Neo-Madhva misinterpretations [SatyakAma's being illegitimate]

[Guest guest]

Anant ji,

Namaste.

 

> I am with you in your assessment that brahmins need to live up to

> their standard of behavior and qualities, and that other castes also

> should be encouraged to cultivate brahminical qualities, even though

> they may not be brahmins "caste-wise".

 

But the point was that *nobody* is a certified brahmin, "caste-wise".

Rather, the social system of birth-based *preference* seems to be

based on two factors:

 

1) The high probability that the atmosphere at home inculcates

brahminical qualities in the son/daughter, thus making them the most

likely candidates for the WORK that goes into forging a real

brAhmaNa. Besides, there are also eugenic considerations, which are

indicated by many statements in Br. Up, Chh. Up, etc.

 

2) For "future utility" -- as a secondary reason as time went by and

the lineages degenerated. In a social-system where technologies of

recording and communicating information were "different"/"primitive",

specialized clans of people were given the occupational duty of

preserving the Vedic literatures orally as a practical way to make

sure they were preserved -- in the hope that from time to time, fit

candidates would emerge who would actually comprehend and realize the

Vedas, and thus also keep the Vedic knowledge alive.

 

This idea of "future utility" is mentioned by Shrila Bhaktisiddhanta

Sarasvati in his essay "One Caste":

 

QUOTE: "These divisions were effected according to ones occupation,

qualities, symptoms, and possibility of future utility, According to

the differences in the processes of one's goal, perfection, and

intelligence, there can be two types of varnashram. It has been a

current practice in this country that the ascertainment of Varna

according to seminal consideration is based on future utility.

Moreover, one's occupation, nature, and symptoms have always

nourished the seminal system. When we discuss the topics of Kavasa

mentioned in the Aitareya Upanisad and the topics of Jabala mentioned

in the Chandogya Upanisad then we will properly understand seminal

consideration. Sri Mahabharata, Hari-vamsa and the 18 Puranas had

mentioned both processes of varnashram."

 

[...]"The statements of the Vedas such as the Kalpa-sastras and the

Grhya- sutras of Gobhila, Katyayana, and others that a brahmana

should undergo the sacred thread ceremony at the age of eight is only

a proposal."UNQUOTE

 

That it is only a time-bound "proposal" is evident from history and

practice. As a Madhva proponent, can you tell me howmany Madhvas live by the rules of Shrimad Acharya's sadAcAra-smRti? Is it even

practicable?

 

Similarly, the ancient gRhya-sUtras, etc were different for different shAkhA-s of Vedic clans that lived in different geographical areas. Much of these texts have also been lost, and later brahmin castes adopted other common dharma-shAstras, etc.

 

> You did not address the point where there is

> disagreement - how do you determine the caste of a person for the

> purpose of Veda-adhikara?

 

I have already addressed this in previous posts. Since the Bhagavad-gItA is clear that guNa-karma (qualities and works) are the defining parameters for varNa, therefore the methods of such determination would be based on those.

 

Since to understand Veda properly, a knowledge of subjects like

nirukti, chandas, jyotish, etc are required, therefore those can be

pre-requisites, with their own pre-reqs. Just like in a university

system. In addition, there are qualities of character, and methods of psychological evaluation are quite scientific.

 

So if the barrriers you erected to studying shruti were

like "knowledge of Sanskrit", semiotics, ontology, natural sciences,

musicology, etc, then that would be "understandable".

 

But using the circumstance of birth as the decisive criteria is

absurd. You have not shown how any acharya treats birth as a

*decisive* criteria from all factors. ShrI Krsna in the Bhagavad Gita treats only two factors explicitly -- guNa, and Karma.

 

The episode of SatyakAma JAbala is clearly about the point of not being sure about parental lineage. In this episode, the outcome is in line with the views of the following verses:

 

>From MBh. AnushAsana Parva, ch 163:

 

sthitO brAhmaNa-dharmeNa

brahmaNyaM upajIvati

kSatriyO vAtha vaishyO

vA brahma-bhUyaH sa gacchati

ebhis tu karmabhir devi

shubhair Acritais tathA

shUdrO brAhmaNatAM yAti

vaishyaH kSatriyatAM vrajEt

na yonir nApi samskArO

na shrutaM na ca santatiH

kAraNAni dvijatvasya

vRttaM eva tu kAraNaM

 

"If one is factually situated in the occupation of a brahmana, he must be considered a brahmana, even if born of a kSatriya of vaishya family. O Devi, if even a shudra is actually engaged in the OCCUPATION (vRttaM) and pure behaviour of a brahmana, he becomes a brahmana. Moreover, a vaishya can become a kshatriya. therefore, neither the source of one's birth, nor his reformation, nor his education is the criterion of a brahmana. the occupation is the real standard by which one is known as a brahmana."

 

Also, Mahabharata, VanaParva, Ch. 180

 

shUdrE tu yad bhavel-lakSma

dvijE tac ca na vidyatE

na vai shudrO bhavec chUdrO

brAhmaNO na ca brAhmaNa

 

"If the characteristics of a brahmana are found in a shudra and not in a brahmana, that shudra should not be known as a shudra, and that brahmana should not be known as a brahmana."

 

>From Garuda Purana:

 

bhaktir aSTa-vidhA hy eSa

yasmin mlecchE 'pi vartatE

sa viprEndrO muni-shreSThaH

sa jnAni sa ca paNDitaH

tasmai deyaM tatO grAhya

'msha ca pUjyO yathA hariH

 

"There are different kinds of devotees, but even a VaiSNava coming from a family of mlecchas or yavanas is understood to be a learned scholar, complete in knowledge, if he knows the Vaishnava philosophy. He should be therefore given charity, for such a Vaishnava is as worshippable as God."

 

Similarly, MBh, Vana Parva, Ch 211. More quotes like this from the Shrimad Bhagavatam also.

 

I hope this answers your question about points to be evaluated in determining adhikAra. Janma is certainly a factor, but is clearly considered a secondary, provisional factor compared to guNa and karma. Janma in a noble family in a clan-based society has value as a "recommendation letter", or "sifaarish", and can similarly become politicized if the recommenders and teachers lose integrity and impartiality, and form an unholy nexus.

 

There's no cause to be paranoid about false claims to adhikAra by anyone in such a functional system, meant to evaluate the psychological and other qualities of a candidate. Curiously, you do not seem worried about false claims to adhikAra by caste-born inheritors, in front of an audience that is denied access, and so has no means of judging.

 

> > FYI, there have been many prominent modern Maadhvas (and others)

> also who concur with the minds of modern Gaudiyas.

>

> There was nothing the Madhvas you quoted have concurred to with

> modern Gaudiyas on the issue of Veda-adhikara.

 

Please read again. The person quoted was explicitly addressing the

issue of the fact that Veda is now publicly available, and it is good as long as the "mould" of brahminhood is not neglected.

 

 

> > On this and other subjects covered in the book, the author has

> stated:

> >

> > QUOTE: "On this, the late Padmanabhacharya a perfect orthodox, is

> > with me, or rather I am with him. (The Life and Teachings of Shri

> > Madhwa, page 301)." UNQUOTE

>

> "On this" means on what? Please quote Padmanabhachar on it.

 

"On this" means on the subject of this thread. I think you pretend to be a little dull at times. As for Shri Padmanabhachar, the reference is provided by the author himself in the above quote.

 

Many present-day Madhvas also concur with the above quoted author. In fact, even cyber-Madhvas sometimes put Upanishad-bhAshyas on the web, which anyone can download and read. You may want to take this issue up with them.

 

> > IMPORTANTLY, in the very beginning of the first chapter, the

author

> > has lamented:

> >

> > QUOTE: "But most unfortunate and unpardonable it is, that he

> [Madhva]

> > should be misunderstood, misinterpreted and misrepresented by his

> own

> > followers, especially by the learned among them, and that too

> > without even caring to study properly." UNQUOTE

> >

> > The above quote should not raise eyebrows, because such concerns

> were

> > expressed even as early as the great Tikacharya Jayatirtha.

>

> Where? Please supply the quote.

 

In his commentary on the Karma-nirNaya, Shri Jayatirtha criticizes

the interpretations by Shri Narahari-tirtha, who is senior to him in

the disciplic line. In other places also, Jayatirtha's commentaries

pushed the commentaries of ShrI Padmanabha aside.

 

> Where has Jayatirtha criticized Narahari Tirtha? It will be helpful

> if you can point out a quote.

 

In the opening line of the above mentioned work, and again and again later on in the same work. Here are some quotes from my notes taken from discussions of this work in another book, stating Jayatirtha's point:

 

tatraikE AhuraguNaM brahmEti | na tat yuktaM | shruti-yukti-virOdhAt

| yukta-shabdaH shobhana-paryAyaH | yathAha bhikSuH | tathA ca, yukti-virodhAn na yuktaM iti sAdhyAvishiSTatA |

 

Narahari-tIrtha's interpretation of "yukti" w.r.t. understanding

the "nirguNatva" of brahman is explicitly criticized here. At least 2 more such direct criticisms occur later in this book.

 

Thus, if we are to accept Jayatirtha and Vyasaraya as the two pillars of the muni-traya of Dvaita apart from Madhvacharya, then we must accept that the disciplic generation immediately following Madhva did not grasp and present his philosophy fully, though they did the historic job of spreading and establishing it socially. Their contemporaries generally dismissed them as being philosophically incoherent until Jayatirtha arrived.

 

I bring this up because you seem to want to force the whole subject onto the point of not changing the words of pUrvAcAryas. But above we see that in the Madhva line itself, a succeeding AcArya did just that. Moreover, Jayatirtha also boldly gave new interpretations to Upanishadic statements that Madhva commented upon -- without deviating from siddhAnta. Moreover, Madhvacharya himself abrogated and re-arranged several long-standing Vedic rituals involving animal-slaughter, etc. Similarly, Shankaracharya reformed the institution of sannyAsa. As I indicated previously, we can see such changes and adaptations throughout recorded history in the case of the dharma sutras for different shAkhAs.

 

Clearly, there are different types of AcAryas. There is a particular type of AcArya who has the spiritual authority and stature to recommend new rules of social organization to best effect the realization of the spirit of Veda in his era. So your insistence on turning this topic into one of adhering to pUrvAcArya loyalty is appreciated, but your approach to the same is ignorant.

 

SiddhAnta is one, but approaches to it can certainly be different. thus, varnAshrama is a 'natural' law, and the *spirit* of this mould is unchanging. But the *physical* arrangements that reflect that mould can and do change, as history has shown. Ref. the last two lines of Bhagavad Gita 4.13:

 

catur-varNyaM mayA sRSTaM

guNa-karma-vibhAgasaH

tasya kartAraM api mAM

viddhy akartAraM avyayaM

 

> The question is the following - are we talking about adhikAra for

> moxa or adhikAra for Veda? Your mail seems to be relevant only to

the

> former.

 

While we're on the subject of Madhva's Karma-nirNaya -- He emphasizes that mere descriptions of karma itself can never be considered as the end purpose of scripture. That was the main point of his rejection of popular conceptions of Vedic "karma-kANDa", etc. Your artificial separation of vedAdhyayana from mOkSa cannot be based on Madhva's explanations of the relations between shAstra, jnAna, "dhyAna" and karma.

 

In his comments to Bhagavad Gita 2.48-49 in KN, Madhvacharya quotes

this from a work called karma-vivEka:

 

asheSa-karma-pUgO 'pi na viSNudhyAnalesha-bhAk

tac ca dhyAnaM harEr jnAna-koTy-aMshAya na pUryatE | iti karma-vivEkE

|

 

AdhikAra is clearly qualitative, because jnAna and dhyAna depend on

personal qualities. Anyone can go through the motions of doing

something.

 

Thus, in discerning what role nishiddha and vihita karmas play in the larger scheme of things, we have to work from the inside out. No

kArmic injunction stands on its own, according to Madhvacharya.

Rather, all rules and regulative activities provide the context

within which real sAdhana is executed.

 

Madhva's distinction between mOkSa and study of shruti is better

understood in the light of his view of mokSa itself, and tAratamya.

Each individual attains mokSa as long as he/she attains full,

realized knowledge to his own capacity. To serve this goal, an

optimal social system would try to ennsure that all instruments are

available.

 

Lastly, in order to provide a context for discipline within which

kAmya and nishkAma karmas can be distinguished, certain duties based

on janma and ASHRAMA (brahmacAri, grHastha, sannnyAsa, etc) have

already been provided.

 

But varNa is separate. The opportunity to prove adhikAra should be

available to all. The division bell of varNa rings depending on how

the individual is capable of responding to those opportunities. That

capability is *naturally* influenced by uncontrollable social

circumstances like birth, life situations, etc, but should also be

determined by innate qualities.

 

Instead, you are introducing artificially imposed social conventions

on what is actually a 'natural' law that will work itself out

irrespective of human contrivances.

 

 

> WHat nonsense sectarianism? We are discussing what purvacharyas have

> said from both traditions.

 

You have been quibbling over one Upanishadic anecdote with your nose

to the ground. I request you to stand up, at least on all fours, and

discuss the issue in a broader philosophical context.

 

 

> There have been ups and downs in Madhva tradition, as there have

been

> in Gaudiya tradition too. So what?

 

Here's what -- you can take a leaf from Teachers like Shrila

Bhaktivinod, Shrila Bhaktisiddhanta, and Shrila Bhaktivedanta. They

examined what was wrong with their sampradAya's social context during its "lows", and by making intelligent adjustments, they served the highest cause.

 

 

> What were the gaudiyas busy doing

> before Bhaktivinoda Thakura? Too busy breeding pure sahajiya bhakti?

 

Maybe. Sahajiya-ism is one of the things severely criticized by the

above mentioned Teachers. Similarly, it would be good if some Madhvas would criticize the unenlightened parroting of dogmas from mUla-granthas by Madhva adherents. Bold Madhvas (as quoted in my last post) have admitted that this culture lacks the living spirit of Vishnu-bhakti, which brings understanding. Even as far back as Shri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's South India travels, He found this complete lack of real understanding of Bhakti in one Madhva interlocutor who wanted to argue with Him.

 

 

> The Haridasa saints, under the guidance of Madhva pithadipathis have

> been working to improve social conditions of all classes of people

> since the days of Narahari Tirtha.

 

Yes, all that was quite revolutionary in those times.

 

> I agree that a lot needs to be

> done still.

 

Good. To start with, it turns out that even the purpose of caste-

based preference of "preservation for future utility" is not being

met by caste-brahmins in recent times, as we are reminded by the

news report about Madhva manuscripts:

 

http://ezinearticles.com/?Imaging-Technology-Restores-Damaged-Madhva-

Text&id=378650

 

QUOTE: "Imaging Technology restores damaged Madhva text"

 

"The document is difficult to handle and to read, the result of

centuries of inappropriate storage techniques, botched preservation

efforts and degradation due to improper handling....

 

"...It is literally crumbling to dust, says Mukund, the Gleason

Professor of Electrical Engineering at RIT. According to Mukund, 15

percent of the manuscript is missing. The book will never be opened

again, unless there is a compelling reason to do so, Mukund says,

because every time they do, they lose some." UNQUOTE

 

The caste-brahmin custodians of those manuscripts could not even

preserve the texts through the 19th and 20th centuries, when

convenient means of recording or transcribing the texts were

available. Usually, Hindu brahmins blame Muslim invasions, etc for

the fact that hardly a small portion of Vedic litarature is extant,

but in this case even that excuse is not tenable. Lastly, note, the

text was salvaged in a country with a "mleccha"-majority, using

technology developed and handed down by "mlechhas".

 

This inability to even PHYSICALLY preserve Vedic literature is not

surprising, given what Shri Alur Venkat has to say in the book I had

quoted from: He made two statements --

 

1) Many of Madhva's works like his Rg-bhASya were not even read by

several Madhva caste-brahmin scholars and custodians, and

 

2) He openly bemoans the lack of self-realized people in his

sampradaya.

 

Thus, we see that the "utility" of a particular social arrangement is

minimal now, whichever way you look at it. In any case, hardly

anything of Vedic literature is extant. Now you want to stop the

majority of people from even reading what is left?

 

Lastly, because so little is left, and a vast part of the overall

Vedic context is missing, therefore Gaudiyas insist that the Vedanta-

sutras, Upanishads, etc must be interpreted with close reference to

the Bhagavad Gita and Shrimad Bhagavatam, which is the natural

commentary to the sUtras. Madhvas would agree with this. Now when

the "smRti" texts like Gita and BhagavataM are so crucial to even

understanding remaining shruti texts, does it make sense to make an

artificial distinction in terms of access to "shruti" versus "smRti"?

 

Yours,

Carl