Sectarian ADambara in Internet Hinduverse: More noisy than jayanta bhaTTa’s AgamADambara & not nearly as insightful or constructive
1. A brief note for those interested in learning rather than sectarianism: The attempt by abrahma-s to study mAdhva-s or rAmAnuja-s should be understood carefully. It should NOT be understood as mAdhva-s sharing some features with abrahma-s; which is clearly superficial
2. Understanding mAdhva-s & abrahma-s as “sharing” them gives a false impression that these so-called “shared” features independently originated among abrahma-s, or are an original insight by them, & therefore the mAdhva-s too have evolved in a similar pattern as the abrahma-s.
3. So, for instance, let’s take one such “shared” feature, that brahman is only an effective cause (nimitta kAraNa) & not the material cause (upAdAna kAraNa) of the universe. Of the 3 major schools of vedAnta, only mAdhva-s argue this. The rAmAnuja-s & advaitin-s argue otherwise.
4. This is one feature that attracted abrahma attention to mAdhva-s. However, mAdhva-s aren’t the only ones to boldly depart themselves from prevailing scene in vedAnta. The shaiva siddhAntin-s have been arguing exactly the same point since their time at kAshmIra in the 600-s.
5. So, even within dharma, there is a great diversity of opinion. So, this is not exactly an outlying opinion. The abrahma-s find this similarity appealing as it suits their purposes. That is all. They hold that their “God” (not our brahman) & the universe are not made of same material.
6. The abrahma-s are not original for having this opinion. Virtually, every non-abrahamic system predating the abrahma-s in those lands has understood the creator or the gods being the efficient cause of the universe only, not as being the material cause.
7. In other words, to put it simply, both abrahma-s & mAdhva-s have taken an idea which predated both & was already appreciated by the non-abrahamic world for a long, long time. In fact, it’s the more natural idea for vast majority to understand (though my own birth sampradAya varies from this position🙂)
8. So, it’s clear why framing this as an example of a mAdhva “closeness” or similarity to abrahma durmata would not be a proper position to take at all.
9. Another example I will quickly dispose of is one about avatAra. Actually, most abrahma-s will virulently reject the idea that their “divine” rAkSasa can take birth. We are left with the preta-s.
10. The preta theology, if anyone bothered to study, had the “Incarnation” as the fundamentally most significant theological point. Some preta-s saw a parallel with the avatAra concept but saw that it was particularly important to vaiSNava-s. But how similar are these?
11. No.1: The avatAra-s are accepted by all sects of our dharma even though they may not occupy the same level of importance for all of them. No.2: The significance of the ‘Incarnation’ of the preta is because of the abrahma view of history as essentially linear & finite.
12. In other words, the 2000-year-old birth of the preta from a “kanyA” under suspicious circumstances was an irreversible turning point in history. It is the fulcrum about which all of time before & after it revolves. One’s eternal fate hinges on this historical event.
13. Our avatAra-s, despite their immense importance, are ultimately part of a cyclical framework for the vast majority of the traditional schools. The same avatAra-s may not repeat in another yuga or manvantara or kalpa.
14. Finally, while the idea of gods incarnating as humans is quite rare, it is not completely unknown outside the Indic & abrahma spheres. The Aztec god Quetzalcoatl as the human ruler Topiltzin or Thoth/Hermes incarnating as Hermes Trismegistus are examples.
15. Ultimately, there are only two options. Either the divines (or a part of them) can be born on earth or they cannot. All of mainstream Hinduism asserts that they can. To find similarity between vaiSNava-s (not just mAdhva-s) & abrahma-s is a technique of abrahma cunningness/dishonesty.
16. So, those two examples give some idea of why making comparisons between abrahma-s and our own folks (whatever sampradaya they may be) is something that requires immense caution and nuance.
17. As someone who has consistently honoured a variety of sects & traditions within dharma, as someone who actually tweets in honor of both the rAmAnuja and mAdhva AcArya-s, as someone who repeatedly tries his best to work beyond sectarian divisions, I do have a request though. Care to read further?
It’s very easy to call for Hindu unity. It’s very easy to put Hindu interests first when one is in the comfort zone, and nobody has said anything controversial, mistaken or misguided.
But it is very difficult to harden the heart and put Hindu interests above sampradAya pride/zeal when that conflict comes. I respect many of the people of other sects than my own. Many of you are excellent handles, tweeting valuable and wonderful information. But how quickly one person’s mistaken observation was extended to “an understanding of Dvaita by fellow schools of Vedanta”?!
Immediately in response to the linked tweet above, one sees a “Just another advaitin showing off his mithyaj~nAna” or a crass remark like this: https://twitter.com/venkatsobers/status/959415525695631361
My Request to @Madhvahistory and other level-headed individuals like him: Those hurt at their sect being compared to something unfavorable (comparison is WRONG, superficial & ignores technicalities), I hope you’ll also help rein in your folks when they diss other AcArya-s or post hurtful hagiographic stories belittling followers of other deva-s.