tattvOdyOta

- Dr. BNK Sharmas History of Dvaita School of Philosophy

This is one of the fighting works of Madhva, in which he has discusses and refuted some of the leading doctrines and fundamental concepts of Advaita Vedanta. It is traditionally believed to embody some of the arguments actually employed by Madhva, in his historic debate with two celebrated Advaitins of his day : Pundarika Puri and Padma Tirtha recorded in Madhva Vijaya xii, 1- 54.

(i). Madhva maintains, at the outset, that "Difference" (bhEda) is the fundamental concomitant of nature. It persists even in Moksha between Brahman and freed souls and among the latter. The more should it hold good on this side of release (saMsArAvasthA) . It is hardly convincing to dismiss it as an unreal projection of the mind. The concept of Anirvacaniya, one would have to characterize Brahman also as "Anirvacaniya; for its existence is affirmed (anIdavAtaM swadhayA tadEkaM) immediately after a series of denials "nasadAsInnO sadAsIttadAnIm" earlier.

(ii). Syllogisms advanced by the Monoist in support of the unreality of phenomena (mitthyAtwa) are shown to be full of fallacies and contradictions: dRushyatvAdhyanumAnEpyEte Eva dOShAH | The minor term and grounds of inductive generalization in these cases are refuted in great detail The reality of the world, which is borne upon us by our own consolidated experience, cannot be suppresses by any amount of specious reasoning. If the verdict of experience is to be set aside, it can only be on the strength of a more powerful and subsequent experience (bAdhakAnubhava) , here and now. And we know only too well that such is not the case here.

(iii). Long before Madhva, the Advaitins had been suspected of inward sympathies and leaning towards Buddhism. Advaita was openly denounced as Buddhism in disguise by such early writers as Bhaskara, Parthasarathi Misra, Yadavaprakasha and Ramanuja. From early days, Advaitins have been vehemently protesting that theirs was certainly not Buddhism. The prejudice and antipathy to Advaita was very strong in Madhva's days. It is not to be wondered if he chose to exploit this prevailing antipathy of his times, to the Advaitha, both in the learned quarters and among the people to further the interests of his new system. What is important, however is that unlike most of his predecessors, he took it upon himself to substantiate his criticism against Advaita, both in this respect, with chapter and verse, in his Tattboddyota and to a lesser extent, elsewhere. So much so, that academically speaking we have to look up to Madhva, for a really exhaustive treatment of this question. The charge of 'crypto-Buddhism' was not certainly invented by Madhva. But he shared the general belief of scholars, then as now, that it bore a very strong family resemblance to Buddhism and that for all practical purposes it was but a restatement of Buddhistic ideas in Upanishadic and Vedantic phraseology. Madhva makes this the vantage ground of his attack on Advaita. He quotes from standard Buddhistic works current in his days and from well-known Advaitic works like Samkshepa-Sariraka :

anatahaDavirodhirUpamanantatrayamalabandhanaduHKatAviruddham" (i, 1) iti ca mAyAvAdI |

MAdhva contends that the attributeless Brahman of Advaita can hardly be distinguished from the Sunya of Buddhistic Nihilism . Both are aKaNDa beyond thought and word (avAcya) and can only be expressed through negatives (vyAvRutti = apoha). the so called vyAvahArikasatya of the Advaitin is nothing but the "saMvRutisatya" of the Buddhist writ larger. The ideal of NirvaNa and the goal of Brahmabhava, were nearly the same. In view of so much striking affinity of Prameyas (basic doctrines), Madhva asserts that Advaita is indeed Buddhism: na ca shUnyavAdinaH sakAshAd vailakShaNyaM mAyAvAdinaH | The Advaitin's belief is the Vedas turns out to be a veritable deception when it is remembered that they dismiss KarmakhAnda and large slices of Upanishads which teach dualistic views as "n0n-truth-declaring" (atattvAbEdaka) . Madhva, naturally , protests against such high-handed treatment to the Vedas which is worse than even the Buddhists' open abjuration of them. The Advaitins' attitude is, moreover inconsistent. :(nahi kukkuTachyA eko bhAgaH prasavAyAparaH pAkAya kalpate!). If one part of Scripture can speak

untruth (atattvam) what guarantee is there for the other parts alone ? Madhva winds up with the observation that the refutation of Buddhistic idealism and Nihilism in the Vedanta Sutras is thus tantamount to a refutation of Advaitism itself : nAsato dRuShTatwAt | nAbhAva upalabdheH vaidhamyacci na swapnAdivat | ityAdi bhagavadvacanenApi nirastAH | naca shUnyavAdinaH sakAshAt vailakShaNyaM mAyAvAdinaH |

(iv.) There is a constructive side of the Td., wherein Madhva quotes passages to show that Theism is the only philosophy accepted by the Shastras. Such texts as have been claimed by the monoist to support aKaNDArtha (such as "Tat tvam Asi") according to which, passages of the Sruti are believed somehow to refer to an attributeless Absolute are reinterpreted, in conformity with Theism. The work concludes with a brief criticism of Ekajivajnanavada.The last seven verses do not belong to Madhva. They are in nature of tributes paid to him by the admiring witnesses of his debate with Pundarika Puri and incorporated into the body of his discourse (Td.) at the request of his disciples.