Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c6.s6.t2: Vādirāja

Vāda in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c6.s6.t2

Language
English

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*.

Linked texts (16)