Neo-Madhva misinterpretations [SatyakAma's being illegitimate]

[Guest guest]

Namaste Carl-ji,

 

> 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.

 

I think that the arguments on caste can be well considered in the

context of Gita where you consistently keep pointing to 4.13. The

fact that Arjuna was reminded of his duty as a kshatriya to fight

the battle against his kith and kin, is alone sufficient to eliminate

all the arguments you are putting forth. If a person can become a

brAhmaNa by disposition only, then why could Arjuna not become one

and make something else such as a hermit? What was his binding

to behave as a kshatriya, if not by birth?

 

> 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.

 

All the quotes from the Mahabharata, etc., are merely to glorify the

importance of good conduct, and nowhere do the sadAgama-s suggest that

the varNAshrama system is wrong (they emphasize in many places that it

is the right thing for seekers).

 

As for BhAgavatam, 1.4.25 is a clear statement of veda-adhikAra -

howsoever you may want to insist that a shUdra can become a brAhmaNa

based on another human's judgement, you cannot insist that a woman

can become a man. But the verse says - "strI-shUdra-dvijabandhUnAm

trayI na shruti gocharA".

 

> 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.

 

This is acknowledged in the above BhAgavata verse itself, by use of

the word "dvija-bandhU". Further, Veda-adhikAra gives no specific

advantage to the adhiKAri, so why do you want people to be worried

about it.

 

> 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.

>

> 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.

>

 

I see that you have read BNK Sharma's HDSV chapter on Jayatirtha.

Note that this criticism has nothing to do with the philosophy - it

has to do with what Madhvacharya meant.

 

> 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.

 

And pray, what tells you that Narahari Tirtha's mistake is a mistake

in "understanding the philosophy"? Just because Prabhupada was wrong

on interpreting Dhritarashtra's question in Gita 1.1 as pertaining to

doubting whether the battle had happened or not (whereas Sanjaya had

already told Dhritrahastra about Bhishma's fall, and 10 days of the

battle had already elapsed, so where was the possibility of doubt

about the onset of battle in Dhritarashtra's mind) does it mean that

Prabhupada did not grasp Gaudiya philosophy completely?

 

[Moderator's Note: For the last and final time -- please stick to the subject. Do not turn every discussion into an opportunity to take silly potshots. You are welcome to start separate, focused threads on anything you find disagreeable in any acharya's works.

 

I am letting this post pass through only because you have made your first attempt to address the subject of the thread -- birth and varNa. But your reply still degenerates into a rant below, and the attitude has not changed much. The moderator here cannot be expected to potty train people who pick up bad habits on certain other forums.

 

Consider my inserts in the rest of this post as a one-time commentary on what's wrong and what needs to change in order for you to keep your posting privileges. No more cyber-Madhva "septic explosions" here. My personal replies to the thread's subject itself will be in a separate response later.]

 

> Their contemporaries generally dismissed them as being

>philosophically incoherent until Jayatirtha arrived.

 

And where did you get this from? Just because they misunderstood the

statement of a syllogism or the definition of a word, they were

philosophically incoherent? Where did you get this from?

 

[Moderator's Note: I did not say that the acharyas were philosophically incoherent at all, but that "their contemporaries" dismissed them as such. The siddhAnta was first articulated clearly, completely, and forcefully by Shri Jayatirtha.

 

The reason this point about Shri Narahari-tirtha and Shri Jayatirtha was made was to show that it is not unusual for apparent differences of meaning to be found within a school, without any need to suggest that one acharya is philosophically "mistaken". It was cited because your whole agenda is to nitpick differences between pre-Chaitanya and post-Chaitanya acharyas of the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya of Vaishnavism.

 

Lastly, it was not my intent to suggest a deficiency in any acharya at all. In fact, I accompanied this example with a broad tribute to them. But your reply makes it out as if I am retorting ad quibbling in the same mean spirit as your comments about Gaudiya acharyas.

 

Last warning, your attitude leads to a downward spiral in the spirit of the discussion, whereas we hope Achintya has edifying discussions.]

 

>

> 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.

 

That's fine - Madhvas would have no problems in accepting that

Narahari Tirtha made minor mistakes in correctly writing how

Madhvacharya defined yukti or defined a syllogism - but Gaudiyas

would never accept that for any of their acharyas even if the mistake

stares you in your face (like the several mistakes in the Gita and

Bhagavata commentaries).

 

[Moderator's Note: Another unsubstantiated hit-and-run claim. Please note, many members here have had a chance to look at several such Cyber-Madhva claims, and found none of them convincing. So please avoid speaking as if your claims are obvious in any way. As I said, feel free to start a thread on individual points of disagreement.]

 

> 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.

 

Madhva did that by reference to shAstra, not by claiming that he was

starting something new. And Jayatirtha's "new" intepretations (note

that Madhva himself said that the Skanda Purana says the shrutis have

3 meanings) did not just not deviate from siddhAnta, but also not

from the other interpretation given by Madhva.

 

[Moderator's Note: More misrepresentation of another's viewpoint. Did I sugggest otherwise? On the contrary, my intent was precisely to show that acknowledged adjustments to historical tradition and comentary have been clearly made, without in any way damaging the real purport of shAstra. Whereas your presentation was that any change with the status quo is an error per se.

 

Your personal, accusatory attitude prevents a smooth flow of the conversation, because the other person has to keep clarifying his statements over and over again. Several members here have stopped responding to you on this thread for this reason.]

 

 

> 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.

 

This is the height of ignorance. Who is "separating" Veda-adhyayana

from moxa? All that I said is that Veda-adhyayana is not necessary

for moxa, since one can achieve moxa purely from the smritis. This is

how women, shudras, and dvijabandhus get moxa. Veda-adhyayana offers

no specific advantage to the dvijas as far as moxa is concerned. This

does not mean that it is not geared towards moxa!

 

>

> 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

> |

 

This quote from BNKS' book is irrelevant to the context, because I

never claimed that the goal of Vedas is karma-kANDa.

 

[Moderator's Note: An even more cockeyed response to my point of quoting from the karma-nirNaya, because of your lack of understanding of how to read philosophy itself. No one here poses as an authority on any school of Vedanta. Yet, you arrogantly speak as a self-styled expert in Madhvacharya's Vedanta (and MAdhva-Gaudiya Vedanta, which you criticize). This is ridiculous in view of the fact that its taken you half a dozen posts to even start addressing points philosophically. Please take a more sober attitude and avoid shrill belligerance.]

 

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

> available to all.

 

The opportunity to have adhikAra for moxa IS available to all. We are

only discussing Veda-adhiKAra here.

 

> Instead, you are introducing artificially imposed social conventions

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

> irrespective of human contrivances.

 

Then why did Brahma ask Priyavrata to return from the forest back to

his kingdom, if not because of his birth? Why did Krishna ask Arjuna

to refrain from deciding to live like a brahmin, if not because of

his birth?

 

>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.

 

That is just your imagination. You want to believe that, and you

believe that. Just because they criticize some experiences of their

own does not mean that the culture of Vishnu-bhakti itself is absent.

That way, I can find you many more quotes from "bold Gaudiyas" who

have said that their culture lacks the living spirit of Krishna-

bhakti.

 

[Moderator's Note: The point was made to criticize ignorant parroting, no matter which Acharya a person s to. Again, this is not a Madhva versus Gaudiya slanging match, though I know you would like that.]

 

 

> 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.

 

Rather, that account only betrays Chaitanya's own ignorance of Madhva

philosophy. It would have been good if his biographer hadn't conjured

up such "facts" of "Defeating in argument" other sampradAyas, for

that has only transferred his own ignorance to Chaitanya, showing him

in poor light to all, except those within Gaudiya tradition. Well, I

guess Krishnadasa isn't the only one to blame, for all biographers

tend to exaggerate their acharyas in their biographies. (Indeed, BNKS

says it has been done even by the author of Jayatirtha-Vijaya, in

making up how Jayatirtha "defeated" Vidyaranya.)

 

[Moderator's Note: I hope the level of your posts on this thread doesn't sink any lower. You make the mistake of misreading the intent of other people because your own head is in the sewer. No more of this childish "my Acharya is better than your Acharya" propoganda.]

 

> > 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.

 

Another classical remark of ignorance. For your information,

those "texts" are the sarvamUla granthas of Madhvacharya, which have

been transcribed and published several times.

 

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".

 

More statements of ignorance. First of all, note that all your

remarks apply not to Madhvas but to Gaudiyas. Do you have any texts

of Gaudiya tradition available from 800 years back in time? Rather,

you do not even have preserved Baladeva's recent commentaries on 9 of

the Upanishads. And you point fingers at those who have preserved a

manuscript from 800 years, and you're ignorant that they are the

sarvamula granthas published several times.

 

[Moderator's Note: The finger was being pointed at the all-too-human failings of certain social institutions. It was not being pointed at some particular sect, as you mistakenly imagine repeatedly in this post.

 

The point is that those social institutions have outlived their utility, and the purpose may be better served in other ways.]

 

And that's not all. You are ignorant even of the facts about this

effort of preservation (which no other sampradaya has attempted so

far) - it happened in Udupi, NOT in "a country with mleccha majority"

(even if it mattered) led by a Madhva professor (P.R.Mukund) who did

so under the recommendation of his guru Vidyadhisha Tirtha (a good

example of engaging modern technology in the service of the

tradition).

 

[Moderator's Note: By now, the majority of your post is about issues that are completely irrelevant to the subject of the thread. A waste of your passion, internet bandwidth, and the moderator's time.]

 

 

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

 

The Rig Bhashya is read by many scholars, and I presonally also have

a copy of its English translation. And considering the volumes of

works written by Madhva and Jayatirtha, it takes more than normal

effort to study every text they have written properly.

 

[Moderator's Note: Take it up with the caste-born Madhva author I was quoting. The fact is that modern Madhvas have to appeal to a certificate from Kapali Shastri and Sri Aurobindo to publicize the great value of Shri Madhvacharya's Rig Bhashya. So clearly, no modern Madhva was able to make an insightful presentation of the same. The quoted author was familiar with several contemporary scholars, and admits that it was a neglected text.]

 

 

> 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.

 

Nope, otherwise their interpretation of Bhagavatam wouldn't

contradict the Sutras and Upanishads.

 

[Moderator's Note: "Contradictions" which you are yet to tell us about.]

 

> Madhvas would agree with this.

 

Madhvas agree and they have interpreted the Bhagavatam and Gita in

accordance with the Sutras. And note that the sanskrit phrase for

BhAgavata is "artho-yam brahma-sUtrANAm" - not natural commentary.

And it is common knowledge that a commentary on a text has to be

studied with the text.

 

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"?

 

It is not an artificial distinction - it is made by the smritis

themselves,

 

Yours,

 

Anant