[Advaita-l] Chakilam Venkatesh - Controversy???

[Sangeerth P]

Sir, I respect your point. But please dont take the conversation somewhere
else to Dushyant Sridhar ji and all. I want to know if Chakkilam is an
authentic person and if he is associated with Ahambrahmasmi or not. If yes
he is associated, for the false sutras and slokas that he is citing, what
is the action of Aham Brahmasmi to it? This is a direct threat to the
credibility of the institution.

Also already Tamil Nadu is under greater threats based on this varna
system. Putting a comment that "Shudra dont have adhikara on Vedas
(वेदपूर्वकस्तु
नास्त्यधिकारः शूद्राणामिति स्थितम्)" that too from the words of
Shankaracharya can cause hassle amongst leftist and antisocial groups. So
the comment could have been removed by Dushyant ji is what I feel. This is
not to defend Dushyant ji and I don't want to support him either. But since
I am from Chennai and seeing the things happening around me to the
Brahminical community I know what will be the next thing if these comments
go to wrong hands.

Kindly don't take the discussion somewhere else. Does anyone of this group
know such sutras or slokas which Chakillam is citing? If yes, please give
the edition number of the book.  Orelse at least please comment on the
credibility of Chakillam ji.

Regards
Sangeerth P
8608658009


On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 4:29 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 12:46 PM Sangeerth P via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Namaskaram
>>
>> What is this happening with this Chakillam Venkatesh? Is he really from
>> ahambrahmasmi team? He is bringing the pedestal of Sringeri to streets I
>> feel by citing sutras which are no where found and slokas from Vishnu
>> puranam no where found.
>>
>> Gita-2-17
>> https://youtu.be/LIX8SNz-Pl8?si=cRqz1Ofo8yaxZ0G1
>>
>> Gita-2-24
>> https://youtu.be/tXpUd-mYzNs?si=GWR-UwiQ1ehwIgCa
>>
>> His arrogance
>> https://youtu.be/hjdiTt9ikaI?si=hVOEGldf4bwG8WiD
>
>
> Thank you Sri Vikram ji and Raghav ji for your responses.
>
> Sri Vishwas makes it appear that he is innocent and that only the others
> are at fault.  He has no compunction in saying 'Advaitins have serious
> problems with their philosophy.' See the above 'His arrogance' video from
> 7.30 onwards. 'They have questions for which they have no answers. because
> of which they get angry, etc.' He says I claimed that Nirguna Brahman has
> icchā' and when questioned, I couldn't answer, etc.  and ends that episode
> by saying 'VS blocked me from the group.'  He is being dishonest by not
> revealing the amount of discussion that took place where another esteemed
> member Sri S.Venkataraghavan, who is a member of this group as well, too
> contributed a lot to the particular discussion, apart from a few others in
> that Advaitasabhā WhatsApp group.
>
> The origin of all that was in my citing Shankara's passage (which implies
> that the Para Brahman of the Vedanta, which is Nirguna Brahman, can take
> forms for facilitating bhakti/upasana, and through that, Shankara accepts
> multiple deity forms (in contrast to a very serious mischievous and
> misconceived notion among non-Advaitins that Shankara preferred and
> promoted only Vishnu/Narayana/Vasudeva to the exclusion of all other
> deity-forms).
>
> स्यात्परमेश्वरस्यापि इच्छावशात् मायामयं रूपं साधकानुग्रहार्थम् ।
> (१.१.७.२०)  Brahman can take, out of will, any illusory form for the sake
> of benefiting the aspirant.
>
> The context is: The specification of attributes like golden moustache,
> lotus-eyes, etc. (in a certain Upasana in the Chandogya Upanishad) can't
> apply to the Para Brahman which is taught in terms of  ‘
> अशब्दमस्पर्शमरूपमव्ययम्’ (क. उ. १ । ३ । १५)
> <https://advaitasharada.sringeri.net/display/bhashya/Kathaka/devanagari?page=1&id=Ka_C01_S03_V15&hl=%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B5%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D>
> free from sound, touch etc. In the face of such an objection, the reply is:
> even Para Brahman of such a specification can assume, out of will, any
> a-pāramarthika form to help the aspirant in upāsana.
>
> It is in this background the question arose: Does Nirguna Brahman have a
> will, icchā?
>
> Such questions cannot be answered in one word. The term 'Iswara,
> Parameshwara' are used by Shankara in specific senses in specific contexts.
> An outsider to the sampradaya would hardly know the subtleties involved
> here. That's what happened in that discussion which left many members
> annoyed at his behavior. The point is: Sri Vishwas was removed from the
> group not because he asked questions or that we did not like it. Nor were
> we unable to answer his questions but it was his uncivil conduct that
> resulted in his removal.  We had tolerated him on an earlier occasion too
> when he made disparaging remarks about Shankaracharya and Advaitins. That
> is his agenda. He has created groups where he freely mocks at
> Shankaracharya and the siddhanta. Why should a group dedicated to
> Shankara's Advaita tolerate this, and for how long? He has not disclosed
> all that in the video he is making.
>
> Sri Vishwas has created a page dedicated to criticizing Shankara:
>
> Justification - here
> <https://vishvasa.github.io/AgamaH_brAhmaH/shAnkara-darshanam/tattvam/vishvAsaH/errors_fraud/BS_Fraud/?printCols=1&bodyFontSize=0.4cm&includeStyle=true>
> Other related speculation - here
> <https://vishvasa.github.io/AgamaH_brAhmaH/shAnkara-darshanam/tattvam/vishvAsaH/errors_fraud/motivation/motivation_for_BS/?printCols=1&bodyFontSize=0.4cm&includeStyle=true>
> .
>
>
> He complains about his comments being deleted. I shall relate my recent
> experience: Sri Dushyant Sridhar in a Tamil video interview
> https://youtu.be/3-oZqVWGSQM?si=AQm39aRz5erL87IV   at 15.55 onwards makes
> a claim that in Advaita 'only a male brahmana sannyasin could get mukti'
> and Ramanuja disagreed with this. When I posted a comment giving the
> Shankara Bhashya passages that contradicted what Sri Dushyant Sridhar said,
> it was deleted. Twice more I posted the comment and they deleted it.
>
> 'அந்தணனான துறவியான ஆண் மட்டுமே மோக்ஷம் அடைய முடியும்' என்று ஆதிசங்கரர்
> கூறவே இல்லை. 1. ப்ரஹ்ம ஸூத்ர பாஷ்யம் 1.3.38 - येषां पुनः
> पूर्वकृतसंस्कारवशाद्विदुरधर्मव्याधप्रभृतीनां ज्ञानोत्पत्तिः, तेषां न शक्यते
> फलप्राप्तिः प्रतिषेद्धुम् , ज्ञानस्यैकान्तिकफलत्वात् । ‘श्रावयेच्चतुरो
> वर्णान्’(म॰भा॰ १२-३२७-४९) इति चेतिहासपुराणाधिगमे
> चातुर्वर्ण्यस्याधिकारस्मरणात् । वेदपूर्वकस्तु नास्त्यधिकारः शूद्राणामिति
> स्थितम् ॥ ३८ ॥ இதன் கருத்து: விதுரன், தர்மவ்யாதன் முதலிய ப்ராஹ்மணர்
> அல்லாதவர்கள் தங்கள் பூர்வ ஜன்மத்தில் செய்த சாதனையின் ஸம்ஸ்காரம் காரணமாக
> இந்த ஜன்மத்தில் ஞானம் உள்ளவர்களாக இருக்கிறார்கள் (மஹாபாரததில்). அவர்களுக்கு
> அந்த ஞானத்தின் பலனான மோக்ஷம் இல்லை என்று யாராலும் கூறமுடியாது. 'எல்லா
> வர்ணத்தாருக்கும் சொல்ல வேண்டும்' என்று மஹாபாரததில் 12.327.49 சொன்னது போல்
> பரதத்துவத்தை எவரும் (ஆண் பெண் ஜாதி பேதமின்றி) இதிகாச புராணம் மூலமாக அறிந்து
> முக்தி பெறலாம். இது ஆதிசங்கரர் கூறியது. இது தவிர, ஆதிசங்கரர் மாண்டூக்ய
> காரிகை 4.95 பாஷ்யத்திலும் - பெண்கள் உள்பட யாரேனும் இந்த பரதத்துவத்தை
> அறிந்தார்களேயாயின் அவர்களே உலகில் மாபெறும் ஞானிகளாவர் - என்று கூறியுள்ளார்: अजे
> साम्ये परमार्थतत्त्वे एवमेवेति ये केचित् स्त्र्यादयोऽपि सुनिश्चिता
> भविष्यन्ति चेत् , त एव हि लोके महाज्ञानाः निरतिशयतत्त्वविषयज्ञाना इत्यर्थः ।
>  ஆதலால், ஆதிசங்கரர் மதத்தில் பெண்கள், எல்லா வர்ணத்தவர்களும் ஞானம் பெற்று
> முக்தியடைய வழியுண்டு.
>
> Here is a *condensed English summary in bullet points* of the given Tamil
> passage:
> ------------------------------
>
>    -
>
>    *Misconception corrected:*
>    It is *not true* that Ādi Śaṅkara said only male renunciates (Brahmin
>    monks) can attain mokṣa (liberation).
>
> ------------------------------
>
>    -
>
>    *From Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya 1.3.38:*
>    -
>
>       Śaṅkara states that even non-Brāhmaṇas such as *Vidura* and
>       *Dharma-vyādha*, due to the spiritual impressions (*saṁskāra-s*)
>       from past births, may attain knowledge (*jñāna*) in this life.
>       -
>
>       The *fruit of knowledge* (mokṣa) cannot be denied to them, since *knowledge
>       inevitably leads to liberation*.
>       -
>
>       The *Mahābhārata* (12.327.49) says “*Śrāvayeccaturo varṇān*” — all
>       four varṇas are entitled to hear Itihāsa and Purāṇa teachings.
>       -
>
>       Therefore, *anyone*, regardless of caste or gender, can gain
>       knowledge of Brahman and attain mokṣa through such teachings.
>
> ------------------------------
>
>    -
>
>    *From Māṇḍūkya Kārikā Bhāṣya 4.95:*
>    -
>
>       Śaṅkara explicitly includes *women* and others:
>       “Even if women or others become firmly convinced of the supreme
>       truth (*paramārtha-tattva*), they are indeed great knowers of Truth
>       (*mahājñānāḥ*), possessing unsurpassed knowledge.”
>
> ------------------------------
>
>    -
>
>    *Conclusion:*
>    According to Ādi Śaṅkara:
>    -
>
>       *Liberation (mokṣa)* is open to *all*, irrespective of gender or
>       caste.
>       -
>
>       What truly matters is *knowledge of Brahman*, not social position
>       or external identity.
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> The same happened with a Madhwa scholar who claimed the same in another
> video interview. Even he deleted my comment.
>
> Advaita has answers for any and all questions that are posed regarding
> doctrinal points. In most cases it turns out that the questioner is coming
> with a lot of misconceived ideas and to make him realize that itself is a
> challenge. There is a proper manner in which such discussions are
> conducted. When some basic norms are flouted, then a harsh action will have
> to be taken.
>
> warm regards
> subbu
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>
>