For my post ‘Adi Sankara was a disciple of Gnana Sambandhar,Nithyananda Goofs.I received a comment which I am reproducing below.
Normally I reply to the comments immediately.
I thought that this comment merited a detailed reply and it is better that I post a blog as a reply for the information of the Readers .
My reply follows the comment. nice to know that Nithyananda started a good topic other than Ranjitha, Arthi Rao, Rape)
http://ramanisblog.in/2012/05/31/adi-sankara-was-a-disciple-of-gnana-sambhandarnithyananda-goofs/
“It isn’t impossible to be a disciple/devotee of someone who lived long before you or one you have never met. However, the teachings of sankarachaariyar and thiru nyaanasambandha naayanaar are different.
I’m not sure where the idea of saiva sithaandham being ‘dualism’ came from. saiva sithaandham is suthathuvidham (suth-adwaitha). It is also non-dualism but, not interpreted in the manner that shankarachariyar interprets, which is kehvala adwaita. sankarachaariyar expounds on God being the soul as well and that the soul becomes God upon liberation. sithaandham states that God and soul are two separate intelligent entities with the soul being inferior. Upon liberation, the soul is merged in an inseparable, non-dual, subtle state with sivaperumaan where, its ego is banished and thus, it as no experience of itself but only God and thus, only identifies with God and experiences only a little of the Bliss of God, at a time — even so, even though They exist as one Entity, they are two.
Dhehvaaram truly is only one work (7th) of the 12 thirumuRaygaL. saiva sithaandham is mentioned by other names: aruneRi, thiruneRi, seneRi, muthineRi, etc. The thirumuRaygaL have to be seen as a self-complimentary whole so, as thirumandhiram is Its 10th work, it can not be said that saiva sithaandham is not mentioned in the thirumuRay and not taught by the other books. Before meykkaNDaar, thirumandhiram served as saiva sithaandha’s saathiram which explained the thohthiram, that is, thirumuRaygaL 1 to 9, and 11 and 12.
saiva sithaandham began even before the 1st (re)creation of the universe. sithaandham is sivaperumaan and thus eternal. It was taught to anandha dhehvar Who taught it to seekkaNDa paraman. seekkaNDa paraman imparted both the sivaagamaas and sivanyaana bohdham, which clarifies the aagamaas, to thiru nandhi dhehvar Who was given clarity of the sivanyaana bohdham directly from sivaperumaan, as thenmuga kaDavuL and thus, nandhiyaar became the Primary Student of sivaperumaan and first soul-sandhaana kuravar of saiva sithaandham. nandhiyaar has 8 students One of Whom is thirumoolar, Who was the first on earth to given the experience of sivabohgam in a language, being Tamil, and thus, thirumandhiram is considered to be the first time that the sivaagamaas were given on earth. Thus, saiva sithaandham is a collection of thoughts which are more ancient than time itself.
On earth, even in the Indus Valley Civilisation, sithaandham was practiced. thirumandhiram, which was started around 6000BC only put it into a more structured form. For this, It had to have been practiced for years before. This is where the extinct naanmaRay come in, which is concluded to be the Tamil-saiva sithaandha vehdhaa, which is even more ancient than thirumandhiram.
The sankrit aagamaas have South Indian written all over it. From this, it is clear that the Sanskrit Vedas represented a North Indian train of thought, which is actually a distortion of Dravidian thought which existed before the Aryans came into India, and the sanskrit sivaagamaas rerpesent South Indian thought. The aagamaas don’t specifically oppose the Vedas, even though it does, but more so, clarifies it. Using the sivaagamaas, we choose what to accept from the Vedas and how it is interpretted and, what to refute and the understanding behind the refutation.
//He said, “I challenge these opposing groups to follow the precedent of the child saint Tiru Gnana Sambandar and prove their spiritual strength by healing any paralytic patient on one side of the body, while I heal the patient on the other side, using nothing but my spiritual strength and healing energy.”//
By this, it shows that this Nithyananda dude, whoever he is, did not read properly the thirumuRay and has no proper understanding of saathiram and, if he made such a comparison of himself to sambandhar perumaan in front of people like myself, he’ll get beaten to death. sambandha perumaan healed the daughter of kollimaZHavan of muyalagan, a type of epilepsy. What this guy is confusing this event with is sambandha perumaan’s healing of koh koon paaNDiyan, Who emerged as naayanaar, thiru koh arikehsari ninDRaseer nedumaaranaar, of His skin-cancer, which He was inflicted with after agreeing for the Jains to set alight the madham of sambandha perumaan, which later became madhurai aadheenam.
If only my guru and my fellow colleges lived in India, we would. Maybe, by sivaperumaan’s Grace, one day, we will challenge him.
//He said, “Instead of violence, let us have creative competitions to see how many schools, colleges and hospitals each one can establish, how many spiritual discourses we can deliver, how many books we can author, how many people we can heal and transform.”//
Our saiva Saints, even though perform ‘miraculous’ acts, never claimed to perform them but, instead, attributed them to the Omnipotence of sivaperumaan, therefore, they can’t even be call miracles. Violence performed in siva-consciouness is Penance, which is beyond vinay, and is thus, neither bad nor good. This guy seems to only want to feed his ego and arrogance. Build as many temples, feed as many people, give as many discourses. At the end of the day, if it isn’t done in siva-consciousness, it is considered a sin.
It seems saiva sithaandham is as messed-up in India as it is in South Africa.
Btw., I publish Part-translations at a time of Sithaandha Vinaa Vidai by Maha Perum Pulavar Dr. Si. Arunaivadivehl, via e-mail. Anyone interested, please send a blank mail to siva_and_tamil-hq@yahoo.com”
Reply:
It is possible for one to follow the other. But, the fact is that Adi Sankara was not a follower of Gnana Sambandar, not because they never met but their thoughts differ in approach.
The comment indicates in the next sentence ‘ However, the teachings of sankarachaariyar and thiru nyaanasambandha naayanaar are different.
………………………………continues………
