Encylcopedia Brittanica- Comments on the life of...

[Guest guest]

Hello everyone,

 

If the VMS list was a TV show, I am sure it would have topped the charts.

Thanks to the spirited 'Vada' or 'Vitanda' depending on ones perspective. I

do however take exception to the discussion turning very personal at times.

Here's just one example.

 

>>>>>>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.<<<<<<

 

Both of them are equally guilty of such insinuations.

 

A more useful thing for us, non scholars-infact mere mortals, would be to

propogate the values and teachings of Madhva at the very least among the

Madhvas. I can safely assume that at some time or the other, many a Madhva

has struggled to, for want of time or easy access to reference materials, been

forced to draw his or her own conclusions derived from the basic tenets of

Madhva's teachings.

 

I think the back and forth discussions such as the one we have been reading

are essential to prevent history from being re-written and in that respect I

agree with Shrisha Rao's point that one should not misinterpret the original,

which told enough number of times might appear as truth.

 

Regards.

 

Ramarao

[Guest guest]

Dr. Zydenbos wrote on 3 Mar 1999

 

>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.

 

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

factually false,

ill-informed, and prejudiced. But I am disgusted by the vulgarly bellicose

superciliousness of Dr. Zydenbos' remarks.

 

When an assertion is made by asking questions regarding the pertinent

subject matter, it can not be called quasi-rational fundamentalism. As a

scholar, Dr. Zydenbos can try to answer the questions without quitting the

list.

Also in the thread of EB discussion this was quite irrelevent.

 

Just as this is a starting point for personal attack in this list,

the following extract from Dr. Zydenbos

 

“In his Sadaacaarasm.rti, Madhva writes that we should bathe daily by

immersing

ourselves in water three times. I hope that you are doing that, Shrisha Rao,

because it seems that in your view this is an eternal law. And in the

K.r.s.naam.rtamahaar.nava, he writes that after seeinga face without the

uurdhvapu.n.dra (which by definition is like acremation ground), one ought

to look at the sun. You must be doing thatall the time! And let's hope that

there's never a cloudy sky, for thenyou may be in deep trouble.”.

 

was a starting point for personal attack in dvaita.list.

 

Again Dr. Zydenbos wrote on 9 Mar 1999

 

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

 

First of all any discussion is not persecution. On the platform of any

philosophical discussion, one has to assert his position.

 

Dr. Zydenbos wrote on 10 Mar 1999

 

>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.

 

In this regard I would like to quote what shri jayatIrtha told about

himself.

 

“na shabdabdau gADhA, na ca nigama carcAsu caturA |

na ca nyAyE prauDhA, na ca vidita vEdyA api vayam |

param shrImatpUrnapramati guru kArunya saraNim |

prapannAmAnyAsmaH, kimapi ca vadaMtO~pi mahatAM ||”

 

which in brief means “We can not fathom the ocean of words of knowledge. We

are not experts in the discussions of vEdAs. We seek the grace of shrI

pUrnaprGYa and subsequent great gurUs.”

 

If tIkAcArya himself says that, we are quite content to be called

laypersons.

 

 

shrI hari vAyu gurubhyO namaH

 

Keshava Rao Tadipatri

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

The foregoing chain of correspondence is a typical example of

uncontrolled discussions straying far away from the original

objective of taking active steps to correct the obviously

erroneous and baseless statements made in the prestigeous Ency.

Britannica. I do hope that VMS will not lose sight of this point

in the polemics of the debate whether Acharya Madhva was

influenced by his environment into adapting many Jain tenets

into his school of Vedanta philosophy.

Coming to the modified subject itself - viz . Jain inflence on

Acharya Madhva, we will again to have to sift the chaff from the

grain - remove all the extraneous matter introduced into the

subject by the contestants. I am really surprised that a scholar

like Dr. Zydenbos, in defendig his own propositions has been

guilty of the following mistakes : 1. He has introduced a

personal element of discussion bordering on lack of good manners

in debate against Shrisha Rao - his adjectives like

" Fundamentalist " , " Character assassination " , " beneath contempt "

and so on. Even in an earlier discussion, I had noted that this

tendency is not conducive to healthy debate. The learned doctor,

for whose sincerity I have great respect should understand the

boomerang effect of such expressions. As I happen to know

Shrisha Rao also very well due to my long association with him,

I am sure that he will respond to courtesy and an intllectually

honest debate rather than name calling or blustering.

2. Shrisha Rao's calling into question Dr. Zydenbos' credentials

in representing the views of the Madhva community to

Encyclopedia Britannica for correcting their entry was justified

in my opinion. His own conclusions that Acharya Madhva was

influenced by Jain concepts was based on very similar specious

reasoning, as the basis given by Ency. Brit. for the influence

of Christianity on Thathvavada. One can have entirely different

views on all these subjects and still be considered as

fairminded - provided one is prepared for a honest to goodness

debate on the issues. The pity of it, is that when questioned

Dr. Zydenbos has taken shelter under three different grounds -

i. Dr. B N K Sharma whom we all respect greatly has said so in

his book decades back. He has not been challenged.

ii. People who question him have no standards of objective

evaluation - presumably only another DR. Z or K can ask such

questions.

iii. His own paper has been published in a respectable journal.

Any objective reader will see the hollowness of these arguments.

If i. is relied on as a basis for accepting the validity of the

conclusion (Aaptha Vakya), Dr. Zydenbos has really not

contributed any original thinking, but has taken some old

published material and contributed an article into a philosophic

journal. If he said this frankly right in the beginning, the

debate would have to be with Dr. Sharma. His flaunting his

impressive philosophic credentials can not also be a defence

against the ORIGINAL point made by Shrisha Rao - about his own

convictions about Jain influence being against the traditional

Madhva beliefs about the absolute originality, pristine purity

and greatness of Acharya Madhva. Thus his credentials continue

to be in doubt.

3. While name calling, Dr. Zydenbos seems to have overlooked a

very important point close to the heart of all Madhvas - who

rightly or wrongly, but sincerely believe him to be an

incarnation of Mukhya Prana, who is like the chief executive of

the universe. If he is ignorant of the repeated claims made by

Madhva himself in his compositions, the famous Harivayusthuthi

writen by a contemporary adversary Shri Thrivikrama which makes

this claim indubitably and which was blessed by Acharya Madhva

himself, by adding the Nakha Sthuthi to it, the statements made

in Sumadhva Vijaya, a contemporary biography etc. it is

excusable, provided he does not claim himself as some one who

has studied Madhva philosophy in depth. In fact, traditionally,

these are all things which are taught to Madhva boys at an early

stage in their life. In the circumstances, one is forced to the

conclusion that Dr. Zydenbos needs to study many of these in

greater depth before commenting on this issue. I have how ever

absolutely no quarrel with him, if he does not beileve any of

these things and says so - there are a lot of such persons in

this world. But he should not try to identify himself as one of

the " Madhva " scholars of conviction.

After having said all this, I feel that perhaps Dr. Zydenbos

means well - he has tried to study Madhva philosophy and has

some ideas of the greatness of Acharya Madhva. Though a born

Madhva and having had some exposure all my life and some

intellectual equipment, I have found that studying Madhva

philosophy is a life time's effort under very competent scholars

- " Thadviddhi pranipaathena pariprashnena sevaya " - and we

realise that we are really dealing with intellectual giants when

we try to study commentaries of Sri Jayatirtha, Sri Vyasatirtha

etc. Thus, it is understandable if at this atage Dr. Zydenbos

should make some mistakes, which would get corrected if he

continues his studies. It should indeed be a bold or ignorant

person who will find that Sri Jayatirtha has made a mistake in

his commentary and goes beyond what his teacher has said. I am

sure answers could be given for such prima-facie doubts by any

competent scholar in Vidyapeeta. Thus I would like to suggest

with all humility and sincerity - let us all follow Shri

Jayatirtha's dictum - Ahamkara khandana shloka in Nyaya Sudha.

" Na shabdadau gadhaa na cha nigamacharchaasu chathuraa

na cha nyaye praudhaa na cha vidithavedyaa api vayam

param Shrimathpurnapramathigurukarunyasaranim

prapannaa maanyaasmah kimapicha vadanthopi mahatham " .

NAPSRao

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

After penning my last message on the subject, which had perforce

to be on general lines, as I was still expecting to receive the

copy of the original article by Dr. Robert j Zydenbos , I have

had the good fortune to be able to read it just now. The earlier

representation by Shrisha Rao and others about the contents of

the article (as distinct from the dsitinctive style of the

Doctor in defending his positions ) appear to be fully in order.

For the benefit of all of us, I am reproducing herewith SOME

quotes from the article which according to me are against Dvaita

tenets. I will also attempt to answer these issues in my future

postings. It may be possible for other well read scholars also

to join me in this effort.

ALL QUOTES FROM THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE :

Para 1.1 - Dvaita Vedanta begins with Madhva in the thirteenth

century : there is no Dvaitin teacher before him, and the only

authoritative texts of the school earlier than the writings of

Madhva are those whch Madhva has classified as Sadaagama viz the

Vedas, the Mahabharatha, the entire corpus of Pancaratragamas,

the original Ramayana and those puranas which are in agreement

with the afore mentioned. To these are also added the

Brahmasuthras of Badarayana, who is Vyasa, the AUTHOR of the

vedas etc. who is an incarnation of the Lord. Thus all these

texts can be considered authoritative, according to Dvaita,

BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL DERIVED FROM THE SAME SOURCE, WHICH IS THE

SOURCE OF ALL TRUTH AND REALITY.

After the Brahmasuthras, the teaching of religious and

phiolosphical truth is taken up by Madhva, whom tradition

considers an incarnation of the god Vayu and who had earlier

incarnated as Bhima and Hanumat. THOUGH THIS IDENTIFICATION OF

MADHVA WITH VAYU AND THE EARLIER INCARNATIONS MERITS A FURTHER

INVESTIGATION ON ACCOUNT OF ITS SYMBOLIC MEANING, IT SEEMS NOT

UNLIKELY THAT IN ASCRIBING A DIVINE NATURE TO MADHVA EARLY

DVAITINS EVINCED AN UNEASY AWARENESS THAT THEIR CREATION OF A

NEW VEDANTIC TRADITION COULD BE FROWNED UPON WITHIN THE

BRAHMINICAL COMMUNITY, AND THE CLAIM OF DIVINITY OF THE FOUNDER

COULD BE SEEN AS A SIGN OF HOW SERIOUS THEY WERE IN PURSUING

THEIR IDEAS.

Certain peculiar teachings of the Madhvas (the followers of

Dvaita, ie of the teachings of Madhva), more particularly

certain aspects of the mythological account of Madhva's life

such as we find it in works like Naryana's Madhvavijaya have in

the past led some researchers to assume that there was a

Christian influence in the formation of the doctrine. ......

Though from a philosophic point of view Christian influence in

Dvaita seems not likely, Dasgupta's argumentation against it is

hardly convincing. OFCOURSE A THINKER WHO WANTS TO BE ACCEPTED

AS A VEDANTIN WILL CLAIM THAT HIS IDEAS ARE DRAWN FROM THE

BRAHMANICAL TRADITION, OR THAT THEY REPRESENT THE ESSENCE OF

VEDIC THOUGHT. ...... THUS THE CLAIM OF A PHILOSOPHICAL

DOCTRINE TO VAIDIKATVA OR ASTIKATVA IS HARDLY A GUARANTEE

AGAINST THE INCORPORATION OF THOUGHTS OF NON-HINDU ORIGIN.

.....................................................................

1.3 This parallelism of views in Dvaita and Jainism acquires

still greater significance when we consider the historical

circumstances in which Dvaita originated. ....

One modern biographer of Madhva states that at the time of

Madhva's birth Jainism was very strong in that region, and he

adds that Anateswara and Candreswara temples in Udupi, which

today are major shrines of the Vaishnava sect which Madhva

founded, once were Jaina temples dedicated to Tirthankaras

Ananthanatha and Candranatha.Also in the later history of Madhva

Vaisnavism we see examples of Madhva-Jain confrontation :

.....................

Whereas Hindu philosophical texts have given much attention to

Buddhist thought and the refutation thereof, Jainism has been

comparitively neglected. ........

Sankara conveniently overlooked that the Syadvada des not say

that opposing predications may be made about the same object

from the same point of view in the selfsame temporal and spatial

circumstances, and so his criticism on this point does not reach

far beyond a more sarcastic stating that Tertium non datur. This

model refutation has been followed by all other Vedantins ever

since.

MADHVA DOES THE SAME IN HIS ANUVYAKHYANA.

............................

What is very striking, however is the amount of space that

Jayatirtha devotes to his discussion of Jainism : in the most

recent edition of the text, this passage is approximately 12

pages long. Also, we must notice that in his description of

Jaina teachings, he reveals a genuine familiarity with them and

presents a more detailed and truthful picture of Jainism than

most vedanta authors do. .......

DVAITIN AUTHORS WHETHER CLASSICAL OR MODERN HAVE NEVER NOTICED

OR ACKNOWLEDGED THIS OBVIOUS SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE TWO SYSTEMS.

1.5 ..........

Prathyaksha is perception and is conceived of as being of seven

kinds ...... . The passage in Pramana Lakshana where this is

mentioned is briefly commented upon by Jayatirtha. BUT THEN

COMES THE SURPRISE. AFTER BRIEFLY SUPPORTING MADHVA'S STATEMENT

THAT PRATHYAKSHA IS SEVEN KINDS, HE CONTINUES: AND THIS IS SAID

NOT TO BE UNIVERSAL. FOR PRATHYAKSHA IS OF FOUR KINDS. .....

THIS IS OF COURSE EXACLY THE SAME KIND OF FOURFOLD DIVISION

WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY COME ACROSS IN OUR DISCUSSION OF KEVALA.

........ HIS STATEMENT THAT PRATHYAKSHA IS OF FOUR KINDS HAS NO

FOUNDATION IN MADHVA'S TEXT. WORSE STILL, IT IS A FLAT

CONTRADICTION. ALSO IT SEEMS THAT HE HAS MADE A LOGICAL

ERROR........ COMMENTING ON JAYATIRTHA, RAGHAVENDRATIRTHA STATES

THAT " THE SEVENFOLDNESS IS NOT CONNECTED WITH ALL SOULS " . ......

THUS THE PROBLEM OF THE SEVEN KINDS OF PRATYAKSHA WHICH ARE FOUR

KINDS REMAINS UNSOLVED.

..................................................................

IN ANY CASE, WHAT JAYATIRTHA TELLS US ABOUT THE JAINA VIEW IS

INCORRECT, AND IT SEEMS THAT A CONTAMINATION HAS TAKEN PLACE, IN

WHICH A DVAITIN TENDENCY TO SEE THREE CATEGORIES HAS ALSO BEEN

ASCRIBED TO THE JAINAS.

BUT ALTHOUGH MORE DETAILED STUDY STILL REMAINS TO BE UNDERTAKEN,

THREE FACTS VIZ : I) THE CLEAR SIMILARITIES BETWEEN JAINISM AND

DVAITA, WHICH BY CONTRAST THEY DO NOT SHARE WITH OTHER SYSTEMS

OF INDIAN THOUGHT,

II) THE GREATER ANTIQUITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THESE IDEAS IN

JAINISM IN COMPARISON WITH DVAITA, AND III) THE HISTORICAL

RELIGIOUS AND PHILOSOPHICAL SITUATION IN WHICH DVAITA

ORIGINATED, ALL SHOW THAT GREAT JAINA INFLUENCE IN THE FORMATION

OF DVAITA IS PRACTICALLY CERTAIN. IN SIX TOPICS VIZ a) taratamya

vis-a-vis bhavyabhavyatva, b) the notion of memory as a valid

source of knowledge, c) the possibility of Prama being

considered as a Pramana as well, d) the two-fold categorisation

of the Dvaiti doctrine of savisesabheda vis-vis Jaina

anekantavada, and f) the concept of Saksin vis-vis the Jaina

theory of the soul, we can clearly discern a Jaina background.

As the article is about 22 pages long, it will not be possible

to reproduce all of it. The arguments produced by Dr. Z to

justify his conclusion that " I believe that we may assume that

Madhva, due either to philosophical reasons or his own religious

experience, was dissatisfied with the illusionistic idealism

that had come to dominate Hindu thought in his environment and

therefore felt the need to reestablish realism.; and with Jaina

culture all around him, so to speak, he could draw concepts and

a style of philosophising from that source, to integrate them

PROFITABLY into his own system. "

ALL CAPITALS MINE FOR EMPHASIS.

A perusal of even the above brief extract let alone, the article

would show that many of the conlusions of Dr. Z would need

intensive debate and discussion from Madhvas like us. The forums

of CMS and Dvaita-list would benefit from that discussion, which

I hope would also be participated by the learned doctor, if he

can spare his valuable time, but without attributing any ill

will to the participants who may differ from him.

NAPSRao

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

One more piece of information , the readers have to look at and

analyse comes right after

" Also, it seems that he(refers to JayatIrtha) has made a logical error. "

It goes like this.

" From what JayatIrtha tells us about the four kinds of kEvala and the four

kinds of pratyaksa.

But if Madhva, and therefore also JayatIrtha, makes a fundamental

distinction between kevala

and anupramANa as two basically different types of pramANa, and the very

same foursome which

has previously been givem as kEvala returns later as a subcategory of

anupramANa, then this

amounts to self-contradiction. Yet JayatIrtha was very firm in this, for we

seek exactly the same thing

happen in his pramANapaddhati, which must be a later wok. " .

 

Regards

Keshava Rao

[Guest guest]

Friends,

With reference to the article by Dr. Zydenbos, I feel that someone

like Prof. Prahladacharya of PPVP can (together with Sri NAPS Rao)

respond in the same forum where the original article appeared. This

would reach a broader audience, and would be the accepted norm in

academic circles. Prof. Prahladacharya also has the credentials (due

to his position in Bangalore University) to have an article

published in an appropriate academic journal.

Just my two cents' worth.

Namaskara..

Mukund