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

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram Sangeerth ji, Swagata ji,

I understand that your question is limited to the accuracy of Venkatesh
ji’s quotations, and not a broader critique of Advaita.

Let me first respond directly to that point by echoing a line I’ve used
later below: *If indeed Venkatesh ji has misquoted the scriptures (which,
as Raghav ji notes, might be the case), the error is regrettable. However*..

My concern, however, is deeper and relates to the scope of the criticism
being advanced.

There are two dimensions to any critique:
1) the verbal/referential accuracy of quotations and attributions, and
2) the intent/doctrinal position being ascribed to the speaker.

In the three videos you had shared earlier, the critic Vishvas ji
repeatedly pushes beyond the first dimension into the second, asserting
conclusions about Venkatesh ji’s intent and about Advaita itself. If his
concern were only misquotation, the matter could be settled in minutes with
errata. The sustained length and tone of his critique indicate that he is,
in fact, prosecuting a case against Advaita and Advaitins. That is where my
concern lies.

*If indeed Venkatesh ji has misquoted the scriptures (which, as Raghav ji
notes, might be the case), the error is regrettable. However*, given the
numerous inaccuracies in Vishvas ji’s own understanding and presentation of
Advaita, I find it difficult to believe that Venkatesh ji’s intent or
comprehension deviates from Advaita Siddhanta. In general, within
non-scholarly discourses, a quotation error is harmful primarily when it
drives a doctrinal deviation. Absent such deviation, the misquotations are
not as harmful as Vishvas ji (or even your kind self) make it out to be;
and the proper remedy is correction, not indictment. Vishvas ji appears to
assume the deviation and then retrofits the evidence - hence the scale of
his critique.

Through these elaborate attempts, Vishvas ji unfortunately demonstrates a
fundamental lack of understanding of Advaita. His blind belief in his own
sampradayam’s criticism of Advaita leaves little room for an open
"clarification" discussion. A “clarification” with such a mindset would
only turn into a vitanda (pointless debate). True clarification is possible
only when there is a willingness to listen and understand.

As an example, Vishvas ji’s extended argument over the words “yena” and
“idam” in Bhagavad Gita 2.17 shows this gap clearly. He insists that the
verse asserts the plurality of the world rather than the oneness of Atman
and Brahman. But Advaita fully accepts experiential plurality - classifying
it as the ajnani drishti (view of the ignorant), which aligns with Vishvas
ji's views - while teaching that the verse’s true purport is the
realization of the oneness underlying that plurality, the jnani drishti.
Vishvas ji is entitled to his view, but his disagreement does not make the
Advaita interpretation incorrect.

In another instance, Vishvas ji shared a WhatsApp screenshot where he
framed an equation: *NB + maya = SB*, and demanded a one-word “yes” or “no”
response. Such an equation is inherently flawed, and its absurdity cannot
be explained in a one-word "yes" or "no" response. The left-hand side
presupposes the existence of maya, which cannot coexist with Nirguna
Brahman (NB). The better formulation would be *(SB – maya) + maya = SB*,
but even this is imperfect, since from the standpoint of Saguna Brahman
(SB), maya is an inseparable attribute and cannot truly be subtracted.
Therefore, even saying *SB – maya = NB* is conceptually inaccurate. From
the Advaita standpoint, once maya is transcended, the only valid equation
is NB = NB, the oneness of Reality itself. This subtlety is often missed by
non-Advaitins - and understandably so by Vishvas ji too, as it requires
deep internalization rather than argument.

As Subbu ji rightly explains in that screenshot, whenever the scriptures
refer to Brahman as Parameshvara, Ishvara, or Paramatma, they are still
ultimately pointing to Nirguna Brahman. Depending on the context, Brahman
may be described as seemingly conditioned (adhyasa) by attributes to enable
teaching within the domain of ordinary perception (vyavahara drishti). The
true teaching, however, is to look beyond name, form, and function - to see
through maya and recognize the Nirguna Brahman.

Due to ignorance, one identifies as an individual and while so the ever
existing NB is perceived to possess maya shakti and is identified as the
SB. Attempting to intellectually “remove” maya from Saguna Brahman without
transcending ignorance is futile. The attribution of maya to Ishvara arises
from one’s own ignorance of the Self. Realize who you truly are first -
then the question of who Ishvara is will resolve by itself.

Advaita Siddhanta holds that whether one refers to Jivatma or Paramatma,
both ultimately point only to Nirguna Brahman. Just as an earring and a
svarna-vimana both point to gold, every name and form — high or low —
points only to that one absolute Truth.

This brief note illustrates the extent of Vishvas ji’s misunderstanding of
Advaita Siddhanta & consequent incoherence of his criticisms.

prostrations,
Vikram


>