Madhva and influences (was: Encylcopedia Brittanica)

[Guest guest]

I can understand Vasu Murthy's wish that the discussion be stopped, at least

for a while: it is the kind of matter that cannot be decided all at once but

needs some study on the part of all who want to come to grips with it ( I

too would have to go through all the material again which I used when

writing that article, almost ten years ago). But because it seems quite

possible that some people will be thinking about the topic in the days to

come, I would like to add these few more remarks: not points to be taken up

for immediate discussion, but _clarifications_ (so I do not expect any

immediate reactions here. I cannot further react to them quickly anyway,

since I will be travelling across two other continents in the coming weeks).

 

Shri Kanekal has brought up a most important point:

 

> The " spiritual " and " academic "

> aspects can co-exist without either claiming a holier-than-thou attitude.

 

What a few list members seem not to realise is that there is no real ground

for conflict between the " spiritual " and " academic " . While we should be

concerned about objectivity, we must also realise that also _relevance_

matters in a discussion. Let us accept, for a moment, the Jaina influence:

does this affect the religious life of the average Maadhva? Not necessarily,

and probably not. It could have an effect on the average Maadhva believer in

that it could contribute towards a greater mutual appreciation of these

religious groups (Maadhva and Jaina); otherwise, I do not see any probable

effects. In exactly the same way, it is not very relevant for the average

Christian that Christianity has imbibed, e.g., neo-Platonic influences, that

the books of the Bible were probably not all written by the authors to whom

they are ascribed, or that the revelation to John was not a unique text in

its time. All these philological findings have not theologically overthrown

the religion. There is no conflict, since religion is concerned mainly with

values and philology with a limited range of facts.

 

Whether Jaina influence can be traced in Madhva is not so much a matter of

theology or philosophy, but of philology, which has its own ways of

ascertaining things. When the Roman Catholic church condemned Copernicus and

Galilei for their astronomical findings because they were in conflict with

the traditional understanding of a Biblical passage, the church committed

the typical fundamentalist fallacy. Astronomy too has its own ways of

ascertaining things.

 

I was also very relieved seeing Shri Kanekal's following remarks:

 

>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.

 

My opinions are exactly the same, and I also agree with the following:

 

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

>examination. Merely deifying the philosophers is no good.

 

which indicates an attitude different from this (in a message from napsrao):

 

>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.

 

I will not take issue with " greatness " ; I am convinced that Madhva was a

great thinker. But what is " pristine purity " ? As for " absolute originality " :

that is debatable. When is originality " absolute " ? Is this at all possible?

Is it even desirable?

 

With all due respect to tradition, a critical study cannot give prime

importance to what any religious tradition says. It is merely one of several

factors the critical researcher takes into consideration. Philology and

historical study have their own ways of ascertaining matters, and a

religious theological tradition may, or may not, have similar or identical ways.

 

I also want to set right a few misunderstandings in a message from NAPSRao:

 

> ii. People who question him have no standards of objective

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

>questions.

 

(Who is K?) I certainly do not hold any such notion. Actually, I would be

pleased with questionings, provided that they are based on good will. A

discussion also need not have any definite, conclusive outcome that is fully

acceptable by all; certain questions can be settled decisively, others

perhaps not. There should be room for respectful disagreement.

 

One thing that I want to make very clear is that if I say something that

differs from the opinions of others, I say so not out of malice. I cannot

emphasise enough my admiration for Madhvacharya. My initial interest in

Madhva and his tradition was largely inspired by my acquaintances with some

Maadhva individuals in India, whom I greatly appreciate as fine people. So

let it be on record, once and for all, that I intend no disrespect either to

the Acharya or the community as a whole. I had the impression, rightly or

wrongly, that there were some doubts among a few readers about this, and the

following matters should therefore be seen in that light:

 

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

>his book decades back. [...]

 

I am not trying to hide behind Prof. Sharma's back; in fact, as I mentioned

before, I have also questioned one of his assumptions of Jaina influence -

not on the basis of Maadhva texts, but on the basis of Jaina texts, that say

something diametrically opposed to that assumption. Precisely because Prof.

Sharma is so respected, I wanted to bring to the attention of the readers

that if a scholar assumes an external borrowing (e.g., Jaina), this should

not be understood as proof of ill-will or crass stupidity (just as Prof.

Sharma neither has ill-will against Madhva and his tradition, nor is crassly

stupid). That is all.

 

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

 

This is just to make clear that the work that has gone into the paper is not

facetious. The mere fact that it was published, is in itself of course not

an argument that the contents are all perfectly correct.

 

>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

 

No, I was quite aware of this. When I wrote that article, I did not find a

precise reference so quickly; nor was it relevant for my work at the moment.

I mentioned that Siauve mentions it in her book, and that was enough.

 

It is important to realise that to believe that Madhvacharya as an

incarnation of Mukhyapraa.na is an act of faith: people " believe him to be

an incarnation of Mukhya Prana " . This item of faith is just as defensible

(or not) as, for instance, the Christian belief that Jesus is the son of

God. It is a theological matter, and not a question of textual criticism.

The most that an objective textual scholar can do is say: " Maadhvas believe

that (etc.) " . This is just what I have done: please see the article, p. 250.

 

Finally, a request to Nataraj BV:

 

> As far as discussions with modern academicians are concerned, I

>think it is a waste of time.

 

For you perhaps it is, depending on your own aims. But please do not say

things like:

 

>Modern academicians are more worried about

>who is from which University and who has published what paper in which

>journal. In otherwords, their priorities are different. When it comes to

>spiritual issues, modern academicians especially those who are more

>concerned about mundane recognition and achievements, cannot be and

>should not be treated as valid sources of knowledge

 

This is not fair, as I think I have explained above.

 

With this I will bow out for the time being.

 

RZ

 

Dr. Robert J. Zydenbos

Mysore (India)

e-mail zydenbos

[Guest guest]

Friends,

Dr. R. Zydenbos's latest input has substantially helped in

cooling down the atmosphere. I am really glad that he is open to

question even by lay men, possibly towards being convinced the

other way if evidence and arguments support it and that he has

unequivocally stated that he intended no disrespect to Acharya

Madhva or his followers - on the other hand he admires them

greatly. This is all to the good.

A point has been raised that we could have an Academic or

spiritual approach to the matter - where so called academic

conclusions which conflict in essence with spiritual beliefs

could coexist - as mutual disagreements. It is also emphasised

that there are other branches of learning like Philology etc

where " truth " gets determined by its own methods - and the

conclusions there of could be vitally different from almost

axiomatic statements and beliefs based on other sources of

knowledge. The typical example is the age of earth - as

INTERPRETED from Bible - being different in orders of magnitude

from what science tells us. Many of the canards about Hindu

civilisation have been spread by otherwise noble western

scholars, who could not accept that Bible could be wrong. I have

given this example only to show that the other point made by Mr.

Kanekal that any system which decides that there can be no

further examination or debate about itself is essentially a

doomed system.

But there is another aspect to the basic problem. Truth may be

many sided but can not be self contradictory. The theories of

acience also have a short shelf life and new explanations based

on new scientific concepts come up with bewildering rapidity.

Most of us who have crossed fifty are almost totally out of date

with our knowledge, when we look at modern things. Therefore, it

is a relevant question as to how firm are our foundations in

other areas based on which conclusions which affect spiritual

beliefs are being drawn ? The revered scholar - saint Sri

Vidyamanya Teertha had once explained to me that when

Prathyaksha (read sensory observations - extended by science) IN

ITS OWN AREA is in conflict with scriptures, it is the latter

which have to give way - provided that the Prathyaksha is

Pareekshitha - well researched and firm. He was echoing Acharya

Madhva himself who has held that with regard to the reality of

the world - the same is upheld by Sakshi Prathyaksha and can NOT

be overruled by Agama or Anumana - read all valid prathyaksha

knowledge by Upalakshana as being so described.

When we deal with Acharya Madhva's own statements , there are

some very salient features which must be kept in mind.

1. He has always held that all valid sources should be

considered in determining the truth. Not for him , dismissing 90

% of the Vedic literature as Athathvavedaka on various grounds

and the Ithihasa as just illustrative stories. His Mahabharatha

Thathparya Nirnaya is a masterpiece of analysis to show how this

epic contains the essential philosophical truths of the Vedic

religion. His encyclopedeic knowledge, enormous reference base

and incisive analysis has earned him the title of Poornaprajna,

the all knowing. I would be very skeptical of any one who

attribute dishonesty or ignorance by implication to him.

2. According to Madhva himself, all schools of philosophy are

perennial in nature. Thus it is futile to ascribe starting

dates, based on the prophets against whose names the schools are

ascribed as at present. At best one can say that the person

concerned compiled and highlighted the particular religious

system at a point of time. The roots of Ahimsa, considered as

the hall marks of Buddhism or jainism are to be found in the

Vedas. Thus existence of certain tenets in a particular school

similar to another BY ITSELF can not be an argument, that one

came from the other, as there could be a older root for them

both - the link not having found as yet. Acharya Madhva has very

clearly stated (not claimed) that he has revived and restated

the true vedic philosophy. Even the concepts being wrongly

attributed to his name like Vishesha etc are to be found in

older texts which he has quoted - which people who ought to know

better, consider as " manufactured " because they say inconvenient

things.

3. A measure of the philosophically important issues which a

scholar has dealt with is measured by the effort made by him in

considering them and giving his own conslusions there on. An

impartial student of Acharya Madhva or his major disciples would

easily see that Advaita was their main concern and NOT any other

religion which may have temporarily held sway in their time -

Jainism, Islam or even Christianity. There is no doubt that in

those periods, if the objective was to interact with prevalent

religions - we should see far more effects of Islam on Madhva

tenets. In this case at least therefore, there appears to a

basic fallacy that the wide prevalence of another religious

group on their doorstep as it were, should result in

considerable assimilation of its tenets. Similarly detailed

knowledge or superficial similarity in concepts are also

essentially circumstantial in nature and would lead towards the

conclusions only when backed by incontrovertible evidence.

I will respect the wish of the list adminstrator as well as Dr.

Z in not trying to give off the cuff replies to the points made

by the latter. But as and when some points emerge after diligent

study, they will be ciruclated for the information of the List

members.

NAPSRao