[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Sri Tattva-muktavali
Raymond Crawford <dasa@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> mpt@mail.utexas.edu (michael tandy) wrote:
> >
> > Here is the eighth verse of this work, written close to 1,000
> > years ago by Sriman Madhvacarya:
[*chomp*]
> Perhaps I am jumping the gun here, but I feel I have to say something. Perhaps
> I have missed something in previous messages. But!!!!
>
[*chomp*]
> As far as the Tattvamuktavali is concerned, I was under the understanding that
> it was written by Purnananda Cakravarti, a native of Bengal, who claims, in
> verse 117 of the same, to be a disciple of Narayana Bhatta. By this account,
> he would have lived some time in the 17th century.
>
> The Tattvamuktavali consists of 120 verses which attack the views of Advaita.
> It is sometimes known by the name Mayavada-satadusani.
>
> I am hopeing some other well versed Dvaitin will be so kind as to clarify this
> point for Michael as we all know how much a stickler for correctness he is.
>
> I would also like to know whether my information is correct or not.
> All spelling mistakes are of my own invention.
>
I am not certain who the correct author of the Tatvamuktavali /
Mayavada-shataduushani is, and I am not interested enough to find out,
as I find its denunciation of Advaita to be too puerile to merit serious
attention. However, it is not, as you correctly point out,
Madhvaachaarya's work. Three of Madhva's 37 works have names starting
with 'Tatva': Tatvasankhyaana, Tatva-viveka, and Tatvoddyota; all three
are from the Dasha-prakaranas, which are ten independent works dealing
with various aspects of Tatvavaada. However, no work of his is called
either Tatva-muktavali, or Mayavada-shata-duushani (for a complete list
of his works, see http://www.interlog.com/~jacekb/detailed.html).
The quoted prose also makes subtle, or perhaps not-so-subtle,
digressions from Tatvavaada theology, so we can be certain in another
way also, that it is not by Madhva, who would never say, for instance,
that "from Him this entire cosmic manifestation has emanated"; the words
'manifestation' and 'emanated' are damning. Madhva would also not, in my
opinion, address a proponent of another school which he was criticizing
as "my friend."
However, flawed as it may be, the false attribution to Madhva of the
authorship of the Tatva-muktavali (which is perhaps the other side of
plagiarism, an issue that was recently discussed on ARV) pales in
comparison with the many wilful and egregious acts of disinformation that
have been committed by the Gaudiyas. For instance, consider the following
extract, the whole of which can be seen at
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/arv/1995_03/msg00108.html --
"One night, as Madhva lay sleeping, Lord Gauranga appeared to him in a
dream. The Lord told Madhava [sic], "It is well known to everyone that you
are My eternal servitor. When I appear here in Navadwipa, I will accept
your sampradaya. Travel everywhere and care fully uproot all the false
scriptures of the mayavadis and reveal the glories of worshipping the
personal form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Later, when I appear,
I will personally broadcast your pure teachings." The Lord then
disappeared.
"When Madhva awoke, he was astonished and as he remembered the Lord
he began to cry in separation, saying, "Will I ever see that beautiful
golden form again?" A celestial voice from the sky replied, "Worship Me
secretly and you will come to Me.
"Carrying these instructions within his heart, Madhva continued his
travels more determined than ever to defeat the mayavadi philosophers.
(Extract from Sri Navadwipa Dham)."
I don't know who wrote the Navadwipa Dham, but from the evidence of the
above, the author had to be a person totally unrestrained by any notion of
intellectual honesty, true scholarship, or devotional morality. The only
authentic biography of Madhva, the Sumadhva Vijaya, makes no mention of
any such event as described; also, neither Madhva himself, nor any scholar
of his school, accepts the spurious claim that Chaitanya is Vishnu Himself
-- a claim that I myself have shown to be without foundation.
Madhva himself states clearly that the Lord will *not* incarnate until the
cusp of Krta Yuga is upon us, and also makes the claim to being Mukhya
Praana, who *always* sees the Lord clearly ("archiraadi pathaa Vaayum")
and is *always* guided by him ("sa Vishnor vashagaha sadaa") -- such an
entity cannot possibly "cry in separation" nor ask "Will I ever see that
beautiful golden form again?" In addition, there was nothing secret about
Madhva's worship of Vishnu; he was open and brazen about it. These are
preposterous prevarications created by a non-scholar, and readily absorbed
by willing hordes of credulous acolytes.
It is such putrescent scholarship, combined with a style of translating
scripture that is completely free of syntactic and semantic correctness,
what to speak of intellectual depth (for instance, see
http://rbhatnagar.ececs.uc.edu:8080//alt_hindu/1995_Jan/msg00062.html, or
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/arv/1995_05/msg00153.html), that I find
really disgusting.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
