[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Madhavacharya (was Re: superstitions)
In article <3cldvc$j09@ucunix.san.uc.edu> Manish Tandon wrote:
: In article <3aam4b$oop@ucunix.san.uc.edu>, kali@lcl.cmu.edu (Kali Tan) writes:
: |> In a series of recent postings, the Dvaita philosophy of Madhva has
: |> been assailed as, among other things, "the cruelest joke perpetrated
: |> in the name of Vedanta," and so forth. I do not wish to criticize the
: |> gentlemen who made these claims, but here are my counterpoints, which
: |> they may consider worthy of their attention.
: Very good article about Madhavacharya. I am reading the Sarva-Darshana-
: Sangrha of Madhavacharya (although the translation I have may not be the
: best one) and agree with what you have said.
: However there is one thing you mentioned about Hanuman, Bhima, and Madhava
: been avataars of Vayu which seems correct but recently I found that Hanumaan
: is addressed as "shankar suvan" -- avatar of Shiva, in one of his standard
: prayers. If memory serves me right, it is probably the Hanuman Chaalisa and
: was written by Tulasi das (?) who was a great devotional saint. Also in the
: Valkmiki Ramayana, Hanumaan was addressed as the son of Vayu.
Yes, it is in the Hanumaan Chaalisa that we find Hanumaan referred to as:
"Shankar suvana Kesari nandana, tej prataap mahaa jag bandhan."
However, I am not certain that this necessarily means that Tulsidas is
saying that Hanumaan is an avataar of Shiva; my knowledge of the Maithili
(I think?) dialect is not upto the mark, tho I am fluent in Hindi, so I
cannot say for sure what the correct interpretation is. However, as you
have correctly pointed out, even if Tulsi does make such a spurious
identification of Hanumaan with Vaayu, it is to be rejected in favor of
the higher authority of the Balittha Suukta of the Rg Veda.
One other place where Tulsidas is said have made a bloomer is in
introducing into his narrative the spurious character Kaakbushundi. There
is no such character mentioned in the Vaalmiiki Raamaayana, the oldest and
most authentic of the many different Raamaayanas, nor in any other
Raamaayana that does not take the lead from Tulsidas' work. I state this
just to illustrate that the Raamcharitmaanas is not considered to be a text
of unimpeachable virtue, by many scholars. I however hold Tulsidas in great
regard as a saint and as a devotee of the Lord, and this statement of
opinion is not meant to signify disrespect
: Also in Mahabharat, there is a passage where, while the Pandavas were
: in vanawaas, Hanuman presented himself before Bhima as a small monkey
: and put his tail in the path of Bhima and tested him etc. So that is
: another datapoint that conflicts with Hanuman and Bhima being avataars
: of the same personality.
As re the episode of Bhiima not being able to budge Hanumaan's tail, and
being subsequently amazed at Hanumaan's prowess, this is also not
sufficient evidence to reject the premise of their being the same.
Madhvaachaarya explains this in his Mahaabhaarata-taatparya-nirnaya as a
metaphorical example that illustrated the "Yuga-dharma," according to
which people in the Treta Yuga had much greater ability, and the Dvaapara
Yugis had less because their dharma was lesser. This seeming illustration
of Bhiimasena's weakness also spurred on the evildoers of his own time
(Kiichaka, Manimanta, Kirmiira, and perhaps even the Kauravas) to
a false sense of security (they thought they had nothing to fear from
him), leading to their destruction. And in the Mahaabharata, we can also
find other examples of a single person behaving as two or more; some of the
better-known examples are:
* During Yudhishthira's Raajasuuya yagnya, three different forms of Vishnu
were present - Parashuraama, Vyaasa, and Krishna, and were treated as
three persons, for all practical purposes.
* Vidura and Yudhishthira were both incarnations of Yama, a secret known
to Krishna.
* During the episode of the Khaandava-dahana, Arjuna fought against Indra
and defeated him. Arjuna was trying to let Agni burn the Khaandava forest,
and Indra was trying to save it from destruction. This seemingly leads to
a contradiction; thru the ages, scholars have tried to argue that the same
person cannot have different motives at the same time, even if he be in
different forms.
: One resolution could be (given that these stories/passages are true) that
: they are partial expantions/avataars of Vayu. Just a thought.
This could certainly be taken as a plausible option, but it is refuted by
Ananda Tiirtha himself. He states clearly that he is the complete form;
just as Krishna is not a reduced form of Vishnu, but is Vishnu Himself, so
also is Hanuma/Bhiima/Madhva the whole of Vaayu. The importance of Vaayu
is said to be that a lower soul such as yours sincerely cannot grasp the
Lord directly; we need a Pratima, a living icon, as it were, that we can
study and worship as a true representation of Him. Vaayu is just such an
icon.
: I guess my point is that the stuff about who is whose avataar is probably
: not as simple as it may appear on a first pass through the scriptures
: because eventually everything/being emanates from Krishna.
Certainly; it was not my intention, when I posted that article, to say
that it was exceedingly simple. However, I wonder what you mean by
"everything emanates from Krishna"? That sounds like some form of Advaita
to me. According to Maadhva philosphy, everything that exists that is not
the Paramaatman, exists apart from Him, always; no disparate entities ever
become identical, and no identical entities ever become disparate.
: Also, I agree with all you have said about the life/philosophy/teachings
: of Sri Madhavacharya, so please dont think that I am refuting you just
: because of the question that is raised here.
A refutation is acceptable, be it for any reason, as long as it is made
within rationality.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
: regards,
: manish
: ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
: Alt.hindu is a moderated group for discussion related to Hindu dharma
: (including, philosophy, religion, culture etc.), Hindu issues, current events
: and announcements. This newsgroup is edited by several people,
: administrative enquiries may be directed to Ajay Shah,
: editor@rbhatnagar.ececs.uc.edu
