Mani-manjari vs Navadvipya-mahatmya (was Gaudiya epistemology and ontology)

[Guest guest]

HKS> Thanks for posting this, Vidya. Now we know that Maadhvas do

say these things, and where they say these things.

>

> As an aside, I thought it humorous how boldly Mani-manjari makes

> these claims, especially considering the lack of supporting

> evidence.

 

HKS prabhu, there may be an alternative way to understand the verse,

rather than a "historical" way. The *word-play* is evident. The

offending verse is:

 

4)>7Utpannah sankaratmayam sarvakarmabahiskrtah

>Ityuktah svajanairmata sankaretyajuhava tam

 

>"As his nature was rubbish as sweepings or his nature was to mix

castes, creeds etc, and as he was born to an adultress he was

prohibhited from all Vedic karmas by his own relations; his mother

called him `Sankara'."

 

The author, Narayana Panditacharya, was an eminent and well-bred

Advaitin scholar before he converted. Instead of interpreting this

verse to be a crude verbal assault on the lineage of Shankaracharya,

it seems more reasonable to understand it as an allegory that very

succintly explains the motivations and result of his mission:

 

Shankara's philosophy is alluded to as a mongrel concoction of

Buddhism and Vedanta ("sankara", as in "varNa-sankara", which

happens to rhyme with "shankara"). As per Advaitin historian's own

accounts, 72 previously illegitimate, heterodox sects of Hinduism

found new legitimacy under this umbrella. The motivation for

Sankara's expert sophistry was also political and not philosophical

Truth (there were many Vedanta commentaries before his own, which

Ramanujacharya referred to): Shankara needed to unite various sects

and break the social influence of the Veda-hating Buddhists, and he

met with stunning success in that respect.

 

The apparently naked aversion in the verses was very likely a

necessary psychological purification for neophyte Vaishnava students

in that time, when Mayavada was so pervasive.

 

Also, just wanted to repeat: I clearly remember reading that

Maadhvacharya said that whatever good Shankara spoke came from Lord

Shiva, and the deception from Manimaan. So the good aspect is

implicitly acknowledged here. I don't have the reference, though.

 

Just my take.

~Carl