Talk:Madhvacharya/Archive 1

Untitled
there is already another conflicting version at Madhva. i think that should be merged into this. pamri 14:13, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

Please don't cite sources in the article itself. Either do it here or ignore it or add it in the external links. pamri 12:22, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pictures
According to this site's(http://www.sanskrit.org/Madhva/madhva.html) editor, these images are in the Public Domain. But am putting some better pictures. pamri 13:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * done. pamri 14:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sarvadarsana Sangraha
PROBLEM HERE: MADVACARYA DIDN'T WRITE THE SARVADARSANA SANGRAHA. IT WAS WRITTEN BY MADHVACARYA (NOTE THE "A" AFTER THE "M"), AN ADVAITIN SCHOLAR WHO CHAMPIONED SANKARA. - 152.163.100.7

I also have my doubts whether this madhvacharya wrote this work. This posting too states the same thing. pamri 14:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On Sarvadarsanasamgraha and Madhvacharya
I indeed committed a blunder. Both pamri and 152.163.100.7 are correct; Madhvacharya, the exponent of dvaida-vada (dualism) did not write Sarva-darsana-sangraha. Madhavacharya, the monist, authored it. As can be seen from the following quotations, Madhvacharya and Madhavacharya belonged to two diametrically opposite systems of thought. Consequently, the information related to Lokayata should be shifted to the page of Madhavacharaya from the page of Madhvacharya. But as of now, there is no page on Madhavacharya in Wikipedia. If you search, you are redirected to the page of Madhvacharya. This is to be corrected, perhaps by the administrators.

For the benefit of wikipedia users who might have been misled by the text I added, I quote some texts from three authoritative books in support of my latest changes.

“The systems are arranged from the Vedanta point of view – our author having been elected, in AD 1331, the head of the Smarta order in the Math of Sringeri in Mysore territory, founded by Sankara Acharya, the great Vedantist teacher of eighth century….” (Preface by E.B.Cowell, one of the English translators of “The Sarva-darsana-sangraha” Page viii, Motilal Banarasidas Publishers, Delhi)

“Madhava’s sarvadaarsanasamgraha (AD 1380) sketches sixteen systems of thought so as to exhibit a gradually ascending series, culminating in the Advaita Vedanta (or non-dualism)” (S.Radhakrishnan, Page 48, Indian Philosophy, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 11th impression, 2004)

“Madhva’s theory is called dvaita-vada, the doctrine of plain dualism. According to this, God is only the efficient cause of creation. This God is conceived mythologically as Visnu who, whenever he becomes incarnate, has Vayu, the air-god, as his son. '''Madhva himself is said to be an incarnation of Vayu, who came to earth to destroy the followers of Sankara and all their teaching. This is mythology, of course, but the extreme reaction agains the abstract monism of Sankara is quite evident in it'''” (Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, Page 72, Indian Philosophy – a Popular Introduction, People’s Publishing House, New Delhi, 7th edition 1993)

I would like to point out here that Sarva-darsana-sangraha itself doesn’t contain the 16th chapter (Advaita Vedanta or the System of Sankara), absence of which is explained by a paragraph at the end of the 15th chapter (The Patanjali-Darsana). It says: “The system of Sankara, which comes next in succession, and which is the crest-gem of all systems, has been explained by us elsewhere, it is therefore left untouched here” (Page 273, The Sarva-darsana-sangraha, Motilal Banarasidas Publishers, Delhi)  MANOJTV 08:10, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Madhvacharya and Madhavacharya
Many people are still seem to be confused (as I was until the mistake was pointed out to me by the users pamri and 152.163.100.7) about the identity of Madhvacharya and Madhavacharya, using their names interchangebly. This is not correct. They belonged to different systems of philosophy and belong to different period. For clarity I give the major differences between these men. At present I do not have much information on these philosophers. MANOJTV 08:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Incarnations
What is the source for this ?

I find it a little curious. According to Hindu scriptures, Hanuman is believed to be an immortal (chiranjeevi). Further, in Mahabharata, Hanuman and Bhima meet with each other. So they cannot be incarnations in the normal sense.

Or is 'avatars' used here in some other sense ? (Comment by User:Tintin1107.
 * Madhva philosophy believes most of their saints like Madhvacharya, Raghavendra swami, Purandaradasa are incarnations of Gods/saints/heroes that appear in Vaishnavite scriptures/mythologies (like the Mahabaratha).  Just check any one of the links and you should be able to find a source. I will try to add a footnote/link later.

Of course, if you can believe in incarnations, you can also believe those two incarnations can meet each other. And incarnations don't happen in the normal sense. :-) pamri 05:36, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

In incarnations energies are let free to form a body for a certain purpose. Parasurama is an Avesha Avatar, meaning Vishnu's energy having entered an individual soul, which makes the whole thing still easier to explain.See Rama meeting Parasurama, who then exclaims his Avatara has fulfilled its mission. Later on we find Parasurama as teacher of Karna, at the time of Krishna. User: kailas, 03.09.2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.58.63.50 (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to conclusively write in an encyclopedia that Madhva was an avatar? I feel it should be removed or reworded as "believed to be an avatar by his followers". If you note, Dr. BNK Sharma does not write that way in his History of the Dvaita school of Vedanta.

Headline text
About Incarnations:

Incarnations in great souls like Vayu doesn't happen like other jivas like us. As said by Krishna in BhagawadGita, normal souls change bodies from one to another. This doesn't happen to Vayu. The body of Brahmaadi vayu will be destroyed by "Narasimhaagni" only during Pralaya.

We all know how Parashurama and Lord Rama met, though they are incarnations of Vishnu. In similar way, Hanuman and Bhima met each other. So Hanuman's body need not be destroyed for next incarnation. However Bhima ended his incarnation whereas next incarnation Madhva also did not end his incarnation and went to Badari Kshetra.

These incarnations are because, in Mahabharata at the end Bhishmacharya said to pandavas :"you all have to come back after this incarnation". Thus Bhima came as Madhva. These are mainly due to service of Vayu to lord vishnu in 3 incarnations : Rama, Krishna and VedaVyasa as Hanuma,Bhima and Madhva respectively.

comarisions to mainstream hinduism changed
I have deleted much of the unsubtanciated material on dvaita philosophy. I have tried to present a more balanced approach. There is no scholarship available that talks of islamic influences on madhva. It is untrue that shiva is not worshipped in dvaita.

SV 22:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Quality of the article needs to improve
The philosophical aspect of this school is not present cohorently. also the tone is not neutral. i propose to correct them as soon as possible. feel free to discuss and suggest

SV 19:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Like Charvak and Carvaka, Madhavacharya and Madhvacharya are two different spellings of the same person and both articles need to be merged.


 * Thats not true. MAdhavAcharya refers to vidyAranya, madhvAcharya is AnandatIrtha. [SV 14:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)]

'dvaita' and 'madhvacharya'
I suggest these two articles be reversed, because the information supposed to be present in dvaita article is instead present here!

Names and Avatars
I believe "Sukha Theertha" is also one of the names of Sri Madhvacharya. Does anyone know the circumstances under which this name came about?

Nharipra, 18 October 2006

Names and Avatars
No sure about the circumstances, this appears in the stotra with dvadahsa (12) names of Madhva.

harisks, 24 October 2006

The word Sukha has the meaning of Happiness (Ananda) and Theertha means Ocean. The full word Sukha Theertha (Ananda Theertha) means "who is in the happiness Ocean"(Always).

In fact the word Madhwa can be constructed as Madhu + wa, which also means the same thing. Madhu means sweetness rather happiness. The letter Wa means Ocean. All the three names means one and the same.

While giving him the SANYASA his Guru named him as "Purna Pragna". While he was to take the PATTABHISHEKA of entire VEDANTA SAMRAJYA - His guru named him as "Ananda Theertha"

The name Madhwa has not been given by anybody else. This was the name taken by Shri Madhwa himself, by showing the reference in the VEDAS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.149.87 (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Madhva Religious Figures
I have created a navigation box for all Madhva religious figures that will make traversing the pages easier. Wanted to add this to the main article. Any comments or objections?

Hari 10:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sanskrit/Kannada Transliteration
As far as possible, it is best to use IAST or ISO 15919 diacritics for transliteration of Sanskrit, Kannada or other Indian words. This gives the page a scholarly look. We can use "Special Characters" (on top of the edit box) to insert these diacritics.

Those who know this system of transliteration may please use it. Baraha input editor can be used to create such text easily

Please help to improve Uttaradi matha (and Raghavendra Swami matha) pages. Mayurvg (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Picture of Madhvacarya
The picture of Shri Madhvacharya does not look authentic. We need the classic two finger version please. -59.95.31.187 (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Harvard Citations
Please use Harvard style (name, date) citations on this page. This means that if you want to add a reference, rather than using, you should use the  template. For more specific information regarding Harvard citation templates, see Wikipedia: Harvard referencing and Wikipedia: Harvard citation template examples. Also feel free to get in touch via my talk page. Sreesarmatvm talkcontribs 02:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Needs source citations
This is an interesting point, but there's no primary or secondary source citation supporting it. The second paragraph, beginning "In such a social order..." is particularly problematic because I don't think it necessarily reflects the present-day practices of the Madhva sect. I'm inserting a "needs citation" in the section as well. I invite the original authors to back up these assertions with appropriate evidence.-- Sreesarmatvm talkcontribs 05:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sreesarmatvm. The notion that the Varnas are presented differently in the Gita than in older texts needs to be shown too (if it's true, which I doubt). This is a line that ISKCON likes to spin whenever asked about the varnas, but it seems more like a loosely formed historical apologetic than a scholarly observation (especially when emphasizing the Gita). Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is a massive OR, with no references in most sections. Madhvacharya is well studied scholar and there are numerous WP:RS on him, his work. Would you like to, or have the time to clean this article up? I intend to give the tags a few days before removing much more. I welcome comments by others and you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

(ps): A lot of it just blatant copyright violation of a fictional hagiography translation. Deleting text to bring this article into compliance. This wikitool suggests this article may have more copyvio problems, given lack of sources in this article and online sites with (C) claims dated between 2005 and 2010. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I wish I had the time. Grad school's got me off the wiki for the time being. Hold down the fort! Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Problem of evil
"Madhva does not offer answers for the problem of evil, that is how can evil exist with that of a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent."

The problem of evil is answered by BNK Sharma in the said reference. Perhaps the writers did not recognize the same. I like to know based on what premise did the writer decide that Madhvacharya does not offer answers for the problem of evil. The reason for this conclusion is not explicitly stated in the wiki article.

Second, BNK Sharma says "It is not, therefore, necessary for Madhva to answer the question of the compatibility of evil with Divine goodness." This quote is from CHAPTER XLIV PROBLEM OF EVIL IN RELATION TO ETHICAL ADVANCEMENT in the said reference, namely Sharma, B. N. Krishnamurti (1962). Philosophy of Śrī Madhvācārya. Motilal Banarsidass (2014 Reprint). ISBN 978-8120800687.

I request writers to clarify on this point.

http://michaelsudduth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Philosophy-of-Sri-Madhvacharya.pdf

Quotes are provided from the above book, Philosophy of Śrī Madhvācārya. Motilal Banarsidass.

CHAPTER XLIV PROBLEM OF EVIL IN RELATION TO ETHICAL ADVANCEMENT

(page 390)

"THE problem of Evil and suffering in the world is the most difficult one in Theism. We have explained Madhva's attitude to the allied problem of freedom and freewill on the basis of the doctrine of natural selection (anadisvarupayogyata) of good or bad and of the tripartite classification of souls. It is not, therefore, necessary for Madhva to answer the question of the compatibility of evil with Divine goodness.

There are many worshippers of Satan and his ways and they have no moral code or spiritual values. They are unmitigatedly anti-social in their outlook. Their type is outlined in the Scriptures."

CHAPTER XXXV TEXTUAL EVIDENCE OF INTRINSIC GRADATION AMONG SOULS

(page 322)

″The theory of tripartite classification of souls as proposed by Madhva has to be judged on its own merits and evidences, as a broad hypothesis of human nature and destiny. No useful purpose will be served by importing unnecessary sentiment into the discussion of the problem. Madhva and his commentators have put forward what they consider to be adequate grounds and textual authority in support of the theory. Kali and Vanisvara (i.e.Brahmadeva) as Madhva says, represent the two poles of evil and goodness. They must have their reward. The doctrine of Traividhya is thus a corollary of Anadiyogyata (beginningless fitness) which seems to be the ultimate explanation of diversity of natures, propensities and opportunities, going beyond all other explanations offered by the hypothesis of Karmabheda (differentiation by Karma) and every other explanation including free will. ″

(page 323)

″An intrinsic divergence of nature and faith into sattvika, rajasa and tamasa which is rooted in the core of individual nature (dehinam, svabhavaja) as stated in the Gita, is the ultimate basis of this theory according to Madhva. What is thus ultimately traced to the essential nature (svabhava) of the selves must indeed be unalterable.″

My Points:

1. Sharma mentions tripartite classification of souls based on essential nature of souls, which exist without any beginning (Anadiyogyata (beginningless fitness)) as good (sattvika), mixed (rajasa) and evil (tamasa). Please refer above quotes.

2. Since God did not create these souls, but merely supports their existence according to their beginning-less nature, the locus of evil is in the bad and mixed souls only.

3. Since God is benevolent, He does not change a soul's nature which will be equivalent to killing a soul.

4. Giving results to a soul according to its essential nature is omni-benevolence of God. Just as good soul enjoys happiness because its essential nature is of happiness, an evil soul soul suffers as its essential nature is sorrow and suffering, while that of a mixed soul is mxed happiness and sorrow.

5. All these points show that locus of evil is in the mixed and evil souls and God is not showing any partiality here.

6. In Madhva's system, just as souls are beginning-less, so is karma beginning-less for all souls. God does not create karma. So sometimes, good souls because of bad beginning-less bad karmas suffer on this account through evil souls as agents.

Therefore the problem of evil is beautifully answered only in Madhvacharya's system.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.223.227 (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@122.166.223.227: Welcome to wikipedia. As you note, BNK Sharma source states, "It is not, therefore, necessary for Madhva to answer the question of the compatibility of evil with Divine goodness." Here is the complete quote:
 * The problem of evil and suffering in the world is the most difficult one in Theism. We have explained Madhva's attitude to the allied problem of freedom and freewill, on the basis of the doctrine of natural selection of good or bad and of the tripartite classification of souls. It is not therefore necessary for Madhva to answer the question of the consistency of evil with Divine goodness. – BNK Sharma, page 270

This implies Madhva neither answered the problem of evil, nor was there the necessity to do so in Sharma's view. That is what the article is stating. The article already summarizes Madhvacharya's views on free will, in the Ethics sub-section. The rest of your opinions are yours, but must be ignored per wikipedia's content guidelines, since this article must rely on published reliable sources, please read WP:RS. Do note that article's talk pages are not forums for general discussion, please read WP:TPNO. Welcome to wikipedia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sarah Welch, since you said "This implies Madhva neither answered the problem of evil" whose conclusive statement was this, that the statement of Sharma implies something? What Sharma states is "It is not, therefore, necessary for Madhva to answer the question of the compatibility of evil with Divine goodness." Nowhere Sharma states that Madhvacharya did not answer the problem of evil, only that "it was not, therefore, necessary" to address this problem explicitly, as tripartite classification souls and natural selection already answers the problem as per Sharma's previous statement in your own quote. The word "therefore" used by Sharma points to a conclusion based on the statement made previously by Sharma "We have explained Madhva's attitude to the allied problem of freedom and freewill, on the basis of the doctrine of natural selection of good or bad and of the tripartite classification of souls."


 * If the article rely only on reliable published sources, then based on what does the writer decide against his own published source that the author Sharma "implies" something?


 * The article's restatement "Madhva does not offer answers for the problem of evil," is also based on writer's assumptions. Madhva's framework on "freedom and freewill, on the basis of the doctrine of natural selection of good or bad and of the tripartite classification of souls." as per Sharma does offer solution as "It is not, therefore, necessary for Madhva to answer the question of the compatibility of evil with Divine goodness.".


 * The article should be restated as "Madhva does not explicitly address the problem of evil,.....". This would more correct statement.


 * I made the following correction as it does not make any presumptuous statement either by the writer or presumptions about the conclusions of Sharma.


 * "According to Sharma, Madhva does not explicitly address the problem of evil, that is how can evil exist with that of a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent as "Madhva's tripartite classification of souls makes it unnecessary to answer the problem of evil"."


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.223.227 (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@122.166.223.227: I am fine with your "addressed" wording instead of "answered". I have added Dasti-Bryant's analysis of Sharma's viewpoint, published in 2014 through Oxford University Press, for WP:NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sarah Welch, thank you for adding Dasti-Bryant's analysis here, although, I find the criticism by Dasti-Bryant in this regard very vague, ambiguous and outright erroneous arguments. The criticism is truly lacking in clarity and they could have done better job by giving clear examples. For example authors say "God sustains evil in the world" and therefore does not answer the problem of evil, but God sustains evil only to the extent evil souls and other souls deserve it as per their essential nature and beginning-less karma. A moral God punishes or rewards only to the extent one deserves, just as a judge punishes a criminal and rewards those who acted lawfully. Can a Judge be blamed for punishing and causing harm (imprisonment or death) to criminals. The authors have even made vague and wrong statements about "lower selves" lacking subjectivity, whatever this vague statement means as per the authors . I understand this is not a forum, but a better analysis or criticism will add proper value to this article, if available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.223.227 (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Need for a new article "Tatvavada" that captures the true essence of Madhwacharya
Tatvavada is the philosophy of Shri Madhwacharya, and we do not have a single article to capture the essence of tatvavada. Time is opportune to create an article that captures principles of this philosophy.Tatvavada (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Find the sources and create it then ;-) Seriously, that's the way it works here - it's all volunteer effort by people like you, so if you think something is missing just go ahead and create it yourself (paying attention to notability and sourcing guidelines). If you're unsure about creating a new article from scratch, you could use the Articles for Creation process - that way, you can submit a draft and an experienced editor will review it for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS
@Raguru111: Why is uttaradimath.org website/publication WP:RS? What evidence is there that it is peer reviewed by independent scholars? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Commercial advertisement / unsourced content / etc
You added and then reverted to add back in a plug-in for a Facebook group, etc and added "any person interested in learning this philosophy can become a member there". Please review WP:WWIN and WP:RS, explain why such content is consistent with wikipedia content guidelines such as WP:PROMOTION, and gain consensus. Please do not edit war. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

why is dehsen being used as an ultimate authority?
dehsen compiled a book about ?? many philosophers and his "opinion" based on limited knowledge is flawed.. The common knowledge that Achyuta Prajna resided in the Tulu area is confirmed by the fact that Madhvacharya inherited the sanyas title Tirtha from him which is the Sanayas title of Sringeri not far away dwarka. There is No confusion of 2 dvaita madhvacharyas. Madhava tirtha was a sanyasi of madhvacharya with math and lineage till the present at Tambihalli near kolar. the Madhva confusion regards Madhvacharya and Vidyamanya of Sringeri who himself is confused with his disciple Madhava - http://www.sringeri.net/jagadgurus/sri-vidyaranya/biography

The above is commmon historical knowledge and dehsen's is a newcomers absurdity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ge-eN-De (talk • contribs) 01:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:RS guidelines of wikipedia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality
1. Why is there so little about the guru of madhvacharya Achyutapreksha? If his guru has been of Ekadandi order, there should be a reason why he has transcended from his guru's path and proposed the dualism.

2. Also why is Vishistadvaita is being called Realist? Neutrality of argument is required.

3. If Madhvacharya's assertion was that some souls are eternally doomed, how does that compare with Christian thoughts? Though we can argue he wasn't privy to any of the early Christian ideologies, essentially it is the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnaluru (talk • contribs) 18:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hnaluru Hello Harish!,

Your claims are valid. Though that does not mean the neutrality of the article is compromised. It just means that the article is incomplete. All the claims mentioned in the article are backed up by references (you can cross-check this with the citations at the end of each sentence). The article also tries to address multiple POV but may require synthesis. You are welcome to add referenced content to the article! Let me try to address your claims to the best of my knowledge:

1. The historical information about Achyutapreksha is scant (if you find any, please add it). The only source of information is the hagiography "Sumadhva Vijaya" on which much historical analysis hasn't been done (according to my knowledge). 2. You are right here. Visistadvaita is translated as "qualified non-dualism". But do check the references given. If they call Visistadvaita a realist school, it stays (you can always mention "According to so and so").

3. So the comparison is based on the fact that Christianity posits a place of eternal damnation (hell) and so does Madhva (according to him all the individuals with the Tamas quality are eternally damned as well(andha-tamas)). Colonial British scholars made the connection between these concepts and postulated that Madhva may have been influenced by Nestorian Christians living by the coast but this was debunked by later scholars (as mentioned in the article).

For now I'm going to remove the neutrality clause. If you still feel unconvinced you can put it back on and try to improve the article. Cheers! Prabhanjanmutalik (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

4. When his contemporary people recorded his biography in Madhwavijaya, calling his biography as unclear based on some foreign authors is just laughable. 162.44.150.10 (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)@sudhee26

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Download (23).jpg