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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Sangeerth ji
I appreciate your mentioning the sutras timestamps. There is no brahmasutra
2.2.43 “avirodhāt ca” as mentioned by him. I understand your angst.

The content of what he said is fine but he could have been more careful in
discussing such a sensitive topic.

I can surmise that he was referring to the place in the Brahma Sutras
(2.2.54), where Shri sankara refutes Bhagavata-mata. The words he meant by
the context were “vipratiṣedhasca” (the bhāgavata theology
is self-contradictory) and asaṅgataiṣā kalpanā (baseless/unconnected are
such imaginations).

But your point about wrong quotations is correct.
Om
Raghav

विप्रतिषेधाच्च ॥ ४५ ॥
विप्रतिषेधश्च अस्मिन् शास्त्रे बहुविध उपलभ्यते — गुणगुणित्वकल्पनादि
लक्षणः । ज्ञानैश्वर्यशक्तिबलवीर्यतेजांसि गुणाः, आत्मान एवैते भगवन्तो
वासुदेवा इत्यादिदर्शनात् । वेदविप्रतिषेधश्चभवति — चतुर्षु वेदेषु परं
श्रेयोऽलब्ध्वा शाण्डिल्य इदंशास्त्रमधिगतवानित्यादिवेदनिन्दादर्शनात् ।
तस्मात् असङ्गतैषाकल्पनेति सिद्धम् ॥
४५ ॥


On Fri, 7 Nov 2025 at 5:24 PM, Sangeerth P via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>