010 Had we followed Philosophical Sankara's precepts, Hinduism would have had a different way of life.

This particular blog post is a trilingual post. English, Telugu and Hindi languages. Telugu is my mother tongue spoken by > 100 million people across the globe. Hindi is India's national language. Gist in all the three languages is similar. ఈ పర్టిక్యులర్ బ్లాగ్ పోస్టు మూడు భాషలలో ఉంది. తెలుగు నా మాతృభాష. హిందీ భారత జాతీయ భాష. మూడింటిలోనూ సారం ఒకే మాదిరిగా ఉంచేలా ప్రయత్నించాను. यह पर्टिक्युलर ब्लाग पोस्ट तीन भाषाओं मॆं है। तॆलुगु मेरा मातृ भाषा। हिन्दी भारत का जातीय भाषा। तीनों भाषाओं में संग्रह समरूप रखने का कोशिश किया हुँ।

Indications exist to believe that there were two Adi Sankaracharyas (two first Sankaracharyas). Alternatively, the first and the third in the ladder of succession might have been erroneously taken as one and only Adi Sankaracharya. Reason: The philosophical Sankara took his monistic theory to its zenith, almost nearing atheism. The devotional Sankara may be the No. 2 or 3 Guru in the succession genealogy. No. 2 Guru Sureswar(acharya) was a karma-margi, originally a believer of sacrifices and rituals, whom Adi Sankara was reputed to have conquered and got converted into ascetism and monkhood. Then Sureswaracharya, had he really changed as per his Guru's precept, might have followed a parth of advaita gnAna (monistic philosophy). Fundamentally monistic philosophy and devotionalism consisting of idol worship and praising glories of God are not compatible. Hence, had Sureswara in its true spirit followed the monistic philosophy, it may be inconceivable to believe that he would have written various Sanskrit Stotrams attributed to Adi Shankara in praise of numerous Gods and Goddesses. It may also not be appropriate to believe that he might have encouraged idol worship by establishing pIThas (platforms on which Gods and Goddesses are worshipped). It implies that both Adi Shankaracharya (No. 1) and Sureswaracharya (No.2) might not have been founders of idol worship at Sringeri (Karnataka South, India). We may get similar ideas for Puri, Dwaraka and Badri for Padmapada, Hastamalaka and tOTakAcArya.

Thus, our subject matter is not the 'idol-worshipping Sankaracharyas' of the later periods or the Stotra-writer SAradA-pITham founder (Adi?)Sankaracharya. Our subject matter is 'philosophical Sankaracharya, or the true Adi Sankaracharya.'.

Though a guess-work, what would have been a true Hindu lifestyle had we adhered only to to monistic philsophy and did not drift into Idol worship?

May be centuries of the- "10th Century to 18th Century Turkish, Persian, Arab, Mongolian, Mughal, Muslim aggressions, invasions and plunderings" might have led to sprouting in India, of Movements of devotion (bhakti mArgams and udyamams). This might have drifted Indian lifestyle towards greater stress on prayer, worship, protection-seeking and desire-fulfilment, temples, car-festivals, gold and diamond jewellery for Gods and Goddesses,---- away from the endeavour-oriented path of contemplation, meditation, self-realisation, a non-participative approach of becoming a witness to the events of the world, seeing oneself in all the living beings- identifying oneself with the nature, except for the skin which separates a person from the outside world.








This departure from the monism, and excess reliance on prayers and worship (whether with idols or without idols) has carried the Hindu lifestyle to the same level of other religions which rely on prayers. As I have no right to say that prayer method followed by Hinduism or any other religion is inferior to the awareness-gnAna method, I do not wish deliberate on the devotion path in this post.

In true monism, there may not be a place for prayers, because every person is indistinguishable from the Creation or Nature (Using word God-goddess may be incompatible). For this reason only, Adi Shankara might have been sometimes criticised as being an atheist.

Monism does not need crutches or expedients like spiritualism, as spiritualism may try to under-rate materials of this world. There is nothing metaphysical in monism. Everything is earthly in its realistic sense, or cosmic and universal in a wider sense. Human itself becomes cosmic and universal.

Monism is different from Hindu monks who wear special dresses (imagine Swami Vivekananda with his bombastic headgear), decorate themselves with white chalk or sandalwood or vermillon or ash marks of various brands and hues of their beliefs, carry sticks, tridents, spikes etc to mark their authority, so on -so forth. They all have nothing to do with true awareness (gnAna).

It has become a fashion (even passion?) to say that common people can understand only path of devotion (prayers etc) and cannot contemplate on subtle things. This is nothing but insulting common humans. Common humans (to start with Hindus in India) may not be aware of their true capabilities, engulfed and entangled they are in cobwebs created by temple preachers and swamijis (there is nothing like genuine swamijis and fake swamijis). There can't be a true Swamiji, because the concept of a Swamiji itself is defective.

Telugu language and Hindi language gists, I shall try to translate and present in a few days.