Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c6.s6: III. Vistāra-kāla (The Age of Diversification)

Vāda in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c6.s6

Language
English

Contents

III. Vistāra-kāla (The Age of Diversification)

c6.s6.1

Udayana was perhaps the last great philosopher to have cast an everlasting impact on the philosophical traditions through *vādas*. Like his illustrious predecessors, he engaged in public debates as well as debates through writings. With the overpowering and authoritative status that the Navya-Nyāya as developed by Gaṅgeśa attained, and the chief combatant — the Buddhist philosopher — having gone out of the scene, the glorious age of *vāda* seems to be over now. There are various reasons for this decline. “Both realism and the power of abstraction may be seen at their extreme in Navya-Nyāya method of universalizing.”¹⁴⁸ The onslaught of Vaiṣṇavism that swept over almost the whole peninsula replaced public debates as well as debates through new texts by the religious faith and devotional fervour. The spirit to fight mellowed down with the onslaught of Bhakti movement. On the other hand, interfaith dialogues and syncretic approaches to philosophical and religious issues were encouraged. The debates between diverse schools of Vedānta — Advaita, Dvaita, Dvaitādvaita, Śuddhādvaita, etc. — continued generation after generation.

c6.s6.2

Revived by Madhva, Rāmānuja, Vallabhācārya (1479–1531), Caitanya (1485–1533), Tukārāma (1609-49) and other saints, the Bhakti movement had a dominating effect even in the area of philosophical reasoning. Sadānanda who flourished in Kashmir in the seventeenth century made an attempt to synthesize *bhakti* and *yoga* in his *Svarūpaprakāśa*, a text of Advaita Vedānta. He also introduces the concept of Para-Vāsudeva from Vaiṣṇava Pāñcarātra system¹⁴⁹ and discusses the concept of *sākṣī* (witness) different from the individual soul (*jīva*) and elaborates upon it by Vādirāja, so named because of his debating skills, flourished in eleventh century CE under the rule of Cāḷukya king Jagadekamalla Jayasiṁha (CE 1018-42). In his *Nyāyaviniścayavivaraṇa*, Vādirāja has refuted several rival doctrines. He brilliantly defends Syādvāda against the vehement criticism of Śaṅkarācārya, he also argues against Kumārila, Praśastapāda, Īśvarakṛṣṇa and Maṇḍana Miśra.

c6.s6.3

Scholastic debates were fiercely conducted for the propagation of religious order. Jñānasambandhar, a Naynār and a Śaiva saint, is said to have defeated the Jainas in a public debate and converted Pāṇḍya rulers of Mathurā.¹⁵²

c6.s6.4

At the juncture of the third and fourth phases stands Al-Biruni, with his extraordinary hermeneutic awareness and masterly command over the textual material in Greek, Arabic and Sanskrit. He evaluated the knowledge systems of both the Greeks and Hindus from a perspective developed through the Islamic monotheism and failed to understand the pluralistic outlook in Indo-Greek cultures. He complains of the lack of scientific perfection in them.

c6.s6.5

I can only compare their mathematical and astronomical literature, as far as I know it, to a mixture of pearl shells and sour dates, or of pearls and dung, or of costly crystals and common pebbles. Both kinds of things are equal in their eye since they cannot raise themselves to the methods of a strictly scientific deduction.¹⁵³

c6.s6.6

He searches affinities in the methods of calculations between Indian astronomers and *alfazari*.¹⁵⁴ He was aware of the debates on various issues amongst the intellectuals in India. He refers to differences of opinions on the question whether the people of lower castes can attain *mokṣa*.¹⁵⁵ He draws comparisons the concepts, cultures and traditions. In fact, he displayed the techniques of *vāda* in a novel way when he criticized Brahmagupta and made an assessment of Varāhamihira. Al-Biruni finds an inner contradiction in Brahmagupta for accepting the myth of Rāhu and Ketu on one hand and also discussing the scientific reason for the eclipse on the other.¹⁵⁶ There are many other issues on which he differs with Brahmagupta.¹⁵⁷ He cites Varāhamihira; criticizing him on the claim of giving respects to the *yavanas* and *mlecchas* if they are knowledgeable. But from this passage of Varāhamihira alone you see what a self-lauding man he is, whilst he gives himself airs as doing justice to others.¹⁵⁸ Only Al-Biruni could have unleashed such a scathing attack on a stalwart like Varāhamihira:

c6.s6.7

. . . . you mostly find that even the so-called scientific theorems of the Hindus are in the state of utter confusion, devoid of any logical order, and in the last instance always mixed up with the silly notions of the crowd, e.g. immense numbers, enormous spaces of time, and all kinds of religious dogmas, which the vulgar belief does not admit of being called into question.¹⁵⁹

c6.s6.8

He severely criticizes Balabhadra, a commentator on Brahmagupta’s text,¹⁶⁰ and also questions some of the propositions of Āryabhaṭṭa, the junior.¹⁶¹

c6.s6.9

Al-Beruni entered into *vāda* with Indian intellectual discourses by viewing them in relation to the Greek thought. His way of doing *vāda* lied in finding out the contours of *saṁvāda*.

c6.s6.10

He seems to have thought that the philosophers both in ancient Greece and India, whom he most carefully and repeatedly distinguishes from the ignorant, image-loving crowd, held in reality the very same ideas, the same as seem to be his own, i.e. those of a pure monotheism, that in fact, originally all alike pure and virtuous, worshipping one sole Almighty God, but that the dark passions of the crowd in the course of time had given rise to the difference of religion, of philosophical and political persuasions and of idolatry.¹⁶²

c6.s6.11

In his own way, Al-Beruni was anticipating Dara Shikoh by the way of seeing

c6.s6.12

Hindu scholars as “enjoying the help of God” which to a Muslim means as much as inspired by God, guided by divine inspiration.¹⁶³

c6.s6.13

He was viewing India in the context of Iranian and Greek cultures¹⁶⁴ and at the same time was preparing a manual for his fellow countrymen to train them to be able to enter into a conversation with India.

c6.s6.14

With the withdrawal of the Buddhists from the scene, the intensity and profoundness of debate were gone. *Vāda* was also shifted to vernaculars. Sectarian debates are sustained through generations. There are interfaith dialogues between the *paṇḍits* and sufis.

c6.s6.15

Some of the most spectacular debates that became the parts of Itihāsa (collective memory of nation) can be studied from various sources documenting them. The debates between Madhva and Trivikrama Paṇḍita, etc. are examples of such debates.

c6.s6.16

There are interesting accounts of the debates between Jaina *ācāryas* and the Buddhists in Prabhācandrasūri’s *Prabhāvakacarita* (thirteenth century CE).¹⁶⁵ *Jalpakalpalatā* gives an account of the historical event of the fierce debate between Māṇikya Sūri and a Naiyāyika from Varanasi, named Śaṅkara. The author, Ratnamaṇḍana, was a disciple of Nandīratna. Māṇikya Sūri, the respondent in the debate, was a disciple of Devasūrin. Deva Sūri was a renowned ascetic and a contemporary of Hemacandra. He had defeated Kumudacandra, a Digambara ascetic, in a famous debate held in the court of the King Siddharāj. Kumudacandra himself is described as a ferocious debater, and is said to have defeated as many as eighty-four adversaries. The masterly skills of Deva Sūri in debate have been described in *Mudritakumudacandra*, a play (see Chap. 7) as well as in some other medieval works.¹⁶⁶ His disciples Ratnaprabha, Māṇikyamuni and Mahendrasiṁha were also adept in debates.

c6.s6.17

During the visit of Deva Sūri to Anahilapattana, Śaṅkara challenged him for a *kāvyagoṣṭhī* or a *vāda*. On behalf of his *guru*, Māṇikyamuni took up the challenge. The subject of *vāda* between Māṇikyamuni and Śaṅkara was God as the creator of the world. Śaṅkara started with the simple reasoning that every effect has an intelligent agent, and then proceeded to prove how this invariable concomitance, formed by God as the agent and the world as effect, is free from all sorts of fallacies. Māṇikyamuni gave reasons why God cannot be accepted as the creator of the world. The proposition that God has created this world cannot be proved by *pratyakṣa* (perception) and the inference upheld by his opponent does have fallacies.

Challenges to Śaṅkara’s Advaitavāda

c6.s6.t1.1

In the period between twelfth to eighteenth centuries, some of the renowned philosophers who created history by entering into diversified debates were Rāmānuja, Madhva and Madhusūdana Sarasvati. Rāmānuja derived his concept of soul from Śaṅkara and to an extent his philosophy of Viśiṣṭādvaita corroborated Śaṅkara’s postulations. The fundamental difference between Śaṅkara and Rāmānuja lies in their world-views. To Śaṅkara, the world is a *vivarta* (an appearance) while Rāmānuja regards it an evolution. According to Rāmānuja, the soul and the matter are different from *Brahman* in relation to the matter as being an object of enjoyment, and they are identical with Him as constituents of His body. The world of our perception is His *kāryāvasthā* (effected state). He exists in causal state when the world stands dissolved. All *jīvas* (souls) exist in him in subtle state and they just become manifest when He exercises His Will and creates them.

c6.s6.t1.2

Madhva, on the other hand, posited a potent challenge for the Advaitin with his uncompromising logic to prove the difference between God and the world. His basic argument is — if there is only one *Brahman* and nothing else, who then is making this statement that there is only *Brahman* and nothing else? He questions the ontological status of “nothing which is negated in God”.¹⁶⁷

c6.s6.t1.3

With their virulent of attacks and uncompromising adherence to dualism, Madhva and his followers, Vyāsatīrtha and Jayatīrtha, emerged as strongest critics of Śaṅkara’s monism. The debate continued till twentieth century. Madhva’s works are also known as vāda granthas. His philosophy became the most powerful rival of Advaita Vedānta and stimulated a tooth and nail fight between very opposite juxtapositions — Advaita vs. Dvaita, idealism vs. realism, identity vs. difference, etc.

c6.s6.t1.4

Veṅkaṭanātha also known as Vedāntadeśika (CE 1278–1369) stands next to Rāmānuja as a votary of Viśiṣṭādvaita. He was born at Tuppal near Kāñcī. He travelled far and wide including northern India to hold discussions on philosophical issues.

c6.s6.t1.5

Veṅkaṭādhvarin in his *Viśvaguṇādarśacampūḥ* (see Chap. 6) describes Vedāntadeśika as a great debater who could explain most difficult propositions in the debates and repeal the intoxication of the opponents.¹⁶⁸ Veṅkaṭādhvarin devotes as many as twelve verses to Vedāntadeśika (CE 1289–1300) with some very succinct prose passages. Unable to tolerate the praise showered on Vedāntadeśika, Kṛśānu, the reviler, asks his opponent Kṛśāśva in *Viśvaguṇādarśacampūḥ* — how can the words of a poet tender like the *campaka* flowers decorating the head of Goddess Sarasvatī be able to break the hearts of opponents in debates hard like stones?¹⁶⁹ Viśvāvasu, the protagonist, replies that the speech of the master of Vedānta is as tender as flowers and pleases the noble, but it is able to break the hearts of the enemies (the opponents in debate) like the tender foot of child Kṛṣṇa, the touch of which delighted Nandin and it could become as hard as a diamond in killing the demon Śakaṭāsura.¹⁷⁰

c6.s6.t1.6

Vedāntadeśika wrote in Sanskrit, Tamil and Maṇipravāḷam (a mixture of Tamil amd Prākṛt) also. His *Śatadūṣaṇī* is a treatise in refutation of the Advaita system, which started a chain of critiques (*dūṣaṇa* texts). Vedāntadeśika's *Vāditrayakhaṇḍana* is also a work of similar nature. He became a legendary figure even in his lifetime and several stories are current about his extraordinary scholarship and eloquence. It is said that he was blessed by the Lord Hayagrīva for always being a champion in the *vādāhavas* (battles of debates)¹⁷¹ and was supposed to be an incarnation of the bell given to his parents by Lord Veṅkaṭeśa Himself.¹⁷² Many of his contemporaries like Varadarāja, his own son, and Yatirāja had composed a *Dhyānalokas* (verses for meditation) in his worship.¹⁷³ Rāmānuja, the propounder of Viśiṣṭādvaita, was his maternal uncle and *guru*.

c6.s6.t1.7

Veṅkaṭanātha was challenged by Ḍiṇḍimakavi Sārvabhauma, who sent him in verse describing himself as a lion having reached *pakkaṇa* — the habitat of outcasts, and like Garuḍa being forced to roam in the assembly of water-snakes.¹⁷⁴ Veṅkaṭanātha sent him two verses as a befitting rejoinder¹⁷⁵ which wrecked the ego of Ḍiṇḍimakavi. After listening to the readings of Veṅkaṭanātha's epic *Yādavābhyudaya*, he became an ardent admirer of Veṅkaṭanātha and composed fine stanzas in his eulogy.¹⁷⁶

c6.s6.t1.8

Veṅkaṭanātha was a very amicable person. In a quarter of night he is said to have composed one thousand verses of the poem *Pādukāsahasram*. Unable to tolerate the overwhelming applause showered on him for this extraordinary feat, Varavara, poet, also started composing a poem of one thousand verses but his inspiration lasted only for a few verses and he was put to shame. Veṅkaṭanātha consoled him by dedicating a stanza. The stanza said:

c6.s6.t1.9

The she-pig produces hundred cubs instantly; a she-elephant after a long time gives birth to only one cub, but he becomes dear to kings.¹⁷⁷

c6.s6.t1.10

At the initiative of Vidyāraṇya, Harihara I (CE 1336-56), the king of Vijayanagara, sent a letter to him requesting him to grace the royal court of Vijayanagara. Sarvajña Siṁhabhūpāla (CE 1330-80), considered himself his disciple and approached him for enlightenment on the issues of *dharma*. Veṅkaṭanātha composed *Tattvasandeśa*, a text in Tamil and *Subhāṣitanīvī*, an anthology of verses in Sanskrit and sent him. He was constantly harassed by persons who were unable to tolerate the heights he had scaled.

c6.s6.t1.11

Veṅkaṭanātha had authored 115 works; of these sixty were in Sanskrit, the rest are bilingual — mixing Sanskrit and Tamil in Maṇipravāḷa style; or purely in Tamil.

c6.s6.t1.12

*Śatadūṣaṇī* (declamation of one hundred tenets) examines the various theories of Advaitavāda from the viewpoint of Rāmānuja’s philosophy. Out of one hundred sections called *vādas*, only sixty-six are presently available. *Vāditrayakhaṇḍana* is also a text refuting three *ācāryas* — Śaṅkara, Bhāskara and Yādava. Other works by Vedāntadeśika are — commentary on *Īśāvāsyopaniṣat*, *Tātparyacandrikā* (a commentary on *Gītābhāṣya* of Rāmānuja) and *Tattvamuktākalāpaḥ* (on Viśiṣṭādvaita philosophy in 500 verses). The last work has been cited by Mādhava in his *Sarvadarśanasaṁgraha*. *Adhikaraṇa* is a compendium of *Śrībhāṣya* on *Brahmasūtra* in 562 verses. This work was composed after *Śatadūṣaṇī*. *Saccharitrarakṣā* propounds the tenets of Viṣṇavism in three *adhikāras* citing profusely from Vedic Saṁhitās and Smṛtis. *Nikṣeparakṣā*, *Pāñcarātrarakṣā* and *Rahasyarakṣā* are his sectarian works. In *Nyāyapariśuddhi*, Veṅkaṭanātha establishes the authenticity of *Nyāyasūtras* of Gautama according to Vedas. Many of his works, viz. *Adhikaraṇadarpaṇa*, *Nigamaparimala* and *Vedārthasaṁgrahavyākhyāna*, etc. have been lost. He also authored *Seśvaramīmāṁsā*, *Mīmāṁsāpādukā*, *Tātparyacandrikā*, *Gītārthasaṁgraharakṣā*, *Nyāyaysiddhāñjana*, *Tattvaṭīkā*. *Cakārasamartham* is a *maṇḍana* text, written as a rejoinder to Vidyāraṇya’s criticism of the use of *ca* at a place in his *Śatadūṣaṇī*. *Nyāsaviṁśatiḥ* explains the concept of *nyāsa* or *prapatti*. *Damiḍopaniṣattātparyaratnāvalī* is a commentary in 130 verses on the Tamil Divyaprabandha of Śaṭhakopasūri. *Damiḍopaniṣattātsāraḥ* is a work of similar nature. His works in Maṇipravāḷa style are *Amṛtarañjanīrahasya*, *Amṛtavādinīrahasya*, *Paramatabhaṅga*, *Hastinīmāhātmya*, *Paramapadasopāna*, *Rahasyatrayasāra*, etc. Of these eighteen texts are known as *Laghurahasyas* explaining the core of his faith. Again eighteen texts are known as Drāviḍagāthās or Deśikaprabandhas. *Nigamaparimala* is not available. In *Paramatabhaṅga* he presents critiques of Lokāyata, Buddhism, Śaṅkara’s Advaita, Bhāskara and Yādava, Vyākaraṇa, Vaiśeṣika, Nyāya, Kaumārila, Prabhākara, Sāṁkhya, Yoga, Pāśupata, etc. Many other works in Sanskrit and Tamil are ascribed to him.¹⁷⁸ *Acyuasa-a-am* (*Avyutaśatakam*) is in Prākṛt, presenting a confluence of *bhakti* and *śṛṅgāra*. Apart from these, Veṅkaṭanātha composed twenty-four *strotrakāvyas*.

c6.s6.t1.13

Stories of his having defended the Draviḍa Āmnāya (scriptures in Tamil) when their authenticity was questioned by the followers of other faiths on the occasion of a Brahmotsava are also current.¹⁷⁹ At Raṅgapaṭṭana or Śrīraṅgam, when Sudarśanasūrya was challenged by some rivals to have debate with them, otherwise stop the daily worship of God Raṅganātha according to Pāñcarātra system, the former entrusted Vedāntadeśika to enter into a debate with them and when Vedāntadeśika emerged victorious in the debate he was given the title of Vedāntācārya by the God himself.¹⁸⁰ His detractors did not leave him even when he had moved to Ahīndranagaram and was delivering discourses for the King Devanātha there. At the behest of the king he debated with the adversaries again and after defeating them was honoured with the title of Kavitārkikacakravartī (sovereign of poets and philosophers) by the king. His followers documented these debates and compiled an anthology of them entitled *Paramatabhaṅga*.

c6.s6.t1.14

Madhva builds up a world-view through difference at five levels. God and soul differ from each other, God differs from the matter and matter differs from the soul. One soul differs from another, and there is difference from one matter to another. This difference is a reality. The world is also a reality. Bondage is also real and it is really destroyed by the grace of God and not through knowledge alone. This concept gave a pivotal position to *bhakti* (devotion to God) in Mādhva Vedānta, and enabled it to attract the masses. There is some affinity with Sāṁkhya, as *Prakṛti* is accepted as the material cause of the world. Madhva's Dvaita therefore became a chief combatant for the post-Śaṅkara Advaitins as Sāṁkhya was for Śaṅkara.

c6.s6.t1.15

Many of the works on philosophy, that were composed basically for challenging opponent schools, formed the base for a series of debates. *Tarkatāṇḍava* of Vyāsatīrtha,¹⁸¹ the fourth pontiff in Mādhva tradition, presents the interesting compendium of debates. There are works detailing debates between Śaivites and Vaiṣṇavites or between other sects. Campakeśācārya (fifteenth century) was an adherent of Viśiṣṭādvaita system. In his works like *Vedāntakaṇṭakoddhāra* and *Vādārtharatnamālā* he has taken up issues with the followers of other systems. He had written a prose-poem and a *prabandha* on *Rāmāyaṇa* theme, which are referred in his *Vādārtharatnamālā*. Tātadeśika or Tātārya (CE 1526-67) authored *Pañcamatabhañjana*, criticizing the Śaivites and upholding the tenets of Vaiṣṇavism.

c6.s6.t1.16

The tradition of debate between *Nyāyāmṛta* and *Advaitasiddhi* is spread to a span of 500 years and continued in the form of texts constantly composed from both the sides. Nṛsiṁhāśrama, one of the most celebrated philosophers in Advaita tradition of Vedānta, gave a rebuttal to *Nyāyāmṛtam*.

Vādirāja

c6.s6.t2.1

Vādirāja was born in the village of Huvunakere, near Kumbhāsi in the Kundūpur Taluka of the present South Kanara district of Karnataka. He was son of Rāmācārya and Gaurī. Madhvācārya established eight *maṭhas* in Udupi, the pontiffs of these *maṭhas* were ordained by rotation. Amongst these, the Kumbhāsi Maṭha was headed by Viṣṇutīrtha, Madhva’s younger brother. Vādirāja became the twentieth pontiff of this *maṭha*, and it later was named after him as Śrīvādirāja Maṭha. Vādirāja is said to have lived till the age of 120 years and then he entered the Vṛndāvana a sacred tomb, which he had got constructed through his royal disciple and disappeared. In consideration to his debating skills and soundness of arguments, he was honoured with the title of *Prāsaṅgikābharaṇa* (Ornament of Polemics) in the court of the King Veṅkaṭadevarāya of Vijayanagara. It is believed that he helped the kings of Vijayanagara Kṛṣṇadevarāya (ce 1509-29) and Acyutadevarāya (ce 1529-42) in their dire circumstances by the way of taking them to the cave of Vālin and discovering the hidden treasure there for them.¹⁸²

c6.s6.t2.2

He was adept in the use of *vākovākya alaṁkāra* which reflects *vāda*. Amongst his works *Yuktimallikā* is one of the great philosophical classics in the field of Dvaita Vedānta. It consists of 5,379 verses as an extensive commentary on *Brahmasūtra*. Vādirāja’s brother presided over as the sixteenth pontiff of the Bhaṇḍārakere Maṭha and had written a commentary on *Yuktimallikā*.

c6.s6.t2.3

*Nyāyaratnāvalī* by Vādirāja is a refutation of Śaṅkara’s Advaita Vedānta in 901 verses and five chapters:

c6.s6.t2.4

He tries to flabbergast his opponent by judicious mixture of theology and metaphysics using homely analogies and persuasive rhetoric.¹⁸³

c6.s6.t2.5

*Śrutitattvaprakāśikā* vindicates Dvaita philosophy by interpreting Upaniṣadic sentences *neha nānāsti*, *aham brahmāsmi*, *ekam eva advitīyam*, *tattvamasi* and *kevalo nirguṇaś ca* in 507 verses. *Saṁskṛtasūtrārtha* presents the essence of Dvaita philosophy in condensed aphorisms. *Adhikaraṇanāmāvalī* documents the sections of *Brahmasūtra*. His *Pāṣaṇḍimatakhaṇḍana* and *Kalpalatā* are also polemic works in refutation to *Pramāṇanirṇaya* of Vādirāja Sūri, a Jaina philosopher. *Kalpalatā* especially disapproves Syādvāda and Saptabhaṅgīnaya. *Upanyāsaratnamālā* is supposed to have contained ten discourses on philosophy out of which only three are available. In *Bhūgolanirṇaya*, Vādirāja describes the Indian geography on the basis of *Bhāgavata Purāṇa*. In his *Vivaraṇārṇava* he refutes the *Pañcapādikā* of Prakāśātma Yati. Besides these, Vādirāja had written a work on omens, and several other works on rituals, *mudrās*, etc. He also authored commentaries on *Mahābhārata* and Puruṣa-Sūkta of *Ṛgveda*, along with glosses on the *bhāṣya* of Madhva on *Talvakāropaniṣad*, *Kaṭhopaniṣad*, *Taittirīya Upaniṣad* and also on the commentaries of Jayatīrtha — *Nyāyasudhā* and *Tattvaprakāśikā*.

c6.s6.t2.6

Madhusūdana Sarasvatī made a threadbare analysis of the Mādhva system as propounded in *Nyāyāmṛtam* and demolished its arguments against Śāṅkara-Vedānta in his *Advaitasiddhi*. He was born in a village under Faridpur (Bengal). He learnt Nyāya at Navadvīpa from Harirāma Tarkavāgīśa. Gadādhara Bhaṭṭācārya was his classmate at Navadvīpa. With his all-round scholarship he entered into debates with his contemporaries and challenged his predecessors through his writings. Baldeva Upadhyaya (1994: 42) refers to an incident of his having created a sensation during his visit to Navadvīpa. Gadādhara had to bow down before him after persistent discussions. The following verse cited by Sures Chandra Banerji (2004: 16) sums up the awesome effect created by Madhusūdana by his debates:

c6.s6.t2.7

*navadvīpe samāyāte madhusūdanavākpaṭau* |
*cakampe tarkavāgīśāḥ kātaro ’bhūd gadādharaḥ* | |
At the arrival of Madhusūdana, skilled in oratory, in Navadvīpa, the masters in arguments trembled and Gadādhara was stunned with fear.

c6.s6.t2.8

Rāmārya in his *Nyāyāmṛtataraṅgiṇī* gave a reply to his criticism of Madhva. It is said that he became a disciple in disguise to learn Vedānta from Madhusūdana himself to be able to give a suitable rebuttal to Madhusūdana’s critique of Madhva. Madhusūdana makes a sarcastic and derogatory reference to one *kumati* (conceited person), who is jittering in a meaningless way and presenting pseudocalled him to his court and honoured him. Dara Shikoh came in contact with him and some other *paṇḍits* and Hindu saints of his times. French doctor and intellectual François Bernier stayed in the Mogul court for twelve years and initially worked as a physician to Dara, and then became an interpreter of recent development of science and philosophy in Europe to Daneshmund Khan, secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in Delhi court.

c6.s6.t2.9

Madhav M. Deshpande has discussed conflicting accounts of a philosophical debate that occurred in Ikkeri during the early seventeenth-century (before CE 1629) at the court of Nāyaka king Veṅkaṭappā between the Advaitin court scholar Raṅgoji Bhaṭṭa (younger brother of the well-known grammarian Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita) and his opponent, a *Dvaitin* scholar named Vidyādhīśa.

c6.s6.t2.10

Vidyādhīśa was the sixteenth pontiff of the Uttarādi Maṭha of the Mādhva tradition from 1619 to 1631. Even at the age of sixteen he was known for his mastery over various Śāstras and had started participating in scholarly debates. After his ordination in the *maṭha*, he started travelling to various parts of the country and entering into debates with the proponents of rival sects. It was in the course of these travels that he visited Ikkeri, where the most “debatable debate” happened.

c6.s6.t2.11

There are varying accounts of the debate from both the sides. *Mādhvasiddhāntabhañjanī* by Raṅgoji Bhaṭṭa most probably contained an account of this debate from the Advaitin’s side, but this work is unfortunately lost. Kauṇḍa Bhaṭṭa in his *Bṛhadvyākaraṇabhūṣaṇa* pays tributes to his father, Raṅgoji Bhaṭṭa, with the claim that he (Raṅgoji) had defeated the Dvaitin Vidyādhīśa. On the other hand, in *Raṅgojibhaṭṭadhikkāra* which is available in manuscript, the most intense and fierce debate of these times between Raṅgoji Bhaṭṭa and Vidyādhīśa, both in the words of Vidyādhīśa himself, as well as in the words of his followers and opponents is described.

c6.s6.t2.12

An account of this debate from the Dvaitin’s side is also available in *Śrīvidyādhīśavijaya* of Janārdana Sūri. According to Janārdana, the debate between Raṅgoji Bhaṭṭa and Vidyādhīśa lasted for three months. Janārdana describes Raṅgoji as a demon (*danuja*) born in the garb of a brāhmaṇa, barking like a dog at his opponent.

c6.s6.t2.13

In fact, the question as to who won this debate in itself became one of the issues of a series of hot debates. The narratives given from both the sides are full of abuses for the opposite camp. After giving an account of a number of tracts and narratives describing this debate from both the sides, Deshpande says:

c6.s6.t2.14

The debate probably ended in a stalemate of sorts, with each party claiming victory, and finding fault with the claims seen in written documents like the *jayapatras*. With the charge that the written documents were falsified, probably both sides were free to make statements that were contrary to what one might have found in the written documents, as the probative value of such documents was already discounted by the imputation of falsification. Thus, any possibility of verification is rejected out of hand, as all sources of information are tainted in some way, except one’s own perception of what happened as seen in Vidyādhīśa’s own words, and the perception of the followers about what must have happened. For the followers it is inconceivable that their hero could have been defeated at a debate. Positives from the received information are accentuated, and the negatives are discounted with disbelief.¹⁸⁶

c6.s6.t2.15

Short tracts like *Raṅgojibhaṭṭādhikkāra* (Condemnation of Raṅgoji Bhaṭṭa) and *Bhaṭṭojikuṭṭanam* continued to be written in series. The opposition to the line of Dīkṣitas by the way of composing Khaṇḍana-granthas (texts in refutation) has continued till the twentieth century. Vyākaraṇa Setumādhavācārya wrote a voluminous critique of the *Tattvakaustubha* of Bhaṭṭoji under the title *Tattvakaustubhākuliśa* (1957).¹⁸⁷

c6.s6.t2.16

The debates not only were constantly carried on between some religious sects, between rival families of scholars as well. Paṇḍitarāja Jagannātha was opposed to the Dīkṣita family. If Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita wrote *Manoramā*, a commentary of Pāṇinian system of grammar, Paṇḍitarāja Jagannātha came out with its strong rejoinder in his treatise under the provocative title *Manoramākucamardanī*.

Creating Bridge through Vāda

c6.s6.t3.1

Then there are efforts at synthesis and evolving through dialogues. The Arabs invaded Iran and the Islamic order came to be established there around CE 651. There was exodus of the followers of Zoroastrianism. Some of them settled in Gujarat in tenth century CE. In their enthusiasm to propagate Zoroastrianism in the country that sheltered them and to enter into dialogue with the people of other faiths, the scholars amongst them started translating *Avesta* and other texts from Pahalavī into Sanskrit. Naryosang, who was a Persian priest and son of Dhavala, translated *Avesta* into Sanskrit. Naryosang was a resident of modern Gujarat in the first half of fourteenth century.¹⁸⁸ He also transcribed many texts from Pahalavī script to Avestan script. Of these translations, *Skanda-Gumanig-vizar*, a Pahalavī text of ninth century by Mardan Farrukh is noteworthy. It argues in favour of the religion of the Pārsīs, presenting refutation of other faiths, especially, Islam.¹⁸⁹

c6.s6.t3.2

By this time Sufism had started making inroads in Indian milieu. It was the beginning of a great dialogue between diverse Asian traditions, which had been prefaced in the writings of poets like Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Rumi. The commentaries, poems, songs and sayings of saints like Caitanya (1486–1533), Jñāneśvara, Ekanātha (1533-99), Nāmadeva, Tukārāma, Kabīr, Mīrābāī, Dādū (1544–1608) and Nānak (1469–1539) paved the way for this dialogue. The idea of *sahaja* as elaborated upon by saints even ridiculed the discarding of *viṣayabhoga* (enjoyment of worldly things). The Sahajīyās regarded love and natural life as the core of the religion. Sarahapā is said to have been the founder of this school. He was born in eastern India at a place called Sarolī in the city of Rājī. He used to listen to the discourses by Amita and developed interest in Buddhist philosophy. Afterwards he deviated from Buddhism. Bringing in empiricism in his philosophy of pure bliss, he said:

c6.s6.t3.3

*tanutaracittāṅkurakaḥ viṣayarasair yadi na sicyate śuddhaiḥ |*
*gaganavyāpī phaladaḥ kalpatarutvaṁ katham labheta | |*
— *Caryāgītikośa*
The subtle sprout of mind should be irrigated with the waters of pure worldly pleasure, otherwise it will not grow as a great tree of *kalpavṛkṣa*.

c6.s6.t3.4

Under the philosophical moorings of Śaivism, Tantra made a unique journey in the world of mysticism and spiritual pursuit. Geographically, Tantra had two major centres — one in Kashmir and the other in Karnataka. A revolutionary mystic like Lal-Dêd was born in Kashmir to spell out the essence of the Kashmir Śaivism as seen and experienced by her. Basaveśvara represents the Śaivite philosophy in Karnataka developed under the Liṅgāyata sect.

c6.s6.t3.5

In fact, the philosophy of Tantra gave a vision of transforming this world and the lower levels of consciousness into higher level. Basaveśvara says:

c6.s6.t3.6

The body and the lower senses of labour and actions being transcended, the senses are now one with the *liṅga*, the higher self. I have together with *manas* (a sense-organ) and awareness served the *jaṅgama*, that working energy and the *manas* are now one with the Jaṅgamaliṅga — the moving higher self.¹⁹⁰

c6.s6.t3.7

*Vakh* of Lal-Dêd and *Vacanas* of medieval saints like Basaveśvara presented a new vision of religion and life. Through the inculcation of the element of devotion, the hard and atrocious practices of Tantra melted into compassion. The philosophical sophistries gave place to practical wisdom and search for freedom. Instead of intellectual discourse, *vacanas* revealed real experiences of a liberated soul. The female voices, silenced and lying dormant in the course of the male dominated history of more than two millennia also resounded with a revived gusto. Āṇḍāla, Akkā Mahādevī, Lal-Dêd, Habbā Khātūn, Mīrā and many other female mystic saints created their literary oeuvre with spontaneous verbalization of experiences on the path of enlightenment. The mystic experiences in their sayings are expressed through rare images in subtle phrases. Their feminine discourse had *śakti* (power) and insight to unravel the truth and address the human beings and the God created by them for the inconsistencies and inner contradictions.

c6.s6.t3.8

*Satsaṅga* provided a platform for the meeting of the *siddha* with the *sādhakas* and creating bridges across diverse strata of the society. It served as a link between the seeker and the common people. The *bhajanas*, *vacanas*, *vakh* assigned a performative character to *satsaṅga*.

c6.s6.t3.9

If Muhammad Azam Dedamari and Dawood Mishqati are enamoured of the Lal-Dêd’s message of *vakh*, Rupa Bhavani (1620–1720), a great Kashmiri woman mystic poet in her *Rahasyopadeśa*, acknowledges Lal-Dêd as her *guru*. On her poetry also she relives the spirit of Lal-Dêd. The correspondences and dialogues of Lal-Dêd with contemporaries like Sheikh Baba Nasr-ud-Dīn and philosophic successors like Sheikh Nur-ud-Dīn (Nund Rishi) exemplify the wide horizons and vision which seek to demolish the barriers and compartmentalizations created through religious sects and dogmas. Her mystic interactions with these saints and mystics are mentioned in the Old Persian sources titled *Nūranāmā* and *Ṛṣināmā*.

c6.s6.t3.10

The onslaught of Bhakti movement created new platforms for dialogues across cultures, sects and societies. Hindus were visiting the shrines occupied by *pīrs*, *fakīrs*, *darveśas*; the Muslims were being immersed in the streams of love for Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā. The ripples of the Bhakti movement incepted by Caitanya (CE 1486–1533) swept the country far and wide, many Muslims accepted his cult. Shekh Mohammad of Shrigonde was a *bhakti* poet from Ahmednagar; his *guru*, Chand Boddhale was also the mentor of Janārdana. This Janārdana was the *guru* of Ekanātha.¹⁹¹

c6.s6.t3.11

Even though the interaction with Arabs was going on in the first millennium CE, and *Yavanadarśana* (Islamic philosophy) has been listed as one of the disciplines to be studied by Śukra in his *Śukranīti*, the arrival and intrusion of Turks in the socio-political order gave a jolt to the existing systems and thought processes. There were conversions and also resistance to conversions. Many Hindus, even kings, chose to embrace Islam at their own choice also, to escape the oppression and inequalities of the caste system and hierarchies. Describing the situation after the annexation of Bengal by Sultan Muhammad Tughlak (succession CE 1325), Sures Chandra Banerji says:

c6.s6.t3.12

Jitmal or Jaymal, popularly known as Yadusena, embraced Islam, but after some time, reverted to his ancestral religion. This fickle-minded man again embraced Islam and after the death of his father, occupied the throne under the name of Jalāluddīn.¹⁹²

c6.s6.t3.13

It was in this background that Ekanātha (1533-99) wrote a unique *bhāruḍ* (drama-poem) titled *Hindu-Turk-Saṁvāda*. The saint-poet appears as an interlocutor between the two debaters — the Turk and the Hindu, and his address at the very outset sets the tone for this poem:

c6.s6.t3.14

*The goal is one, the ways of worship are different,*
*Listen to the dialogue between these two,*
*The Turk calls the Hindu kāfir,*
*The Hindu answers — “I will be polluted, get away!”*
*A quarrel broke out between the two*
*A great controversy began.*¹⁹³

c6.s6.t3.15

Both the debaters — the Turk and the Hindu — make allegations and counter-allegation of the religious and sectarian practices of each other. But their disagreements eventually culminate into an agreement — that there are fundamental unities and each tradition must be respected in its distinctiveness.

c6.s6.t3.16

*Hindu: The brāhmaṇa says O yes Swāmi*
*As a matter of fact you and I are one,*
*This controversy grew over caste and dharma*
*When we go to God, there are no such things,*
*Turk: this is the truth,*

c6.s6.t3.17

*For God there is no caste,*
*There is not separation between the devotee and the God*
*Even though the prophet has said — the God is hidden.*¹⁹⁴

c6.s6.t3.18

Ekanātha’s other *bhāruḍs* include dialogue between a brāhmaṇa and a *mahār*, between a brāhmaṇa and a dog, or words spoken my fortune tellers, untouchables, snake-charmers, prostitutes, etc.¹⁹⁵

c6.s6.t3.19

*Dabistān-e-mazahib*, a Persian text by unknown author, presents debates and dialogues between various faiths; it was written in seventeenth century under the patronage of Akbar. The text also gives a glimpse of debates and discussions held in the court of Akbar (1542–1605). The authorship of this work has remained a subject of much controversy. It is divided in twelve chapters named as *tālīms*. Each *tālīm* is again divided into several *naẓars* (views). The first *tālīm* takes into account the faiths and beliefs of Parsis and Iranis, especially of Zoroastrianism, in fifteen *naẓars*. It is also possible that the author of this work was a follower of the Parsi religion. He describes the tenets of this religion, its prophets and saints and major texts, including several sects and communities within it. The second *tālīm* is concerned with Hinduism. It is comprised of twelve *naẓars*. The author introduces the basic principles of Hindu religions and also compares it with Zoroastrianism. In the second *naẓar* of this *tālīm* he describes the theories of creation according to Purāṇas. He also provides details of the geography and *avatāras* (incarnations) according to *Bhāgavata Purāṇa*. He supports idol worship because of its symbolism. The third *naẓar* deals with the Smārta view. It describes sixteen *saṁskāras*, the Vedas and the Smārta karmas. Vedānta is dealt within the fourth *naẓar*. The author not only describes major texts and philosophers, he also enumerates many interesting stories as *dṛṣṭāntas* (illustrations). The fifth and sixth *naẓars* deal with Sāṁkhya and Yoga systems and the seventh and eighth with the Vaiṣṇavas and Śāktas, respectively. The Cārvākas are taken up in the ninth. The sect of *tyāgīs* is described in the tenth *naẓar*. The eleventh presents the Buddhist philosophy and the twelfth one takes notice of diverse faiths and philosophies.

c6.s6.t3.20

The third *tālīm* describes a Karāvatī sect, the fourth ones deals with Judaism. The author has referred to the original texts and has even translated the first chapter of *Tauret*. In the fifth *tālīm* on Christianity, the author has presented the life and acts of Christ as well as the beliefs and practices of the Christians. The sixth *tālīm* introduces Islam. The differences between the Sunnīs and the Śiyās are enumerated and the twelve sects under Śiyā are described. The seventh *tālīm* is on the Sādiks. It describes the tenets of the Ismāīlīs and those who believe Ali as the God. The ninth *tālīm* is related to the tenets of Vāhidiyā and Vāyajīd. The tenth *tālīm* on *Dīn-e-Ilāhī*, propagated by Akbar, forms the core of this work. Akbar is described as Khalīftullāh or the representative or the Prophet. It is comprised of four *nazars*, in which the author describes the birth of the Prophet, the debates organized and presided over by him, his divine attributes and finally his message. The eleventh *tālīm* discusses diverse faiths. The last *tālīm* is concerned with Sufism.

c6.s6.t3.21

The tenth *tālīm* also furnishes the first-hand account of the debates held in the court of Emperor Akbar. In the first debate brings out a very bitter fight between the Sunnīs and Śiyās. The author says that he has presented this debate at the instance of the adherents of both these orders and he only intends to examine the truth of each. The Śiyā scholar argued that the Sunnīs are non-religious because they do not consider the Prophet Mohammad infallible, and they treat him like a ordinary human being. The follower of Zudaism interferes here to support the Śiyā. But then the Śiyā also enters into an argument with him and establishes that the present scripture of the Zudaism is but an interpolation. He also narrates the tragic episode of Mohammad not being given material for writing to enable him to frame his will and declare his daughter and the son-in-law as his inheritors and illegal seize of the land belonging to Fātimā, his daughter by Abu Bakr. Sunnī gives a rejoinder here by pointing out that the prophets do not declare a will. Śiyā then accuses the Sunnī of character assassination of the Nabī by the way of making him dance to please his wife Ayesha. He describes various illegal acts of the previous *khalīfās* and the glory of Ali. The Śiyā and the Sunnī appear to be daggers drawn at each other and the Emperor Akbar orders for their being taken out. Next the debate of a Christian scholar with a Muslim is described. The former says that no Prophet named Mohammad is described in his scriptures, and cites the Christ having said that many untruthful persons will come after me claiming the prophethood, but they should not be believed in. On the contrary, the followers of Islam already regard Christ as a Prophet. Replying these allegations the Muslim alleges that the Christian texts have been tampered with. Upon which the Christian asks him whether he is in possession of the untampered texts, eliciting a negative answer from the later. Why don’t you respect the Christ just as we respect Musa? — he then asks the Muslim. The Muslim starts describing the miracles performed by Mohammad. The Christian retorts by saying that if such miracles happened, they should have been referred in the history books of all faiths. The followers of some other faiths then are called for to give an attestation to the miracle of the Mohammad, which they promptly deny. The debate between a Zew and a Christian is then taken up. The Zew asked his opponent whether there occurs any reference to Christ in Touret. The Christian in his reply pointed out that it is the text of his opponent that describes the birth of Christ from a maiden. The Zew said — Mariam is not described in our text as a virgin, she was already married to Yousuf. The Christian retored — this is true, but he had not even touched Mariam”. The Zew then shouted — how can you prove that? The Christain fell silent. In the next episode a wise person confronts with the representatives of various faiths — Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc. taken all together. The wise man challenged the validity of the prophethood of the prophets of all these faiths citing the following grounds — a prophet must always speak logical things, he should be civilized and not an oppressor. Musa killed his own foster mother by drowning her in the river, it is not correct to say that the river did not make a way for her. Christ had allowed killing of the animals and Musa was involved in looting. In this way the wise man found fault with all the prophets and decried them. Replying to him, the followers of various faiths started recounting the miracles performed by the respective prophets. The wise man pointed out the inner contradictions in their narratives and found fault with Hindu *avatāras* of Rāma, Kṛṣṇa, etc. also. In the end the text describes the new faith being proposed by Akbar.

c6.s6.t3.22

Padmanābha Miśra wrote *Kaṇādarahasyam*, an exposition of *Vaiśeṣikasūtras* of Kaṇāda in vs 1640 (ce 1583). He discussed the prima facie views of other systems and refuted them according to the theories of the Vaiśeṣika system.¹⁹⁶

c6.s6.t3.23

Dara Shikoh was born in 1625 after the Emperor Shah-e-Jahan offered a *mannat* at the shrine of Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti at Ajmer and remained deeply steeped in the discourses of *pīrs* and *faqīrs* belonging to Sufism. He was trained in Islamic lore by Latif Sultanpuri, Miran Shekh, Ajhamad Dehalvi and others. The discourses of Sufi saint Miyan Mir Dehalvi and Bābā Lāldās Bairāgī, a Kabīrpanthī *sādhu*, made great impact on his mind. He was mercilessly butchered in 1659.

The Reconciliation

c6.s6.t4.1

At the age of 42, five years before his untimely demise, Dara Shikoh had completed *Samudrasaṅgama* — translation of his Persian work *Mazm-ul-Baharain* into Sanskrit. *Sirr-e-Akbar*, comprises his translations of fifty-two Upaniṣads into Persian. In *Samudrasaṅgama* he envisaged the bridges across two powerful streams of ideologies and created a synthesis of Sufi traditions of Islam and Upaniṣadic philosophy. “I have called this text as *Samudrasaṅgama* because it is a confluence of two seas of knowledge” he says in the beginning (*jnānyor dvayar api matasamudrayor iha saṅgama iti ca asya nāma ca asthāpayaṁ* — *Samudrasaṅgama* I.2). There are twenty sections in *Samudrasaṅgama* covering comparative studies between Vedāntic concepts and Islamic view with regard to the five elements, sense-organs (*indriyas*), meditation, qualities of God, concept of soul and its relations with God, concept of creation, concept of light (*nūra*), realization of God, names of God and other terms related to Him, the concept of *siddhas*, concepts of time and space, earth and its localities as described in both the traditions, other worlds, the cosmos, concept of *pralaya* (dissolution) and the concept of *mokṣa*. After juxtaposing the theories on these categories in Vedic and Islamic thoughts and analysing them in contrast to each other, Dara opines that only terms and definitions differ, the fundamentals do not. He sees *ekavākyatā* (unity) and says that those who find difference between these two are devoid of wisdom (*bhedavādinastu kuṇṭhitamatayaḥ*). The sufis to Dara are Aikātmyavādins (advocates of unity between the two traditions).

c6.s6.t4.2

There are differences on the border lines which Dara minutely notes. For example in Islamic philosophy there are five types of inner organs whereas the Vedic view upholds four types of *antaḥkaraṇas*.

c6.s6.t4.3

In fact, *Samudrasaṅgama* is a condensation of ideas Dara had developed after prolonged discussions with *maulavīs*, *pīrs*, *faqīrs*, scholars like Paṇḍitarāja Jagannātha, saints like Bābā Lāldās Bairāgī and others. He calls the philosophy thus developed by him as Satyaikātmatāvāda (true monism). He refers to the scholars of Hinduism as *paripūrṇa vaidikas*. There are records of seven dialogues between him and the saint Bābā Lāldās whom he has described as *caitanyasvarūpa-jñānamūrti* in his *Samudrasaṅgama*. These dialogues with Bābā Lāldās were recorded by Ray Jadhav Das and Chandrabhan Brahman, who was a scholar of Persian and Sanskrit. He helped in rendering these texts into Persian. Translation of fifty-two Upaniṣads in his *Sirr-e-Akbar* was aimed at building the bridges between diverse philosophical traditions and creating an understanding of the Asian spirit and philosophy. At the same time, he must have had a political angle as the heir apparent — he wanted to translate his vision of Asian culture as well, by the way of inculcating his ideas in the socio-political system.

c6.s6.t4.4

Dara sees certain obvious equations between Vedānta and Islam. The five elements *ākāśa*, *vāyu*, *tejas*, *jala* and *pṛthvī* are named as *unsūre ālam*, *vāda*, *ātaśa*, *āba* and *ṣoka* in Islamic philosophy and in the same way they are supposed to be the material causes of the universe. By creating hermeneutics, Dara further develops the concept of *ākāśa*, which is of three types — *bhūtākāśa*, *cidākāśa* and *cittākāśa*. The former envelops all material, the second envelops the cosmos and the third one is the Ultimate Reality. In the same way Dara locates affinities to finding out the similarities in terms for sense-organs and the subjects of the sense-organs (*tanmātras*). He based his critique on *Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad*, *Yogavāsiṣṭha* and *Vedāntaratna-mañjūṣā*. The presiding deities of the three *guṇas* (*sattva*, *rajas* and *tamas*) are Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Śiva and they are equated with Jibariāla, Mikaila and Isarāphīla in Islamic concepts. The concepts of *jīvātman* and *paramātman* have their counterparts in Islamic traditions as *rūhajūjaī* and *rūhakulī*. *Rūha-e-Azam* is the Supreme God. He produces Sanskrit translation of Koran IV.35 to support the contention that Almighty God can be seen. In the same way the idea of *mukti* (salvation) also gets new dimensions through hermeneutics.¹⁹⁷

c6.s6.t4.5

*Mazm-ul-Baharain*, the Persian original of *Samudrasaṅgama*, made an everlasting impact on world thought. Within 100 years of its composition, it was translated into Arabic.

c6.s6.t4.6

Dara Shikoh was not alone in visualizing the harmony and meeting grounds between diverse faiths. Parallel to verbal duals or clashes in debates there were stalwarts seeking resolution of differences and envisaging a unifying approach. A series of Cāturmatasāmarasya works (on the harmony between four tenets) continued with this approach. Appayya Dīkṣita authored *Nayamañjarī*, *Nayamayūkhamālā*, *Nayamaṇimālā* and *Nayamuktāvalī*. These four texts by him taken together are called *Adhikaraṇasāra*. Madhusūdana Sarasvatī also worked with a holistic perspective. The tradition of Sāmarasya-texts has continued till the recent times in the works of Polaga Rama Shastri and Lakshmipuram Shrinivasacharya.

c6.s6.t4.7

*Mahānirvāṇatantra*, a text marking the beginnings of modern Indian philosophy, was created at the end of this phase between 1775–1875, by unknown author/authors, most probably in Bengal. It is different from *Nirvāṇatantra* and could be a revised version of a Buddhist text recast in Vedāntic garb.¹⁹⁸ Sures Chandra Banerji suggests that the entire text is a fabrication by Hariharānandanātha, preceptor of Raja Rammohun Roy (1772–1833), as it reflects the reformist views and the first edition of the text was brought out by Ādi Brahma Samāj, which was founded by Roy.¹⁹⁹

c6.s6.t4.8

Deviating from the earlier Tantras and tāntric cults, *Mahānirvāṇatantra* specifies the method of *brahma-dīkṣā* as the best form of initiation. The following topics have been dealt it in the fourteen *ullāsas* (chapters) — liberation, meditation, Supreme *Brahman*, meditating upon the *parā-prakṛti*, rescuing the *mantras* and purifying the *tattvas*, etc., *śrīcakra* and *homacakra*, the *kavacas* (protecting spells) and the concept of *kula*, *varṇāśramācāradharma* (duties of different castes), *kuśaṇḍikā* (the pedestral for *havana*) and ten secraments, *śrāddha* and *abhiṣeka* rites, *prāyaścitta* (expiation rites), *vyavahāra* (legal matters), *vāstu* and *grahayāga*, establishment of *śivaliṅga* and four kinds of *avadhūtas* (ascetics). It makes a unique synthesis of Vedic ritualism with tantric Śaivism and prescribes two types of *sandhyās* — *vaidikī* and *tāntrikī*; differing on the type of *upāsanā*. It also preserves the chanting of *brahma-mantra*, and *gāyatrī-japa*.²⁰⁰

c6.s6.t4.9

In fact, this Tantra seeks to envisage a new social order by synthesizing Vedāntic and Śaivite world-views, the Upaniṣadic philosophy and reformist social thoughts, the Tantra and Smṛti, the Śākta monotheism and the cult of Durgā, Mahāvidyā and Lakṣmī. It also advocates a balanced and precautionary use of five *makāras* — *madya* (wine), *māṁsa* (meat), *matsya* (fish), *mudrā* (parched cereals) and *maithuna* (sexual union — normally with one’s wife) for the members of the *cakra* (circle), warning against their misuse.²⁰¹ The initiation in Tantra leads to the annihilation of caste, but caste system is to be accepted before the initiation. *Mahānirvāṇatantra* even introduces a fifth caste — the *sāmānya* — or the common class formed by the mixture of all castes and both śūdras and the members of the fifth *sāmānya* caste to perform the rites prescribed in the Āgamas to.²⁰² In this way, it leads to a demolition of the caste system itself. It also authorizes all the five *varṇas* to get initiation as *avadhūtas*.²⁰³ There are ideas providing the glimpses of the dawn of a new age — admonition against any brutality against one’s wife²⁰⁴ and recommendation on women education, etc.²⁰⁵ *Dāna* (charity), according to *Mahānirvāṇatantra*, is the best practice leading to all kinds of *siddhis* in the age of Kali, but only the poor person engaged in good deeds is eligible to be the beneficiary of charity.²⁰⁶

First 81 of 268 passages. Read on

Linked texts (63)