[Advaita-l] Mayavadam Asat Sastram

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:

> Om Sri: Govindaya Nama:
>
> According to Padma Purana, Lord Vishnu ordered Lord Siva to descend as a
> Brahmana to teach the jivatman and paramatma are one. In this philosophy
> the
> renunciation of one's duties is expounded and Brahman is declared to be
> devoid of qualities. This argument of mayavadam is said to be covered
> buddhism. The question is if this is the view of sastrasm then where is the
> ground to accept the teachings of Adi Sankara which matches all of the
> above? This position has been taken by gaudiyas and madhwas in Mani Manjari
> take a slighltly different position that Lord Siva in turn controls a demon
> called Manima. The followers of Sri Ramanuja take a position that
> Sankaradvaita is prachanna baudham but dont know if they quote Padma Purana
> verses. AFAIK.


There is a book titled 'MANikyamanjari' authored by a scholar of the present
day, Vidwan Hitlahalli SUryanAraayaNa NAgendra BhaTTa of Karnataka, in
Sanskrit.  This book has references to several Puranic and samhita sources
where the demoniacal antecedents of Sri Madhvacharya are available.  Some or
all of these references are not new and not unknown to the Madhva-s as is
evident from the refutation found here:

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=UG9-HZ5icQ4C&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=saura+purana&source=bl&ots=dq2p_3KHRz&sig=0FpUQBXzFOO00UT7x7wJULmmMEo#v=onepage&q=saura%20purana&f=false

(I could not get a tiny URL for this.)

Some of my observations are:

1. How is it that only the references to Madhva are 'interpolated' and not
the ones in the Padma Purana?

2. If the Padma Purana references are 'very anicient' to the extent of being
referred to by Ramanuja, why could they not have been interpolated even
before by those not favourably disposed to Advaita?

3. I know of a Sanskrit Scholar who teaches in the university who has said
that the original Mahabharata written by Veda Vyasa had only 25000 verses
and the rest of the 75000 have been appended over the millennia. Some say
even the Bhagavadgita is an interpolation in the Mahabharata.

4. Going by this, why only the Saura purana references are interpolations
and the ones in the 'old' Padma Purana are not?  After all, even the Saura
Purana is admitted to be the work of Veda Vyasa.  One can download the pdf
version from here:

http://is1.mum.edu/vedicreserve/upapurana/saura_purana.pdf

Here are some references from other sources as well on Madhvacharya:

The ParAshara Samhita says:

मूको नामाभवत्कश्चिद्दानवो दुष्टमानसः ।

....

सन्त्यक्तकिटिरूपोऽसौ मूको नामासुरस्तदा ।

कलावीशापकाराय कर्नाटे सम्भविष्यति ।

मधु नाम वहन्नेष व्याससूत्राणि केवलम् ।

द्वैतमार्गानुसारेण व्याख्यास्यति सुमूढधीः ॥  (पराशरसंहिता )

There was an evil-minded Rakshasa named MUka.  Having given up his wild boar
form, he was known as an asura named  MUka.  He will be born in the Kali age
with a view to work to the detriment of Lord Shiva he will be born in the
region of Karnataka.  He will bear the name ‘Madhu’,  will comment upon the
Brahmasutras in accordance with the dvaita system.

Says the Saura purANa:

सौरपुराणम्:

मधुनामा ततः प्राप्य शापं तं दुष्टबुद्धिमान् ।

मध्वाचार्यः ततो भूत्वा....

Having been cursed, this rascal named Madhu would later become MadhvAchArya
....

The SkAnda purANa says:

स्कान्दपुराणम् –

रामस्तत्र वसन् क्रोधं ज्ञात्वा स्वानर्थदायकम् ।

अशपद्राक्षसो भूयाः ....

Parashurama knew Krodha as an adversary and cursed him ‘you will become a
Rakshasa’.

Says the author in his another book: gunjAgarvabhanjanam: From the above
ParAshara samhita, Saura and SkAnda purAnic statements we understand that
the names ‘Krodha, MUka and Madhu’, MadhvAcharya alone is being referred to.
Krodha is MUka, He alone is Madhu and Madhu alone is MadhvachArya.

The above Maanikyamanjari has been refuted by the Madhvas and a reply to
this is apparently the above stated book.  Thus, a polemical debate is on in
some place.


mAyAvAdamasachchAstraMprachchannaMbauddha ucyate |
> mayaivakathitaMdevikalaubrAhmaNarUpiNA || Pa Pur 6.236.7 ||
> The doctrine of MAyA (illusion) is a wicked doctrine and said to be
> pseudo-Buddhist. I myself, of the form of a brAhmana, proclaimed it in Kali
> (age). (padma puraaNa, uttara-khaNDa, 236.7)
>


Is the PadmapurANa composed by Veda Vyasa?  Is its date somewhere after
Gaudapada and Adi  Shankara?

Is Buddha accepted by the Purana-s as an Avatara of MahaviShNu?

Has any Advaitin written a refutation of the purported Padmapurana
references ?

My objective in stating/asking the above is certainly not to vilify Sri
Madhvacharya.  I thought those Advaitins who are already not aware of the
Saura Puranic and other references to Sri Madhva would well be informed
about these so that when the Padma Purana and Manimanjari are invoked
against Shankara/Advaitins, they can have material to show in
reply/retaliation.
I think, as in my own case, most Advaitins are not aware of these references
derogatory to Sri Madhva.  I have seldom seen or heard of these in my
several years of Advaitic association.  However, I have heard enough of the
anti-Advaitic/Shankara purported references from these books/purana.

I also know several Madhvas who do not share the 'pracchanna bauddham' idea
about Advaita.

Just yesterday, I had a pleasant surprise:  Sri Rangapriya  Swamiji, a
VishiShTAdvaitin, living in Bangalore, observed the Shankara Jayanti.  He
addressed his devotees/followers and recounted several events from
Shankara's life.  An Iyengar neighbour who had gone there brought me
prasadam from the Swamiji.  The Swamiji was a Sanskrit lecturer before.

Om Tat Sat

>
>