An Ardent Vaishnavite’s Righteous Indignation ..... On the Controversy Initiated by Chinna Jeeyar Swamy : Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

 An Ardent Vaishnavite’s Righteous Indignation

On the Controversy Initiated 

by Chinna Jeeyar Swamy

Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

I am now 78 years old, and age brings with it a certain responsibility to speak carefully, without anger and without sectarian heat. I have been an ardent follower of Vaishnavism from my childhood, continuing a tradition inherited from my father. During those early years, I had the rare and sacred privilege of undergoing Samashrayanam (Pancha Samskara), the traditional Vaishnava initiation that includes Chakrankitas, the ritual branding of sacred symbols, namely the Conch (Shankha), Discus (Chakra), Mace (Gada), and Lotus (Padma), on the shoulders, under the auspices of the revered Elder Ramanuja Jeeyar Swamy. This experience shaped my spiritual identity and discipline for life.

Yet, I have always believed in Hinduism in its broad, civilizational sense, not Vaishnavism alone, but Sanatana Dharma as an inclusive and living tradition where Shaiva, Vaishnava, Shakta, Smarta, and other streams flow together into a single spiritual ocean. It is from this background, deeply loyal to my Vaishnava faith and equally respectful of all Hindu traditions, that, I now experience a sense of quiet disenchantment. This is deliberate: not anger, not hostility, but a deep sadness and unease. The immediate cause is the recent statements attributed to the revered Chinna Jeeyar Swamy regarding Adi Shankaracharya, which have unsettled many historians, scholars, and sincere believers across traditions.

Chinna Jeeyar Swamy is reported to have stated that Adi Shankaracharya was an ardent Vaishnavite, that he did not establish four Shankara Peethams, and that they were founded centuries later by Vidyaranya. It was further implied that after spreading Advaita Vedanta, Adi Shankara attained Samadhi at a young age, and did not return to establish the Monastic Institutions, believed to be traditionally associated with him. Irrespective of whether these claims are true or otherwise, such statements unequivocally have caused avoidable hurt to devoted followers of Adi Shankaracharya and have unsettled the long-standing shared reverence. From a civilizational perspective, this pain was unnecessary. 

Across centuries, Adi Shankaracharya has been credited with the establishment of the four Peethams at Sringeri in the South, Dwaraka in the West, Puri in the East, and Jyotirmath in the North, as spiritual anchors meant to preserve Vedic Learning, Discipline, and Unity Across the Subcontinent. Historical Scholarship, while differing on details of chronology, has never seriously disputed Shankara’s foundational role in Advaita Vedanta or his association with the monastic system that bears his name. His commentaries on the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Brahma Sutras remain central pillars of Hindu philosophy.

The claim that Vidyaranya, revered for revitalizing Hindu institutions during a later historical period, as the one who founded the Shankara Peethams, but not Adi Shankaracharya does not form part of the generally accepted academic or traditional narrative. What troubles me more than the claim itself is, the tone and direction of such assertions. When sectarian interpretations appear to diminish a shared spiritual heritage, they risk creating avoidable divisions within Sanatana Dharma. Is it necessary?

Adi Shankaracharya, for centuries, has been revered by Vaishnavas, Shaivas, Smartas, and others alike, as the unifying figure who articulated the philosophical depth of Hindu Thought. As someone shaped by Vaishnava Discipline, yet committed to the larger Hindu Civilizational Vision, I find disquieting irrationality, with a feeling that, the bridge that generations before us carefully preserved and protected, so that diverse paths could coexist without denying each other’s legitimacy, is being weakened.

My reflections are therefore not an attack nor a rebuttal born of rivalry. They are an ardent Vaishnavite’s Righteous Indignation, and an appeal born of age, experience, and faith to protect the integrity of our shared inheritance, where reverence does not compete and where history is approached with humility rather than assertion. Sanatana Dharma has survived precisely because it allowed room for differences of opinion without erasing common ground. It is that delicate balance which I hope we do not lose.

Now, let me turn away from contemporary controversies, return to deeper, and constructive vision rooted in lived experience. I had the privilege of interacting with the Three Major Vedantic Philosophies, their living exponents, and seeking blessings from four distinguished representatives of Advaita (Sringeri Vidushekhara Bharathi Swamy and Kanchi Kamakoti Shankara Vijayendra Saraswathi Swamy), Visistadvaita (Chinna Jeeyar Swamy), and Dvaita (Mantralaya Subudhendra Tirtha). These encounters felt less like formal meetings and more like gentle initiations into a living continuum of realization and spiritual discipline.

Through these interactions, I came to appreciate that Indian philosophy is not a relic of the past but a living current, carried forward by these representatives who embody wisdom with grace and restraint. What must be clearly understood, without inhibition and irrespective of whether one speaks as a revered authority or an ordinary seeker, is that, Adi Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, and Madhvacharya stand not as rivals in history, but as luminous milestones in the long and unfolding journey of Vedanta.

Supplementing and complementing one another, each of these three great Acharyas arose in response to the spiritual needs of his age. Shankara, in a time of fragmentation and confusion, articulated Advaita Vedanta, the vision of non-duality, restoring the Upanishadic Emphasis on Self-Knowledge and inner awakening. His philosophy offered a grand synthesis that harmonized diverse deities, disciplined reason, and spiritual practice, and gave rise to enduring monastic centers that preserved and transmitted Vedic Wisdom. At its core, Advaita proclaims the unity underlying all existence.

Ramanujacharya reshaped the devotional landscape through Visistadvaita. While affirming the unity of Brahman, he upheld the reality of the world and the individuality of the soul, bound together in an intimate relationship with a personal God, Narayana. Bhakti and Prapatti became accessible paths open to all, transcending social barriers and transforming devotion into lived compassion. His legacy endures not merely in theology, but in communities shaped by inclusiveness and surrender, affirming that unity can graciously accommodate difference.

Madhvacharya articulated Dvaita Vedanta, affirming the eternal distinction between God, Soul, and Matter. For him, difference was not a flaw but a divine design that made devotion meaningful. His doctrine of ‘Panchabheda’ preserved individuality within faith and inspired a robust, realistic devotion centered on eternal service to Vishnu. Through institutions such as the Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, this tradition continues to blend disciplined scholarship with heartfelt surrender. Dvaita thus safeguards individuality, without which love and devotion lose their depth and meaning.

What becomes clear through these traditions is that Advaita, Visistadvaita, and Dvaita are not competing claims to truth, but complementary articulations of the same ineffable reality. Together, they form a complete circle of realization: knowledge, devotion, service, and grace. In our own times, the enlightened pontiffs representing these streams demonstrate that Vedanta is meant to be lived, not merely debated. From this perspective, divisive statements and sectarian assertions serve little purpose. Our shared inheritance of Sanatana Dharma, as a civilizational tradition, lies not in uniformity of thought but in harmony of vision.

In this light, it is regrettable that Chinna Jeeyar Swamy, instead of presenting a fresh perspective in a manner that could have enriched understanding, chose to make statements regarding Adi Shankaracharya that were perceived as ‘Out of Context’ instead of ‘Outside the Box.’ This inadvertently caused pain and disturbance to sincere believers and followers of Sanatana Dharma, especially those who identify deeply with the Advaita Tradition as represented today by the revered Peetaadhipathis and their lineages.

Adi Shankaracharya stands among the greatest souls ever born in India, alongside Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya. Together, their spiritual stature, philosophical brilliance, and civilizational contributions transcend all disputes and deserve reverence without qualification. As believer in Sanatana Dharma, my considered hope is that, the living custodians of Advaita, Visistadvaita, and Dvaita, shall speak from a shared platform, affirming themselves as guardians of timeless greatness of that Dharma, and the moment would stand as a beacon for generations to come.