Advaitin attacks Madhva

[Guest guest]

Dear Fellow MAdhvas:

 

Enclosed below is a recent Advaitin attack on AcArya Madhva

posted onto the Indology list. I have yet to respond. In the

meanwhile I thought OUR FOLKS need to know how much hatred

there exists for our AcArya. It requires a an iron stomach

even to read it!

 

Regards,

B.N.Hebbar

 

>Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <ramakris

>Sunday, 21 February 1999 3:14

>Re: Advaita-Chandran

>

> [deleted]

>It's well accepted among Indological scholars that though the

>upanishads do not present one consistent system of thought,

sha.nkra's

>writings are closer to what they say. At least the main ones like the

>BRhadAraNyaka. Nakamura has written some penetrating analyses between

>Upanishadic thoughts, early and sha.nkara VedAnta. Similarly it is

>also accepted that Ramanuja's thoughts are closer to that of the

>brahma sUtra-s. Of course, there some dubious " upanishads " quoted by

>AnadatIrtha aka " Madhva " which lend some support to his theories.

> [deleted]

>

>Would you care to elabourate on the " dubious " Upanishads quoted by

>Anandatirtha. Are you saying that he did not use the mainstream

Upanishads

>and only used minor " dubious " ones?

 

 

No, never said that. I only said that the _prima-facie_ interpretation

of upanishhads (early ones) is _closer_ to the interpretation of

sha.nkara and that the _prima-facie_ interpretation of the brahma

sUtras is closer to Ramanuja's interpretation. What I meant by the

statement you quote is that the prima-facie interpretation of

statements in those upanishhads that lend some support to

AnandatIrthas theories are " dubious " . More about this later. He also

quotes early Upanishads, there's no question about that.

 

Some of what I say here is from secondary sources, but I'll try to

give references as much as possible. The name " Madhva " itself is very

interesting. AnandatIrtha, interprets a hymn in the R^igveda to

supposedly refer to 3 incarnations of vAyu: hanumAn, bhIma and a

" Madhva " . The former two are mythological characters and AnandatIrtha

basically identifies himself as Madhva. The sarvadarshana-sangraha

written by mAdhava (identified with vidyAraNya, an advaitin and _not_

madhva!) a junior contemporary of AnandatIrtha (or slightly later)

describes the doxography of various philosophical schools. When he

talks about dvaita he sarcastically refers to " Madhva " as " This

mystery was promulgated by pUrNa-praGYa mandira, who esteemed himself

the third incarnation of vAyu " , page 102, translation by E.B.Cowell.

 

About pramANa-s: The first is from a secondary source and was given to

me by a scholar of Ramanujas philosophy, who is also well read in the

system of sha.nkara and " Madhva " . He pointed out to me one of Madhvas

curious statement. Apparently he says that not only will he quote from

shAstra-s written prior to him and being written now, he'll also quote

from shAstras which will be written in the future!!! Aptly, when he

wants to split sandhi in the chhAndogya statement " AtmAtatvamasi "

(usually given a non-dualist meaning) as AtmA - atattvamasi (Atman,

that thou art NOT) he quotes some weird text called the brahma-tarka!!

In other places he quotes an unknown text called parama-upanishhad! He

quotes many dubious texts and not just upanishhads. When he talks

about the mANDUkya he says it was revealed by vishhNu in the form of a

frog. The text quoted is a verse from garuDa (or nArada, sorry I am

quoting from memory). But Karmarkar in his study of the gauDapAda

kArikas points out that this verse is not to be found in any extant

manuscript of the purANa.

 

One could say that these texts might be lost. Perhaps so in the case

of purANa-s, but it is somewhat curious that the upanishhads like the

parama and other texts like brahma-tarka which he uses in _key_ places

have not been conserved by his school, though they have had an

uninterrupted tradition from the time of AnandatIrtha! appayya dIxita

was a scholar who lived in the 1500s and made contributions to many

fields like philosophy to poetics. He openly accuses AnandatIrtha of

manufacturing upanishhad statements. Now, appayya was an advaitin and

we have to be careful. But appayya was also an " inclusivist "

( " Inclusivism " has been much discussed by Halbfass, Oberhammer et

al. ). Though he wrote a book called rAmAnujamatakhaNDanam criticizing

Ramanuja's philosophy, he also wrote a commentary on one of deshika's

poems on vishhNu. deshika is one of the premier scholars of Ramanuja

sidhhAnta. Thus appayya was an " inclusivist " . But appayya does not

have even one kind word to say about Madhva, so we may take it he

really believed that Madhva manufactured statements from upanishhads.

He hotly disputes at many places Madhva's contention that he was an

incarnation of vAyu.

 

This reference was given by a friend a long time back, I haven't read

the book myself.

 

" V.S. Ghate in the book 'The vedanta, a study of BS with the bhashyas

of Shankara, Ramanuja, Nimbaraka, Madhva, and Vallabha.' compares a

few major suutras. He concludes that Madhva's commentary on

brahmasuutra is not only inadequate, but makes unreasonable and

distorted interpretations of statements, and often gives scriptural

citations of doubtful authority. "

 

Perhaps, that will give some more instances of " dubious " claims. This

all points out to the evolution of what " authoritative " texts are. A

great discussion of evolution of " authoritative statements " by Prof

Aklujkar can be found in

 

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/dhirc/1994-95seminars.html

 

under " Twists and Turns in the Transition from Veda to Vedanta " .

 

Even then Madhva is probably an extreme in the spectrum because he

probably really believed he was an incarnation of vAyu and hence could

" see " upanishhads and other texts which others could not. So, as an

exegite he is very uninteresting since he can quote arbitrary things

as shruti or smR^iti, which he seems to do (by the status of being

vAyu!). But from a philosophical standpoint he is certainly

interesting.

 

Rama

 

PS: BTW, Madhva also claims he read various commentaries on the

bhAgavata purANa, including one by hanumAn! The first example of

anyone quoting hanumAn as an exegite!!

[Guest guest]

Dear Fellow MAdhvas:

 

In some way my humble response to a letter from some advaitin who posted

it on the Indology list. It is not surprising to know how much

hatred there exists for our AcArya. History repeats in some way.

This reminds VidyAdhara's " VyAsatraya Khandana " . A scholar named VidyAdhara

during shri kr^ishna dEva rAya's period sent the above named work through

his king of Kalinga. He gave a specific time limit for vyAsa tIrtha to

respond. All that the work consisted of was how vyAsa had the great support

of Kr^ishna dEva rAya and personal attack on vyAsa. So it had " vyakti

khandana "

instead of " tattva khandana " . vyAsa responded to it right away much ahead

of

the given time limit in the form of " khandana mandana " . This work was sent

back to king of kalinga who made arrangements for personal discussions

between the two scholars. The presumptuous scholar vidyAdhara vanished

without a word and without an address. The king of kalinga conducted a

great

procession for vyasa's work. Of course needless to mention the futile

attempt

of so called scholars to poison vyAsa, as a revenge for their defeat.

 

When arguments fail personal attack commences.

 

>Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <ramakris wrote

> [deleted]

 

>the prima-facie interpretation of

>statements in those upanishhads that lend some support to

>AnandatIrthas theories are " dubious " .

 

If one does not know some thing, call it " dubious " .

 

Trivikrama pandithAchArya (I don't remember his purvaashrama name), who

was a stalwart in advaita philosophy, confronted AnandatIrtha and after

a long debate, was not only graceful enough to accept the defeat, but

transformed into a great devotee and admirer of Achaarya. What he did

not consider as " dubious " , these half-witted people call " dubious " .

 

> The sarvadarshana-sangraha

>written by mAdhava (identified with vidyAraNya, an advaitin and _not_

>madhva!) a junior contemporary of AnandatIrtha (or slightly later)

>describes the doxography of various philosophical schools. When he

>talks about dvaita he sarcastically refers to " Madhva " as " This

>mystery was promulgated by pUrNa-praGYa mandira, who esteemed himself

>the third incarnation of vAyu " , page 102, translation by E.B.Cowell.

 

If one sees through colored glasses, who can help the person as to the

true colors. One has to differentiate between sarcasm and admiration.

 

When vidyAranya encounters jayatIrtha(aka TIkAchArya), after reading

the commentary of TIkaachaarya on Madhva's works not only expressed his

great admiration, but honored jayatIrtha by making him ride on the

elephant.

ShrIkr^ishna dEvaraya who was king of a clan that started from the blessing

and instigation of vidyAranya was an ardent follower of vyAsa who saved

the king from " kuhu " yoga.

 

Also, if one accuses AnandatIrtha of impersonating(or whatever name they

want to give) or saying that he is third incarnation of vAyu, what about

the one who impersonates " brahman " saying every jIva is brahma.

Added to the ridicule, every jIva (who is brahman) is trapped in dreamlike

state of unreality and one day will wake up to a reality !!

 

>he wants to split sandhi in the chhAndogya statement " AtmAtatvamasi "

>(usually given a non-dualist meaning) as AtmA - atattvamasi (Atman,

>that thou art NOT) he quotes some weird text called the brahma-tarka!!

 

Of course non-dualist gives non-dualist meaning only. For a dualist, who

firmly believes in the difference between individual soul and supreme

soul,

" Atman, that thou art not " makes sense as is conveyed in the statement.

For basic grammar, " AtmA + atattvamasi = AtmAtattvamasi " is called

" savarna dIrgha sandhi " .

 

Of all the religions in the world, which one has unique (and strange)

distinction of saying that every soul is supreme soul? What kind of

impersonation is this. Then why pray God even?

 

>In other places he quotes an unknown text called parama-upanishhad! He

>quotes many dubious texts and not just upanishhads. When he talks

>about the mANDUkya he says it was revealed by vishhNu in the form of a

>frog. The text quoted is a verse from garuDa (or nArada, sorry I am

>quoting from memory).

 

mANDUka means frog and that intrepretation must have been there before

madhvAchArya also.

 

>But Karmarkar in his study of the gauDapAda

>kArikas points out that this verse is not to be found in any extant

>manuscript of the purANa.

 

>One could say that these texts might be lost. Perhaps so in the case

>of purANa-s, but it is somewhat curious that the upanishhads like the

>parama and other texts like brahma-tarka which he uses in _key_ places

 

I see a contradiction here. Karmakar searched for the verse in the purAna.

If text can be lost in purAna, is n't there a possibility of loss of that

text. Secondly, If text can be lost in purANa-s, why can't it happen in

case of upanishhads which are more ancient than purANa-s and were not

documented as good as purANa-s.

 

>have not been conserved by his school, though they have had an

>uninterrupted tradition from the time of AnandatIrtha!

 

Has every school (including advaita) preserved all the texts of their

school? I am sure it is not the case.

 

>appayya dIxita was a scholar who lived in the 1500s and made

>contributions to many fields like philosophy to poetics. He openly

>accuses AnandatIrtha of manufacturing upanishhad statements. Now, appayya

>was an advaitin and we have to be careful. But appayya was also an

> " inclusivist " ( " Inclusivism " has been much discussed by Halbfass,

>Oberhammer et al. ). Though he wrote a book called rAmAnujamatakhaNDanam

>criticizing Ramanuja's philosophy, he also wrote a commentary on one

>of deshika's poems on vishhNu. deshika is one of the premier scholars

>of Ramanuja sidhhAnta. Thus appayya was an " inclusivist " .

 

Shouldn't one care whom he includes. With all due respect for him, no

matter

what he says, it has to stand logic. A personal attack is not a solution.

 

>But appayya does not have even one kind word to say about Madhva, so we

>may take it he really believed that Madhva manufactured statements from

>upanishhads. He hotly disputes at many places Madhva's contention that he

>was an incarnation of vAyu.

 

Let them take what they like and may God bless them. If every thing goes by

mere statements that don't stand to any logic, such philosophy will

definitely

crumble.

 

appayya dIxita trained his son yaGYa nArAyaNa dIxita and made him as great

as

himself if not greater. When yaGYa nArAyaNa dIxita wanted to confront shrI

sudhIndra tIrtha, the latter sent his disciple shrI rAghavEndra swamy

(known as

parimaLAchArya) who was much younger than yaGYa nArAyaNa dIxita for the

debate.

This happened before even rAghavEndra swamy was given the Ashrama. He

defeated

yaGYa nArAyaNa dIxita with ease, who gave up all his titles and became

parimaLAchArya's disciple. Of course appayya dIxita did not have the good

fortune

of tasting the scholarly ability of parimaLAchArya.

 

>This reference was given by a friend a long time back, I haven't read

>the book myself.

 

> " V.S. Ghate in the book 'The vedanta, a study of BS with the bhashyas

>of Shankara, Ramanuja, Nimbaraka, Madhva, and Vallabha.' compares a

>few major suutras. He concludes that Madhva's commentary on

>brahmasuutra is not only inadequate, but makes unreasonable and

>distorted interpretations of statements, and often gives scriptural

>citations of doubtful authority. "

 

Firstly, The philosophical discussions are serious and not mere hearsay.

secondly, there will be many sides for any argument and one has to learn

to support them by authoritative sources like vEda-s and not statements

from

some neovEdAntins.

 

>Perhaps, that will give some more instances of " dubious " claims. This

 

Apart from frequent use of word " dubious " , not one instance is given, which

one is dubious. Looks like the essay from the author is all " dubious " .

 

>Even then Madhva is probably an extreme in the spectrum because he

>probably really believed he was an incarnation of vAyu and hence could

> " see " upanishhads and other texts which others could not. So, as an

>exegite he is very uninteresting since he can quote arbitrary things

>as shruti or smR^iti, which he seems to do (by the status of being

>vAyu!). But from a philosophical standpoint he is certainly

>interesting.

 

>Rama

 

As an exegete or otherwise, shankara presented neither interesting

nor sensible, leave alone logical philosophy.

 

>PS: BTW, Madhva also claims he read various commentaries on the

>bhAgavata purANa, including one by hanumAn! The first example of

>anyone quoting hanumAn as an exegite!!

 

Well, don't shankara-s followers believe that shankara is the incarnation

of Lord shiva. And there is one story I heard. Shankara asks one outcast(so

disguised by shiva himself) to step aside and shiva asks which one the body

or the soul (or some thing like that). Shankara realizes the truth and

shiva

appears in real form !!

 

Don't ramanuja's followers believe that he is some incarnation. For

heaven's sake

this personal attack has no sense or basis

 

Regards

Keshava Rao Tadipatri

[Guest guest]

Dear Fellow MAdhvas:

One correction, please. yaGYa ArAyaNa dIxita was the son of gOvinda

dIxita, who was a close associate of appayya dIxita. yaGYa ArAyaNa dIxita

was considered a great scholar by advaitins of his day.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

 

regards

Keshava Rao Tadipatri

[Guest guest]

It will be nice if Sri Keshava Rao Tadipatri posts his response

to where the message from Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian

was originally posted to set the records straight.

 

GV Srinivasan

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:27:57 -0400 Balaji Hebbar <bhebbar

writes:

>>Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <ramakris

>>Sunday, 21 February 1999 3:14

>>Re: Advaita-Chandran

>>

>> [deleted]

>>It's well accepted among Indological scholars that though the

>>upanishads do not present one consistent system of thought,sha.nkra's

>>writings are closer to what they say. At least the main ones like the

>>BRhadAraNyaka. Nakamura has written some penetrating analyses between

>>Upanishadic thoughts, early and sha.nkara VedAnta. Similarly it is

>>also accepted that Ramanuja's thoughts are closer to that of the

>>brahma sUtra-s. Of course, there some dubious " upanishads " quoted by

>>AnadatIrtha aka " Madhva " which lend some support to his theories.

>> [deleted]

 

Let us forget the interpreatations of Ramanuja or Madhva for the time

being. For the sake of argument, let us even assume that all of Madhva's

interpretations are dubious. Let us not even talk about who is an

incarnation of which dEvatha.

Now........How on earth can an advaitin prove that the world is illusory

? Using interpretations of Shankara ? Ten thousand Shankara-s can say

that the world is an illusion but our sAkshi cannot accept it. That the

world is real is experienced directly by the sAkshi and it doesn't matter

who says what.

 

I really don't know how an advaitin's brain works. But according to his

theory, everything is an illusion. Which means Mr. Balasubramian is an

illusion, his brain is an illusion and his posting is also an illusion.

Can any theory be more ridiculous than this ? Just like I read somewhere,

MayAvAda cancels itself.

 

By far the worst aspect of advaita is that it perverts the whole concept

of morality. If everything is an illusion, people can do whatever they

want to. If some perverted man wants to marry his own daughter, what can

an advaitin tell him ? He can't say NO because according to his theory,

it doesn't matter who marries what. If advaitins were honest, they should

first try to resolve these issues among themselves before talking about

whose interpretation is correct and whose is dubious.

 

-Nataraj

 

>Rama

 

_________________

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]

Dear friends,

As an ardent admirer of Acharya Madhva's philosophy, my first

reaction to the vapourings of a so called Advaithin (in my view

he knows neither Dvaita or Advaita) was one of anger and

response to silence the criticism. But a little reflection shows

us, that we should not descend to their level of an intellectual

vaccum coupled with vaingloriousness about one's own knowledge.

I feel therefore, that we should basically ignore this kind of

criticism to put it in the place that it deserves - dustbin.

The " Advaitin " has repeated Sri Appayya Dikshitha's charge

against Madhva of invention of texts to support his doctrine

etc. Sri B N K Sharma has answered it more than amply. The dirt

will stick equally to Sri Sankara, Ramanuja and other great

founders of their schools of philosophy, if we go by the

criteria postulated by the Diskhitha - there is no meaningful

end to this debate. The fact that one had to wait for several

centuries from Acharya Madhva for Advaithins to make this

obvious charge, if they believed in it, speaks volumes about the

spuriousness of its credibility. It is also obvious that

scholars of the caliber of Sri Padmanabha, Narahari and

Thrivikrama would not just accept Acharya Madhva's words

regarding the validity of quoted texts, specially when they were

his opponents and argued vehemently on behalf of Advaita.

Appayya who made such a silly and spurious charge against

Acharya Madhva himeslf had a hard time wtih his contemporary Sri

Vijayeendra Swami, who has written many compositions to destroy

the former's biased conclusions. We can not thus expect him to

have any " kind " words to say about Acharya Madhva. Sri

Vidyaranya who included Thathvavada also in his Sarvadarshana

Samgraha has not made any such charges and on the other hand

considered this school as one of the contending schools in his

view. His non-belief in Madhva being an avathara of Vayu or

Mukhya Prana is quite understandable as he was a confirmed

Advaita enthusiast.

There is also a mischievous quote from Mr. V S Ghate about the

so called

manufacturing of evidence by Madhva. While this opinion of Mr.

Ghate has been answered adequately, let me give an extract of

the Preface of Surendranath Dasgupta in his monumental work - A

History of Indian Philosophy, to put the subject of Acharya

Madhva's school about which the unfortunate Adavithin sees no

merit in the proper light:

" Very little is known about the great controversy bewteen the

eminent followers of the Madhva school of thought and of the

followers of the Sankara school of Vedata. In my opinion Jaya

Tirtha and Vyasa Tirtha present the hgihest dialectical skill in

Indian thought. There is a general belief amongst many that

monism of Sankara presents the final phase of Indian thought.

The realistic and dualistic thought of Samkhya and Yoga had

undergone a compromise with monism both in Puranas and in the

hands of the later writers. But the readers of the present

volume who will be introduced to the philosophy pf Jaya Tirtha

and partcularly of Vyasa Tirtha will realise the strength and

uncompromising impressiveness of the dualistic position. The

logical skill and depth of acute dilaecical thinking shown by

Vyasa Tirtha stands almost unrivalled in the whole field of

Indian thought "

" It is to be hoped that the treatment of the philosophy of

Madhva and his followers undertaken in the present volume will

give new light to students of Indian thought and will present

many new aspects of dialectical logic hitherto undiscovered in

INDIAN or EUROPEAN thought " - capitals mine.

Mr. Dasgupta was neither a Madhva nor did he agree to Acharya

Madhva's conclusions , but he tried to study and be fair in his

comments to all the achools. People with real little knowledge,

an attitude of mind closed to all but the simplest thoughts

acquired more as a inheritance rather than as an independently

derived set of thought conclusions along with a veneer of smug

self satisfaction about themselves would never understand Madhva

- as the latter requires an open mind, some intellectual gifts

and above all an earnestness to seek the truth.

I have no objection to join issue in any forum on the issues

raised, if some one desires it on the points raised.

NAPSRao

[Guest guest]

> " Srinivasan, G V " <SrinivasGV

>

>It will be nice if Sri Keshava Rao Tadipatri posts his response

>to where the message from Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian

>was originally posted to set the records straight.

 

Sorry for the slow response, again. Just catching up. The record was

" set straight " by me last weekend itself, and my response is given

below. The allegations by this same person, and another Advaitin,

provided the motivation for me to re-investigate the

mANDUkya-upanishhad.h issue, which is conclusively settled in Srimad

Acharya's favor (notice that while he says several things, he does not

make the frequent accusation that Srimad Acharya mistook Agama-prakaraNa

verses composed by Gaudapada for verses of the Upanishad). I don't

think we need fret about what someone says about our Acharya. The

biggest threat our society faces is from internal decay and disruption;

the doctrine itself is a force-multiplier par excellence, so that the

reputation of anyone attempting to take it on is not to be insured for

all the gold in the world. As long as we live up to the standards

expected of us and do not give in to earthy tendencies, there is nothing

anyone can do to harm us.

 

On Sun, 28 Feb 1999, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:

 

> No, never said that. I only said that the _prima-facie_ interpretation

> of upanishhads (early ones) is _closer_ to the interpretation of

> sha.nkara and that the _prima-facie_ interpretation of the brahma

> sUtras is closer to Ramanuja's interpretation. What I meant by the

> statement you quote is that the prima-facie interpretation of

> statements in those upanishhads that lend some support to

> AnandatIrthas theories are " dubious " . More about this later. He also

> quotes early Upanishads, there's no question about that.

 

The prima facie interpretation of certain statements in the Upanishads

may

appear closer to that of Shankara, no doubt, but it could hardly be said

that they are consistently so -- for instance, creation is consisently

described in such detail, and Mukhya PraaNa is lauded in several

canonical

Upanishads, yet Shankara has no use for these concepts.

 

> basically identifies himself as Madhva. The sarvadarshana-sangraha

> written by mAdhava (identified with vidyAraNya, an advaitin and _not_

> madhva!) a junior contemporary of AnandatIrtha (or slightly later)

> describes the doxography of various philosophical schools. When he

> talks about dvaita he sarcastically refers to " Madhva " as " This

> mystery was promulgated by pUrNa-praGYa mandira, who esteemed himself

> the third incarnation of vAyu " , page 102, translation by E.B.Cowell.

 

I fear the " sarcasm " and the " mystery " are all the work of the

translator,

and not the original author. I'd be careful about drawing inferences

from

misinformed secondary sources. I have seen the actual text and can

quote

original statements. Although it is without doubt that Sayana's

intention

was ultimately to refute Madhva, there is no overt " sarcasm " to be had,

and he correctly quotes RV I.141-1, etc., as per Madhva's own

statements.

 

> About pramANa-s: The first is from a secondary source and was given to

> me by a scholar of Ramanujas philosophy, who is also well read in the

> system of sha.nkara and " Madhva " . He pointed out to me one of Madhvas

> curious statement. Apparently he says that not only will he quote from

> shAstra-s written prior to him and being written now, he'll also quote

> from shAstras which will be written in the future!!!

 

And where exactly did Madhva say this? Let's be specific, now.

 

> Aptly, when he

> wants to split sandhi in the chhAndogya statement " AtmAtatvamasi "

> (usually given a non-dualist meaning) as AtmA - atattvamasi (Atman,

> that thou art NOT) he quotes some weird text called the brahma-tarka!!

> In other places he quotes an unknown text called parama-upanishhad! He

> quotes many dubious texts and not just upanishhads.

 

However, should you care to note the sarva-darshana-saN^graha you

referred

to above, you would observe that Sayana himself has quoted Madhva's

parama-shruti quotes in support of the latter's interpretation of the

`prapaJNcho yadi vidyeta' verse. Clearly, Sayana had little reservation

about the veracity of the paramopanishhad; Sridhara Swami had none, for

he

quotes it himself. Both the parama-shruti and the brahma-tarka have

been

accepted as Shruti and Smrti respectively by Madhusudana Saraswati,

whose

opinion in this matter cannot be lightly discarded. Several of Madhva's

" dubious texts " have also been quoted by Shankara (for ex.:

paiN^gi-shruti), Sureshvara (for ex.: bhAllaveya-shruti), etc. Last but

not the least, " untraceable " quotes are not wanting in the works of

Shankara, etc., either. I could find a dozen examples without breaking

a

sweat.

 

> When he talks

> about the mANDUkya he says it was revealed by vishhNu in the form of a

> frog. The text quoted is a verse from garuDa (or nArada, sorry I am

> quoting from memory). But Karmarkar in his study of the gauDapAda

> kArikas points out that this verse is not to be found in any extant

> manuscript of the purANa.

 

Not exactly. The original statement in this regard was by the late

Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya, who only said in his 1942 work that he had

been unable to trace the quotes in *printed texts* of the Garuda; this

point was later repeated by R.D. Karmarkar and T.M.P. Mahadevan in 1952

and 1953 respectively, without crediting the original source; also,

Karmarkar, et al. have given a very crass interpretation of Madhva's

statement that the Upanishad was revealed by `maNDUka-rUpI bhagavAn.h --

it can mean bhagavAn.h in the form of the sage maNDUka, rather than

bhagavAn.h in the form of the animal that is called maNDUka. Clear

references to the sage maNDUka exist in the Atharva-veda (not some

untraced quotes by Madhva, but even as commented upon by Sayana), and a

Smrti composition by the same person (called a `shixA') in some 200-odd

verses was published in Lahore in 1921 (a later reprint is in my

possession). Lastly, we must note that there is no obvious explanation

why the Upanishad would be called `mANDUkya', except by way of Madhva's

explanation -- unlike the IshAvAsya, kena, etc., the name cannot be

traced

to its own contents.

 

> One could say that these texts might be lost. Perhaps so in the case

> of purANa-s, but it is somewhat curious that the upanishhads like the

> parama and other texts like brahma-tarka which he uses in _key_ places

> have not been conserved by his school,

 

A valid criticism, but not one that uniquely applies to Madhva's

tradition; others could also be similarly faulted.

 

> " V.S. Ghate in the book 'The vedanta, a study of BS with the bhashyas

> of Shankara, Ramanuja, Nimbaraka, Madhva, and Vallabha.' compares a

> few major suutras. He concludes that Madhva's commentary on

> brahmasuutra is not only inadequate, but makes unreasonable and

> distorted interpretations of statements, and often gives scriptural

> citations of doubtful authority. "

 

Ghate's remarks have been reviewed by B.N.K. Sharma in his `History of

the

Dvaita School', to which attention may be drawn in this regard; a

complete

picture cannot be formed without hearing both sides. I have carte

blanche

from Dr. Sharma to quote his works in any amount, but would like to

avoid

taking advantage of his kind offer; if you have real difficulty laying

hands on the HDSV, I will give highlights of the relevant portion.

 

> Perhaps, that will give some more instances of " dubious " claims. This

> all points out to the evolution of what " authoritative " texts are. A

> great discussion of evolution of " authoritative statements " by Prof

> Aklujkar can be found in

>

> http://www.columbia.edu/cu/dhirc/1994-95seminars.html

>

> under " Twists and Turns in the Transition from Veda to Vedanta " .

 

His analysis is interesting, but at least in his thoughts re the

mANDUkya,

the contents thereof are not beyond dispute. As for the rest, the term

`vedAnta' is interpreted as referring to the Upanishads, or as coming at

the " end of the Vedas, " only by the Advaitic tradition, so his criticism

of that view only applies to them.

 

> Even then Madhva is probably an extreme in the spectrum because he

> probably really believed he was an incarnation of vAyu and hence could

> " see " upanishhads and other texts which others could not. So, as an

> exegite he is very uninteresting since he can quote arbitrary things

> as shruti or smR^iti, which he seems to do (by the status of being

> vAyu!). But from a philosophical standpoint he is certainly

> interesting.

 

It would be as well if you would at least make the effort to stick to

facts and first-hand sources; speculating based on uninformed latter-day

ones is hardly well advised.

 

> PS: BTW, Madhva also claims he read various commentaries on the

> bhAgavata purANa, including one by hanumAn! The first example of

> anyone quoting hanumAn as an exegite!!

 

All right, I'm calling your bluff. Where did Madhva say that? Madhva

did

quote what is said to have been an ancient Pancharatra commentary on the

Bhagavata, called the `tantra-bhAgavata', and this text is also quoted

from by Sridhara Swami and Jiva Goswami. No other full-scale gloss is

referred to, and its authorship is not stated.

 

Regards,

 

Shrisha Rao

 

>GV Srinivasan