People generally stick to the tradition they are born in... And for all practical reasons, whatever the family follows remains the only source of knowledge for the large part of their lives. And whatever they hear and experience in that limited pov, it does become ingrained as

the unassailable truth for them. My own experience, which is not as unique as once I thought, was very different. The mix of smartha traditions and vaishnava outlook plus a generally respectful but not overly adherent attitude towards the 2 major matams, with a strong bhakti tilt

even towards other deities were what I grew up with. Very orthodox and pious, our family ran businesses though and were migrants from Kerala to TN. We supported a lot of vaidikas, in the places we lived and most remember to this day. However, the grounding was more ritualistic

and not on siddhanta. Neither grandfather or father cared about it since they worshipped all but kept focus on kula devadhai & Guruvayurappan. Siddhanta was never an issue for me, until I found a copy of Srimad Bhagavad Gita while on a temple trip. Thus, it began 21yrs ago.

It was not an easy read. For all the orthodox upbringing and exposure to Vedas and rituals, I could hardly focus on the message that was being told. Some of those were very obvious... And yet, some of them completely at odds with what I had grown up hearing. My father was amused.

Few months went by. I just carried on with my normal routine, but everyday I used to read something from by book. I was attracted to the fantastic paintings that summarised key teachings. The constant desire to reconcile on several fronts. Then, like an answer to my prayers

I was given the association of someone who would transform my life forever. From a completely different tradition, yet so eloquent, humble and so strong grounding in the siddhanta, he literally carried me over the ocean that was Gita, putting me firmly on the path towards Krishna

What happened over the next few years is an experience that will shape my understanding and convictions, with some far reaching consequences. One such change would be the tendency to never accept any authority on the basis of popularity. Oh the trouble it caused!

Questioning was allowed freely and some debates got almost borderline personal. Yet, I got answers that were not only clear but also backed by personal conviction put to practice. One unintended side effect was that one's association begins to change with even little learnings.

Slowly, but surely, some mental forts that were built over years began to crumble under the weight of realization. Some others got strengthened. There were moments of puffed up haughtiness, but was put in place with a firm yet compassionate hand.

Then, times changed. Different places, different people, really tough times. Yet through all the, it was almost as if Krishna's hand was pushing me through time. But then that also gets shattered with the realization that one is not so great... it was merely being extra sensitive

to the pushes of the gunas and karmas. My roots with family and tradition were still intact however the philosophical outlook had already changed. I dived in to books and discourses, whatever I could get my hands on to understand my own roots better and also figure out the way

forward. The answers I sought were not to my liking but then if that is the truth upon which the light was being shone upon, why should I resist it or deny it?

People usually stick with one Guru, for whatever good reasons. I have been blessed with a few actually. One who shows how to be and what to do in practice, towards the goal of moksha is a Guru. But even those who show you how not to be, what not to do are also teachers in a way.

Under the tree of sanatana dharma, there might be so many branches, but the firm roots are strongly embedded in the Vedas, supported by itihasas and puranas, various dharmasastras. But to make sense of all of those with one's own effort is akin to a sparrow trying to drink empty

an ocean. A person who gets the merciful blessings of a genuine Guru is fortunate beyond imagination. And if such a person is set on the path shown by veda vedanta, they are much more fortunate

for no matter which vedanta darshana is used, Parabrahman is one, Krishna, as accepted by all the acharyas that have scoured the meanings of the Brahma sutras. With Krishna as the goal, his mercy and with the guidance of the Guru, one surely swims out of the ocean of samsara.

OTOH, one can choose to go through life, thinking there is "something higher" or thinking this is like a video game, exchanging high words & dry philosophy. Nothing wrong. After all, we will all end up in the same place, whether we wish it or not, in as many births as allowed.

Just as a person who is well learned on many things can state that to their authority, I only have my experience and learnings from different teachers to lean on. If someone doesn't care for it, whatever I say has no importance to them. Then why even ask in the first place?

I have done the same in my life earlier too, much to my loss. With enough information, if the heart didn't transform, it's not knowledge. If one keeps looking for answers that satisfy them, where is the knowledge there? Only information that simply keeps pushing one in to cage.

Going to the first tweet, Yes, one should stick with their line as much as possible. There is nothing wrong in it. But when the chance to learn more is given, and the facts contradict your learning in many aspects, be fair. Whether you reconcile or reject, be honest about it.

Why do I have to put this up here? I am a nobody. But I know for a fact that there are many like minded people who can't or won't put words to their thoughts. In doing so, we try to discern the signal from the noise. And doing it together makes it that much more powerful. Sanga.

The power of feeling right about certain things, the need to be right on ones belief makes us human. The capability to dig in, find the truths, even if uncomfortable, and change our stance is what sculpt our outlook. Why is it important? How about intellectual honesty?

The initial enquiry in to any spiritual path can happen due to many reasons. One might be born predisposed to it, one could be pushed to enquiry by the combined effects of guna and karma, one might simply be blessed by the grace of Krishna for no reason. But whatever the starting

point, it ultimately has to land on the platform of who is Brahman. People might go down several paths towards it. But one who has the grace of being born in a vaidika tradition or being taught in one ultimately figures out that this is the prime question. Many might argue that

they should stick to a tradition and a Guru throughout the life because it was given to us by birth. But then what's the point is enquiry as opposed to blind faith? Misconceptions abound in those who haven't been exposed to any other tradition. Like we have been seeing. People

don't even see the ridiculousness of demanding why some vaishnavas don't visit any other temples or worship any other deities other than Narayana and His forms. Would they ask the same to followers of other traditions? The ancient traditions pretty much stay away from interfering

from each other's routines. It's only those, who have this fancy idea of "all are same, so everyone should just drop what they follow and adopt 'the' tradition or 'the' person", that have the constant need to interfere, mock or question vaishnavas.

The point is the purported intolerance exists in all traditions and off late one is dominant. With so many offshoots each claiming to be "The" right interpretation of Adi Shankara's advaita, one is left to wonder what IS the right one. Answer came very simply. What he wrote down.

What I grew up with are simple, similar concepts, apart from the vaishnava tilt, as what goes now as Advaita/smartha these days. All are same, do good, be pious and the whole range of stuff that are part of typical iyer upbringing. But reading the Gita started putting questions

which couldn't be satisfactorily answered. Why? Simply because the message of the Gita was in good level of contradiction to the commonly accepted views. Add to this the confusions that arose out of mixing teachings of several traditions that put impossible reconciliations or

blind acceptance as the only way forward. My journey with Gaudiya Vaishnavism showed me one aspect clearly. All the 4 'major' vaishnava sampradayas were on the vaidika pedestal, contrary to what I have heard from near and dear who sneered at the idea of it. I had already begun to

understand that there are multiple levels in approaching and accepting the truth but what I saw at home and other places majorly was something not supported by my study but followed just because it was the norm. Why would anyone say "worship anyone you want as ishta devata since

all are same" and then in the same breath say "only this worship is good, not that"? That confusion got cleared up to a good extent by the time I came across the stalwarts of visishtadvaita. And then imagine my shock when I heard for the first time that Adi Shankaracharya was

considered as a vaishnava to the extent he accepted the parathvam of Narayana! This was in contrast to my GV learning on mayavada. It still intrigued me when I could hear their bold declaration that advaita of old didn't even exist much these days. Understanding that being an

Advaiti and a vaishnava were not mutually exclusive positions was even more damning. It explained a whole lot of things and threw up a lot more questions. With each step of enquiry, study and a whole lot of introspection, more clarity emerged. That I was not under any constraint

to follow this or that authority helped a lot, since much heartburn was avoided. Reading and learning here and there about the history of different sampradayas, and the current authorities gave much more clarity on resolving certain gaps in information.

The conclusion was that the Advaita of modern times was an evolution that was born out of mixing in of other traditions. Slowly the very nature of it has changed so much that common folks think that it is a free for all. Even a simple reading of the Bhasya translations will show

that for a fact. Of course many stalwart scholars have written much under the pressure from other traditions defending these altered views. But the many divergent views even among advaitins only made it easier for me to decide that it was not me. I could only take solace in the

fact that Adi shankaracharya had shown the North Star for me clearly. And thus this journey goes on.

The advent of internet and digital technology is a blessing and a curse for spiritual aspirants. Many find their path to their desired goal. But the harsh truth is many get dislodged from their paths and are stuck in nowhere, in limbo.

It's quite easy to say this is wrong, that is wrong, fling mud at everyone who disagrees and feel good about it. It's an entirely different level of difficulty to say what is right, with conviction, compassion and without condescension.

Something that came to my mind following this morning's conversation here. Take the avg Hindu family. What sort of traditions and rituals would they follow? They may have daily puja at home, chant some Slokas, go to temples, do sandhyavandana to whatever extent, do meditation,

pray for well being of self, family and maybe rest of the world too, prayers to address any dosha, or tough times. They will celebrate festivals, give charity, support vaidikas or their sampradaya gurus/acharyas (hopefully). What else comes to mind? Maybe they will spend a couple

of hours a week listening to discourses from their abhimana vidwans or their gurus, read a few pages from itihasas, puranas (hopefully not from Wendy-putras). They might even have a dharmic hobby of sorts. But would that be satisfying? I am sure for many that's about it.

At some point in our lives, we begin to question on these lines: I want to be happy, but I am not finding happiness. I don't want to suffer pain, but I am made. Not everyone seems to be in the same place as me. Some better, some worse. Why? What decides who gets what at a time?

All it needs is a spark. Usually a very sad event, a painful time, a deep suffering period. This question will come to everyone... The most illiterate person and to the most well read. Eventually, the search for answers will end up in just one place: who am I? The path that the

person will take one that question is asked will depend on many factors. But a start it is. One can go through logical constructs and abstractions like crazy. But ultimately, one will come to a fork. This entire world is a product of chance. Or its pure illusion. Or... It's as

real as oneself and set in motion. From that point, there will be many many forks. But for those avg Hindus, many most likely end up at the beginning of Vedanta. The usually accepted view is that it is not for everyone... Much less so due to the highly technical nature but

more so (in my experience) because it will level the field called mind, but trying to force fit it in to an already built mind will cause 2 things: distort the understanding, or destroy the existing piety. Sounds like neo speak, yes? I assure you, it's not. The learning is worth

every bit of trouble. Get the basics first. If you are attached to a sampradaya and want to get more grounded in only that, stick to it and it's gurus. But the learning shouldn't be dispensed with. Learn. Question everything that is not understood, politely, humbly. Decide what

makes sense for you, and once convinced, fully give yourself in to the path and then settle down in to the journey towards the ultimate goal. Keep that goal as your guiding light and with the mercy of your Guru & of Krishna, understanding will keep dawning on you, deeper, finer.

This I have posted as per my understanding from my teachers and my journey continues. My sharing here is more so for my own recollection purposes than to act as any sort of guide to another. But the least I can do is help by showing 'a' path, that which has helped me.