाहता हूँ।

रमणानंद महर्षि के संबंध में कुछ अत्यंत गंभीर दावे और सार्वजनिक कथन सामने आए हैं, जिनकी जानकारी संत समाज को होना आवश्यक है।

1. श्री शृंगेरी शारदा पीठ के जगद्गुरु शंकराचार्य जी के विषय में
रमणानंद के संबंध में यह दावा सार्वजनिक रूप से किया गया है कि उन्होंने कुछ महीने पूर्व शृंगेरी श्री श्री जगद्गुरु शंकराचार्य जी के चित्र को जलाया और अपने अनुयायियों को उनके विरुद्ध आपत्तिजनक कार्रवाई के लिए उकसाया।

2. वेदों के विषय में
उनके द्वारा कथित रूप से यह दावा किया गया है कि उन्होंने वेदों में 10,000 गलतियाँ खोजी हैं।

3. आचार एवं वैदिक कर्मकाण्ड के विषय में
उनके आहार, मद्यपान तथा उनके द्वारा किए जाने वाले स्वनिर्मित होम/हवन के संबंध में भी गंभीर प्रश्न सार्वजनिक रूप से उठाए गए हैं।

ये छोटे-मोटे व्यक्तिगत मतभेद नहीं हैं।

यदि कोई व्यक्ति स्वयं को जगद्गुरु अथवा सनातन धर्म के प्रतिनिधि के रूप में प्रस्तुत करता है, तो उसके शास्त्रीय मत, आचार और सार्वजनिक वक्तव्यों की जाँच करना संत समाज की जिम्मेदारी है।

इसलिए मैं इस कार्यक्रम में उपस्थित सभी पूज्य संत-महात्माओं को व्यक्तिगत रूप से सूचित कर रहा हूँ:

@जगद्गुरु_स्वामी_अवधेश_प्रपन्नाचार्य_सरस्वती — शक्तिपीठ, दिल्ली

@जगद्गुरु_योगेश्वरानंद_जी_महाराज

@जगद्गुरु_स्वामी_नरेंद्रनाथ_सरस्वती_जी_महाराज — काशी

@स्वामी_विमलदेव_आश्रम_जी_महाराज — दंडी संन्यासी समाज

@श्री_राजेंद्रगिरि_स्वामी_जी — महामंडलेश्वर, गुजरात

@स्वामी_राजेश्वर_दास_जी_महाराज — महामंडलेश्वर

@स्वामी_हर्षानंद_जी

@महामंडलेश्वर_कामेश्वर_पुरी_जी_महाराज — हरिद्वार

@महामंडलेश्वर_मदन_मोहन_दास_जी_महाराज — अयोध्या

@महंत_मंगलदास_जी_महाराज

@महामंडलेश्वर_महंत_डॉ_सिद्धेश्वरानंदगिरि_जी_महाराज

@श्री_दत्तगिरि_महाराज_आश्रम — संगारेड्डी

@श्री_महंत_अतिथि_महाराज — निरंजनी अखाड़ा

@स्वामी_हंसानंदगिरि_जी_महाराज — झारखंड

@स्वामी_ओम_प्रकाशानंद_जी_महाराज — हरिद्वार

@संत_सदानंदगिरि_बाबा_जी

@कमलेश_दास_महाराज — अखिल भारत संत समिति, तेलंगाना-आंध्र महासचिव

@महंत_योगी_प्रशांतदास_जी_महाराज — श्री पंचायती अखाड़ा बड़ा उदासीन

@श्री_चंद्रमौलीश्वर_स्वामी_जी

@श्री_गायत्री_विश्वकर्मा_शारदादेवी_पीठाधीश्वर_डॉ_ब्रह्मश्री_रामायण_महेश_स्वामी_जी

@ललित_भारद्वाज — दत्त पीठाधिपति

@पोडुगु_वेंकट_सत्यनारायण_प्रसाद_आचार्य_जी

@श्री_परवस्तु_अजगय्या — मनवाळ जियर स्वामी मठ

@डॉ_शिवनरसिंहन_तंत्री_जी — SSS Devotional Group

@श्री_मलयाल_भगवती_पीठम्

@डॉ_श्री_दत्तात्रेय_दास_जी

@श्री_जयाराम_स्वामी_जी — वैष्णव ठाकुर पीठम्

@श्री_महादेश्वर_स्वामी_जी — हनुमान पीठम्

@काशी_उषि_शिम्माड — जापान

@श्री_बोधिहीन_जी — बौद्ध गुरु, श्रीलंका

@श्रीधरानंद_भारती_स्वामी_जी — वैदिक ध्यान योगाश्रम

@श्री_सर्वेश्वर्यंबिका_शिवाचार्य_जी

@श्री_श्री_श्री_शिवानंदगिरि_स्वामी_जी

@सद्गुरु_श्री_नित्यशुद्धानंद_स्वामी_जी — रंगारेड्डी जिला

@परमपूज्य_श्री_श्री_राजराजेश्वरानंद_स्वामी_जी

@श्री_श्री_श्री_काशी_विश्वेश्वर_स्वामी_ज्ञानपीठम् — नेल्लोर जिला

@श्री_स्वामी_शंकरानंद_जी — अन्नपूर्णेश्वरी आश्रम

@परमपूज्य_श्री_श्री_अभिनव_कल्याण_भारती_स्वामी_जी — श्रीगिरि भुवनेश्वरी देवी पीठम्, श्रीशैलम्

@श्री_आत्माराम_महाराज_रामदास_जी — समर्थ रामदास पीठम्

@श्री_श्री_निर्भयानंद_स्वामी_गुरूजी



आप सभी पूज्य संत-महात्माओं से मेरा निवेदन है:

कृपया इन दावों को व्यक्तिगत रूप से जाँचें।

यदि ये आरोप असत्य हैं, तो संबंधित व्यक्ति से सार्वजनिक स्पष्टीकरण और प्रमाण माँगा जाए।

यदि ये बातें सत्य हैं, तो ऐसे व्यक्ति को “जगद्गुरु” अथवा सनातन धर्म के प्रतिनिधि के रूप में मंच देने से पूर्व गंभीर पुनर्विचार होना चाहिए।

धन खर्च करके किसी कार्यक्रम में संतों की उपस्थिति प्राप्त कर लेना किसी व्यक्ति को वैदिक या शास्त्रसम्मत नहीं बना देता।

सनातन धर्म किसी व्यक्ति के निजी प्रभाव, धन या प्रचार से बड़ा है।

यदि आवश्यक हुआ तो इन कथित अवैदिक गतिविधियों के विरुद्ध शांतिपूर्ण, वैधानिक एवं शास्त्रार्थ-आधारित विरोध किया जाएगा।

शास्त्रार्थ हो — प्रमाण के साथ।
निर्णय हो — सत्य की जाँच के बाद।
और सनातन धर्म का प्रतिनिधित्व हो — वैदिक मर्यादा के साथ।

- Vedanta Acharya Venkatesh Chakkilam

2 weeks ago (edited) |[YT] | 8