Srimad Ananda Tiirtha

[Guest guest]

These articles coming from other Vaishnava viewpoints are great. I hope we can

continue to seem them. I have some comments on this one, though:

 

On 13 Mar 2000, Shrirang Chikhalikar wrote:

 

> Srimad Ananda Tiirtha

 

While I appreciate the glorification of Madhvaachaarya, one ought to be a

little cautious about the source from which one obtains articles such as

these. In this particular case, I believe I know the author of this particular

article - he is a very uncultured individual who bears an extreme hostility

towards ISKCON such as that I have not seen even among the ranks of the ritvik

vaadis or other deviants. The reason I bring this up is because I have noted

him to say things which don't seem consistent even with Tattvavaada just to

create differences between what he perceives to be Madhva's philosophy and

ours. This is not to say that I have detected any such deviations here,

however. I am merely pointing this out as a general precaution.

 

> Srimad Ananda Tiirtha, also known as Sukha Tiirtha,

> Puurnabodha, and Puurnapragnya, is the founder of the

> doctrine

> of Tattvavaada. He is the last of the great Achaaryas

> of Vedanta, and is also the last of 22 commentators on

> the

> Brahma-Suutra of Veda Vyaasa.

 

Note the error (or possibly bias) in the above statement. Baladeva

Vidyaabhuushana was the last commentator on the Brahma-Sutra, not Madhva. And

Madhva being the "last of the great Achaaryas of Vedanta" is a matter of

opinion, although politeness would seem to dictate that one should give that

credit to the Gaudiiyas, since they were in fact the last to comment on the

subject matter of Vedaanta.

 

Maadhvas do not give credit to Gaudiiyas for being Vedaantists because to them

Vedaanta means study of Vedaanta-Suutra. For us, Shriimad Bhaagavatam is the

spotless commentary on Vedaanta-suutra, and realization of the Bhaagavatam

equals realization of Vedaanta.

 

> against the dichotomy of Shrutis (tattvaavedaka /

> atattvaavedaka) as claimed by Sri Shankaraachaarya,

> saying that

> such arbitration of apowrusheya scripture is

> unacceptable both logically and spiritually. He also

 

My experience has been that while Tattvavaadis on the internet make claims

like this, they do arbitrarily reject even relatively well known Upanishads

which seem to support their opponents' views. Perhaps if they did not go out

of their way to offend these opponents, they would have an easier time

admitting when they had been defeated in debate.

 

> emphasizes that it is

> important to understand and specifically reject other

> schools' precepts, and hence devotes much time to

> nitpicking

> analyses and denunciations of other doctrines.

 

And this is why we as Gaudiiyas need to *properly* understand our philosophy.

So many times I see Maadhvas criticizing our achintya-bedha-abedha-tattva, and

for a neophyte it might look like they know what they are talking about simply

based on the force of their argument. But upon closer examination, I often

find that the internet Maadhvas really don't know what they are talking about,

and are often criticizing strawmen. Be alert for this.

 

> However, he is firmly set against the notion of

> accepting doctrines because they come from prophets or

> claimed gods --

> he refuses to accept that it is possible to derive a

> meaningful spiritual system based on any but the

> apowrusheya texts

 

And this is our view as well. So many times I hear devotees claiming that we

believe in something because Srila Prabhupada said so, or because Lord

Chaitanya said so. But none of our aachaaryas ever insisted that we believe

them based on their verbal or written testimony. If you read the works of the

six gosvaamiis, for example, you will see that they quote profusely from

shruti and smriti to prove their points.

 

> (the Vedas/Upanishads/Shrutis) and their adjuncts (the

> Iti-haasas, PuraaNas, etc.).

 

Again, modern-day Maadhvas are more than occasionally guilty of twisting

around or rejecting Puraanic evidence which supports the viewpoints of their

opponents. They often try to slide away with comments like, "well that puraana

is not so well studied," or "that's only a puraana, it's not shruti and hence

it must be wrong." Maadhvas are of the opinion that itihaasas and puraanas

often contradict the other shrutis, and must be rejected in such cases. But

when they object to a statement in the itihaasa/puraana, ask them to quote the

exact shruti which they allege bears the contradiction - oftentimes they won't

because they can't.

 

He also dismisses claims

> that only

> part of the Vedas are useful, and claims that even the

> so-called karma-kaaNDa portions of them are only meant

> to

> worship Hari.

 

This is something we also need to understand. We don't put priority on

karma-kaanda because it is prescribed for persons with materialistic

motivations. But even those rituals are ultimately meant for worship of Lord

Hari, and so we should not disrespect them.

 

> Madhva was known as Vaasudeva, as a child, and was

> born in response to a prayer by some braahmana-s of

> the

> Bhaagavata sampradaaya, as a result of which Vishnu,

> who Himself does not incarnate during Kali Yuga,

> ordered His

> chief aide Mukhya PraaNa a.k.a. Vaayu to go to Earth,

> and rescue the mumukshu-s from the unrelenting deluge

> of the

> illusionist schools.

 

Note that here is the real reason why Maadhvas will NEVER accept the divinity

of Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu. Their theology holds that Vishnu does not incarnate

in Kali-Yuga, but instead sends His devotee Vayu. You need to understand this

when you find yourself as a target for Tattvavaadi mudslinging. This is not to

say that we can't do a better job presenting the evidence for Mahaaprabhu's

identity; but it does mean that no matter how good the evidence the

Tattvavaadis are likely to object in any case.

 

> Srimad Ananda Tiirtha is known for his skill at debate

 

...as well as gentlemanly behavior. But don't assume the same for all of his

modern day followers.

 

warm regards,

 

HKS