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

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Namaste Vikram ji
Thank you for bringing this up and providing clear pramāṇas refuting
Vishvas Ji’s incorrect statements.


On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 at 7:25 PM, Vikram Jagannathan via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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.


Indeed

1. SB *-* māyā = NB ✅ as per advaita
(Negation of the upādhis lands us on NB)

But once NB is arrived at by apavāda,

2. NB *+* māyā = SB ❌ absurd
(NB being non-dual cannot be part of any *transaction* like addition or
even superimposition because there is no other entity other than NB. All
talk of superimposition is at the earlier stage alone.)

Kindly feel free to alter if I did not capture your intended meaning.

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.


Your patience and magnanimity…. !

>
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>