One reads about late medieval debates in which one side would cite Puranic material. Are there instances when the opponents called it "Tamasic" to refute it?


1 Answer 1


Sri Appayya Dikshita writes in his book, Sivatattvaviveka

We are not very much worried about whether it is Vishnu or Siva who is the supreme deity spoken of by the Upanishads because we follow Advaita. But it is impossible for one like me to keep quiet when men with perverted minds proclaim in abusive language their hatred toward Siva by calling these puranas as tamasic — a hatred which consumes their hearts like flames. I have refuted these people but this does not mean that I am not a devotee of Vishnu

  • Also, there is a difference between 'Shiva'-dveshi and 'Shiva=Vishnu'-dveshi. When the 2nd is mistaken for the 1st, that is the main cause of intellectual friction between Shaivas/Vaishnavas. There is definitely an intersection between the two dveshi sets, but while the latter is sanctioned by Shastras, the former isn't afaik.
    – ram
    Mar 21, 2021 at 15:33
  • 1
    @Sethu Srivatsa Koduru Sir, please also remember Sri Appayya Dikshita wrote commentaries on advaita, vishisthaadvaita and dvaita but did not assert superiority of advaita over any of them. He said they were different paths leading to the same goal. In fact, he was also a follower of Vedanta Desika and did commentaries on his work. In fact, his commentaries on padusahasram and Yadavabhudaya are the only commentaries so far known. He wrote Hari-hara-stuti to show hari-hara-abheda by alternating epithets glorifying each.
    Mar 22, 2021 at 1:07
  • 1
    @Sethu Srivatsa Koduru His book, SiddhAnta lesa samgraha, points out the differences and similarities between the bhamati and vivarna schools of thought. He finally concludes that both of these sub schools are very similar and just mere semantics to talk about avidya. He agrees both of necessary depending on the aspirant but there is no right or wrong between these schools.
    Mar 22, 2021 at 1:11
  • 1
    @Sethu Srivatsa Koduru Madhusudhan Sarasvati and Appayya Dikshita were born in same year (1520). The former wrote commentaries on Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavatam (partial) and dasa shloki. He wrote a word by word refutation of nyaya amrutha by the dualist school of vyasa tirtha. He was instrumental in getting tulsidas ram charit manas published. He tried to integrate vaishnavite faith in advaita, was the teacher of vallabhacharya's son and also initiated several non-brahmins as naga sadhus.
    Mar 22, 2021 at 4:38
  • 1
    @Sethu Srivatsa Koduru Madhusudhana Sarasvati and Tulsidas were at the same time in Varanasi. As he was a great scholar on dvaita, nyaya and advaita, he was asked whether it should be allowed to publish ramayana in a local language. Due to the strong support of Madhusudhana, Tulsidas was able to publish his work.
    Mar 22, 2021 at 5:56

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .