Please focus on the word ‘Sankaracharya’. A Sankaracharya must follow Adi Sankara. I mentioned the interpretation and viewpoints of Adi Sankara himself. And the interpretation of Adi Sankara is not what this Sankaracharya (Jayendra Saraswati) follows.

You will agree that what Adi Sankara interprets as the VedA has an immense relevance to the opinions of a Sankaracharya, no?

If you are interested in VedAntA, please refer to some reliable sites. There are many interpretations of VedA, but all thes einterpretations are based on only one common rule regarding the apAurusheyatvA and anAditvA of VedA. An attempt to argue this point simply illustrates a non-comprehension of VedAntic polemics.

Narayanan.

A Sankaracharya must follow the tradition of Adi Sankara. The issue here is that Jayendra Saraswati does not apparently know even the basics of VedA, which is a gross injustice to the hundreds of followers who extol him as a Sankaracharya.

The statement he has made does not represent a ‘conservative interpretation’. There are many other examples of leaders being conservative. This, however, is simply ignorance.

VedAntA does not have a varied range of interpretations when it comes to anAditvA or apAurusheyatvA. For one thing, the VedA is not even regarded as a ‘text’, but as Sruti, that which is endless, eternal and unauthored by anyone, including man or god.

An authored text results in a logical fallacy – God authored a text, so text is divine and God exists because text says so. Hence, VedAntA does not accept authored texts as ultimate authority.

The less said about this Sankaracharya, the better. Time and again, he has shown his penchant for hogging the limelight. His comments about Tirupati in the past reinforce his ignorance of VedAntA.

Narayanan.

The current Sankaracharya is controversial to say the least. What sacred texts allow and condone really depends on the interpretation. When it comes to new scientific discoveries the religious leaders normally make very conservative interpretations and this is one such example.

According to VedAntA, nothing is created or destroyed. Before Srushti, all things were in a subtle state, like a primordial soup, devoid of name and form. Only Brahman alone existed with all things as His body (Eko Ha Vai Narayana Asit, Na Brahma, Na Isana…). Then, Brahman gave names and forms, and converted the subtle states into the gross state of cit (sentient) and acit (insentient/matter).

Cloning is not against VedAntic philosophy. The AtmA gets bodies based on karmA, and is distinct from matter. The process of cloning merely duplicates the body, and a jivAtmA occupies it based on its karmA.

The explanations of srushti vary for the different traditions of Advaita, Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita, but all three traditions advocate AnAditvA, or eternality of sentient and non-sentient things.

A Veda BAhya Matam like Christianity or Islam only would be foolish enough to talk of ‘god creating things’ and proposing human-centric theories.

This Jayendra Saraswati has shown that he is not worthy to even be called a ‘Sankaracharya’, let alone the numerous court cases pending against him, for his ignorance of VedAntA’s most basic tenets.

Narayanan.