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

[Vikram Jagannathan]

Namaskaram!

A friend just flagged that Vishvas ji referenced our earlier thread in his
recent vlog (https://youtu.be/bJl8wumOIFw?si=jTiu4uv-jYFsNFcf)!

At 13:53 minute mark Vishvas ji poses a challenge - "Can Parameshvara refer
to only Nirguna Brahman and not Saguna Brahman? Is there such a place in
SankaraBhashya."
At 19:32 mark he adds "Parameshvara never in Shankara-bhashya, to my
knowledge, refers to Nirguna Brahman, without Saguna Brahman."
Further at 19:45, "If you find a place where it does refer to Nirguna
Brahman without referring to Saguna Brahman please let me know; happy to
correct myself."

Within Advaita Siddhanta (AS), other than directly considering Ishvara /
Parameshvara mentions as Nirguna Brahman, kindly explain Swami
Sankaracharya's use of these terms in the following phrases in
BrahmaSutraBhashya (BSB):

BSB-1.1.20 - अपि च, यत्र तु निरस्तसर्वविशेषं पारमेश्वरं रूपमुपदिश्यते, भवति
तत्र शास्त्रम् ‘अशब्दमस्पर्शमरूपमव्ययम्’ (क. उ. १ । ३ । १५) इत्यादि
Now, Vishvas ji denies this, stating that "it explicitly deletes visesha
from Parameshvara".
But note: nirvisesham is in apposition alongside Parameshvaram and not an
adjective of Parameshvaram. So निरस्तसर्वविशेषं पारमेश्वरं रूपम् = “Devoid
of all distinctions, Paarameshvara, rupa"; It asserts nirviseshatva of that
rupa, but does not syntactically say “the viseshas of Parameshvara are
deleted”. Vishvas ji's denial is incorrect; still let it be so. Here are
some more.

BSB-1.3.42 - योऽयं विज्ञानमयः प्राणेषु संसारी लक्ष्यते, स वा एष महानज आत्मा
परमेश्वर एवास्माभिः प्रतिपादित इत्यर्थः
BSB-4.1.3 - आत्मेत्येव परमेश्वरः प्रतिपत्तव्यः । तथा हि
परमेश्वरप्रक्रियायां जाबाला आत्मत्वेनैव एतमुपगच्छन्ति — ‘त्वं वा अहमस्मि
भगवो देवतेऽहं वै त्वमसि भगवो देवते’ इति; तथा अन्येऽपि ‘अहं ब्रह्मास्मि’
इत्येवमादय आत्मत्वोपगमा द्रष्टव्याः ।
BSB-4.1.3 - ननु अहमीश्वर एवोक्तः श्रुत्या — यद्येवं प्रतिबुद्धोऽसि, नास्ति
कस्यचिदप्रबोधः

A direct reference to Saguna Brahman in the above phrases is meaningless
within the context of AS and goes against the siddhanta itself. However,
important to note: AS teaches that Nirguna Brahman is avacya
(non-describable by words); words function indicatively (lakshana), not as
direct descriptors. Demanding a “word that directly describes the
description-transcending” is a category mistake. Context and
adhyaropa-apavada method are essential to proper understanding; this is
Advaita 101.

It is unproductive engaging at length with vehement critiques of Advaita
that overlook its foundational principles or to a dry logician who believes
that without overcoming one's ignorance, one can purely through mere
intellectual/logical exercise transcend maya/avidya and attain moksha. In
Advaita, avidya/maya is the root problem; it is not removed by discursive
intellectual reasoning alone. Logic clarifies and prepares, but moksha
arises only from Brahma-jnana, with Shruti as the sole pramana. If mere
syllogism were sufficient, Vedanta would be redundant and the tarkika
systems would suffice. Advaita is a Vaidika darshana; the sadhya is
aparokshanubhuti, not a conceptual verdict. Debate, therefore, must proceed
on Advaita’s own epistemic terms rather than on the premise that logic by
itself can transcend maya/avidya.

This is similar to a classical physicist vehemently criticizing quantum
physics.

Will stop with just 1 clarification callout. There is a subtle but critical
distinction between SB = Maya + NB (Subbu ji's statement) versus NB + maya
= SB (Vishvas ji's misrepresentation) in AS. Former is accepted whereas the
latter is invalid. The absurdity mentioned in the previous email thread is
for expecting a one-word "yes/no" response to this distinction! As a hint,
please refer to Srimad Bhagavad Gita 9.4-5. Further discussion can happen
if and when Vishvas ji understands & explains this critical distinction. If
the distinction is not understood, in the best interest of both our time &
effort, I offer my namaskarams to Vishvas ji and let him continue on as he
alone sees fit.

prostrations,
Vikram

On Sun, Nov 9, 2025 at 3:37 AM Vikram Jagannathan <vikkyjagan at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>>