Guest guest Posted February 5, 2000 Report Share Posted February 5, 2000 Dear Friends: Since this is both a philosophical as well as a current religious issue, I posting this on both lists. kindest regards to all, Hari-vAyu smaraNa, B.N.Hebbar PAN.D.ITAACAARYA TRIVIKRAMA PEJATTAAYA: Why we MAdhvas ought not to harp too much about the defeat of PaNDitAcArya Trivikrama PejattAya? There is a almost innate tendency among us MAdhvas, scholars and lay folks alike, to harp on the victory of our beloved shrImadAcArya over the Advaitic savant, PaNDitAcArya Trivikrama PejattAya. This, I believe, is not going to do us any good in the long run and has even started in a small way to already backfire on us. Let us examine this point calmly and collectedly. To assess the above, we must ask ourselves firstly, who PaNDitAcArya Trivikrama PejattAya was? PaNDitAcArya Trivikrama PejattAya (1258-1320 AD) was the oldest of three sons of PaNDitAcArya SubrahmaNya PejattAya of the AngIrasa gotra who hailed from KAvugoLi, near KAsaragoD (now in KeraLa). Like shrimadAcArya, he was a TauLava (shivaLLi) brahmin by birth and was a person of great erudition. He spent the major part of his career as the chief minister to Jayasimha II, the ruler of Kumbla (now in KeraLa). His younger brother, Shankara PejattAya, was shrImadAcArya's librarian. It is from him that PaNDitAcArya Trivikrama was able to obtain many works of shrImadAcArya and acquaint himself with the latter's refreshingly novel interpretations of the Hindu sacred lore. It was PaNDitAcArya Trivikrama's third and youngest son, PaNDitAcArya Kavikulatilaka nArAyaNa PejattAya who eventually became shrImadAcArya's biographer by virtue of his belles lettres of 16 cantos, i.e. the Sumadhvavijaya. PaNDitAcArya Trivikrama was a staunch Advaitin by conviction and had mastered the polemical works of Advaita VedAnta well. Roughly around 1300 AD, he got his final chance to come face to face with his arch foe at the temple of ViShNumangaLam (now in KeraLa). There, a 15-day intellectual tournament ensued (something that has become legendary in the Madhvite circles) between Trivikrama PaNDita and shrImadAcArya in which the former is supposed to have been soundly beaten. Anyway, his conversion marked a red-numbered date in the history of Madhvaism as more people converted (in TuLunAD) to the new faith than at any other point in shrImadAcArya's spiritual career. Trivikrama PaNDita wrote two major works after his conversion, the TattvapadIpa (a running and discursive yet lucid gloss on shrImadAcArya's BrahmasUtrabhAShya), and the uShAharaNa, a poem of nine cantos covering in range from the birth of Our Lord, shrIkRShNa, to the ultimate alliance of uShA (the daughter of BANAsura) and Aniruddha (the grandson of Our Lord). Among the minor works of PaNDitAcArya Trivikrama are, the narasimhastuti, the ViShNustuti and the most famous of them all the VAyustuti (later renamed as the " shrIharivAyustuti " by shrImadAcArya after appending the nRsimhanakhastuti to it). Given all this glory associated with Trivikrama PaNDitAcArya, why then should we MAdhvas " hold our horses " when brandishing the dialectical superiority of our faith over the rival Advaita. The reasons are many. 1. Everyone of shrImadAcArya's chief and erudite converts, viz. Shobana BhaTTa (PadmanAbha TIrtha), SvAmI shAstrI (Narahari TIrtha), ViShNu shAstrI (MAdhava TIrtha), Govinda shAstrI (AkShobhya TIrtha) and PaNDitAcArya Trivikrama though extremely well-versed scholars were by no means " bigwigs " of Advaita. They were certainly not of the order of Sureshvara, VimuktAtmA, shrIharSha, Citsukha, VidyAraNya, MadhusUdana SarasvatI or Appayya DIxita. The names of shrImadAcArya's scholarly Advaitic converts do not even " ring a bell " leave alone " touch a raw nerve " among our contemporary Advaita savants. The first question that is asked by them is " who in heaven's name are these people (meaning Trivikrama PaNDita, Shobana BhaTTa etc.) ? There is nothing in the Advaitic historical annals either at the SRngeri or at the KAn~chI apostolic seats to prove that these folks were worth any metal (from an Advaitic viewpoint). They never wrote any works, much less works of solid scholarship upholding Advaita (PRIOR to their conversion). As far as we are concerned, they are a bunch of nobodies who probably already harbored secretly a rebellious attitude toward Advaita and who were just waiting for a catalyst like Madhva to come along and offer a dissenting opinion on the interpretations of the Holy Writ. " These are certainly serious issues to consider from our side, if we are to be taken seriously by the other side. We ought to put our heads together through research and other means to carefully construct a well-thought out scholarly rebuttal of the above instead of some haphazard emotional " gung-ho " response. 2. In light of the above, it would be certainly well-worth our while to investigate things like the details of the 32 mistakes pointed out by shrImadAcArya in the iShTasiddhi of VimuktAtmA as well as investigate historically, archeologically and philosophically the veracity and details of the VidyAraNya-Axobhya TIrtha debate at MuLubAgil since VidyAraNya is a name to be reckoned with in the Advaitic scholarly circles, as he was no less a person than someone who occupied the pontifical post at SRngeri (the CaturotkRShTa even among the 4 pre-eminent Pontificates of the Advaitins). If anything were of come of this, then, we MAdhvas would have some really solid ammunition in our favor here. 3. MahAmahopAdhyAya PaNDitaratna Bannanje Govindacharya too, has often expressed to me that Trivikrama PaNDitAcArya converted to ShrImadAcArya's fold, not because the former was intellectually " done in " by our beloved AcArya, but that the PaNDitAcArya was just overwhelmed by the extra-ordinary personality of shrImadAcArya. In short, it was more of a charismatic conversion rather than a " debate and defeat " conversion. 4. ParampUjya Guruji Govindacharya's point is further confirmed by the fact that not all TuLu brahmins are MADhvas!!! There is still a considerable section of the TauLava shivaLLi brahmins who are firmly in the SmArta-BhAgavata-Advaitic fold (like the famous TyAgarAja of TiruvArUr, TamilnAD). In fact, they are numerous enough to be governed by two maThas, i.e. the EDanIr and the BALakudru MaThas. (The EDanIr MaTha is located in KAsaragoDu, not too far from Trivikrama PaNDitAcArya's ancestral home!). Wearing UrdhvapuNDra gopIcandana in the morning and tripuNDra bhasma in the evenings and preaching the Advaita doctrines, the pontiffs of these TauLava SmArta maThas are well-liked and respected by ALL TauLavas regardless of their ideological allegience. Many a times, the pontiffs of these maThas have visited uDupi at the invitation of the incumbent paryAya svAmin, performed their paTTada-devaru pUjAs in the CandrashAlA and have been invited into the sanctum sanctorum (garbha gRha) of Madhvaism's holiest shrine, the shrI-KRShNa temple at uDupi during MahApUjA!!! In fact, shrI VyAsAchArya (pUrvAshrama step-brother of HH shirUr svAmIjI, erstwhile " divAn " of the shIrUr and Sode MaThas and a good friend of mine) who is also otherwise a staunch MAdhva, once told me " they (TauLava SmArtas) our own people, how can we treat them any differently. " This, coming from an important pontifically-affiliated source like him, clearly shows that bare ideological views divorced from the historical, sociological and regional considerations remain precisely that, i.e. a bare, bookish and unrealistic ideology. All this is indeed something very pertinent for all of us to ponder on, given the condition of our own cosmopolitan times. Responsible replies, criticisms and comments to the above are most welcome. regards, Hari-vAyu smaraNa, B.N.Hebbar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2000 Report Share Posted February 5, 2000 namaskaara: i am very glad that the newly created list (vms-philosophy) has a good subscription count and is well accepted. to make the life of list maintainers easy, i would like to propose to our learned members that they 'post each article' only to one particular list and not to both (please avoid cross-posting). to ease your decision making (as to which list to post to), here are some tips: 1. all members on the vms-philosophy are on the list. so duplication is wastage of precious resources. 2. if the article is informational only (not kindling any discussions) it can go to list. 3. if the article involves or invokes a lot of discussion, vms-philosophy is the best candidate. 4. if the learned members want to have discussion on an article _already_ posted on the , please carry it to vms-philosophy list. i hope these points will help all our members. please let me know if any of you have any concerns. naaraayaNa smaraNam. -- shrIyaH patye nityAgaNitaguNamANikyavishada- prabhAjAlollAsopahatasakalavadyatamase | jagajjanmasthema pralayarachanAshIlavapuShe namo.asheShAmnAya smR^iti hR^idayadIptAya haraye || -- --- Balaji Hebbar <bhebbar wrote: > Dear Friends: > > Since this is both a philosophical as well as a current > religious issue, I posting this on both lists. > > kindest regards to all, > Hari-vAyu smaraNa, > B.N.Hebbar > > <<<DELETED>>> Talk to your friends online with Messenger. http://im. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2000 Report Share Posted February 6, 2000 Dear Sudhindra: Thank you for clarifying the guidelines. I apologize for the double-posting. You can be rest assured that it will not happen again from my side. regards, Hebbar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2000 Report Share Posted February 6, 2000 Dear Sri Hebbar, , ''Sri Trivikrama Panditacharya(TP), Subramanya panditacharya(SP),Narayana Panditacharya(NP) are foremost among the 'Grihastas' of Tulunadu who made extraordinary contribution to Acharya Madhva's Philosophy'- Bannaje Govindacharya in 'Pejavara Prashasthi- page 13 published on the occassion of sri Pejavar Shri's taking over this year's Pariyaya. From NP's narration of Shri TP's early life in sholka 43-58 of Canto 13 of SMA, we can draw the foll conclusions: TP's father, SP was himself a great scholar and poet respected by all 'vadi's', i.escholars who could participate in philosophical discussions in his days. TP had shown poetic abilities even from childhood- Shloka 47. He wrote " Uhsa Harana " possibly when he was a boy or at a very young age ( shloka 48 and 50) ( and not after he was defeatedby Shri Madhva as stated by you). He had his own doubts regarding the relevance of Mayavada inspite of his extraordinatry scholarship (shloka 51). We may therefore conclude that he might not have written any work on advaita as he had his own doubts. The fact that Pundarikapuri was defeated by Shri by Shri Madhva and had run away from the dias along with his followers as stated in the last few verses of Tatvojyota ( which does not seem to have been refuted by any advaitic scholars of that day) and TP entered the scene after that shows that he was a scholar of high merit in advaitic circles of the day. It is also significant that after TP's defeat, no advaitic scholar appears to have challenged Shri Madhva.. It is also significant that no advaitic scholar of MADHVA'S DAYS WROTE ANY WORK CHALLENGING HIS TATVAVADA. If any such work was written, it would have been extolled by advaitins . Even after SMV was written by NP no contemporary advaitic scholar wrote any work of significance challenging either the Tatvavada of Madhva or the crticisms of advaita in SMV. Infac, Shri Madhva was fast spreading his doctrines of Hari Sarvottamatva and many advaitins were getting converted, even before TP was defeated ( ex: ShobanaBhatta and others) and TP's defeat would have only added an extra magnitude to it. It is significant to note that it took at least a century or more before the adviata scholars could produce any significant work challenging tatvavada after Madva's days. Possiblythe first significant reply to Acharya'scriticism of Advaita came only from Nrisimhashrama, who was at least 150 years later than Madhva. All others like Madusudhana Saraswati and Appiah Dikshita came at least 3 centuries later.This point has been dealt with by Dr.BNK Sharma in his preface to his work 'Advaita siddhiv vs Nyayamrita :a critical reappraisal' . Therefore we may conclude that the statement that TP was not a siginificant scholar of advaita in his days is not correct. Likewise, it cannot be said that TP was just taken aback by the personality of Shri Madhva and got himself converted to Vaishnavism of Madhva.None can discard NP's statement that TP argued with Madhava for 15 days even taking that his writing in SMV has an element of exaggeration. So, there is every reason for Madhvas to give great credence to the defeat of TP by Sri Madhva and TP embracing his philosophy. If still Shobhana Bhatta,and Trivikrama Panditacharya are not to be treated as 'bigwigs' of Advaita, the question remains if there were no other 'bigwigs' of Advaita in the days of Madhva and whether they kept quiet even when he was making an onslaught on the Advaita using such words as 'hEyam mayamatam shubhia:h With regards, Bannur.R Balaji Hebbar <bhebbar wrote: Balaji Hebbar <bhebbar Dear Friends: Since this is both a philosophical as well as a current religious issue, I posting this on both lists. kindest regards to all, Hari-vAyu smaraNa, B.N.Hebbar PAN.D.ITAACAARYA TRIVIKRAMA PEJATTAAYA: Why we MAdhvas ought not to harp too much about the defeat of PaNDitAcArya Trivikrama PejattAya? There is a almost innate tendency among us MAdhvas, scholars and lay folks alike, to harp on the victory of our beloved shrImadAcArya over the Advaitic savant, PaNDitAcArya Trivikrama PejattAya. This, I believe, is not going to do us any good in the long run and has even started in a small way to already backfire on us. Let us examine this point calmly and collectedly. To assess the above, we must ask ourselves firstly, who PaNDitAcArya Trivikrama PejattAya was? PaNDitAcArya Trivikrama PejattAya (1258-1320 AD) was the oldest of three sons of PaNDitAcArya SubrahmaNya PejattAya of the AngIrasa gotra who hailed from KAvugoLi, near KAsaragoD (now in KeraLa). Like shrimadAcArya, he was a TauLava (shivaLLi) brahmin by birth and was a person of great erudition. He spent the major part of his career as the chief minister to Jayasimha II, the ruler of Kumbla (now in KeraLa). His younger brother, Shankara PejattAya, was shrImadAcArya's librarian. It is from him that PaNDitAcArya Trivikrama was able to obtain many works of shrImadAcArya and acquaint himself with the latter's refreshingly novel interpretations of the Hindu sacred lore. It was PaNDitAcArya Trivikrama's third and youngest son, PaNDitAcArya Kavikulatilaka nArAyaNa PejattAya who eventually became shrImadAcArya's biographer by virtue of his belles lettres of 16 cantos, i.e. the Sumadhvavijaya. PaNDitAcArya Trivikrama was a staunch Advaitin by conviction and had mastered the polemical works of Advaita VedAnta well. Roughly around 1300 AD, he got his final chance to come face to face with his arch foe at the temple of ViShNumangaLam (now in KeraLa). There, a 15-day intellectual tournament ensued (something that has become legendary in the Madhvite circles) between Trivikrama PaNDita and shrImadAcArya in which the former is supposed to have been soundly beaten. Anyway, his conversion marked a red-numbered date in the history of Madhvaism as more people converted (in TuLunAD) to the new faith than at any other point in shrImadAcArya's spiritual career. Trivikrama PaNDita wrote two major works after his conversion, the TattvapadIpa (a running and discursive yet lucid gloss on shrImadAcArya's BrahmasUtrabhAShya), and the uShAharaNa, a poem of nine cantos covering in range from the birth of Our Lord, shrIkRShNa, to the ultimate alliance of uShA (the daughter of BANAsura) and Aniruddha (the grandson of Our Lord). Among the minor works of PaNDitAcArya Trivikrama are, the narasimhastuti, the ViShNustuti and the most famous of them all the VAyustuti (later renamed as the " shrIharivAyustuti " by shrImadAcArya after appending the nRsimhanakhastuti to it). Given all this glory associated with Trivikrama PaNDitAcArya, why then should we MAdhvas " hold our horses " when brandishing the dialectical superiority of our faith over the rival Advaita. The reasons are many. 1. Everyone of shrImadAcArya's chief and erudite converts, viz. Shobana BhaTTa (PadmanAbha TIrtha), SvAmI shAstrI (Narahari TIrtha), ViShNu shAstrI (MAdhava TIrtha), Govinda shAstrI (AkShobhya TIrtha) and PaNDitAcArya Trivikrama though extremely well-versed scholars were by no means " bigwigs " of Advaita. They were certainly not of the order of Sureshvara, VimuktAtmA, shrIharSha, Citsukha, VidyAraNya, MadhusUdana SarasvatI or Appayya DIxita. The names of shrImadAcArya's scholarly Advaitic converts do not even " ring a bell " leave alone " touch a raw nerve " among our contemporary Advaita savants. The first question that is asked by them is " who in heaven's name are these people (meaning Trivikrama PaNDita, Shobana BhaTTa etc.) ? There is nothing in the Advaitic historical annals either at the SRngeri or at the KAn~chI apostolic seats to prove that these folks were worth any metal (from an Advaitic viewpoint). They never wrote any works, much less works of solid scholarship upholding Advaita (PRIOR to their conversion). As far as we are concerned, they are a bunch of nobodies who probably already harbored secretly a rebellious attitude toward Advaita and who were just waiting for a catalyst like Madhva to come along and offer a dissenting opinion on the interpretations of the Holy Writ. " These are certainly serious issues to consider from our side, if we are to be taken seriously by the other side. We ought to put our heads together through research and other means to carefully construct a well-thought out scholarly rebuttal of the above instead of some haphazard emotional " gung-ho " response. 2. In light of the above, it would be certainly well-worth our while to investigate things like the details of the 32 mistakes pointed out by shrImadAcArya in the iShTasiddhi of VimuktAtmA as well as investigate historically, archeologically and philosophically the veracity and details of the VidyAraNya-Axobhya TIrtha debate at MuLubAgil since VidyAraNya is a name to be reckoned with in the Advaitic scholarly circles, as he was no less a person than someone who occupied the pontifical post at SRngeri (the CaturotkRShTa even among the 4 pre-eminent Pontificates of the Advaitins). If anything were of come of this, then, we MAdhvas would have some really solid ammunition in our favor here. 3. MahAmahopAdhyAya PaNDitaratna Bannanje Govindacharya too, has often expressed to me that Trivikrama PaNDitAcArya converted to ShrImadAcArya's fold, not because the former was intellectually " done in " by our beloved AcArya, but that the PaNDitAcArya was just overwhelmed by the extra-ordinary personality of shrImadAcArya. In short, it was more of a charismatic conversion rather than a " debate and defeat " conversion. 4. ParampUjya Guruji Govindacharya's point is further confirmed by the fact that not all TuLu brahmins are MADhvas!!! There is still a considerable section of the TauLava shivaLLi brahmins who are firmly in the SmArta-BhAgavata-Advaitic fold (like the famous TyAgarAja of TiruvArUr, TamilnAD). In fact, they are numerous enough to be governed by two maThas, i.e. the EDanIr and the BALakudru MaThas. (The EDanIr MaTha is located in KAsaragoDu, not too far from Trivikrama PaNDitAcArya's ancestral home!). Wearing UrdhvapuNDra gopIcandana in the morning and tripuNDra bhasma in the evenings and preaching the Advaita doctrines, the pontiffs of these TauLava SmArta maThas are well-liked and respected by ALL TauLavas regardless of their ideological allegience. Many a times, the pontiffs of these maThas have visited uDupi at the invitation of the incumbent paryAya svAmin, performed their paTTada-devaru pUjAs in the CandrashAlA and have been invited into the sanctum sanctorum (garbha gRha) of Madhvaism's holiest shrine, the shrI-KRShNa temple at uDupi during MahApUjA!!! In fact, shrI VyAsAchArya (pUrvAshrama step-brother of HH shirUr svAmIjI, erstwhile " divAn " of the shIrUr and Sode MaThas and a good friend of mine) who is also otherwise a staunch MAdhva, once told me " they (TauLava SmArtas) our own people, how can we treat them any differently. " This, coming from an important pontifically-affiliated source like him, clearly shows that bare ideological views divorced from the historical, sociological and regional considerations remain precisely that, i.e. a bare, bookish and unrealistic ideology. All this is indeed something very pertinent for all of us to ponder on, given the condition of our own cosmopolitan times. Responsible replies, criticisms and comments to the above are most welcome. regards, Hari-vAyu smaraNa, B.N.Hebbar Please click above to support our sponsor nAham kartA hariH kartA tatpUjA karmachaakhilam.h| taThaapi matkR^itaa pUja tatprasaadhEna naanyaThaa| tadbhakti tadphalam.h mahyam.h tatprasaadaat.h punaH punaH | karmanyaasO harAvevam.h vishNOsthR^iptikaraH sadhA || " I am not the doer, shri Hari is the doer, all the actions that I do are His worship. Even then, the worship I do is through His grace and not otherwise. That devotion and the fruits of the actions that come to me are due to His recurring grace " If one always practices to do actions with a dedicated spirit to Hari, in this way, it pleases Vishnu. --- Quoted by Sri madhvAchArya in GitA tAtparya To send an empty E-mail (without subject and body info.) to - or go the web page /community/ Talk to your friends online with Messenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2000 Report Share Posted February 9, 2000 Friends, A great deal has been said already on the subject. I was some what doubtful if I should say some thing at all, at the closing stage of the debate. But I have felt that some thing does need to be said on one or two specific issues to put the matter in proper perspective. 1. Let me quote a posting from Mr. Hebbar first : MahAmahopAdhyAya PaNDitaratna Bannanje Govindacharya too, has often expressed to me that Trivikrama PaNDitAcArya converted to ShrImadAcArya's fold, not because the former was intellectually " done in " by our beloved AcArya, but that the PaNDitAcArya was just overwhelmed by the extra-ordinary personality of shrImadAcArya. In short, it was more of a charismatic conversion rather than a " debate and defeat " conversion. 4. ParampUjya Guruji Govindacharya's point is further confirmed by the fact that not all TuLu brahmins are MADhvas!!! There is still a considerable section of the TauLava shivaLLi brahmins who are firmly in the SmArta-BhAgavata-Advaitic fold (like the famous TyAgarAja of TiruvArUr, TamilnAD). In fact, they are numerous enough to be governed by two maThas, i.e. the EDanIr and the BALakudru MaThas. (The EDanIr MaTha is located in KAsaragoDu, not too far from Trivikrama PaNDitAcArya's ancestral home!). Wearing UrdhvapuNDra gopIcandana in the morning and tripuNDra bhasma in the evenings and preaching the Advaita doctrines, the pontiffs of these TauLava SmArta maThas are well-liked and respected by ALL TauLavas regardless of their ideological allegience. Many a times, the pontiffs of these maThas have visited uDupi at the invitation of the incumbent paryAya svAmin, performed their paTTada-devaru pUjAs in the CandrashAlA and have been invited into the sanctum sanctorum (garbha gRha) of Madhvaism's holiest shrine, the shrI-KRShNa temple at uDupi during MahApUjA!!! In fact, shrI VyAsAchArya (pUrvAshrama step-brother of HH shirUr svAmIjI, erstwhile " divAn " of the shIrUr and Sode MaThas and a good friend of mine) who is also otherwise a staunch MAdhva, once told me " they (TauLava SmArtas) our own people, how can we treat them any differently. " This, coming from an important pontifically-affiliated source like him, clearly shows that bare ideological views divorced from the historical, sociological and regional considerations remain precisely that, i.e. a bare, bookish and unrealistic ideology. COMMENTS : I do not know in what context Sri Bannanje expressed this opinion. The only authority we have on the subject is Sumadhvavijaya - 15 th Chapter. There are 68 shlokas describing the Vada Katha of Acharya Madhva and Sri Thrivikrama. The bulk of them is in the form of stating the Thathvavada position along with similes and figurative dsecriptions of the two scholars debating the issue. The debate took place for 15 days, after which Sri Thrivikrama became " Nirutthara " - unable to reply. He prostrated at the lotus feet of the Acharya and begged forgiveness for his " Chapalam " - impudence in arguing against the Sarvajna Acharya. This can not be reconciled with the concept of some body who has been bowled over by the personality of Acharya Madhva, perhaps on the first day, when he met him. I think this interpretation is unfair to Sri Thrivikrama, the biographer Sri Narayana and also to Acharya Madhva that he took 15 days to silence some body in debate, specially when it is also implied that the latter was not the best in the field. Even the importance of the great victory is diluted by the concept that it was more due to personality than a validly conducted debate. I hope these implications which seem to be unavoidable are not really meant by the distinguished gentlemen who have expressed the above opinion. This contrasts with the brief descriptions of other debates where Acharya Madhva had silenced his critics with one word or quote. 2. I feel also that it is improper to consider that Sri Thrivikrama was only a second rung of Advaitha scholarship for the following reasons : a. He composed Thathvapradeepa, his Teeka on Brahma Suthra Bhashya of Acharya Madhva based on the order of the Guru himself. Though I have not studied the composition, I have come across quotes from it in subsequent compositions of others according it great respect. Acharya Madhva would have hardly taught personally and had a commentary written by one whom he did not consider as a very competent scholar. b. There are references in Sumadhvavijaya to efforts by Advaitha scholars in positions of authority to steal Acharya Madhva's books and references and their being restored to him on the orders of the king. Similarly efforts were made to persuade Sri Thrivikrama to fight on behalf of Advaitha. It is possible to dismiss these as biased versions of actual events. But those persons from Advaitha school who claim that Acharya Madhva did not really meet any worthwhile scholars (avoided them!) also have no real grounds to prove their point. The reigning pontiffs are not necessarily the most knowledgeable, as we all know. In any case we would hardly expect that Advaitha Maths would carefully preserve records of their defeats at the hands of Thathvavada, though the very existence today of Thathvavada would show that such must have been the case. May I also mention the attempts made recently by a district official (Amildar) to erase the lettering of the famous victory pillar in Mulbagal recording the victory in Vada Katha of Sri Akshobhya Tirtha over Sri Vidyaranaya. We would have been totally denied the record but for the independent verification of this victory by Sri Vedatha Deshika. The argument that present Advaitha offers about the quality of the scholars confronting Acharya Madhva in his time being inadequate would have looked better if they could have produced at least one scholar subsequently who defeated a later day Madhva scholar. In our effort to show fairness of mind and objectivity, let us not lean over backwards to such an extent that we are unfair to ourselves and the great savants who have given of their best to us. NAPSRao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.