Encylcopedia Brittanica- Comments on the life of Sri Madhvacharyta

[Guest guest]

Dear Madhwa Devotees,

 

I am a new member of the .

I was going through the site of Encylcopedia Brittanica. I am attaching an

excerpt from it; which contains some information about Sri Madhvacharya, in

which I found an unconsciuos attempt to impress upon the reader the superiority

of Christian religion and also a suggestion that even great Indians had western

influence even during that period.

 

Would someone suggest what would be the course of action that I or we can take

to rectify this calculated and intended act.

 

Sri Krishnarpanamastu

Kanjakshi

 

_______

DO YOU !?

Get your free @ address at

[Guest guest]

Namaskaara,

I have also read that one. I remeber that this issue was raised in the

CMS list by Srisha Rao long time back. I don't remember what action

was taken at that time. I think we should all express our concern by

sending mails to them just as we did in the case of the recent XENA

issue. Can VMS do something about this?

 

BTW, your name reminds me of the following shloka by Sri Vaadiraaja

(Rukminiisha Vijaya) praising jaganmaatha Rukmini. Welcome to

Vishwamadhvasangha.

 

siJNchannoopura shobhipaadakamalaam.h

ma.ndasmithodyanmukhIm.h

kanjaakshiim.h kuchabhaarabhiiruvilasan.h maDhyaam.h

kvaNathka.mkaNaam.h |

shambhvaadyaiH parisEvithaam.h suvasanaam.h

jaambuunadaalakR^itaam.h

ambaa.m taa.m praNatOsmi kR^ishna ramaNiim.h

la.mbaalakaam.h rukmiNiim.h ||

 

 

 

Regards,

raghav

 

 

---Kanjakshi Harlapur <kanjakshi wrote:

>

> Dear Madhwa Devotees,

>

> I am a new member of the .

> I was going through the site of Encylcopedia Brittanica. I am

attaching an excerpt from it; which contains some information about

Sri Madhvacharya, in which I found an unconsciuos attempt to impress

upon the reader the superiority of Christian religion and also a

suggestion that even great Indians had western influence even during

that period.

>

> Would someone suggest what would be the course of action that I or

we can take to rectify this calculated and intended act.

>

> Sri Krishnarpanamastu

> Kanjakshi

>

> _______

> DO YOU !?

> Get your free @ address at

>

> ATTACHMENT part 2 application/msword name=EB-Madhva.doc

 

 

==

***********************************************************

Raghavendra Rao Rachuri

rrachuri

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2432/

H:301 562 0951

W:301 589 6300X247

***********************************************************

[Guest guest]

Dear Madhwa Devotees,

 

The presumptuous, arrogant, insolent, impudent and impertinent

remark from Encyclopedia Britannica does not come as a surprise. Such

behavior is inherent nature of the western historians. Needless to say

that such constant perversion of history and facts has been their

trademark. I do not know if mere messaging the massive organization

like that with e-mails will make much difference. I am afraid that it

is going to be only " aranya rOdana " or cry in the forest. Even if such

feeble voice falls into the ears of that unwilling listener, will it

not turn a deaf ear only? Loss of thought as to what kind of tool has

to be used to control such contortion of facts leaves me in dismay.

This particular thing is different from Xena episode in some

respects. Though both incidents are hurting, Xena episode is from a

media company who is not known for any depth of knowledge. Secondly,

it affects major Indian cross-section who can raise a big uproar

(I don't know if that helps) where as this affects a small cross-

section, the dvaita community in India. Thirdly, after a while people

will ignore or forget that media mumbo-jumbo. But a reference

tool like EB has no justification in doing that. Either they should

completely delete the entry or give the entry as correctly as

possible. EB is a reference item, which will be used by many not only

now but for many years to come. Even the mere suggestion of the false

remark that Madhva has been influenced by a group of Nestorian

Christians sounds very ludicrous. It is like a boy pouring some water

from a toy container into an ocean and then claiming that he is

responsible for filling up the ocean with water. When rest of the

world is in an infant spiritual state, India had reached Himalayan

heights in the realm of spiritual knowledge. Madhvaachaarya took it

to a pinnacle clearly laying out all the necessary facts that his

followers feel are the blessings from the heaven above. Taking the

spiritual state to such an acme is not a normal human tour de force.

When one contrasts the helpless surrender of Jesus Christ to

crucifixion with the victorious life pattern of Madhvaachaarya even

during the presence of Muslim rulers in India, where and how can one

draw a parallel between them? Shame on EB in stooping to such

low levels, God knows for what narrow goals.

 

Om shri hari vAyu gurubhyO namaH

 

Keshava Rao Tadipatri

 

-Kanjakshi Harlapur <kanjakshi wrote:

>

> Dear Madhwa Devotees,

>

> I am a new member of the .

> I was going through the site of Encylcopedia Brittanica. I am

attaching an excerpt from it; which contains some information about

Sri Madhvacharya, in which I found an unconsciuos attempt to impress

upon the reader the superiority of Christian religion and also a

suggestion that even great Indians had western influence even during

that period.

>

> Would someone suggest what would be the course of action that I or

we can take to rectify this calculated and intended act.

>

> Sri Krishnarpanamastu

> Kanjakshi

>

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

I have read the various comments on Encyclopedia Britannica

entry on Madhva. The problem has been raised by Ms Kanjakshi

Harlapur but apart from expressing vigorous objections to the

obviouly slanted report (possibly written by a Christian, who

has very little acquaintance of Madhva traditions), it has not

been possible to initiate a constructive approach to the

quetsion. Till it is proved to the contrary, I suggest we try

the following assumptions :

1. The editors of Enc. Brit. are not Anti-madhva but have

depended on one of their contributors or editors for this item.

This person has also been ill-informed , to say the least.

2. They will respond to a reasonable request made by a group of

scholars or even a body like CMS/VMS etc. when it is clearly

demonstrated that their entry is factually inaccurate.

3. If they do not do so, more vigorous protests aimed at

catching the public eye and which show up their carelessness can

be thought off.

I suggest therefore that suitable rejoinders addressed to the

publishers and editors of Enc. Brit, be sent by both VMS and

CMS. I will pass this on to PPSMB for similar action by ABMM. WE

can debate the results after they are available.

NAPSRao

[Guest guest]

Dear Fellow MAdhvas,

 

As a professor of Eastern Religions I have had to encounter

the Madhva-Christianity issue for over 10 years now. My

teacher, Prof. B.N.K.Sharma has dealt with this in several of

his works. Ignorant instructors in the field without making too

much investigation just parrot scholars like Radhakrishnan etc.

The Advaitins who have usurped all of Indian Philosophy for

themselves are largely responsible for this. Here is an

Advaitin who has said the same thing on the " Indology scholars

chat website " and I have replied her. I am now enclosing both

her query and my answer for all to look at.

 

" When imentioned the advent christianity i was not referring to

Vasco or his successors, i had really ment syriac church which

was well established then in west coastand therefore we cannot

rule out that Madhva was not unaware of christianity.

You mention that Madhva was consistent in quoting scriptures in

supprt of his doctrine.But my query was how could gita and

upanishads support both the doctrines-especially when the dvaita

doctrine is radically differnt from non-dualism? "

 

Krish.

 

On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, Balaji Hebbar wrote:

 

> Dear Ms. Vanitha Krishnamurthy,

>

> Christianity of only the Nestorian and Jacobite kind were only

> in Kerala at the time of Madhva. Madhva himself belonged to

> the Tulu-speaking region of KarnATaka. Christianity of the

> KarnATak coast is of the Roman Catholic and Swiss Protestant

> vareity. Almost all the KonkaNI-speaking Christians are Catholics

> who actually migratred to the Mangalore region from Goa. That

> why they almost always have Portuguese surnames (e.g. Pinto,

> Norohna, Saldana, De Silva etc.) Madhva was long gone (died

> MAgha Shuddha navamI 1317 CE) before Vasco da Gama landed in

> Calicut in 1498. So, there is no question of Catholic

> influence. The Tulu-speaking Christians are mostly converts

> through the Basel Mission (Swiss) who came much later. Madhva

> himself never mentions the Christians in ANY of his 39 works.

> In fact, he quotes the Sruti, GItA and other Hindu smrtis

> consistently in support of his doctrines.

>

> Regards,

> B.N.Hebbar

[Guest guest]

At 20:36 25.02.99 -0800, Kanjakshi Harlapur wrote:

 

>[...]I am a new member of the .

>I was going through the site of Encylcopedia Brittanica. I am attaching an

excerpt from it; which contains some information about Sri Madhvacharya, in

which I found an unconsciuos attempt to impress upon the reader the

superiority of Christian religion and also a suggestion that even great

Indians had western influence even during that period.

 

The encyclopedia entry is quite outrageous. I can hardly imagine that the EB

did this. Instead of pointing out Madhvacharya's place in Indian religious

and philosophical history and giving a few pointers to his contributions,

they have given only an insufficiently founded conjecture. (Is that _all_

they have written about Madhva?)

 

My own impression of the encyclopedia entry is this: it is basically an

excerpt from what G. Grierson has written in Hastings' antiquated, but still

much used _Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics_. Also in the West, scholars

who have given Madhva more of their attention have dismissed Grierson's

ideas. Already as far back as 1922, Prof. Helmuth von Glasenapp in Berlin

has rejected them in his _Madhva's Philosophie des Visnu-Glaubens_. Again in

1968, in the next major work by a Western scholar in a Western language,

Suzanne Siauve in her _La doctrine de Madhva_ wrote that although the

Messianic image of Madhva is remarkable in an Indian context, Christian

influence is very unlikely. Whoever wrote the encyclopedia entry was

careless, probably lazy, anglocentric, and clearly ignorant.

 

RamMysore wrote:

 

>I agree that we should explore the real motives, if any, of EB.

 

I can tell you what they are: none. With due respect to sentiments here, I

believe we should realise that in the opinion of the EB, an article on

nuclear submarines, the genetics of fruit flies, or the 14th president of

the US is infinitely more important than an item on Madhva. This should be

kept in mind, if any of us wish to complain. The editorial board of the EB

cannot be really very concerned about a minuscule entry about a person about

whom the vast majority of the world's population has never heard and whose

achievements are not yet widely and publicly established.

 

napsrao <napsrao's assumptions:

 

>1. The editors of Enc. Brit. are not Anti-madhva but have

>depended on one of their contributors or editors for this item.

>This person has also been ill-informed , to say the least.

>2. They will respond to a reasonable request made by a group of

>scholars or even a body like CMS/VMS etc. when it is clearly

>demonstrated that their entry is factually inaccurate.

 

look objective as well as constructive. The editors of the EB are not

omniscient, and they depend on their contributors. We do not know how the

contributors are selected. But they will take an interest in providing their

readers with accurate information. It is essential that the EB be approached

in a manner that reflects reasonableness and basic respect.

 

Ignorance is not the same as a conspiracy, and I am not convinced that the

postings quoted by Balaji Hebbar are part of an Advaitin conspiracy, just as

the EB entry is unlikely to be part of a Christian conspiracy. Let us also

keep in mind that the Maadhva community as a whole, in comparison with the

communities that adhere to other schools of Indian thought, has done very

little to enter into a constructive dialogue with the rest of the world

which could have decisively cleared away serious misconceptions long ago. If

we are bothered, simply answer the doubts, instead of giving expressions of

outrage that are likely to be counter-productive.

 

What do we want to achieve now? I presume: a positive, constructive result.

To begin with, I believe we should appreciate that the EB has included

Madhva, even if they did so with a scrap of non-information. Most

encyclopedias do not even do that. Furthermore we must bear in mind that the

EB is not a religious, but a secular publication, that wants to provide its

readers with objective, scientific information (that at times it fails in

its attempt, does not change this). Therefore, RamMysore's suggestion:

 

>I also feel

>that it would be very appropriate if we requested Sri.Puthige Mutt swamigalu

>to take the initiative. We could provide all the assistance needed. In the

>process we may in an indirect way aid his acceptance by the Krishna Matha.

 

looks very sympathetic, but may not be entirely appropriate. I too have

great regard for Sri Sugunendratirtha, and on his North American tour he has

also striven to establish contacts for further dialogue and exchange with

academic scholars. But he remains a *religious* leader. Surely we could ask

him to participate, and this would lend additional weight to the initiative

as a whole, but it seems better if the main initiative comes from secular

academics rather than from a mathadhipati. We can only try to persuade, and

it is essential to realise the background of the EB.

 

We should consider this affair an opening, which should be made judicious

use of, to present a larger number of people information about Madhva and

his school -- reasonably, rationally, objectively, truthfully,

dispassionately. A reaction that suggests religious fanaticism or paranoia

should be avoided. If I may give a personal illustration: just 2 months ago,

within days of my re-joining the Dvaita List, I was attacked by a

fundamentalist who posed as a scholar, apparently because I dared think of

Madhvacharya as a person located in history; evidently he was not truly

interested in an exchange of views, and when I did not bow to his

quasi-rational fundamentalism, he launched an abusive attempt at character

assassination. The result is that I have decided to no longer write to a

forum that is apparently dominated by characters whose attitudes are beneath

my contempt. -- The EB should not react as I did. Excessive emotionalism may

even be counter-productive and may make them believe that their original

scrap is correct (the exposure of an 'unpleasant truth' leading to a violent

reaction!).

 

We should calmly point out to the EB that although we appreciate that they

have decided to include some information on Madhva, their entry is factually

incorrect. As a constructive gesture we may offer to supply them with an

alternative entry for their next edition. I am also interested in

participating, if this is felt useful; I can also contact one or two

colleagues in Europe and North America who have seriously worked on Madhva

and who may lend their academic support.

 

On the other hand, Keshava Rao Tadipatri wrote:

 

>The presumptuous, arrogant, insolent, impudent and impertinent

>remark from Encyclopedia Britannica does not come as a surprise. Such

>behavior is inherent nature of the western historians. Needless to say

>that such constant perversion of history and facts has been their

>trademark.[...]

 

I am sorry to say that this kind of response is crudely offensive and

factually false, ill-informed, and prejudiced, as I have already shown

above. Von Glasenapp's book (77 years ago! 3 generations!) has also been

translated from German into English and published in 1992 in Bangalore, so

that also Indians who do not know the major Western scholarly languages can

read it. An American encyclopedia and its contributors may be anglocentric

and careless, and perhaps humanities faculties and departments of Indian

studies are not considered priorities in Anglo-Saxon universities; but I am

disgusted by the vulgarly discriminatory superciliousness of Sri Tadipatri's

remarks. Earnest Western scholars cannot be vilified on the basis of an

Englishman who was written off already 77 years ago and a lazy encyclopedia

contributor. I fail to see what desirable result can possibly be obtained

from such unfounded hatefulness.

 

If it is decided that 'itareyavaru' should not join in the initiative, then

please use the references I have given at the beginning of this posting with

my best wishes.

 

(And, on a comforting note: any serious student of Indian religions will not

depend on any encyclopedia anyway.)

 

Sincerely,

 

RZ

 

Dr. Robert J. Zydenbos

Mysore (India)

e-mail zydenbos

[Guest guest]

>On the other hand, Keshava Rao Tadipatri wrote:

 

>>The presumptuous, arrogant, insolent, impudent and impertinent

>>remark from Encyclopedia Britannica does not come as a surprise. Such

>>behavior is inherent nature of the western historians. Needless to say

>>that such constant perversion of history and facts has been their

>>trademark.[...]

 

I apologize for saying that. It was an impulsive emotional response. I

could not believe that EB, who must be having a big research force to

assist them have done like that. Ever Since my childhood, I had a very

high opinion about EB (even now I do), I reacted like that.

 

Regards

Keshava Rao Tadipatri

[Guest guest]

krishNabhaktas,

Several excellent points have been made several respondents on this thread.

I

agree with Dr. Zydenbos and sri NAPS Rao that we should not get emotional on

this.

I agree that these mistakes are probably as a result of ignorance and laziness

as

opposed some evil intention. As Dr. Zydenbos mentioned, this entry, even though

it

is important to us, is not one of the top concerns on their list. My guess is

that

EB people will respond to a reasoned response that quotes other academic studies

in this regard. So, what is the next step?

 

I request some volunteers to come forward and work with Dr. Hebbar and Dr.

Zydenbos to put together a reasoned response and a revised biographical note on

madhva. I suggest that this work be done outside this list and the final work

be

shared in this forum. Please let me know (E-mail to vmurthy) if

you

are interested and I will put you on a separate E-mail list intended for this

kind

of work. VMS/CMS along with Dr. Hebbar and Dr.Zydenbos can send the response to

EB. I request sri NAPS Rao that similar steps be taken on behalf of ABMM and/or

with the association of estemeed Dvaita scholars like Dr. Pandurangi and Dr.

BNK

Sharma in India.

 

Regards,

 

Vasu

 

 

 

 

--

=================================

Vasu Murthy

Bell Atlantic Global Networks

web page: members.xoom.com/vmurthy

vmurthy

W:703-247-7314 Fax:703-247-7359

==================================

[Guest guest]

At 08:59 03.03.99 -0500, Keshava Rao Tadipatri wrote:

>

>>On the other hand, Keshava Rao Tadipatri wrote:

>

>>>The presumptuous, arrogant, insolent, impudent and impertinent[...]

>

>I apologize for saying that. It was an impulsive emotional response. I

>could not believe that EB, who must be having a big research force to

>assist them have done like that. Ever Since my childhood, I had a very

>high opinion about EB (even now I do), I reacted like that.

 

This is very gratefully accepted. I too have of course seen what sorts of

plainly weird things have been written about India and her culture in the

past, and I can imagine your anger at seeing yet one more example. But I did

want to make the point that also among persons writing about India in the

West, there is such a thing as a taaratamya.

 

Also because the EB (which should easily have done a better job) has a good

reputation and is therefore consulted by many, I believe it is appropriate

that some among us should point out this bizarre shortcoming to the editors.

 

Regards,

RZ

 

Dr. Robert J. Zydenbos

Mysore (India)

e-mail zydenbos

[Guest guest]

Dear All:

 

Sorry for the long delay in responding on this issue. Just catching up

on mail.

 

>Raghavendra Rao Rachuri <rrachuri

>

>Namaskaara,

>I have also read that one. I remeber that this issue was raised in >the

CMS list by Srisha Rao long time back.

 

Actually, it was raised first by me in the now-defunct newsgroup

alt.religion.vaisnava in 1995 (before the Dvaita Home Page even

existed), and I posted three reviews, titled `Encyclopaedia Britannica's

article on Madhva', `Encyclopaedia Britannica's article on Dvaita', and

`Encyclopaedia Britannica's article on Vedanta', respectively. These

were very well received by the audience at the time, but I did not see

myself as an " activist " at the time and was content to leave it at that

(while you may criticize this lack of involvement, quite justly, it

would be as well to recall that at the time there was no other active

Maadhva on the Net, and I didn't see how my lone voice would ever count

for anything). Over a year later, I believe, I posted the first two

articles (with only minor changes) to the list, which is probably what

is being referred to agove. Then, Ravikanth Kothuri, though himself not

a (born) Maadhva, urged that we do something about it; he agreed to help

in this matter, but somehow that never happened, and now he has since

got his Ph.D. and left U.C. Santa Barbara (no idea if he's even on the

Net). Anyhow, now the story is that something still needs to be done,

and should there be anything I can do to help, let me know.

 

Regards,

 

Shrisha Rao

 

>raghav

[Guest guest]

Robert Zydenbos <zydenbos wrote:

 

>Also because the EB (which should easily have done a better job) has a

good

>reputation and is therefore consulted by many, I believe it is

appropriate

>that some among us should point out this bizarre shortcoming to the

editors.

 

Well, sir, what should we say? That they're off the rocker for saying

that Dvaita was derived from Christianity, when it was actually derived

from Jainism? I'm surprised that you can hold the latter view and yet

criticize the former as a " bizarre shortcoming. "

 

I refer, of course, to your article, `On the Jaina Background of

Dvaitavedanta', Journal of Indian Philosophy 19 (1991), pp. 249-271.

Many thanks to the eagle-eyed Dr. Hebbar for pointing this out to me.

 

Regards,

 

Shrisha Rao

 

>Regards,

>RZ

[Guest guest]

>Robert Zydenbos <zydenbos

 

>We should consider this affair an opening, which should be made

judicious

>use of, to present a larger number of people information about Madhva

and

>his school -- reasonably, rationally, objectively, truthfully,

>dispassionately. A reaction that suggests religious fanaticism or

paranoia

>should be avoided. If I may give a personal illustration: just 2 months

ago,

>within days of my re-joining the Dvaita List, I was attacked by a

>fundamentalist who posed as a scholar, apparently because I dared think

of

>Madhvacharya as a person located in history; evidently he was not truly

>interested in an exchange of views, and when I did not bow to his

>quasi-rational fundamentalism, he launched an abusive attempt at

character

>assassination. The result is that I have decided to no longer write to

a

>forum that is apparently dominated by characters whose attitudes are

beneath

>my contempt.

 

Really, sir; your characterization of the whole matter is rather

uniquely creative in digressing from the truth. What you have

characterized as " quasi-rational fundamentalism " is in fact a rational

rebuttal of some of your fancied but illogical views (there's nothing

`quasi' about it). You are welcome to pretend to the world that you are

a Maadhva scholar, but insofar as you are liable to reject his views and

those of his commentators (in published writings as well), and impose

your own illogical preconceptions, the pretense would remain just that.

Anyone who reads the relevant exchange will also note that you are not

innocent of " character assassination " either; if you don't want it done

to you, why start? Also, what is all this business about proferring

advice about the EB's misrepresentation of Madhva, when you yourself

have done no better in characterizing him as a Jain derivative, a notion

that you apparently conceal from Maadhva-s (Dr. Hebbar reports that

Bannanje Govindacharya, whom you have claimed to study Madhva with, knew

nothing of your proclivities in this matter). Try to understand the

meaning of the phrase " full faith and integrity, " very important in many

fields, before you try to make sweeping and uninformed judgements.

 

Regards,

 

Shrisha Rao

[Guest guest]

Dear Shrisha Rao,

 

So sad that you have chosen to persecute me on this list too, after I have

given you a chance to retain an appearance of dignity on your own list. I

thought of letting the matter rest there, since you appear not interested in

a vaada but in a mere vita.n.daa, on which I do not want to spend my time.

 

I am not demanding that you agree with me on everything I say or write. But

you must understand that there is such a thing as objective scholarly

research along principles that are internationally accepted by the best

academic institutions. Imaginative religious thinkers, fundamentalists and

others do things that partly may agree with such principles, but they also

may be doing something else, which may be appreciated by some other people.

 

One main concern of mine in Maadhva studies is to bring the study of Madhva

and his school into the mainstream of research in Indology and in religious

and philosophical studies. Madhva is great by any standards and deserves to

be recognised and studied, also outside the caste ghetto where pundits have

kept him for so long. I am convinced that a purely objective study of Madhva

is quite enough to establish his lasting place in the history of thought in

India.

 

One of the basic principles of objective research is that of historicity:

each historical personality lived at a particular time and moved around in a

certain geographical area. His / her contemporary circumstances and

preceding history are essential for a thorough understanding of the person

and his / her work. Scholars in religious studies who aim at impartiality,

who try to transcend inherited conceptual frameworks and arrive at

conclusions that can reasonably be accepted by rational people of any

background who are in search of truth, and who accept philological and other

historical evidence as a basis for their research. The placing of phenomena

in historical contexts helps us understand the backgrounds, the meanings,

and the significance of those phenomena.

 

Indian thought did not begin with Madhva, nor did it end with him. As a

religious and philosophical thinker he is unthinkable without the Vaidika

and Vedaantika history that preceded him. It has also been recognised that

the Nyaaya school of philosophy has been a major influence in the

development of what is now commonly (and unfortunately) called

Dvaita-Vedaanta. This does not mean that Dvaita is a 'Nyaaya derivative'.

Nyaaya merely provided conceptual materials that were profitably used in

this new school.

 

Now let us turn to the recent postings on the VMS list, in which you hold a

grudge against me:

 

>Also, what is all this business about proferring

>advice about the EB's misrepresentation of Madhva, when you yourself

>have done no better in characterizing him as a Jain derivative, a notion

>that you apparently conceal from Maadhva-s

 

or in your other posting [Fri, 05 Mar 1999 22:48:45 PST]):

 

>Well, sir, what should we say? That they're off the rocker for saying

>that Dvaita was derived from Christianity, when it was actually derived

>from Jainism? I'm surprised that you can hold the latter view and yet

>criticize the former as a " bizarre shortcoming. "

 

It seems that you are not familiar with the standards and aims of academic

scholarship. Have you at all read that article? Allow me to quote some of my

own concluding remarks from it:

 

" I believe we may assume that Madhva, due either to philosophical reasons or

to his own religious experience, was dissatisfied with the illusionistic

Hindu thought in his environment and therefore felt the need to reëstablish

realism; and with Jaina culture all around him, so to speak, he could draw

concepts and a style of philosophizing from that source, to integrate them

profitably into his own system. [...] In spite of their similarities, a

sufficiently large number of differences between Jainism and Dvaita remain,

and both merit much greater attention from students of Indian thought. "

 

I do not think that an unprejudiced reader can infer from this that I claim

that Dvaita is a 'Jain derivative'. I have merely pointed out peculiarities

in which Madhva differed from previous Vedaantins; I was forced to notice

that Jaina authors and Madhva share a number of similar concerns and that

Jaina texts prove that Jaina thinkers had already formulated a coherent

complex of concepts that we also find later in Madhva. For further

philological and historical reasons for why I concluded that Madhva knew of

this and made use of this, see the article. The article was first presented

as a lecture at an international congress in Toronto in 1990, then published

in 1991, and the international scholarly community has to date found no

fault with my findings. I am happy to say that like other writings of mine

it has helped draw attention to the existence of Dvaita as an integral part

of the history of Indian thought.

 

Now let us return to your

 

>Well, sir, what should we say? That they're off the rocker for saying

>that Dvaita was derived from Christianity, when it was actually derived

>from Jainism? I'm surprised that you can hold the latter view and yet

>criticize the former as a " bizarre shortcoming. "

 

This passage contains more than one error. First of all, I did not say that

Dvaita is " derived from Jainism " . This claim, I fear, exists only in your

imagination. Your second error is to assume that the Encyclopedia Brittanica

claimed, in that odd entry, that Dvaita is derived from Christianity: this

too is an unwarranted extrapolation of yours. They only said something about

the person Madhva. At least equally serious is your third, logical error:

that criticising the first stated view implies that the second should be

criticised too. There is no logical connection between the two. Perhaps you

could read Madhva's Pramaa.nalak.sa.na with some commentaries, or

Jayatiirtha's Pramaa.napaddhati, to get a grounding in basic logic: there

you can learn about the concept of vyaapti, and how avyaapti leads to

hetvaabhaasa's, which are a source of impermissable inferences. Your fourth

error is that you assume that I am to blame for this confusion of yours.

 

You are again making the same basic errors in which you persisted on the

other list. You cannot take matters which are only similar in the most

superficial manner, draw your own superficial and faulty conclusions from

them, foist them upon an imagined enemy like me and then hurl abuse and

innuendo at me (as you did on the CMS list). This is simply not done in

decent society. (Hence I also d from that list.)

 

Now let us go back to

 

>when you yourself

>have done no better in characterizing him as a Jain derivative, a notion

>that you apparently conceal from Maadhva-s

 

I have already shown that this is not my 'notion', so the question of

concealing it cannot arise. You must be referring to something else, e.g.,

that I did not distribute copies of that article to all the Maadhvas whom I

know? Why should I? I will not burden people with things in which they are

not interested. In fact I did give copies to some interested Maadhvas, who

appreciated it. So you wrote yet another ill-founded, frivolous assumption.

 

I do not understand why you insist on doing all this. The straw that broke

the camel's back, in the case of your CMS list, was your persistent

twisting, in what were apparently 'quotes', of not only my words and ideas

(as you have demonstrated once again here on the VMS list), but even the

words of Madhvacharya, ripped out of context and given new meanings. From

this I concluded that (to use terms from Madhva's Kathaalak.sa.na) you are

not interested in the kind of discussion that is known as vaada, but in a

mere vita.n.daa, and a very poor one too. I do not wish to spend my time on

that.

 

If you have anything positive and constructive to discuss with me, then I am

quite willing to listen. But I have better things to do than spend time on

endless polemics that seem prompted by nothing more than aha.mkaara, and I

do not intend to burden the Vishwa Madhva Sangha any further with a

continuation of something which I considered closed elsewhere.

 

As I said earlier, I am not demanding that you agree with me on everything I

ever say; but I would appreciate it if you were more modest in your

judgments and statements, more self-critical, less hatefully passionate, and

more willing to realise that there may be more to reality than you are

conscious of at the moment.

 

As for the Encyclopedia Brittanica -- which is what this thread was

originally about -- my original attitude remains: I would like to

participate in a corrective initiative because their entry is wrong

according to an already old and established state of objective research by

responsible and unprejudiced scholars; but if those who take the initiative

feel that mere 'itareyavaru' should not participate in a kind of frenzied

jihad, then please use the references which I have given, with my best

wishes, and I will bow out.

 

Sincerely,

 

Dr. Robert J. Zydenbos

Mysore (India)

e-mail zydenbos

[Guest guest]

The following paragraph is WELL said by Robert Zydenbos and I bring your

attention the same:

 

" As I said earlier, I am not demanding that you agree with me on everything

I

ever say; but I would appreciate it if you were more modest in your

judgments and statements, more self-critical, less hatefully passionate, and

more willing to realize that there may be more to reality than you are

conscious of at the moment. "

 

We as " NetZian Madhvas " should be more compassionate in resolving the issues

than taking stab at some one. We like it or not all this is " digital " form

(not a casual weekend phone conversation) and are permanent record of our

culture. So with no offence to any one lets try to resolve our difference

(we know it is many) in more civic way.

 

Sri Hari Seva

Prasad

 

 

 

>

> Robert Zydenbos [zydenbos]

> Monday, March 08, 1999 4:28 PM

>

> Re: Encylcopedia Brittanica- Comments on

> the life of Sri Madhvacharyta

>

>

> Robert Zydenbos <zydenbos

>

> Dear Shrisha Rao,

>

> So sad that you have chosen to persecute me on this list too, after I have

> given you a chance to retain an appearance of dignity on your own list. I

> thought of letting the matter rest there, since you appear not

> interested in

> a vaada but in a mere vita.n.daa, on which I do not want to spend my time.

>

> I am not demanding that you agree with me on everything I say or

> write. But

> you must understand that there is such a thing as objective scholarly

> research along principles that are internationally accepted by the best

> academic institutions. Imaginative religious thinkers, fundamentalists and

> others do things that partly may agree with such principles, but they also

> may be doing something else, which may be appreciated by some

> other people.

>

> One main concern of mine in Maadhva studies is to bring the study

> of Madhva

> and his school into the mainstream of research in Indology and in

> religious

> and philosophical studies. Madhva is great by any standards and

> deserves to

> be recognised and studied, also outside the caste ghetto where

> pundits have

> kept him for so long. I am convinced that a purely objective

> study of Madhva

> is quite enough to establish his lasting place in the history of

> thought in

> India.

>

> One of the basic principles of objective research is that of historicity:

> each historical personality lived at a particular time and moved

> around in a

> certain geographical area. His / her contemporary circumstances and

> preceding history are essential for a thorough understanding of the person

> and his / her work. Scholars in religious studies who aim at impartiality,

> who try to transcend inherited conceptual frameworks and arrive at

> conclusions that can reasonably be accepted by rational people of any

> background who are in search of truth, and who accept

> philological and other

> historical evidence as a basis for their research. The placing of

> phenomena

> in historical contexts helps us understand the backgrounds, the meanings,

> and the significance of those phenomena.

>

> Indian thought did not begin with Madhva, nor did it end with him. As a

> religious and philosophical thinker he is unthinkable without the Vaidika

> and Vedaantika history that preceded him. It has also been recognised that

> the Nyaaya school of philosophy has been a major influence in the

> development of what is now commonly (and unfortunately) called

> Dvaita-Vedaanta. This does not mean that Dvaita is a 'Nyaaya derivative'.

> Nyaaya merely provided conceptual materials that were profitably used in

> this new school.

>

> Now let us turn to the recent postings on the VMS list, in which

> you hold a

> grudge against me:

>

> >Also, what is all this business about proferring

> >advice about the EB's misrepresentation of Madhva, when you yourself

> >have done no better in characterizing him as a Jain derivative, a notion

> >that you apparently conceal from Maadhva-s

>

> or in your other posting [Fri, 05 Mar 1999 22:48:45 PST]):

>

> >Well, sir, what should we say? That they're off the rocker for saying

> >that Dvaita was derived from Christianity, when it was actually derived

> >from Jainism? I'm surprised that you can hold the latter view and yet

> >criticize the former as a " bizarre shortcoming. "

>

> It seems that you are not familiar with the standards and aims of academic

> scholarship. Have you at all read that article? Allow me to quote

> some of my

> own concluding remarks from it:

>

> " I believe we may assume that Madhva, due either to philosophical

> reasons or

> to his own religious experience, was dissatisfied with the illusionistic

> Hindu thought in his environment and therefore felt the need to

> reëstablish

> realism; and with Jaina culture all around him, so to speak, he could draw

> concepts and a style of philosophizing from that source, to integrate them

> profitably into his own system. [...] In spite of their similarities, a

> sufficiently large number of differences between Jainism and

> Dvaita remain,

> and both merit much greater attention from students of Indian thought. "

>

> I do not think that an unprejudiced reader can infer from this

> that I claim

> that Dvaita is a 'Jain derivative'. I have merely pointed out

> peculiarities

> in which Madhva differed from previous Vedaantins; I was forced to notice

> that Jaina authors and Madhva share a number of similar concerns and that

> Jaina texts prove that Jaina thinkers had already formulated a coherent

> complex of concepts that we also find later in Madhva. For further

> philological and historical reasons for why I concluded that

> Madhva knew of

> this and made use of this, see the article. The article was first

> presented

> as a lecture at an international congress in Toronto in 1990,

> then published

> in 1991, and the international scholarly community has to date found no

> fault with my findings. I am happy to say that like other writings of mine

> it has helped draw attention to the existence of Dvaita as an

> integral part

> of the history of Indian thought.

>

> Now let us return to your

>

> >Well, sir, what should we say? That they're off the rocker for saying

> >that Dvaita was derived from Christianity, when it was actually derived

> >from Jainism? I'm surprised that you can hold the latter view and yet

> >criticize the former as a " bizarre shortcoming. "

>

> This passage contains more than one error. First of all, I did

> not say that

> Dvaita is " derived from Jainism " . This claim, I fear, exists only in your

> imagination. Your second error is to assume that the Encyclopedia

> Brittanica

> claimed, in that odd entry, that Dvaita is derived from Christianity: this

> too is an unwarranted extrapolation of yours. They only said

> something about

> the person Madhva. At least equally serious is your third, logical error:

> that criticising the first stated view implies that the second should be

> criticised too. There is no logical connection between the two.

> Perhaps you

> could read Madhva's Pramaa.nalak.sa.na with some commentaries, or

> Jayatiirtha's Pramaa.napaddhati, to get a grounding in basic logic: there

> you can learn about the concept of vyaapti, and how avyaapti leads to

> hetvaabhaasa's, which are a source of impermissable inferences.

> Your fourth

> error is that you assume that I am to blame for this confusion of yours.

>

> You are again making the same basic errors in which you persisted on the

> other list. You cannot take matters which are only similar in the most

> superficial manner, draw your own superficial and faulty conclusions from

> them, foist them upon an imagined enemy like me and then hurl abuse and

> innuendo at me (as you did on the CMS list). This is simply not done in

> decent society. (Hence I also d from that list.)

>

> Now let us go back to

>

> >when you yourself

> >have done no better in characterizing him as a Jain derivative, a notion

> >that you apparently conceal from Maadhva-s

>

> I have already shown that this is not my 'notion', so the question of

> concealing it cannot arise. You must be referring to something else, e.g.,

> that I did not distribute copies of that article to all the

> Maadhvas whom I

> know? Why should I? I will not burden people with things in which they are

> not interested. In fact I did give copies to some interested Maadhvas, who

> appreciated it. So you wrote yet another ill-founded, frivolous

> assumption.

>

> I do not understand why you insist on doing all this. The straw that broke

> the camel's back, in the case of your CMS list, was your persistent

> twisting, in what were apparently 'quotes', of not only my words and ideas

> (as you have demonstrated once again here on the VMS list), but even the

> words of Madhvacharya, ripped out of context and given new meanings. From

> this I concluded that (to use terms from Madhva's Kathaalak.sa.na) you are

> not interested in the kind of discussion that is known as vaada, but in a

> mere vita.n.daa, and a very poor one too. I do not wish to spend

> my time on

> that.

>

> If you have anything positive and constructive to discuss with

> me, then I am

> quite willing to listen. But I have better things to do than spend time on

> endless polemics that seem prompted by nothing more than aha.mkaara, and I

> do not intend to burden the Vishwa Madhva Sangha any further with a

> continuation of something which I considered closed elsewhere.

>

> As I said earlier, I am not demanding that you agree with me on

> everything I

> ever say; but I would appreciate it if you were more modest in your

> judgments and statements, more self-critical, less hatefully

> passionate, and

> more willing to realise that there may be more to reality than you are

> conscious of at the moment.

>

> As for the Encyclopedia Brittanica -- which is what this thread was

> originally about -- my original attitude remains: I would like to

> participate in a corrective initiative because their entry is wrong

> according to an already old and established state of objective research by

> responsible and unprejudiced scholars; but if those who take the

> initiative

> feel that mere 'itareyavaru' should not participate in a kind of frenzied

> jihad, then please use the references which I have given, with my best

> wishes, and I will bow out.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> Dr. Robert J. Zydenbos

> Mysore (India)

> e-mail zydenbos

>

>

> ------

> Have you visited our new web site?

>

> Onelist: Helping to create Internet communities

> ------

> yatatopi hareH pada saMsmaraNe sakalaM hyaghamAshu layaM vrajati |

> smaratastu vimukti padaM paramaM sphuTameshyati tat kimapAkriyate ||

> - sri madhvAcharya - dvAdasha stotra

>

> Whosoever even atempts at meditation upon the feet of shri Hari,

> his entire

> sin gets destroyed immediately and surely. The supreme state of final

> emancipation will certainly come to him who meditates (upon the feet of

> shri Hari).therefore why is that (worthy means) relinquished ?

>

[Guest guest]

At 13:19 11.03.99 -0600, nataraj bv wrote:

 

>On Mon, 8 Mar 1999 17:21:33 -0500 " Prasad Bhargava " <bargava

>writes:

>> " Prasad Bhargava " <bargava

>>

>>The following paragraph is WELL said by Robert Zydenbos and I bring your

>>attention the same:[...]

>

>You are probably referring to the exchanges between Shrisha Rao and Dr.

>Zydenbos. I think you need to clearly understand Shrisha Rao's reply

>before making these comments. When it comes to misleading readers about

>Madhwacharya, Dr. Zydenbos is as guilty as E. Brittanica staff. EB

>mentions that Madhwa was influenced by Christians and Dr. Zydenbos says

>that Madhwa integrated Jaina concepts into TattvavAda. Here is what he

>says-[...]

 

Yes, and what I wrote still stands. And there is still no logical connection

between supposed Christian influence and Jaina influence: they are still

different issues.

 

>I think Dr. Zydenbos should correct himself

>before correcting EB. However, it looks like he is not interested in

>doing that.

 

If you were better informed and, instead of repeating Shrisha Rao's 'logic',

had actually read that article of mine, you would have also read there that

I refer to Prof. B.N.K. Sharma (well-known and respected in Maadhva circles,

as you probably know) in my note no. 99: he too, in his _Philosophy of Sri

Madhvacharya_ has assumed Jaina influence in some respects. But I don't see

anybody complaining about Prof. Sharma here and demanding that he should

" correct himself " ... Ignorance, or double standards?

 

You should realise that also among readers there is something of a

taaratamya, with academic scholars, layfolk, and other gradations too,

depending on one's criteria. Shrisha Rao has demonstrated what happens when

an article that is intended for a scholarly readership is dragged

(irrelevantly too, we may add) into an internet list for laypersons by a

layperson with insufficient prior training. I have already analysed Sri

Rao's logic and reading abilities in my previous posting, and I have little

to add. I cannot waste more time on such issues. As for the EB, the Jaina

influence (which I did not bring up in this thread: again Sri Rao's

quarrelsome nature is to blame for that) is not a major matter, and I don't

think I would include such a reference in a mere encyclopedia article. So

your assumption is unwarranted and frivolous - just polemical. I wish you

would spend your time on better things.

 

As for " correcting " : if anyone wants to correct me, there is a standard

method. First, you actually read my article. I am not yet convinced that

anyone has taken the trouble, before expressing their ire here (it reminds

one of the banning of Salman Rushdie's book in India: the parliamentarians

demanding the ban had not read it). Secondly, you think critically about it,

on the same objective, philological basis. Thirdly, you offer your findings

(if they differ from mine) to the worldwide scholarly community by having an

article published (i.e.: made public - not " concealed " , as in Sri Rao's

silly accusation) in a reputed international scholarly journal, as I have

done (do not fool yourself by writing something on the internet, or in a

sectarian magazine). That is the scholarly way of doing things. If you, Sri

Rao or anyone else wants to do all that, please go ahead. But I do not want

to react to further irrational quarrels in a corner of the internet, since I

have better things to spend my time on.

 

As for " persecution " : what would you call it, if a person follows you from

list to list and attempts to spread falsehoods in a provenly quasi-logical

manner?

 

I consider this thread closed. But closing the present posting I would like

to offer the following questions to the readers for them to think about:

 

(1) Why do two writers to this list harangue against Dr. Z., when Prof.

Sharma is guilty of the same 'sin' in a famous book of his? (N.B.: Dr. Z.,

in his 1991 article, has actually argued that one assumption of Jaina

influence mentioned by Prof. S. must be incorrect! Apparently neither of the

two complainants noticed!)

 

(2) Why has the Maadhva community not succeeded in engaging the

international intellectual community in respectful discussion and dialogue,

as e.g. Advaitins and various kinds of Buddhists have?

 

(3) Is there a meaningful connection between the above two questions? (I am

very sorry, but this is *not* a facetious question.)

 

Regards,

RZ

 

Dr. Robert J. Zydenbos

Mysore (India)

e-mail zydenbos

[Guest guest]

Namaskar fellow madhva-listers,

Although not a professional philosopher I have

to agree with some statements by Zydenbos. He writes:

>Robert Zydenbos <zydenbos

>

>If you were better informed and, instead of repeating Shrisha Rao's 'logic',

>had actually read that article of mine, you would have also read there that

>I refer to Prof. B.N.K. Sharma (well-known and respected in Maadhva circles,

>as you probably know) in my note no. 99: he too, in his _Philosophy of Sri

>Madhvacharya_ has assumed Jaina influence in some respects. But I don't see

>anybody complaining about Prof. Sharma here and demanding that he should

> " correct himself " ... Ignorance, or double standards?

 

This is what BNK Sharma has to say in his " philosophy of Sri Madhvacharya "

(chap II page 19)

Jaina philosophy and moral code have some affinity to Madhva's(M)

thought.

The new type of vedic sacrifices with flour-made animals instead of living

animals, introduced by M as a much-needed reform in Brahmanical society, was in

all probability, partly due to the moral pressure and INFLUENCE OF JAINA IDEAS

(capitilization by me).

He(BNK) goes on to say

M's views on some questions of logic, epistemology and ontology show

many striking parallels toand affinities with corresponding Jaina theories,

notably on the nature of the Universal(jaati) and in the theory of the self as

an object of its own perception (Aham sukhi) which is denied by the Advaitin.

 

>layperson with insufficient prior training. I have already analysed Sri

>Rao's logic and reading abilities in my previous posting, and I have little

>to add. I cannot waste more time on such issues. As for the EB, the Jaina

>influence (which I did not bring up in this thread: again Sri Rao's

>quarrelsome nature is to blame for that)

>

I have no quarrel with Rao or Zydenbos and if this list has to remain

informative debate has to be confined to the issues and not personalities.

 

>

>As for " persecution " : what would you call it, if a person follows you from

>list to list and attempts to spread falsehoods in a provenly quasi-logical

>manner?

 

With this I have to disagree. Assuming that this list is open to the public

there is no question of anybody following anyone else. Some philosophical

detachment :-) it would appear is warranted here.

>

>(1) Why do two writers to this list harangue against Dr. Z., when Prof.

>Sharma is guilty of the same 'sin' in a famous book of his? (N.B.: Dr. Z.,

>in his 1991 article, has actually argued that one assumption of Jaina

>influence mentioned by Prof. S. must be incorrect! Apparently neither of the

>two complainants noticed!)

 

Quite right. Besides (This might start a new controversy ---) philosophers

just like anybody else have always been " influenced by " and have " influenced "

each other. Why should this be such a surprise ? No doubt the Jains inturn

were influenced by the prevailing philosophies. They are ofcourse " unorthodox "

for rejecting vedic authority - but rejection implies knowledge of what is

being rejected ( assuming philosophers are rational :-) ) and that is surely

" influence "

 

If there is anything that characterises Indian thought in general is its

capacity to absorb and synthesize which does not imply any lack of originality

but rather emphasizes its flexible and undogmatic nature.

 

Indian philosophy will die if the different schools are not held up to critical

examination. Merely diefying the philosophers is no good. After all which

western philosopher can say that he/she has not changed his/her opinions about

space and time since Einstein ? If he persists in being dogmatic his philosophy

will perish.

 

I hope this forum will enlighten and debate about the Madhva philosophy to the

benefit of all. I leave with anothe quote by BNK about M :

 

The supreme place M has assigned to saksi as upajivyapramana of scripture, in

the event of the latter encroaching on the legitimate jurisdiction of the

former is a striking example of the unflinching rational outlook of Maadhva

thought

 

 

 

 

 

======================================================================

Shri Kanekal phone: (301)286-6517

Code 696 FAX : (301)286-1648

Goddard Space Flight Center

Greenbelt Road

Greenbelt, MD 20771

======================================================================

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 8 Mar 1999 17:21:33 -0500 " Prasad Bhargava " <bargava

writes:

> " Prasad Bhargava " <bargava

>

>The following paragraph is WELL said by Robert Zydenbos and I bring your

>attention the same:

>

> " As I said earlier, I am not demanding that you agree with me on

everything I

>ever say; but I would appreciate it if you were more modest in your

>judgments and statements, more self-critical, less hatefully passionate,

and

>more willing to realize that there may be more to reality than you are

>conscious of at the moment. "

>

>We as " NetZian Madhvas " should be more compassionate in resolving the

issues

>than taking stab at some one. We like it or not all this is " digital "

form

>(not a casual weekend phone conversation) and are permanent record of

our

>culture. So with no offence to any one lets try to resolve our

difference

>(we know it is many) in more civic way.

 

You are probably referring to the exchanges between Shrisha Rao and Dr.

Zydenbos. I think you need to clearly understand Shrisha Rao's reply

before making these comments. When it comes to misleading readers about

Madhwacharya, Dr. Zydenbos is as guilty as E. Brittanica staff. EB

mentions that Madhwa was influenced by Christians and Dr. Zydenbos says

that Madhwa integrated Jaina concepts into TattvavAda. Here is what he

says-

 

" ......and with Jaina culture all around him, so to speak, he could draw

concepts and a style of philosophizing from that source, to integrate

them

profitably into his own system "

 

And ironically, Dr. Zydenbos wants to help resolve the matter with EB.

What are they supposed to say now? That Madhwa was influenced by Jains

instead of Christians? I think Dr. Zydenbos should correct himself

before correcting EB. However, it looks like he is not interested in

doing that.

 

I read Dr. Zydenbos's long message complaining about him being persecuted

by Shrisha Rao. I have also seen his postings on CMS list. I don't think

Shrisha Rao was " persecuting " anybody on the CMS list or here. Dr.

Zydenbos was making unwarranted assumptions and Shrisha Rao was simply

refuting them. And I am glad Shrisha Rao is doing that. And I want him to

continue doing that to help those of us who are more interested in

knowing the facts than anything else.

 

Regards

-Nataraj

 

>

>Sri Hari Seva

>Prasad

 

_________________

You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.

Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html

or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

[Guest guest]

>Robert Zydenbos <zydenbos

 

>If you were better informed and, instead of repeating Shrisha Rao's

'logic',

>had actually read that article of mine, you would have also read there

that

>I refer to Prof. B.N.K. Sharma (well-known and respected in Maadhva

circles,

>as you probably know) in my note no. 99: he too, in his _Philosophy of

Sri

>Madhvacharya_ has assumed Jaina influence in some respects. But I don't

see

>anybody complaining about Prof. Sharma here and demanding that he

should

> " correct himself " ... Ignorance, or double standards?

 

Neither; I am well aware of this and other errors by Dr. Sharma (you

will note that the Dvaita FAQ has, since its earliest version, described

his HDSV as not being completely authoritative). I know that Dr. Sharma

is a fine historian, and even as a scholar he has few, if any, peers

among those Maadhva scholars who have written in English (of which there

have been few enough), but one cannot simply

allow the argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) in respect of

his stature to determine right and wrong over one's own considered

judgement. That is also not a Vaidika attitude, because Shruti itself

says: `yAni asmAkaM sucharitAni; tAni tvayopAsyAni, no itarANi'. That

Dr. Sharma has on occasion permitted himself to draw false conclusions

is no reason why one should do so as well, even though he is respected.

That he has on occasion erred (other than the Jaina argument) is clear.

Take a few examples:

 

1> In Chapters 2 through 6 of the HDSV (2d Ed.), he offers opinions

about the natures of various canonical sources which is at marked

variance from Madhva's views of them which Dr. Sharma energetically

defends elsewhere (although it may be urged that Dr. Sharma's views are

in line with modern scholarship, it must be admitted that he does not

represent Madhva in these parts). To take one example, " Indian

commentators pledged to the belief in the infallibility of the

Scriptures, have, naturally, assumed that the Upanishads have but one

system to propound, one doctrine to teach. On this assumption, they

have proceeded to unify the divergent and often hopelessly

irreconcilable utterances of the Upanishads into a single system. The

Advaita of Samkara, the Visistadvaita of Ramanuja and the Dvaita of

Madhva, are all the outcome of such attempts... Each one starts with a

pre-established outline before him arrived at by intensive thinking and

correlates the various groups of texts so as to fit in with such an

outline. Each one takes his stand on texts which appear to him to

represent the highest truth (arrived at on grounds of independent

ratiocination and a general view of the texts) and these he tries to

harmonize with those less favorable to his position and explain (away)

the rest which go against his views. _In adopting such a procedure, the

Indian commentators have shown themselves to be makers of `Moksa-sastra'

rather than strict historical interpreters of Indian philosophy._ " (pp.

22-23; emphasis as given).

 

If the previous were granted, then much of Dr. Sharma's own vigorous

opposition to Advaitic and other interpretation of key texts would

become meaningless.

 

2> In his 1932 paper on the Bhagavata, Dr. Sharma says that the

Mahabharata's `kohyanyaH puNDarIkAxAt.h mahAbhAratakR^idbhavet.h' is

false, and because it is, the whole of the Mahabharata is suspect.

While a traditionalist may take umbrage at this vilification of a most

important traditional text (one that Madhva has considered authoritative

in no uncertain terms, and whose same line he has cited in more than one

work as an authority), I am more concerned with the fact that Dr. Sharma

adduces no reasons for why he considers the statement false in the first

place. (Which means that his whole argument falls down on the charge of

`kalpanA-gaurava'.)

 

3> In his 1931 paper on the Mandukya issue, Dr. Sharma alleges that

Gaudapada was a plagiarist for including the verse:

 

na nirodho nachotpattiH na baddho na cha sAdhakaH |

na mumuxurna vai muktaH ityeshhA paramArthatA ||

 

(GK II-32)

 

-- which is called Shruti by Vijnana-bhikshu (who came about 1000 years

later than Gaudapada). A. Venkatasubbiah has shown to my satisfaction

that this conclusion is not well-founded; further, I observe that there

is no evidence that the notions of intellectual property, copyright,

etc., existed in Gaudapada's time, and that in traditional writing,

quote-marks are not used, so that Gaudapada may have had no intention of

claiming that the verse was his own (presumably it was well-known in his

time). Dr. Venkatasubbiah points out that almost the same verse is

found in the Brahma-bindu Upanishad:

 

na nirodho na chotpattirna vandyo na cha shAsanam.h |

na mumuxA na muktishcha ityeshhA paramArthatA ||

 

(one or both texts may have suffered pAThAntara).

 

4> Also in his aforementioned paper and even later, Dr. Sharma says that

the disputed verses of the kArikA/upanishhad.h cannot be the work of

Gaudapada because they are hostile to his theories. This argument is

fallacious for more than one reason. First of all, it does not follow

the outline given by Madhva to determine whether something is Shruti or

not; second, it is clearly the case that Gaudapada did not think so, for

he would not have included a hostile text and added his kArikA-s to it;

third, it complicates the issue and gives it a Dvaita-vs-Advaita hue

which it should not have.

 

If Dr. Sharma were a somewhat younger man, doubtless I would have raised

all these and some other issues I have with his writings, but given his

age and health, I doubt I will ever have the chance to. In connection

with my investigation of the mANDUkya issue, however, I did raise 4> in

correspondence last year, in response to which Dr. Sharma did accept

that his argument did not prove the point he was trying to make. I also

note with some satisfaction that he was completely self-assured and made

no condescending or offensive remarks (he even complimented me and gave

me some important advice), while he could have easily dismissed me as a

mere brat six decades his junior.

 

Regards,

 

Shrisha Rao

 

>Dr. Robert J. Zydenbos

 

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

>Robert Zydenbos <zydenbos

>

>Dear Shrisha Rao,

>

>So sad that you have chosen to persecute me on this list too, after I

have

>given you a chance to retain an appearance of dignity on your own list.

 

Dear Robert Zydenbos:

 

So sad that you seem to have a persecution complex which would suit only

a child or an unformed adult, and that you then choose to flaunt this,

to boot.

 

While it is also touching that you would think to give me a " chance to

retain an appearance of dignity, " etc., this is a substantially

different song than what you sang on a previous occasion, when you

postponed the discussion due to adverse personal circumstances, a reason

whose validity I could readily grant. Now, having not the courage to

admit that you have no concrete answers, you are attempting to paint

yourself as an injured martyr, hoping that your argumentum ad

misericordiam will somehow conceal the lack of a substantive rebuttal.

`xamA shobhatI us bhujang to jisake pAs garal ho, bal ho; usko kyA jo

dantahIn, vishhahIn, vinIt, saral ho?' ityAdeshcha.

 

What, also, is this business of calling the Dvaita list as " my " list?

Perhaps you wish to apply some really fancy or exotic usage, as in the

`ahaM manurabhavaM, suryashcha', etc., of Vamadeva where " I " and such

are used to refer to greater entities. However, out of respect to that

great sage, and because we all love fancy usages, we shall stick to the

otherwise-inaccurate notation.

 

>I

>thought of letting the matter rest there, since you appear not

interested in

>a vaada but in a mere vita.n.daa, on which I do not want to spend my

time.

 

However, you have spent it, so let's carry on nonetheless.

 

Note that vAda requires that both parties agree to a fair disputation

with no ill motives, adjudicated by five to seven fair persons, or more

if available, said persons being those who are well-versed in

shaastra-s, and also requires that the parties agree that the loser

shall forfeit his previous beliefs and become the winner's disciple, and

that if a loser refuses to acknowledge his inability to answer, then he

should be punished severely by the king or preceptor. Are you willing to

enter into a disputation with me on these terms (even if they could be

arranged)? I have no problem, but you might. As such, it might be

argued that it is you who are not interested in doing `vAda'.

 

Also note that vitaNDa requires that the opponent (I in this case) not

seek to establish anything at all, which can hardly be asserted to be

the case. My only concern was that nothing be claimed to be the opinion

of Madhva that was not in conformity with his words. Thus, I was not

randomly criticizing everything, but only making the case for saying

that nothing may be attributed to Madhva in terms of thoughts or

attitudes, when such attribution does violence to his explicit

statements to the contrary. This certainly does not meet the criterion

for calling my position vitaNDa (I can give quotes if you're

interested); however, it is of note that Madhva certainly advocates

using vitaNDa to fight those he considers heretics (you certainly

qualify), and advises one to avoid establishing one's position before

the undeserving. Thus, I would say that while it is not the case that I

am doing vitaNDa, the latter is a valid form of argumentation and is

specifically prescribed by Madhva; that I am extending a greater

courtesy to you than Madhva requires me to, should convince you that I

am no " fundamentalist, " unlike what you have asserted.

 

>I am not demanding that you agree with me on everything I say or write.

But

>you must understand that there is such a thing as objective scholarly

>research along principles that are internationally accepted by the best

>academic institutions. Imaginative religious thinkers, fundamentalists

and

>others do things that partly may agree with such principles, but they

also

>may be doing something else, which may be appreciated by some other

people.

 

" Objective " research should, above all things, have the virtue of

adherence to facts -- it should not attempt to portray anything as fact

that isn't so, and should not attempt to portray as non-fact anything

that is fact. That can be the only " objective " way of research or any

other study. While there may be disputes about what is the correct

conclusion to draw from a given set of facts, or even whether something

asserted by someone is a fact, such disputes should be clearly stated

and not disguised or disregarded.

 

However, does your work merit the claim of objectivity, by this

standard? I think not -- for example, you have suggested that the claim

of Madhva's divinity was made by later followers (rather than he

himself) who were eager to paint their doctrine in a special light, and

you dismiss in a footnote Siauve's claim that this was asserted by

Madhva himself, with the comment that she does not give a reference in

support. (She probably assumed, incorrectly as we now know, that anyone

who set out to seriously study, much less to write about, Madhva and his

doctrine, would find at least one of the several references in his works

like GT, VTVN, AiUpB, ChUpB, BrUpB (twice), TaUpB, KM, KN, MBTN (twice),

BSB, AV, TS, etc.) Even in these degenerate days of the Maadhva

tradition, I doubt that there are any fewer than a thousand people, many

of them lay folk, who could correct you here. Upon this ignorance is

predicated much of your further analysis of the matter, and it could be

asked how such sloppy work can count as " research along principles that

are internationally accepted by the best academic institutions. " A

mistake like that would certainly put paid to a doctoral candidate's

attempt to defend a thesis, and should the poor candidate even get to

the stage of facing such mortification before a thesis committee,

serious questions would certainly be raised about the competence of

his/her advisor as well. *That* is how it is at the " best academic

institutions, " or even at fairly average ones.

 

This of course leads to another point. When Jomo Kenyatta was President

of Kenya, he made it a law that no one else in the country could be

called president of anything. You couldn't be president of your class,

president of a bank or corporation, or president of your local book

club. Kenyatta was the only President, and everyone else had to be

something else.

 

Thus, too, is your attitude towards scholarship; you seem to think that

you are the only scholar around, and that all the others, being mere

plebeians, should thus automatically defer to your opinions on what

constitutes scholarship. However, while the late Kenyatta's style at

least had the virtue that it was enforceable, if not sensible and

humane, your arrogating to yourself the right to preach scholarship has

not even that, and in fact militates against experience. I personally

know that there are people on this very list who are my close friends

and friends of our family, who have doctorates and excellent research

credentials, although they show a sense of decorum and humility in not

choosing to flaunt these; in that respect (and even in others), I can

certainly call them my role models for behavior. In fact, I am hard-put

to think of anyone I know well personally, on this list or even in real

life, who has not been to graduate school at least to get a master's

degree. Quite recently, I myself had the privilege and honor of getting

a fine letter of recommendation from a distinguished researcher at one

of the " best academic institutions, " a Nobel Prize winner (Economics,

1977) even. As such, your pretense to unique scholarship is both

incorrect, given the clear lack thereof, and unjustified, given the

audience to whom you direct yourself.

 

>One main concern of mine in Maadhva studies is to bring the study of

Madhva

>and his school into the mainstream of research in Indology and in

religious

>and philosophical studies. Madhva is great by any standards and

deserves to

>be recognised and studied, also outside the caste ghetto where pundits

have

>kept him for so long. I am convinced that a purely objective study of

Madhva

>is quite enough to establish his lasting place in the history of

thought in

>India.

 

In which case, it behooves you to conduct a purely objective study; one

of the requirements of such objectivity would be the absence of motive.

For example, if one's study of Madhva reveals that he is not-great by a

certain reasonable standard, then that fact should not be disguised or

wished away, nor should one have a fixed preconception of him and

interpret (or disregard) all evidence accordingly. It is more important

that Madhva be clearly understood *as he is*. Whether that lands one in

mainstream Indology or in some mainstream gutter should not be a concern

if one is to remain objective.

 

>One of the basic principles of objective research is that of

>historicity:

 

[*chomp*]

 

Another, rather more important, is that of accuracy, lacking which the

previous becomes suspect.

 

>Indian thought did not begin with Madhva, nor did it end with him. As a

>religious and philosophical thinker he is unthinkable without the

Vaidika

>and Vedaantika history that preceded him.

 

All well; but --

 

>It has also been recognised that

>the Nyaaya school of philosophy has been a major influence in the

>development of what is now commonly (and unfortunately) called

>Dvaita-Vedaanta. This does not mean that Dvaita is a 'Nyaaya

derivative'.

>Nyaaya merely provided conceptual materials that were profitably used

in

>this new school.

 

I submit for your consideration that there is no difference between

being a " derivative " and using someone else's concepts. If a new

school, one that had not previously existed, uses concepts from some

other pre-existing school, then it is, ipso facto, a derivative of that

school. Or put in another way, what I mean when I say derivative is

precisely what you mean when you refer to putting to use another's

concepts.

 

>Now let us turn to the recent postings on the VMS list, in which you

hold a

>grudge against me:

 

[*chomp*]

 

>It seems that you are not familiar with the standards and aims of

academic

>scholarship.

 

And how did you conclude that? Because I don't use my university e-mail

accounts to read this and other " vocational " lists, preferring instead

to use them only for mainstream work and to access forums relating to my

area of study?

 

You may want to note that this EB issue is not even particularly new or

unique; last year we, the volunteers who help maintain and update the

Dvaita Home Page (a group that has a significant intersection with the

VMS membership), had a request for certain information (not even

relating to Madhva or Dvaita) from a fact-checker working for

Microsoft's Encarta online encyclopedia, and were able to direct her to

academic individuals and resources that I'm sure she found helpful.

 

>Have you at all read that article?

 

Yes, of course, and so have a few others by now.

 

>Allow me to quote some of my

>own concluding remarks from it:

>

> " I believe we may assume that Madhva, due either to philosophical

reasons or

>to his own religious experience, was dissatisfied with the

illusionistic

>Hindu thought in his environment and therefore felt the need to

reëstablish

>realism; and with Jaina culture all around him, so to speak, he could

draw

>concepts and a style of philosophizing from that source, to integrate

them

>profitably into his own system. [...] In spite of their similarities, a

>sufficiently large number of differences between Jainism and Dvaita

remain,

>and both merit much greater attention from students of Indian thought. "

>

>I do not think that an unprejudiced reader can infer from this that I

claim

>that Dvaita is a 'Jain derivative'. I have merely pointed out

peculiarities

>in which Madhva differed from previous Vedaantins; I was forced to

notice

>that Jaina authors and Madhva share a number of similar concerns and

that

>Jaina texts prove that Jaina thinkers had already formulated a coherent

>complex of concepts that we also find later in Madhva.

 

A detailed analysis of your article and a response to it will appear in

due course on the Dvaita list and then on the DHP, but in the meanwhile,

I have one quote of a definition from the atheism web's list of logical

fallacies, which applies to your drawing a conclusion about Madhva's

influence from Jainism:

 

" Post hoc ergo propter hoc

 

The fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc occurs when something is

assumed to be the cause of an event merely because it happened before

that event. For example:

 

" The Soviet Union collapsed after instituting state atheism.

Therefore we must avoid atheism for the same reasons. "

 

This is another type of false cause fallacy. "

 

That Jainism occurred before Madhva and has similarities to his thinking

is, ipso facto, no reason to conclude that it was the cause of such

similarities; also --

 

>For further

>philological and historical reasons for why I concluded that Madhva

knew of

>this and made use of this, see the article.

 

Have done so, and the [alleged] similarities of terms (and concepts) in

Jainism and Madhva do not automatically guarantee that the former caused

the latter; it could also be the case that both were commonly caused by

some still-anterior cause (a point Harold Jeffreys makes very well, in

his highly-regarded book, `Scientific Inference'). Anterior causes,

such as the Pancharatra texts (many of them extant, and others known to

have existed) are known, so this point is not merely theoretical. If

you really wish to show influence/causation, then a painstaking

statistical analysis (somewhat similar to has been done for the

authorship issues with Federalist papers and the Book of Mormon)

establishing statistical significance in favor of the assertion is

essential. This would involve drawing up a set of criteria to test

along, doing some number-crunching, and determining whether the results

fulfill the expectations of significance.

 

>The article was first presented

>as a lecture at an international congress in Toronto in 1990, then

published

>in 1991, and the international scholarly community has to date found no

>fault with my findings.

 

Which, of course, bespeaks much of the ignorance of Madhva prevalent in

the international scholarly community, a fact you cannot dispute, vide:

 

>I am happy to say that like other writings of mine

>it has helped draw attention to the existence of Dvaita as an >integral

part of the history of Indian thought.

 

>Now let us return to your

>

>>Well, sir, what should we say? That they're off the rocker for saying

>>that Dvaita was derived from Christianity, when it was actually

derived

>>from Jainism? I'm surprised that you can hold the latter view and yet

>>criticize the former as a " bizarre shortcoming. "

>

>This passage contains more than one error. First of all, I did not say

that

>Dvaita is " derived from Jainism " . This claim, I fear, exists only in

your

>imagination.

 

If you feel that the phrase is an inaccurate summation of your view,

then fine; we'll do away with it. I did not mean to imply anything you

have not actually said. You do, however, appear to indicate a

similarity between Buddhism-->Advaita and Jainism-->Dvaita, so that one

could say " Dvaita is derived from Jainism " in the same fashion as one

says " Advaita is derived from Buddhism. " While orthodox Advaitins may

howl in protest that theirs is a doctrine which is Vedantic, it has been

seriously suggested (by Madhva himself, no less, and also by his

disciples) that this is mere pretense, and/or is irrelevant in the

ultimate context, and that the Vedantic touch is mere flourish intended

to disguise the real thing:

 

avaidikaM mAdhyamikaM nirastaM nirIxya tatpaxa supaxapAtI |

tameva paxaM pratipAduko.asau nyarUrupan.h mArgamihAnurUpam.h ||

 

asatpade asansadasadviviktaM mAyAkhyayA saMvR^itimabhyadhatta |

brahmApyakhaNDaM batashUnyasiddhai prachchhannabauddho.ayamataH

prasiddhaH ||

 

(su. vi., sarga 1)

 

It is conceivable, then, the someone could make a similar objection

against Madhva as has been done against Shankara above. It is not

obvious to me that the opportunity, granted your theory of influence on

Madhva, would be any less, even if you do not yourself do so.

 

>Your second error is to assume that the Encyclopedia Brittanica

>claimed, in that odd entry, that Dvaita is derived from Christianity:

this

>too is an unwarranted extrapolation of yours. They only said something

about

>the person Madhva.

 

What the EB has said is the following:

 

+>Born into a Brahman family, his life in many respects parallels the

+>life of Jesus Christ. Miracles attributed to Christ in the New

+>Testament were also attributed to Madhva; for example, as a youth he

+>was discovered by his parents after a four-day search discoursing

+>learnedly with the priests of Vishnu (Visnu); later, on a pilgrimage

+>to the sacred city of Varanasi (Benares), he is reputed to have

+>walked on water, repeated the miracle of the loaves of bread, calmed

+>rough waters, and become a " fisher of men. " It is suggested that he

+>may have been influenced during his youth by a group of Nestorian

+>Christians who were residing at Kalyanpur.

 

Now, ignoring the obvious mistakes (where is it said that Madhva was

" discovered by his parents after a four-day search " as a youth? He took

sanyAsa before reaching youth), the passage clearly says that Madhva

" may have been influenced " by some group of Christians. Inasmuch as

Madhva's identification of himself as Vayu, the son of Vishnu (which is

an integral part of his doctrine, made obvious by him on many occasions,

and in which S.C. Vasu also, perhaps independently, sees the similarity

with Christ, the son of God) is attributed to such " influence " (why else

would the [alleged] influence even be mentioned in this context?), the

conclusion stands that the people who wrote for the EB have to suggest

(even if they haven't thought this out clearly) that a vital aspect of

Madhva's doctrine was a result of Christian theology.

 

>At least equally serious is your third, logical error:

>that criticising the first stated view implies that the second should

>be criticised too. There is no logical connection between the two.

 

I hope the connection is clear from the obvious. Perhaps your not

knowing that Madhva himself claimed the incarnation was a factor in your

not seeing the connection?

 

>Perhaps you

>could read Madhva's Pramaa.nalak.sa.na with some commentaries, or

>Jayatiirtha's Pramaa.napaddhati, to get a grounding in basic logic:

there

>you can learn about the concept of vyaapti, and how avyaapti leads to

>hetvaabhaasa's, which are a source of impermissable inferences.

 

Actually, I have had the good fortune of being instructed in the PL by a

qualified teacher, to whom I owe (and do try to show) a tremendous

amount of respect and gratitude; I have also studied mathematical logic

in detail at postgraduate level. However, I await your commentary on

the PL to replace Jayatiirtha's, for he has, according to you, said

something not said by Madhva, and has even been guilty of a " logical

error " himself (an unforgivable offense for a commentator upon a text of

logic). Did you have anyone check out these conclusions before putting

them in print? It is a sad state of affairs that the peer-review

process didn't catch these, and doesn't tell me many good things about

the JIP's standards for acceptance.

 

>Your fourth error is that you assume that I am to blame for this

>confusion of yours.

 

And which might that be?

 

>You are again making the same basic errors in which you persisted on

the

>other list. You cannot take matters which are only similar in the most

>superficial manner, draw your own superficial and faulty conclusions

from

>them, foist them upon an imagined enemy like me and then hurl abuse and

>innuendo at me (as you did on the CMS list). This is simply not done in

>decent society.

 

All right, let's call your bluff. Which are the matters which are " only

similar in the most superficial manner, " and so on? I have only

continually insisted that nothing be attributed in terms of thought or

attitude to Madhva which is not in keeping with his own words; I also

showed why saying that he, in quoting, chose only those parts of works

that he liked and rejected all other parts, is not sensible, etc.; in

response, you have continually tried to abuse me in some manner or the

other, have tried to divert the issue to what *I* think or do, and have

whined when I returned your condescension in full measure (which I do

not in the least regret doing). In fact, upon seeing your previous

paragraph, I am reminded of Jayatiirtha's statement:

 

bAhyendriyaM trividham.h | daivaM, AsuraM, madhyamamiti |

tatra yathArthaj~nAnaprachuraM daivam.h | ayathArthaj~nAna-

prachuraM Asuram.h | samaj~nAnasAdanantu madhyamam.h |

 

-- and anyone who may wish to read our previous exchange:

 

http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_24/msg00313.html

http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_24/msg00317.html

http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_25/msg00011.html

http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_25/msg00012.html

http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_25/msg00025.html

http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_25/msg00029.html

 

-- may decide for themselves who fits which category.

 

>(Hence I also d from that list.)

 

Good riddance. I have often been pained at the lack of scholarship on

" my " list (to use your fancy usage), but yours is the kind we can all do

well without.

 

>I do not understand why you insist on doing all this. The straw that

broke

>the camel's back, in the case of your CMS list, was your persistent

>twisting, in what were apparently 'quotes', of not only my words and

ideas

>(as you have demonstrated once again here on the VMS list), but even

the

>words of Madhvacharya, ripped out of context and given new meanings.

 

Oh, really? You have dismissed the traditional scholarship on Madhva as

" the caste ghetto where pundits have kept him for so long, " and have

further alleged that Jayatiirtha has incorrectly commented on Madhva,

and now I'm the one to stand accused of having twisted the words of

Madhva? I dare you to come up with even one sound example where I have

quoted Madhva out of context, or " given new meaning " to his words.

Let's see if you can walk the walk as well as you talk the talk. It's

fortunate for you that this list is not populated by mainstream

Indological scholars; if it were, your reputation would be dirt by now

(if Indologists are anything like serious researchers in other fields).

 

>From this I concluded that (to use terms from Madhva's

>Kathaalak.sa.na) you are not interested in the kind of discussion >that

is known as vaada, but in a mere vita.n.daa, and a very poor one >too. I

do not wish to spend my time on that.

 

[*chomp*]

 

Point already answered. You have failed to come up with any substantial

instance of error on my part, and are simply content to rest your case

with unsubstantiated accusations.

 

Regards,

 

Shrisha Rao

 

P.S. I did not follow you to this list; you're not that important to

me, even in terms of nuisance value. I was here right from the start

(in fact, I was the one who suggested the use of www. to the

founders of the VMS, when the list had to be created because cc'ing

everyone was a hassle).

 

>Dr. Robert J. Zydenbos

[Guest guest]

At 22:02 13.03.99 PST, you wrote:

> " Shrisha Rao " <shrao

 

Just a few more words, since you apparently like this :-) :

 

>What, also, is this business of calling the Dvaita list as " my " list?

>Perhaps you wish to apply some really fancy or exotic usage, as in the

>`ahaM manurabhavaM, suryashcha', etc., of Vamadeva where " I " and such

 

[*chomp* - to use your expression]

 

When one s to the Dvaita List, one receives a text signed with

three names, of which yours is one. That makes it your list too, does it not?

 

>My only concern was that nothing be claimed to be the opinion

>of Madhva that was not in conformity with his words.

 

This sounds simple and straightforward, but in practice it appears to be not

so easy. Students of philology, hermeneutics, semiotics etc. also learn that

it is more easily said than done. In our 'discussion' on your list you wrote:

 

>There is a more obvious explanation for why Madhva did not copy entire

>texts: he had decided, rightly so in my opinion, that copying all of

>texts

>would make his own offerings far too verbose for comfort. You're surely

>aware, having read the VTVN, that Madhva says explicitly in one place

>that

>he is closing a certain discussion as does not wish to make the text too

>lengthy: `granthabahutvaM syAdityevoparamyate'; his taking note of the

>Brahma Suutra's characteristic of being `alpAxaraM asandigdhaM' also

>shows

>that he was concerned with maintaining the same qualities in his own

>right

>as well. Therefore, for instance, he decided that quoting some few

>dozen

>verses from the Brahma Tarka in the VTVN was nice and useful; quoting

>all

>5000 verses of the same (see anuvyAkhyAna 77) would have been

>intolerable

>and not consonant with the flow of the discussion he was trying to

>maintain.

 

Why did you not quote a bit more of Madhva's VTVN? " Ato

'nantado.sadu.s.tatvaat granthabahutva.m syaad ity evoparamyate. Ata.h

sarvapramaa.naviruddhatvaat na abhede ;srutitaatparyam. " Did you *really*

not see that Madhva is not quoting the Brahmatarka or other supportive texts

there (which is what we were talking about -- as the beginning of this quote

from you also shows, for those who have forgotten, or have never seen, what

the discussion was), but recapitulating Advaitin arguments in his own words

in that passage? Your obscure semi-quote maybe looks stylish, but is

irrelevant here. -- I do not believe that this sort of quoting is

" conformity to the words of Madhva " , but something else. Why do you do that?

 

>Thus, too, is your attitude towards scholarship; you seem to think that

>you are the only scholar around,

 

Please...

 

[*chomp*]

 

>A detailed analysis of your article and a response to it will appear in

>due course on the Dvaita list and then on the DHP,

 

It is unfortunate that you are apparently choosing not to follow the course

I suggested, i.e., sending your findings to a reputed international academic

journal, with the evaluation by peers which you mentioned, and a different

reading public waiting to be enlightened. You could have done something

substantial about remedying the general ignorance in the international

academic community which you mentioned. I wonder why you want to post it on

your list instead.

 

>All right, let's call your bluff. Which are the matters which are " only

>similar in the most superficial manner, " and so on?

 

The hypothesis of Christian influence, as in the passage you quoted,

concerns hagiography; the one of Jaina influence concerns ontology and

epistemology. These are quite different issues, and the correctness or

otherwise of the hypotheses is ascertained in different ways. No 'bluff' here.

 

>>words of Madhvacharya, ripped out of context and given new meanings.

>

>Oh, really? [...]

>I dare you to come up with even one sound example where I have

>quoted Madhva out of context, or " given new meaning " to his words.

 

See above (VTVN and 'quoting texts'; that should be simple enough).

 

To finish with, there is one thing that irks me badly:

 

>you

>postponed the discussion due to adverse personal circumstances, a reason

>whose validity I could readily grant. Now, having not the courage to

>admit that you have no concrete answers [*chomp*]

 

Manish Tandon wrote you a *private* message, with a copy ( " cc " ) to me, and

in reaction to that I wrote another *private* message to him (with a " cc " to

you, for the sake of decency), to which you are referring here. In fact the

postponement was indeed due to what happened in the hospital here in Mysore

(you may be pleased to know that things are looking much brighter there

now); but when I later looked at the correspondence again and decided to

cancel the whole thing, other considerations played a role. So again your

argumentation is not really appropriate and seems not prompted by a desire

for finding truth. Besides that, I find it rather indecent that you bring

material from private correspondence into a public quarrel. If I were to

quote in full Tandon's request that you stop these quarrels you have with

people, it would be rather embarrassing for you; but he wrote in private,

and I respect that.

 

Ity anantado.sadu.s.tatvaad vidyutpatrabahutva.m syaad ity evoparamyate. If

already these fairly simple things from you which I have mentioned above and

in previous messages go wrong and fail to convince me that your line of

thought is correct, I suppose that you can imagine that I am insufficiently

motivated to follow you through the more convoluted parts of your messages,

clear away the ad hominem sneers, check all your other quotes too, etc. This

is a pity, since you may be saying wonderful things in between; but I have

to determine my reading priorities. I wish that you would not do all this

and that you would be more modest in your assumptions and expressions.

 

But do be so kind as to let me know when you think that you have refuted

that article of mine (mind you, you will have to do some reading in Jaina

texts too. And please be sure to be methodologically explicit). Better

still, send me a copy of your text (to zydenbos), or perhaps a

URL. I may actually go have a look.

 

All the best,

 

RZ

[Guest guest]

Robert Zydenbos

 

> If I were to

> quote in full Tandon's request that you stop these quarrels you have with

> people, it would be rather embarrassing for you; but he wrote in private,

> and I respect that.

 

Genetlemen I request you to please keep me off this discussion. There is

some reason why I chose to say, whatever little bit I did, in private.

 

regards,

Manish

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 15 Mar 1999 19:36:12 +0500 (GMT+0500) Robert Zydenbos

<zydenbos writes:

>Robert Zydenbos <zydenbos

>

>for finding truth. Besides that, I find it rather indecent that you

>bring

>material from private correspondence into a public quarrel. If I were

>to

>quote in full Tandon's request that you stop these quarrels you have

>with

>people, it would be rather embarrassing for you; but he wrote in

>private,

>and I respect that.

 

There was no need to bring up Manish Tandon's name here on the list. You

say that you don't want to embarass anyone by bringing up private

correspondence on to the list. But in your last sentence above, you are

revealing a great deal about the *private* correspondence. As a matter of

fact, I don't think any of us knew anything about the private

correspondence that took place between the three of you. We happened to

know about it *because* you mentioned about it.

 

Anyway, don't think that we are all trying to persecute you. But you

ought to realise your mistakes too. Shrisha Rao never even mentioned

Manish's name or private correspondence anywhere. You are doing that

unnecessarily and I don't think it is right.

 

Regards

-Nataraj

 

>

>All the best,

>

>RZ

 

_________________

You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.

Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html

or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

[Guest guest]

>Robert Zydenbos <zydenbos

 

>>My only concern was that nothing be claimed to be the opinion

>>of Madhva that was not in conformity with his words.

>

>This sounds simple and straightforward, but in practice it appears to

be not

>so easy. Students of philology, hermeneutics, semiotics etc. also learn

that

>it is more easily said than done. In our 'discussion' on your list you

wrote:

>

>>There is a more obvious explanation for why Madhva did not copy entire

>>texts: he had decided, rightly so in my opinion, that copying all of

>>texts

>>would make his own offerings far too verbose for comfort. You're

surely

>>aware, having read the VTVN, that Madhva says explicitly in one place

>>that

>>he is closing a certain discussion as does not wish to make the text

too

>>lengthy: `granthabahutvaM syAdityevoparamyate'; his taking note of the

>>Brahma Suutra's characteristic of being `alpAxaraM asandigdhaM' also

>>shows

>>that he was concerned with maintaining the same qualities in his own

>>right

>>as well. Therefore, for instance, he decided that quoting some few

>>dozen

>>verses from the Brahma Tarka in the VTVN was nice and useful; quoting

>>all

>>5000 verses of the same (see anuvyAkhyAna 77) would have been

>>intolerable

>>and not consonant with the flow of the discussion he was trying to

>>maintain.

>

>Why did you not quote a bit more of Madhva's VTVN? " Ato

>'nantado.sadu.s.tatvaat granthabahutva.m syaad ity evoparamyate. Ata.h

>sarvapramaa.naviruddhatvaat na abhede ;srutitaatparyam. " Did you

*really*

>not see that Madhva is not quoting the Brahmatarka or other supportive

texts

>there (which is what we were talking about -- as the beginning of this

quote

>from you also shows, for those who have forgotten, or have never seen,

what

>the discussion was), but recapitulating Advaitin arguments in his own

words

>in that passage? Your obscure semi-quote maybe looks stylish, but is

>irrelevant here. -- I do not believe that this sort of quoting is

> " conformity to the words of Madhva " , but something else. Why do you do

that?

 

That's a really strange objection. I was making three points:

 

1> It is generally improper to assume that someone who only quotes part

of a text is rejecting the rest of it. Assuming so would lead to absurd

conclusions even in everyday life, nor can it be that one should be

expected to quote all of referenced works just to be sure. That would

disturb the flow of the discussion.

 

2> Madhva clearly shows that he is interested in keeping his works

brief, and also takes appreciative notice of brevity in other works.

 

3> Madhva has clearly stated that he considers all of the works he was

quoting from as authoritative, so regardless of any other

considerations, it is not to be claimed that he chose only those parts

that he found convenient and rejected the rest.

 

Now, my " obscure semi-quote " possibly " looks stylish " because it is only

concerned with point 2>; for the first point I gave specific arguments,

and for the last the `R^igAdyA bhArataM chaiva' quote, also from the

VTVN, all of which you have taken out, to misinterpret 2>, which had

only to do with Madhva's interest in brevity; I did not say he was being

brief in quoting the Brahma Tarka, but only that he could not be

reasonably expected to quote a 5000-verse work esp. considering that his

total work is less than that length, and also considering that he was

very interested in brevity, as shown by his explicit comment. If I were

to add a new point to what I previously wrote, it would be that Madhva

does quote verses from the Bhagavad Gita, the Mahabharata, and the

Brahma Suutra as well, but not the whole of these works, in the VTVN, so

by similarity, it would be correct to infer that as with these, he did

accept all of other sources he quoted (this inference of course being

only secondary to the explicit `R^igAdyA bhArataM chaiva' statement

which clinches the issue).

 

>>A detailed analysis of your article and a response to it will appear

in

>>due course on the Dvaita list and then on the DHP,

>

>It is unfortunate that you are apparently choosing not to follow the

course

>I suggested, i.e., sending your findings to a reputed international

academic

>journal, with the evaluation by peers which you mentioned, and a

different

>reading public waiting to be enlightened. You could have done something

>substantial about remedying the general ignorance in the international

>academic community which you mentioned. I wonder why you want to post

it on

>your list instead.

 

Thanks for the suggestion, and ultimately the course of action depends

on what Prof. Prahladacharya and others decide is the right course of

action, but speaking for myself, there are several reasons:

 

1> If the journals dealing with South Asian Studies are anything like

the IEEE/ACM/AMS journals, it would take the article a minimum of two

years, and in some cases six or seven, to appear, and I see little

profit or joy in waiting that long.

 

2> Perhaps one way to speed up or shortcut the process might be to

publish in some less-prestigious conference proceeding or such, but at

least until late next year, there is no possibility of my taking time

out to start attending such conferences; indeed, if I had the time,

I'd probably be going to Crypto and other such conferences(which I

have an interest in but which do not deal with my subject in the main)

instead. Conference proceedings also have stiffer length restrictions

& c. which one would be obliged to operate under.

 

3> The Jainism article is fairly low down on my list of priorities

even as concerns Maadhva issues (no offense, but really); if I had to

publish something concerning these, I'd probably choose my survey

article on the mANDUkya issue (which itself, partially completed, has

been hanging fire awaiting the publication of new and revised works of

Dr. Sharma wherein he claims to have shed new light on the issue) for

which most of the research, compilation, and even the writing, are

already done. Perhaps Dr. Hebbar or Prof. Prahladacharya will carry the

baton on this one.

 

4> Believe it or not, I'm in this whole business primarily, or even

solely, for my own gratification (perhaps not gross but refined;

perhaps not immediate but delayed, but even so), and do not really see

myself in the role of some public person, scholar, or educator. I

would chuck without second thought my whole involvement in this list,

" my " list, your list (should you have one), and anyone else's list, if

only I could get back to " the caste ghetto " and learn the traditional

way (or at least as I did previously) from my teacher (antediluvian

values, I know, but what can I say; maybe I took too many walks with my

grandfather at too young an age). All this is but a poor substitute for

the lack of such valued interaction, and has never, at least in my mind,

come anywhere near replacing it. As such, whenever an issue arises, I'm

perhaps more likely than others to make a searching examination for my

own satisfaction and leave it at that.

 

5> Apropos of the previous, even to the extent that I am advised to be

more responsible and less self-centered (Sri Puttige Swamiji certainly

felt so strongly, and so do others whose opinions I regard), I would

still see greater worth and value in serving the community (directly)

to whatever extent I can than in attempting to foray into mainstream

academia on its behalf -- the lack of understanding of the doctrine

among many of its own adherents is certainly a bigger concern than its

lack of fame among a few eggheads in university departments. In this

respect, certainly, it is of more profit to improve the Dvaita Home Page

and list, rather than to publish in journals which lay Maadhva-s almost

never read.

 

6> As a purely practical matter, I seriously doubt whether websites

have lesser reach than academic journals, even among scholars of the

mainstream (I have over the years had responses from a good many

members of the Indology list and even others, for instance, which

would seem to indicate otherwise). Perhaps a few will thumb their

noses at un-reviewed material, but if said material sparks some

interest and curiosity in others, that is enough; there is no

guaranteed that even reviewed material will necessarily win admiration

or acceptance.

 

7> Even to the extent that I have any purely academic interests

deriving from or intersecting with Tattvavaada, I'd rather devote some

time to matters like testing along modern lines the authorship issue

concerning Shankara, the untraceable-sources issue concerning Madhva,

etc. It is a pity that while textual research on the Dead Sea Scrolls

and other Judeo-Christian scriptural literatures has taken great

strides (for instance, now it is scientifically proven to the

satisfaction of everyone but the Mormons, that the Book of Mormon is a

fraud created by someone using the King James version of the Bible as a

guide), there has been no such in case of Vedanta (even as studied

by Indologists of present day). This entire discussion, as many

others, could have taken place several hundred years ago, except for

the fact that it bridged long distances in a gross way. I would like

to have better analyses to show whether Madhva's untraced quotes " bear

his handwriting " as Roque Mesquite suggests, or bear resemblences to

the various genres of works they are said to be quoted from, as

B.N.K. Sharma suggests, than the vague long-hand reasonings of these

scholars. So too with the question of which works are Shankara's and

which not, rather unsatisfactorily dealt with by Hacker, et al.

Finding quotes in works also would be a lot easier if all available

manuscripts (of which there are a lot, most unpublished if not

uncatalogued) were used to prepare machine-readable material, which

could then be used by a fairly crude string-matching program to try to

locate the desired quotes or close matches to them (allowing for

pAThAntara). These sorts of projects are urgently needed, but one

despairs of ever finding qualified people interested in pursuing them

seriously.

 

8> I would also be more interested in attempting to analyze the

traditional material and debates using more modern tools; for

instance, can Madhva's proof for the unauthoredness of Shruti be

expressed as a mathematical proof in the resolution calculus? Or, can

`prAmANyaM cha svata eva, anyathA anavasthAnAt.h' be shown to be a

consequence or corollary of Goedel's first incompleteness theorem?

This sort of thing was briefly discussed on the now-defunct

soc.religion.vaishnava many moons ago, when I briefly proposed a very

mathematically non-rigorous (and thus perhaps incorrect) model of

Tattvavaada as a non-deterministic Turing machine with a black-box

oracle, to try to show that modern ideas about formal systems could be

used to profit in traditional areas as well (in response to a query

about this). Perhaps this sort of method could be explored in detail

to show that a certain philosophical position is as correct as the

Pythagorean theorem, or as wrong as 2+2=3, but again the question is

who would understand it.

 

>>All right, let's call your bluff. Which are the matters which are

" only

>>similar in the most superficial manner, " and so on?

>

>The hypothesis of Christian influence, as in the passage you quoted,

>concerns hagiography; the one of Jaina influence concerns ontology and

>epistemology. These are quite different issues, and the correctness or

>otherwise of the hypotheses is ascertained in different ways. No

'bluff' here.

 

Except that not everyone would agree with you that the resemblances are

" most superficial " even notwithstanding the differences in manner of

derivation, when the end result derived is rather similar, if not

identical.

 

>To finish with, there is one thing that irks me badly:

>

>>you

>>postponed the discussion due to adverse personal circumstances, a

 

[*chomp*]

 

Point already adequately answered by another member, so no need to

repeat. I never even mentioned anyone's name or anything about any

circumstance; any disclosure is solely your doing.

 

This will be my last posting in this thread, no exceptions. I really

don't have the time or the interest to be doing this when there are so

many other valid demands on my time. I also note that people who should

know have said:

 

AchAryopAsanAdyogAttapasA prAj~nasevanAt.h |

vigR^ihyakathanAtkAlAt.h shhaD.hbhirvidyA prapadyate ||

 

(i) By worship of the Acharya,

(ii) by right conduct,

(iii) by austerity,

(iv) by service to one's superiors,

(v) by [listening to] good advice, and

(vi) with time,

-- in these six ways is learning fostered.

 

and:

 

AlasyAnmUrkhasaMyogAdbhayAdroganipIDanAt.h |

atyAshakyAchcha mAnAchcha shhaD.hbhirvidyA vinashyati ||

 

(i) By laziness,

(ii) by the company of fools,

(iii) by [succumbing to] fear,

(iv) by the suffering of illness,

(v) by attempting the impossible, and

(vi) by pride,

-- in these six ways is learning destroyed.

Therefore, it is in my own interest as well, to see that I work to

enhance my learning, and not to destroy what little of it I may have. I

am not in the business of clearing doubts endlessly; ultimately, some

people will either get it or not, and I don't care any way.

 

Before I forget, I would like to advise that as regards the original

topic of this thread, perhaps it would be best to wait until the 3d ed.

of Dr. Sharma's HDSV appears, which should be in a couple of months or

so. He appears to have added a specific article on the

similarity-with-Christianity issue, and perhaps it may offer some useful

insights.

 

Regards,

 

Shrisha Rao

 

>RZ

 

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

Shrisha Rao's rather long and semi-personal explanation about

why he is not likely to take up the task immediately of replying

to the substantive points raised by Dr. Zydenbo's article,

extracts of which I had placed in the list clearly indicates the

appropriate manner in which this matter has to be dealt with in

future. It is very unfortunate that the matter had taken the

shape of a battle of wits and learning at a personal level - the

scholar getting offended at what he considers as an unqualified

upstart asking questions and daring to express opinions contrary

to his own " well studied " views - where as it should be one of

evidence, analysis and logical derivation.

I have discussed the issues with Sri D Prahladacharya, my

teacher and we felt that a proper reply on scholastic lines

needs to be given in appropriate time and in the proper forums.

This will take considerable time as he is extremely busy and

necessarily can not accord a high priority to this specific

project. But, for the special requirements of the Dvaita list

members, it is necssary to state the Dvaita views on the issues

raised by the learned doctor - without getting into detailed

arguments about the conclusion about Jaina influence on

Thathvavada - which has perforce to be dealt with separately. If

some of these arguments are also mentioned in passing, they must

be understood as initial references to be followed by a more

rigorous answer later on.

I believe this would represent a satisfactory end to the matter

for most of us - the lay members of Dvaita list and CMS. The

more esoteric arguments about the infuence of other beliefs on

Dvaita - in particular Jaina, Christian etc would need to be

answered at the levels so graphically described by the learned

doctor. I will make sure that this is done and is also posted on

the list for the gratfication of its members.

NAPSRao

[Guest guest]

Namaskar fellow Madhva-listers,

 

>

>napsrao <napsrao

>

>Dear Friends,

> ...DELETED...

>to his own " well studied " views - where as it should be one of

>evidence, analysis and logical derivation.

 

Hear ! Hear !

 

> ...DELETED...

>project. But, for the special requirements of the Dvaita list

>members, it is necssary to state the Dvaita views on the issues

>raised by the learned doctor - without getting into detailed

 

Indeed we could all learn from such an enterprise...

 

>arguments about the conclusion about Jaina influence on

>Thathvavada - which has perforce to be dealt with separately. If

>some of these arguments are also mentioned in passing, they must

>be understood as initial references to be followed by a more

>rigorous answer later on.

> I believe this would represent a satisfactory end to the matter

>for most of us - the lay members of Dvaita list and CMS. The

>more esoteric arguments about the infuence of other beliefs on

>Dvaita - in particular Jaina, Christian etc would need to be

>answered at the levels so graphically described by the learned

>doctor. I will make sure that this is done and is also posted on

>the list for the gratfication of its members.

>NAPSRao

>

As I mentioned in passing before - why all this fuss about " influence " ?

We should debate this. My own reading of the situation is that there

appears to be (at least) two ways in which the word " influence " is used

and what it implies:

 

1. A is influenced by B is just a euphemism to deny A any originality and

hence A can conveniently be relegated to the sidelines. This implication

pervades the western perception of Indian achievements;philosophy (greek

influence),music (arab/persian influence - I am talking about hindustani

classical music in particular) ...etc. If such an influence cannot be

detected, then it is of no consequence. James Mill's dismisall of " india's

exaggerated claims to anitquity " comes to mind.

 

2. A is influenced by B in the sense Russell being influenced by Wittgenstein

or Einstein being influenced by Mach ... etc. Here no denigration of the

former is being implied.

 

I would not have any quarrell with the the statement Madhva was influenced

by Jain ontology/epistemology... if the second meaning is being used. Such

an influence is only the hall-mark of an open mind. It has been said that

in ancient India, ideas were freely discussed, debated and assimilated into

various systems. From a historical standpoint it could not have been

otherwise. People ans systems do not exist in a vaccuum.

 

Scholars on this list can point out such " influences " with accompanying

" evidence, analysis and logical derivation. " However all of can and should

question such evidence and analysis till issues are resolved with as much

certainty is possible in philosophy, history, and so forth.

 

 

regards,

Shri Kanekal

 

 

 

======================================================================

Shri Kanekal phone: (301)286-6517

Code 696 FAX : (301)286-1648

Goddard Space Flight Center

Greenbelt Road

Greenbelt, MD 20771

======================================================================