Thread by @kaundabhatta

I will share a very unpopular and blunt opinion, not opinion but fact today. Something by which I may get cancelled by Dimwits. But I will say read entire 1st. Puri Shankaracharya isn't Finat Authority on Dharma, not Puri Shankaracharya, Any Shankaracharya. Or Vaishnavacharya. +

I saw a video of Puri Shankaracharya declaring post of Shankaracharya as Sarvabhauma Acharya, and few Advaitis also in my fb feed have expressed opposition to such a narrative. A person may have utmost Gurubhakti, but disagreement from Guru on basis of Shastras is justified, +

Ramanuja disagreed from his Guru, Shankara from his Guru. Such instances are alot. The basic thing most Political Hindus dont understand that the disagreement isn't on emotional/personal/politcial/social basis but only on Shastra-level. Such disagreement is healthy & i would also

like to express such disagreement. For eg, Vyasa and Jaimini where Guru-Shishya still they had their disagreements which is fine. Cancel Culture didnt exist back then, disagreement with Vyasa doesn't lower the Authority of Jaimini for Vedantis. Nor does the Authority of Vyasa +

gets lower for Mimamsakas on such disagreement. Dharma is not Person-Specific. You can disagree with a person but cant disagree with Shaastras, what political hindus fail to understand that its not a liberal thing here, disagreement is strictly bcoz of affiliation to Shaastras.+

You cannot disagree with a single word in Shaastras. Also, if you're in a specific sect, for eg if a Vedanti disagrees with Vyasa he cant be a Vedanti. A Naiyayika or a Mimamsaka can disagree with Vyasa. Also such disagreement is not individual, but based on some Rishi's मत। +

Having clarified this, i would say what i want. The Uttara Peethas are not delivering a clear message. Such a narrative has never been spread throughout the history. The purpose is that all devotees follow 1 Guru so that everything is organized. I appreciate and promote it. +

But why Im writing this is bcoz internet ppl think what an Acharya of a particular sect said is final authority and everyone should follow him blindly. Thats not how Sanatana Dharma works. I heard that a Vaishnava was trolled by net Trads just bcoz he never shared PuriShankar vid

Such lowkey brains ppl can have. The south peethas never claim to be Sarvabhauma Acharyas. The comparision in the video was made with Pope. Pope has Authority only on the Catholic Sect, orthodox evangelists and protestants would not accept him. So the comparision is wrong. +

Also in the current situation, the 3 acharyas are in dispute. So even the followers of 3 Mathas fight with each other. Ive seen it. Followers should not do such shallow fights. The prob with mass is bcoz there is disagreement, Dimwits consider that as offensive and fight futile.

Until we understand structure of Dharma we wont stop fighting. I actually am not disagreeing with Puri Shankara,i just wrote it as bait. He is right, but will explain you the intention behind what he said. Sarvabhauma technically means King and Global (Sarva=entire, bhoomi=land)

A sannyasi ofc cant own land so the meaning isn't a King. But on a Global Level, Sanatanis never adhere to a Single Authority like how christians adhere to Pope etc. Authority in Sanatana Dharma however is Global, but again divided between sects like it is in Christianity. +

Vaishnavas Globally should adhere to their respective Acharyas as a single authority, Smartas to Shankaracharyas and so on. Which will give authentic acharyas a global reach. Instead of promoting them we are trying to belittle them which isnt right.

As I said, Vyasa is a Global Authority, so is Jaimini and So is Bhagavan Kapila (Vishnu). All 3 have diff opinions and differ in Philosophy. But all 3 are equally Authoritative on Dharma in Entirety. How is that possible? If Pope is Authority for Catholics how can he be authority

for Protestants? The difference lies here. The comparision made in the video was for a good purpose to educate Sanatanis to follow 1 Acharya which may not lead to confusion. But Comparision with Pope is wrong. Here i disagree, i just wrote above for Clickbait. In Christianity

If you're a Protestant, for Catholics you are an infidel and blasphemous. In Islam, if you're a Shiia, for Sunnis you are blasphemous. And there cannot be more than 1 Authority on Dharma in those faiths. If Pope is Authority on Catholics, other sects will completely reject him +

Such comparision is wrong bcoz our system isn't like that. We accept Global and Entire authority of various Rishis, Acharyas on Dharma. Shankara followers themselves are best examples, how Kumarila Bhatta has such a great place in Shankara sect.

The followers of Shankara refer to him as भट्टपाद tht too in Bahuvachan (plural) for utmost respect. And let me tell you Kumarila was Nirishwaravadi (not atheis) Mimamsaka having a lot of disagreements with Vedantis. Like Shabdatmaka Devas, etc. How then do Shankaras consider +

Bhattapada as a Sarvabhauma Authority? It is impossible for Smaarta students to study Shankara bhashya without studying Kumarila Bhatta. It is very simple, all Acharyas and Rishis have equal Authority on Dharma in Entirety. Our disagreements are based on Shastras and such +

disagreements dont belittle or lower Authority of anyone. Best eg is of Kumarila Bhatta and Shankaras. Even though he is very different but still has a great place in followers of Shankara sect. Followers nowadays hv become more Abrahmic अब्राह्मिक. I feel sad when i hear ppl ×

Cancelling each other. No need to cancel, just disagree in some certain parts. In Islam Christianity if you belong to another sect, you automatically are blasphemous. Here if you belong to another sect, it just means your interpretation of Shaastras is different from mine. +

There is no need for adherents of another sect to cancel each other if someone doesn't agree to a particular Acharya. But as i explained, disagreement with Shaastras makes you an Avaidika. Disagreement with an Acharya based on Shaastra doesnt. Also, if you haven't completed your

Vedic Studies under a Guru, havent even learned Vyakarana, you have no right to disagree. That babuchak tantrik guy who's writing a book against Ramabhadracharyaji. Absolute fool. Such will be your state, laughable if you try and break your boundaries. Stay in your limits and say

humbly what you wish to say. The statement of SarvabhaumAcharya has not been made in the past and comparision to Pope is misleading. Hence through eg of Bhattapada, i just wanted to clarify what the actual intention is. Der is no reason 2 disagree. Jst wanted 2 say dont cancel ||

PS meaning of Sarvabhauma should not mean ruling over Kings. Brahmana cant rule. But advise/upadesha to even Kings. Sarvabhauma means like Global Reach Blasphemous Vivekananda has, n hindus who folow him r misled. Instd v shud promote Vedic Acharyas as Sarvabhauma (globalreach).

PS =Those unlearnd who question acharyas,but on wt grounds?Cn i disagree wd an Acharya by myself if im notlearned? No,i need to use another authentic source to disagree.i can disagree with Raghuram based on Subswamy says not byself.sim,i cn disagre based on another acharya.