--- In [email protected], Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: >Yes I have read Bhaja Govindam. Shankara is famous for being an advaita >teacher but also having the ability to have the devotional aspect of bhakti. >Just because he refers to Govinda in that treatise does not make him a >vaishnavite. And just because Narayana is mentioned in the tradition does not >make him one either Have you been to Guru Dev's ashram in Allahabad? There are no Krishna/Vishnu images there. There is however a huge shiva lingam in the middle of the ashram. No self respecting Vaishnavite would a shiva lingam without a vishnu or krishna statue. And have you been to Jyotir math? No Vishnu images there either.
The point is you know nothing of the tradition of which you claim to speak. Everything about the shankaracharya tradition is shaivite. Anyone else what to chime on this other than Vaj. I am open to someone else who is knowledgable to comment on this. Vaj thinks he knows something about this, but I don't believe he does. > > On May 31, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Randy Meltzer wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > >> Vaj, > > What makes you think that the shankaracharya tradition is a > > "vaishnavite" group? > > Because the guru-parampara originates with Narayana and Shankara was a > Vaishnavite. > > Have you read Shankara's Bhaja Govindam? > > > The shankaracharya order has always been a shiva tradition, not a > > Vishnu tradition (vaishnavites are vishnu/krishna followers). > > Its obvious even from the name. Shankara is a name of shiva, not > > vishnu. > > Shankara just means "do gooder" or "one who does good". It is an > adjective used for Shiva. > > > For someone who presents himself on this forum as being > > knowledgeable about this stuff, at least get your facts straight. > > You don't sound very familiar with Shaivism. >
