Madhvacharya was born in the year 1238 and lived a healthy and robust life of 79 years. Coming after Ramanuja he made massive contribution to Hindu Philosophy. Though he started as a student of Advaita philosophy (Monoism), he soon began to think afresh and brought forth his philosophy of Dvaita, Dualism. He was well aware of the Vishishtadvaita (qualified Monoism) philosophy of Ramanuja but boldly proclaimed for the first time that the world of matter and soul are real. He classified these two realities as Swatantra and Paratantra—Independent and dependent. He said god alone is the one independent reality and everything else dependent on him. Hence his system is known as Dvaita or Dualism. He had given lot of thought to his predecessors Sankara and Ramanuja and brought forth new light on Brahman.
He also clearly mentioned even among the souls that have attained liberation there are slight differences in their quality. He classified liberated souls as having the status of Saalokya (In the vicinity of Supreme Brahman), Saameepya (Nearer to Brahman) and (Saayujya) closest to Brahman.
He was a prolific writer in Sanskrit. He wrote number of devotional hymns like Sankara. He wrote thirty-nine works which are known as Sarvamoola. They include commentaries on Rig Veda, Upanishads, Bhagavadgeetaa, Brahmasootra, Mahaabhaarata, Bhaagavata and several other critical works.
Chaitanya Sampradaya of Bengal owes a lot to Dvaita philosophy of Madhva. Later his followers Jayteertha, Vyaasateertha, Raghotthama, Vaadiraaja, Raghavendra to mention a few among them spread his philosophy all over India. The great saints like Purandara Daasa, Hari Daasa, Kanaka Daasa and Jagnnaatha Daasa pursued Madhva philosophy. They were all great exponents of Bhakti Maarga.
Madhvacharya had great occult powers as seen from his life history but he did not practice it. He is believed to have met Vedavyasa in the Himalayas, discussed his Dvaita philosophy with him and got further enlightenment from him. With great reluctance he left his master and returned to the real world to spread his new-found message thoroughly discussed and refined by none other than Vedavyaasa. As we all know Vedavyaasa is a Chiranjeevi like Hanuman. Therefore it will not be an exaggeration if we think that Madhva philosophy is the most realistic among the three great philosophies of Hinduism being the latest and practical as we have to deal with the real world in our day to day life. Sankara’ s philosophy was time based and need based as it had to fight Nehalism and atheist tendencies while Ramanuja made some compromises to spread his message of Bhaktimaarga and Saranaagati complete surrender. (Please see my comparative discourses on Philosophy schools of Hinduism)
Philosophy of
Dvaita Vedanta
MADHWA PHILOSOPHY
Posted by The Editor IndiaDivine.Org
The
criterion of reality according to Madhva is that it should be unsuperimposed
(‘anaropitam’) and given as an object of valid knowledge, as existing at some
point of time and in some place. These two ideas are complementary and are
implicit in Madhva’ s definition of Reality (‘tattvam’) given by him as
‘prameyam’. Reality in the ordinary sense of the term may consist in one or
more of the three aspects of existence, consciousness and activity.
Though
existence is thus ‘reality’, Madhva recognizes that its highest expression must
be metaphysical independence of every other form of existence in finite
reality, in respect of its being, powers and activity. Everything in finite
reality is therefor e grounded in the Independent Reality, known as Brahman and
needs it for its being and becoming.
While
existence in space and time is thus reality and is possessed by the world of matter
and souls, there must be something more than mere existence, having
metaphysical independence or substantiality in its own right which may be
designated as the hig hest real or the philisophical Absolute which would be
the ultimate expression of all else. Such independent reality should be
immanent in the universe, whence the latter could derive and draw its
sustenance. Without presupposing such a basic and transcen dental reality that
would have to be immanent in the world, there would be chaos and disorder in
the universe.
However,
Madhva’s chief ontological classification of ‘being’ is into principles viz.
‘svatantra’ (Independent Reality) and ‘paratantra’ (Dependent Reality). The
term ‘Reality’ represents three primary data: the thinking self, a world of
external realiti es and indications of an Infinite Power rising above them.
In
Madhva’s conclusions of Dvaita metaphysics reached by the evidence of
‘pratyaksa’ ‘anumana’ and ‘sabda pramana’ this infinite power is that Supreme
and Independent Principle which does not depend on any other for its own nature
and existence, self-awa reness or for becoming an object of knowledge to the
thinking selves for the free and unfettered exercise of its own powers. This
‘svatantra-tattva’ (independent principle) is called God or ‘Brahman’or
‘Isvara’. Though Brahman can do very well without pra krti or purusa (Dependent
Realities), it prefers, in its infinite glory and inexorable will, ‘to do with
them’. Such dependence (apeksa) of Brahman on things which are in themselves
dependent on It, is no mark of inferiority or limitation.
The
dependence of the world of matter and the souls on Brahman is in the sense that
both are functioning at His will, which is the essential condition and
sustaining principle that invests them with their reality and without which
they would be but void names and bare possibilities. The dependent reals (as
Madhva admits the plurality of the selves), by their very nature, can have no
absolute or unlimited jurisdiction over one another and are distinct from
Brahman. The individual souls and their material enviornment are not
independent. Madhva brings these eternal and uncreated substances under the
power of Supreme Being i.e., God as ‘svatantra’, occupies the central position,
with existent realities like matter and souls keeping their legitimate position
under Him. Thus ‘svatantra’ and ‘paratantra’ are the fundamental
presuppositions of Madhva’s philosophy which aim at understanding the
metaphysical dependence of all finite reality comprising the ‘cetana’ and
‘acetana’ world upon One Infinite, Indepenten t Reality. Here Madhva points out
that we have no right to deny reality to the world of matter and souls, simply
because they are not independentor do not always exist in the same form. But they
are there, have been there and will be there though ever cha nging and
depending on Brahman.
Sri
Madhva puts forward the idea of ‘bimba-pratibimbabhava’ (Original and
Reflection) to illustrate the true nature of the relationship between
‘svatantra’ and ‘paratantra’. The relationship of these two is of unilateral
dependence of all finite reality on the Independent principle, for its
existence, knowledge, knowability, and activity (‘satta’, ‘pratiti’, and
‘pravrtti’). The relationship is not unreal or reciprocal dependence rather the
world cannot exist without God as it owes its very power of exis tence,
functioning etc., to God and derives them from Him. The (symbolic) relation of
bimbapratibimbabhava as conceived by Madhva would be permanent and true of all
states of the jivatman and not merely as passing one, true of samsara alone.
There will be no destruction of the pratibimba so long as the contact of upadhi
is intact. The function of an upadhi (medium) is to manifest the pratibimba. In
the present case, it is the pristine nature of the ‘jivasvarupa’ itself as
‘cit’ that would suffice, accordi ng to Madhva, to manifest itself to itself in
its true nature of metaphysical dependence on Brahman and of being endowed with
a measure of similarity of attributes (as part of the meaning ofthe word
(‘pratibimba’) with its Original (Brahman) without calli ng to aid the services
of any external medium (‘bahyopadhi’).
Doctorine
of Difference:
It
shown that matter, souls and God constitute the three major realities of Madhva’s
system. The number of souls is unlimited and the modifications of matter are
numerous, in various states. These three are conceived as distinct entities.
The reality of God is of the independent grade. That of the rest is depedent.
Between matter and souls, the former is of a lesser grade of reality. It is
only in this sense that the ‘degrees’ of reality is explained in this system.
The reality of things is space and tim e involves the differences in name,
form, attributes, relations, and tendencies. These manifold differences are
generally classified under these heads: (1) sajatiya or difference of one thing
from others of its own kind, (2) vijatiya or difference from th ose of another
kind, and (3) svagata or internal distinctions within “an organic whole”. The
last one is not admitted by Madhva in its absolute sense. In the sphere of other
two differences he has given a scheme of “five-fold difference” (‘Pancabheda’)
(1)
the distinction between Isvara and jiva (2) the distinction between Isvara and jada
(prakrti) (3) the distinction among the jivas (4) the distinction between the
jiva and the jada (5) the distinction among the jadas i.e, distinction between
one inanimate object and another.
This
fivefold difference is collectively spoken of by Madhva as “pra-panca”. It is
real and eternal.
Epistimology
(The theory of pramana):
As
the philosophical enquiry aims at acquiring information regarding Reality, of
which definite and valid knowledge is possible, all our experience of truth
(reality) has to be ascertained on the basis of some objective standards by
which they are judged . Because human experience being at times vitiated by
illusions, it becomes necessary to define truth in experience so as to enable
us to distinguish it from the false. Epistimology deals with an investigation
into the means of such valid knowledge viz., the quest for an ultimate basis of
certainty of all experience and knowledge.
The
philosophical inquiry is the testing of truth in the light of proofs.
Madhva
accepts in his theory of knowledge three pramanas or means of valid knowledge.
“A pramana is what comprehends an object of knowledge as it is” or is the means
of such comprehension. pramana, according to Madhva, is not merely the means of
correct knowledge but “truth” itself. He defines pramana, compactly and
comprehensively as `yathartham’. This definition covers both valid knowledge
and the means thereof.
There
are three means of valid knowldege: prathyaksa, anumana, and sabda.
Pratyaksa
or sense perception is defined as the knowledge produced by the right type of
contact (‘sannikarsa’) between “flawless” sense organs and their appropriate
objects.
Flawless
reasoning is defined as anumana. Inference is based on the rememberance of
vyapti (concomittance) between hetu (probans) and sadhya (probandum).
Flawless
word, conveying valid sense, is “agama” or sabda. This sabdapramana is divided
into pauruseya and apauruseya. The Vedic literature is regardes as ‘apauruseya’
and the smritis, Puranas and other works based on Vedic authority are accepted
as pau ruseya agama.
The
term flawlessness (‘nirdosatva’) applies to every pramana. It refers to
specific conditions under which alone the pramanas become valid means of
knowledge. In the case of pratyaksa, the right kind of rapprochement between
the sense-organs and the obj ect as well as other conditions of suitable
distance, angle of observation, adequate light and so on are meant to be
conveyed by the term ‘nirdosa’. These conditions are applicable to the object,
the sense organs and their contact as well. Perception beco mes faulty through
excessive remoteness, nearness or smallness of objects or of intervening
obstructions or being mixed up with things similar or through being over
shadowed by them. Knowledge, arising when all these conditions of flawlessness
are fulfill ed, is bound to be true and valid: ‘yathartham’.
Other
pramanas like ‘arthapatti’ (presumption) which shows a way out in cases of
apparent conflict between two facts (for eg., given that Mr. X is alive, if he
is not at home, he must be presumed to be out somewhere), upamana, a means of
establishing sim ilarity between two things, anupalabdhi (non-apprehension) is
a means by which non-existence of an object is known etc. are not considered as
seperate pramana but brought under inference, perception, or verbal testimony,
according to the conditions of each case.
Memory
is admitted as a pramana or souce of valid knowledge, by Madhva. He brings
memory under pratyaksa and considers it as a direct perception by the mind
(‘manasa-prathyaksa’). Its validity cannot, he says, be treated as merely
inferential. Memory is defined as the direct apprehensions of mind penetrating
into past.
The
Theory of Validity:
Pramanas
give rise to valid knowledge of things “as they are in fact”. Validity is
genrally defined in terms of corespondence with objective reality. Thus
‘pramana’ means ‘yathartham’; or what comprehends a thing as it is. Knowledge
carries its own proof.
The
Theory of Saksi:
Though
Madhva accepts that validity is intrinsic to pramana, defined as ‘yathartham’,
he does not rule out the possibility of error in experience. Under ideal
conditions, error will have no chance. But the actual conditions of life being
what they are, e rror cannot altogether be eliminated.
Sense
organs (being materially constituted), when vitiated by flaws, give rise to
invalid knowledge or misapprehension of knowledge. Our experience shows that we
do not become convinced of the validity of every kind of knowlege that comes to
us through t he sensory and mental channels (‘vrtti-jnana’) and which are also
at times open to error. As knowledge, by itself, is ‘jada’ (insentient) as a
modification of the ‘antahkarana’ and therefore incapable of self-revelation,
the necessity of some other princi ple by which the knowledge itself and its
validity could be intuited, should be admitted. Such a principle is ‘saksi’ or
‘svarupendriya’ of the “knowing Self”, which being ‘Caitanyarupa’ (conscious by
nature) is capable of being both ‘svaprakasaka’ and ‘p araprakasaka’. Both
knowledge and its validity are, thus grasped by the saksi, in the ultimate
analysis. The fact that some of our apprehensions are found to be correct and
others erroneous could only be explained on the basis of the acceptance of
saksi. Saksi (truth-determining principle) is equipped with an inherent
capacity to know the true from the false. The verdict of saksi is flawless and
must be regarded as true and valid for all time, because the perception and
judgements of the saksi are of the essence of pure consciousness and therefore
self-luminous and flawless in regard to their nature and content of validity.
In other words, the validity of knowledge is, like the fact of knowledge,
apprehended by saksi itself, directly. Madhva establishes t he infalliability of
saksi in respect of its judjements of validity. If, however the direct
experiences of the saksi are proved to have been illusory experiences, either
by scripture or by some sort of transcendental perception, later it would
simply mean that the saksi has been mistaken in its earlier judgment about
their factual reality.
Thus
Madhva makes two points (1) that in all cases of knowledge, the fact of the
knowledge is established not by the knowledge itself; but by the evidence of
saksi. The reason for this is that all vrtti-jnana (mental and sensory) is
material i.e., insent ient in sessence and has no power to reveal its own
existece.; (2) that such vrtti-jnana can by no means, manifest its own
“validity to itself”. Therefore it necessitates a non-material form of
knowledge to do this. Here is where saksi comes into picture, which is not
something other than the Atman. saksi in Madhva’s epistemology, is the name of
the spiritual sense organ (‘svarupendriya’) of the Self through which it
intuits its experiences. The saksi, as an instrument of knowledge and
validation is not s omething extraneous to the knowing self or pramata. The
distinction of saksi into ‘svarupa’ and ‘indriya” (self and organ) is only one
of reference and not of essence.
Madhva
thus postulates a new principle of truth-determination in epistemology in the
form saksi, as the the ultimate criterion of truth which is infalliable and
intrinsically valid. Its reasons are:
(1)
that it alone can be the ultimate guarantor of the validity of all pramanas, (2)
that is the logical fulfilment and culmination of any really really
self-complete theory of knowledge, and (3) that it is the only means of
intuitive perception of certain supersensuous categories like Time, Space, the
nature of self and its attributes, the mind and its modes, all knowledge of
pleasures and pain, etc.
The
Concept of Viseshas:
This
deals with the problem of the relation betaween substance and attribute. Madhva
contributes the idea – the concept of visesas – to the treatment of this
philosophical problem. He accepts a relation of ‘colourful identity’
(‘savisesabheda’) in respec t of coessential attributes and
difference-cum-identity (‘bhedabheda’) in the case of transient attributes.
He
made a stiking effort to rise above the ‘dualism’ of substance and attribures
and combine them into a homogeneous whole that admits, however, of logical,
conceptual and linguistic distinction, wherever necessary, through the self
differentiating capac ity of substances themselves, to be known as “visesas” or
relative particulars.
These
visesas are ubiquitious and are not confined to material substances. They exist
among sentients as well, including the Supreme Being. In sentient beings, these
visesas, whether manifested or not, are identical with their substrata; while
in regard to insentients, attributes which are co-eval would be identical with
the substances (and distinguishable by visesas); while changing or impermanent
ones would be different-cum-identical with their substances. The whole question
has been very clearly expou nded by Jayatirtha: “visesa also is of two kinds as
pertaining to sentient beings. Some of these are ‘produced’ and some are
‘eternal’. Though the visesa as constituting the nature of a sentient person is
eternal, it is spoken of as being ‘produced’ by re ason of its becoming
manifested at times and remaining unmanifested at other times. In the same way,
visesas pertaining to insentient things are also two fold in their nature. The
substance as such is the material cause of the visesas in an insentient thi ng.
Though the visesas co-exist with the substance, as partaking of its nature,
still a distinction can be made of them. In respect of insentient reals some
visesas are produced as effects and some others last as long as the thing itself
lasts.
visesa
is thus the peculiar characteristic or potency of things which makes
description and talk of difference possible, where as a matter of fact only
identity exists. Visesas should not, be mistaken for new or additional
attributes of things; it is the power of things in themselves” which, through
an underlying identity of essence, enables us to distinguish (i) a particular
from its universal; (ii) a quality from its substance; (ii) motion or power or
energy from things possessing them; (iv) the svaru pa from the svarupin and
svarupatvam.
Madhva
holds the view that it would be impossible to establish any adequate theory of
the relation between substance and attributes without invoking the aid of
visesas, which are also called ‘svarupavisesas’ in order to show that they are
not “other than ” the substance. There are three possible ways in which the
relation of substance and attributes is generally conceived viz. (i) that they
are “different” from each other (‘atyantabhinna’), (ii) “absolutely identical
with each other” (‘abhinna’), (iii) “both identical and different”
(‘bhinnabhinna’). But, Madhva holds a fouth view of ‘savisesabheda’ (identity
based on visesa) as only accepted view while rejecting the above three.
Difference between substance and attributes must be accepted not as being
absolutely identical with the terms but “identical with a qualification”
(‘savisesabheda’).
The
function of visesas, in Madhva’s philosophy, is not merely to distinguish, but
to unify the part and the whole.
Conclusion:
The purpose ‘visesha’ which is introduced in Madhva’s system is to explain ” the
appearance of ‘bheda’ where there is none”. This concept distinguishes a
quality from a substance and a part from the whole. Between a substance and its
quality o r between a whole and its parts there is no difference. The
difference appears on account of ‘visesa’. For example, one cannot perceive any
difference between the cloth and its whitness, but he do percieve the ‘visesa’
(particularity) of the cloth. If the re where difference between cloth and
whiteness, then there would be difference between the difference and cloth, and
between difference and whiteness, and so on “ad infinitum”. Visesa of Madhva,
characterises the eternal as well as non-eternal substance. In case of God, the
principle of ‘visesa’ is employed to reconcile his unity with plurality of his
qualities and powers(‘saktis’), and the plurality of His divine body, divine
dress, divine abode, and the like.
Definitions:
Brahman:
As
already pointed out, Brahman, the only Independent Real is the highest
ontological principle of Madhva’s philosophy. Brahman is possessed of all
adequate and unrestricted powers in regard to the cit and acit and who is all
knowing. He is the One who c ontrols the cit and acit (sentient and insentient
reals) which are of different nature from Him. The Independent Being must,
necessarily, be infinite in Its attributes because an Independent Being Being
cannot be finite and limited in any sense.
(i)
Brahman as a person: The Supreme Brahman is a Person who has a character of His
own. The term personality as applied to Godhead denotes, according to Madhva,
not merely the existence of self-consciousness so conceived, but also that the
entire univer se is to be thought of as an experience and not as an abstract
content. This Divine Personality is endowed with the faculties of cognition,
conation and activity. God has His own body and limbs – a spiritual Form with
its own instruments of knowledge and activity which is all one of knowledge and
bliss. Madhva identifies Brahman with Visnu and adore Rama and Krsna as His
incarnations but do not show any inclination for the worship of Gopala-Krsna
and Radha.
(ii)
Attributes of Brahman: Madhva’s conception of God emphasises two aspect of
Divinity-the perfection of being (‘sarvagunapurnatvam’) and freedom from all
limitations (‘sarvadosagandhavidhuratvam’). These two aspects cover and exhaust
all that is great and good in the idea of God. He is Infinite (‘purna’), of
perfect bliss, the real of reals (‘satyasya satyam’), eternal of eternal
(‘nityo nityanam’), the Sentient of all sentients (‘cetanascetananam’), the
source of all reality, consciousness and activi ty
(‘sattapratitipravrttinimittam’) in the finite. The attributes and actions of
Brahman are the same as itself. They are not different. There is no mutual
difference, either, among them. He is all pervasive and (a-tata) and all
perceiving (matr). All the several attributes partake which the nature of
Brahman are inseperable from Him and from one another.
(iii)
Cosmic activities of Brahman: The cosmic powers of the Supreme are eight in
number: creation, preservation, dissolution, control, enlightenment,
obscuration, bondage and release.
Madhva
holds that the Supreme Being itself (identified with Visnu) acts through the
instrumentality of other gods (of limited jurisdiction over particular aspects
of cosmic activities) to conduct the cosmic activities. It is Isvara Himself
who directs pr operly, the various potencies of Nature and of the souls for
production, growth, development, etc., which are always dependent on Him. The
prakrti, purusas and their respective capacities, their very presence,
cognizability and functioing, – all these are controlled by Isvara, eternally,
through His eternal power. Just as non-eternal things are ordained by the
eternal will of Isvara to be non-eternal, similarly, eternal substances too are
ordained by His will, be eternal. The jivas, their karma, categorie s, kala,
sruti, kriya etc., all these exist, function and are cognized only by His will
and pleasure. They have existence in His despite. Hence, the very reality,
existence, etc., of prakrti and other entities depend on His control. He enters
into prakrti and energizes it to transform in various ways and assumes many
forms to control such modifications.
(iv)
Manifestations of Brahaman: The Supreme Lord puts on a multiplicity of forms to
evolve the univere through different stages. These forms, though innumerable,
are nevertheless identical with one another, save for their numerical
distinction. The fir st in the order of Divine manifestations is the quaternion
of Vasudeva, Pradyumna, Aniruddha and Sankarsana, popularly known as the
(catur) vyuha, credited with redemptive, creative, sustaining and destructive
functions. The Supreme further differentiates itself into ten (familiar
avatars) or twelve, hundred, thousand and so on. These personal manifestation
of the Lord are spoken of as suddha-srsti, in ‘Pancaratra’ terminology. They
are also designated as vyuhas in a general sense.
Madhva
accepts four kinds of manifestaions of God (though he does not use this
nomenclature):
1.
vyuhas 2. avataras 3. Transcendent (‘para vasudeva’) 4. Immanent
In
Madhva’s view these various manifestations are absolutely on a par with one
another. There is no gradation among them in respect of powers or
potentialities. Madhva is vehemently opposed to the idea of making any
invidious distinctions among these man ifestations of God or putting some on a
higher pedestal than others. “There is no room for ‘svagatabhededa’ in the
Supreme” (neha nanasti kincana). It is the same Infinite in every
manifestation. The avatars are on a different footing and are concernd wit h
specific functions like ‘bala karya’, ‘jnana karya’ etc. Their number exceed
ten as commonly recognized. There are avatars like Hamsa, Datta and Hari, not
included in the popular list of ten. To Madhva all avatars are of equal merit
and status. There is no question of degree of fulness among them, no “partial”
and “complete” avataras. He takes his uncompromising stand on the authority of
the Upanisads and Pancaratric texts and rejects the commonly acceptd
interpretation of the ‘Bhagavata’ text: “krsnast u bhagavan svayam” as
inappropriate on philosophical and syntactic grounds. He has thus no partiality
or preference for any particular avatar of God and treats all of them as equal
in rank, attributes and powers”.
Jivas
(Atman):
Souls
are conceived in Madhva’s system as finite centres of conscious experience,
each with a unique essence of its own. The essence of individuality is that one
finite centre of experience cannot possess, “as its own immediate” experience,
the experienc e of another. It is this non-transferable immediacy of experience
that distinguishes one self from another, inspite of their possessing certain
similar characteristics. Each has a specific content of consciousness, reality
and bliss and constitutes a foca lization which is nowhere exactly repeated in
nature. The nature of the souls is to be one of unalloyed bliss and pure intelligence.
It is essentially free from any kind of misery or pain; though subjected to a
natural gradation of intelligence and bliss in cosmic hierarchy of selves and
subject always to the Supreme, in bondage “and in release”. The sense of
misery, which is bondage, is external to their essence and is brought about by
a “real” though “misplaced sense of independence of initiative and co nduct”
The jivas are reflected counterparts (‘pratibimbamsa’) of Brahman (Visnu). The
bodies of the jivas, eternally present in Vaikuntha, the celestial abode of
Visnu, are transcendental (‘aprakrta’). Hence, they are called
unconditioned-reflected-counterparts (‘nirupadhika-pratibimbamsa’) of Visnu.
The bodies of the jivas of the material world are matierial; therefore, they
are called conditioned-reflected-counterparts (‘sopadhika-pratibimbamsa’) of
Visnu.
(i)
Plurality of selves: Madhva holds the doctrine of multiplicity of selves. The
basis for this is the intrinsic diversity of their essences, which he shows to
be “inevitable presupposition of the theory of karma”. It is accepted that the
inequalities o f individual equipment and endowment are regulated by one’s
pastlife and its karma. But, by its very nature, the karma theory would be
powerless to explain the why of such inequalities, in the remotest past,
without recourse to the hypothesis of an intrin sic peculiarity (‘anadi
visesa’) that is uncaused. It is this ‘anadivisesa’ or ‘svabhavabheda’ says
Madhva, that distinguishes one soul from another. This is the decisive contribution
which Madhva has made to the interpretation of the problem of life and its
diversitis. He has thus gone beyond the principle of karma, unerringly, to the
” svabhavabheda” ( intrinsic or essential differences in the nature of the
beings). Similarly, the uniqueness of each individual experience, which forms
the content of per sonality, is sufficient reason, according to Madhva, for the
acceptanc of ‘jiva-bahutva-vada’ (plurality of souls) and the distinctiveness
of each individual.
The
theory of svarupabheda of souls elaborated by Madhva is, thus, the only
solution of the problem of plurality of selves, their freedom and free will.
(ii)
Tripartite classification of souls: Madhva’s doctrine of the Soul insists not
only upon the distinctiveness of each soul but also upon an intrinsic gradation
among them based on varying degrees of knowledge, power, and bliss. This is
known as ‘tarat amya’ or ‘svarupataratamya’, which comes out all the more
clearly in the released state, where the souls realize their true status.
‘Jiva-traividhya’ or tripartite classification of “unreleased souls” into (1)
‘muktiyogya’ (salvable), (2) nitya-samsarin ( ever-transmigrating) and (3)
‘tamoyogya’ (damnable) are the allied doctrines of ‘svarupataratamya’ of souls.
This theory of Madhva, is intended to justify and reconcile the presence of
evil with divine perfection.
Sri
Madhva also speaks about the intrinsic differences existing among the
“released” souls. Hiranyagarbha among the released (and in samsara too)
occupying a privileged position as jivottama. His accepts innate distinction
among (released) souls into dev a, rsi (pitr, pa) and naras. The devas are
‘sarva-prakasa’ (fit to realize God as pervasive), the sages are
‘antahprakasa’and the rest ‘bahihprakasa’.
The
doctrine of intrinsic gradation among souls would follow as a matter of course,
once the principle of their plurality is admitted. Many philosophical topics
related to the law of karma, the problem of good and evil, behaviour of
free-will displayed i n the case of individual jivas etc. can be solved only by
the acceptance of the above theories of Sri Madhva.
The
recognition of special class of souls called ‘nityasuris’ (as in the system of
Ramanuja) and the class called ‘nityasamsarins’ will be inexplicable without
the acceptance of an intrinsic gradation of souls into ordinary and “elect” and
so on. The hig her position of sesitva assigned to “Sri” in respect of
nityasuris also points to a natural gradation among souls. Similarly the
existence of nityamuktas like Visvaksena, Garuda, Ananta etc. who always remain
free from samsara (accepted by the Visistadvat ins) and the high place assigned
to Brahma among the gods (by Vedic and Puranic literature) are to be
highlighted in this connection as their spititual excellence and superiority
over other souls.
Gods
and men are not equal in their basic nature and powers, or in the innate
tendencies for good or bad, which determine their future development. The
doctrine of intrinsic gradation of souls is thus a resoned and reasonable
hypothesis of human nature a nd destiny, suggested by the moral law and
supported by reason, revelation and experience. Madhva holds that it can not be
satisfactorily accounted for the presence and continuation of evil in a world
created and ruled by a most perfect Being unless it is taken to be natural to
some as goodness is to others. Without such a fundamental division of human
nature, the disparities of life reflected in the seemingly unfair distribution
of pleasure and pain and oportunities for moral growth are not satisactorily
explained. The law of karma cannot satisfy the quest for an ultimate
explanation of such bewildering enexplicabilities. It cannot explain why given
two alternatives of good or evil, certain persons show a marked preference or
tendency towards the one and others to the opposite. Moral worth, knowledge,
works, experience, heredity, opportunities, culture – none of these explanatons
of diversity solves the riddle pushed to its staring point; The final solution
can only be found in the ingerent nature of bei ngs.
Madhva
and his commentators have cited many texts from the Vedic and post-Vedic
literature ( from Gita 16.3, 5, 6, 18, 20; 8.2; Bhag. 6.14.5; Isa. Up 3 etc.),
in support of the acceptance of the traividhya among jivas who are entangled
within the samsara . An intrinsic divergence of nature and faith into
‘sattvika’, ‘rajasa’ and ‘tamasa’ which is rooted in the core of individual
nature (dehinam svabhavaja) as stated in the Gita, is the ultimate basis of
this theory according to Madhva. This theory is deve loped from the doctrine of
trividha-sraddha in the Gita. The term sattvika, rajasa, and tamasa are applied
to the jivas in their tripartite classification, according to Madhva, ha
reference to their basic nature of Caitanya going beyond the play of prakrt i
nad its gunas: “yo yac chraddhah sa eva sah” (Gita 17.3). This is clear from
Madhva’s comment on the above verse, where he interprets the term
“sattvanurupa” as “cittanurupa”.
(iii)
Self-luminosity of souls: The individual soul, as a sentient being, is admitted
by Madhva to be self-luminious (‘svaprakasa’). It is not merely of the form of
knowledge (‘jnanasvarupa’) but is a knower (‘jnatr’). The conception of self as
a conscio us personality is the same as it is in respect of God, expect for the
fact that even the self-luminosity of the jiva is dependent on the Supreme,
which makes bondage possible.
Jagat:
Madhva
admits the reality of the world experience on the basis of perceptual, rational
and scriptural grounds. The material universe, according to Madhva, is neither
a transformation (‘parinama’) of Brahman nor a production. It is merely an
actualization of what is in the womb of matter and souls by the action of
Brahman. The creation of the universe is a continuous process – a constant
dependence of the world on the Supreme for all its determinations.
Madhva’s
theory of the constitution of matter and the evolution of the world is based on
the ‘sankhya’ metaphysics of Upanisads, the Epics and Puranas. He quotes profusely
from Mahabharata, the Bhagavata and other Puranas and other Puranas and from
the v ast literature of the Pancaratras.
He
accepts the doctrine of evolution of matter (prakrti) as a follower of the Epic
Sankhya. He accepts prakrti as eternal insentient primordial stuff dependent on
Brahman on the authority of Upanisadic, Epic and Puranic Sankhya cosmology. It
is directly and indirectly the material cause (‘upadhana karana’) of the world.
It is the direct material cause of time and the three qualities of sattva,
rajas and tamas and indirectly of mahat, ahankara etc. It is both eternal and
pervasive; but not unlimited. The three gunas are supposed to be differentiated
at the begining of creation, in the ratio of 4:2:1. The evolution of other
forms of matter takes place on account of the disturbance in their equipose
which gives rise to the 24 principles commonly recognized, viz. mahat,
ahamkara, buddhi, manas, ten sensory organs, five sense-objects and five great
elements. Mahat is the first and finest evolute of matter and energy. Ahankara
is the principle of individuation, buddhi that of discrimination, and manas of
thoug ht. The principle of ahamkara is divided into three classes of vaikarika,
taihjasa, and tamasa. From taijasa the ten sense organs are produced, and the
five sense objects (‘visayas’) and the elements are the products of
tamasa-ahamkara. The ‘tanmatras’ st and for qualitatively distinct and
irreducible sense-qualities with a definite leaning towards their appropriate
objects.
These
24 evolutions of prakrti are the constituents of the microcosm and the
macrocosm of the entire brahmanda. Madhva gives a proper reorientation to this
theory of material evolution by linking it up with a systematic hierarchy of
presiding deities fro m top to bottom. It is under the constant supervision and
guidance of these “Abhimani-devatas” (or “Tattvabhimanins”) that all material
transformations and psychophysical functions are carried on. The Supreme
Brahman itself ultimately behing all these act ivities and of each and every
one of them.
The
3 forms of matter, viz. sattva, rajas and tamas, are specially controlled by
the 3 aspects of cetana prakrti, viz. Sri, Bhu and Durga.
Involution
(dissolution) takes place by the merger of the effects in their causes in the
reverse order of evolution. This applies to the tattvabhimani-devas also, both
in samsara and in release.
Bondage
(of jivas in samsara ):
Madhva
points out that the reason for the bondage of the souls is due to the divine
will of the Supreme. Even though the bonds and impurities of the souls are not
their essential nature (‘svarupa’), the bonds of the souls are real. He gives a
very purpos eful explanation of the rationale behind God’s putting the souls in
bondage and through the necessary process of transmigration. Madhva calls his
theory of the origin of bondage as “svabhava-ajnana vada” or the theory of the
souls’ ignorance of their own true nature and of their dependence on the
Supreme Brahman. Madhva contends that even though the jiva is a self-luminious
being, still, it is not inconceivable that he should be subject to ignorance of
his own true nature and of the nature of God and of h is true relation to Him,
as he is a dependent and finite being. Since jivas, by definition, “dependent”
and also endowed with aspects (‘sa-visesa’) it is very reasonably contendented
that while “some aspects” of the self (such as his existence) are “not o
bscured” yet others like the manifestation or experience of its ‘svarupananda’
(essential bliss) “remain obscured” in samsara. Thus bondage is of the nature
of ignorance.
As
jiva’s nature is one of knowledge (‘jnanasvarupa’), this ignorance which, in
spite of his self-luminosity (‘svaprasatva’) , is able to obscure a portion of
that knowledge etc., of his own nature and of God cannot be treated as
penetrating his very nat ure. Yet, if it is external to him, how does it
obscure his svarupa, at least in some respects? To explain this knotty point,
Madhva introduces the will of God or his inscrutable power (‘acintyadbhutasakti’)
which is also called by the name of ‘maya’ (or His maya) of which the
entanglement in prakrti is only next stage.
Thus,
according to Madhva, the obscuration of the soul leading to bondage is, in the
last analysis, to referred to the inscrutable power of God, who actuates the
latent power of prakrti known by various names such as maya and avidya in the
sastras. Thoug h it is in the nature of maya to obscure, yet the intervention
of the Lord is “necessary” for its functioning as a principle of obscuration,
in so far as prakrti and its powers are insentient (jada) and therefore
“asvatantra” (incapable of independent ini tiative). This obscuration of the
essential nature of jivas cannot be ascribed due to the influence of kama,
karma, etc. alone; for these are themselves the effects of earlier causes and
thus are “dependent principles” and there is no reason why the soul should have
succumbed to their attraction, surrendering his self-luminosity. In any case,
they would not be an adequate explanation of the obscuration of the self, felt
even in susupti and pralaya, when there is no operation of kama or karma,
vasanas, etc . Hence, it is obivious that there is some other principle (over
and above all these) that is preventing the self from realizing its true nature,
in full, here and now. This is the principle of prakrti (jada) which presses
down jivas from beginningless et ernity and obscures their natures at the will
of the Lord and not by its own power, as already explained. Thus, Madhva finds
the ultimate explanation of the bondage of souls in the power of prakrti
controlled by the inscrutable and mysterious will of God. This is in complete
accord with the views of great theistic scriptures like the Gita (7.14), about
origin of bondage.
Sadhana:
Since
the soul’s bondage is, in the last analysis, to be referred to the Divine will
obscuring the intrinsic self-luminosity of jivas, its removal and the
illumination of the souls is also ascribed to the Divine will, in the ultimate
analysis, in Madhva’ s system.
[But,
Madhva on the basis of scritures (Brahma-sutra 2.3.33) ascribes jiva the title
of “doer” or ‘karta’. He maintains that the human soul is the real agent in all
its actions eventhogh he is not an absolutely independent agent. The jiva
derives his abi lity to do things, metaphysically, from the creator. For, God
merely “enables” the jiva to pursue a couse of action, not arbitrarily, but in
relation to his former life and disires. He does not “interfere” with the
jiva’s decision in any way. He sustains but never constrains (Gita 18.63). The
jiva chooses out of his free will a particular line of action for good or for
bad with sufficient foreknowledge of its moral worth and has himself to thank
for the consequences. He cannot, therefore, blame anyone, le ast of all God,
for the unpleasant consequences of his acts, should he have chosen wrongly.]
The
need for sadhanas follows from the very fact that the bondage of souls in
samsara has been continuing from time immemorial. This bondage is continuing
because of transmigration of souls. The aim of metaphysical inquiry is the
attainment of release th rough Divine grace. Therefore one has naturally to
think of the means of earning it. The sastras describe them as leading to one
another, in the following order: freedom from worldy attachment (‘vairagya’),
devotion to God (‘bhakti’), ‘sravana'(study), ‘m anana’ (reflection),
‘nididhyasana’ (meditation) and ‘Saksatkara’ (direct realization).
Vairagya
is defined as the non-attachment to the body and bodily pleasures and cravings.
This is the first step and primary requisite of a true aspirant. It constitutes
the essence of spiritual life.
Sravana
is defined as the acquisition of the sense of the sacred texts under the
instruciton of competent teachers. It dispels ignorance about the
subject-matter (‘ajnananivrtti’).
Manana
is the systematic employment of the canons of textual interpretation and
logical examination with a view to arriving at a firm conviction that the final
interpratation of the sastras thus arrived at is alone the correct and
unimpeachable one. Manana removes doubts (‘samsaya’) and misapprehension
(‘viparyaya’) and confirms the true import of the sastras
(‘paroksatattvaniscaya’).
Nididhyasana
or dhyana (continious meditation) leads to direct realization (‘darsana’).
Sravana and manana are thus subsidiary (‘angabhuta’) nididhyasana which is the
chief means (‘angi’) if saksatkara.
Role
of guru: Madhva discusses the importance of a ideal guru and the importance of
his grace in the final flowering of the spiritual personality of the aspirant
(‘sadhaka’). He emphasizes the point that instruction and guidance of a
competent guru and h is grace (‘prasada’) are absolutely necessary for sravana
and manana to bear fruit. He further says that of the two viz., individual effort
and the grace of the guru, the latter is to be deemed the more powerful factor
and therefore indispensable for one’ s spiritual realization. The emphasis of
guruprasada doesnot mean that individual effort and the deserts of the aspirant
do not count. They are the foundations of one’s spiritual progress; but
guruprasada is the crowing point of this development.
A
seeker is allowed to change his guru if he secures another with a superior
spiritual illumination, provided the latter is able and inclined to impart the
full measure of grace and illumination that may be required for the
self-realization of the discip le. Where both the gurus happen to be of equal
merit and disposition to grant the full measure of their grace, qualifiying for
illumination to the aspirant, the permission of the earlier guru shall have to
be obtained before receiving instruction from the other one. Different
Spiritual Disciplines:
The
most prominent forms of Spiritual discipline are those going by the names of
karmamarga, jnanamarga and bhaktimarga.
Karma
yoga, according to Madhva is the enlightened spiritual activity (‘niskamam
jnanapurvam karma’) by all, which cannot be binding in its consequences. On the
basis of Gita he establishes that it is neither ‘pravrtti marga’ (faithful
performance of the round of Vedic sacrifices and ritualistic rites prescribed
by the Srutis and Smrtis with the expectation of their rewards in this or in
the next world and the adherence to the duties of varna and asrama) nor
‘nivrtti marga’ (abandonment of all karma) but= performance of karma in a
spirit of devotion and vairagya is more important. Even this type of performing
‘niskamakarma’ is not to be admitted as anything more than an accessory to
spiritual realization. It is to be pursued for the purpose of acquiring mental
purufication. The reason why karma cannot be treated as an independent means of
release is that it is by nature, irrepressibly found to be enexhaustible by the
enjoyment of fruits.
The
help of jnana is, therefore, indispensable to destroy or neutralize the latent
effects of past karma (Gita 4.37). Such a power of destroying the accumulated
load of past karma, or rendering it nugatory is ascribed to the actual vision
(‘aparoksajnana ‘) of God, through ‘dhyana’ (meditation). Madhva, therefore,
regards enlightened activity (‘niskamakarma’) merely as contributing to such
knowledge through vairagya. Madhva is, thus, clear that disinterested activity
carried on in a spirit of devotion t God is a powerful incentive to the
acquisition of knowledge which alone is the highest means of realease. Karma
and dhyana and others are just accessories to it.
Conception
of bhakti: Madhva has given a unique place to Divine grace in his system, in
making it the ultimate cause of self-realization. To attain the grace of the
Divine the sadhaka has to appease the Lord. This can only be done by bhakti as
the deepes t attachment to the Lord, deep-rooted and based on a clear
understanding of His greatness and majesty. Bhakti is, thus, the steady flow of
deep attachment to God, impregnable by any amount of impediments and
transcending the love of our own selves, our kith and kin, cherished
belongings, etc. and fortified by a firm conviction of the transcendent majesty
and greatness of God as the abde of all perfections and free from all blemish
and by an unshakable conviction of the complete metaphysical dependence of
everything else upon Him. When one is flooded by such an intensive and
all-absorbing love he gets comp letely immersed in blissful contemplation of Him
and is lost to all his surroundings. Such bhakti is necessary to manifest the
natural and intrinsic relationship of pratibimbatva of the souls to God, which
lies dormant in the state of bondage.
Since
the function of bhakti is to manifest the true relation of jiva to Brahman, it
must naturally be properly informed about that true relation, which presupposes
a right knowledge of the majesty and greatness of God as the one svatantra.
Hence, bhakti has to be enriched by study, reflection and concentration. Bhakti
is, thus, not a mere wave of sentimentalism or emotionalism, to Madhva. It is
the outcome of patient study (‘sravana’) and deep reflection. Madhva also
demands a high degree of moral perfe ction from the true devotee of God. He
affirms that there can be no ture devotion to God without a real sense of moral
purity, sincerity of purpose and detachment to worldly pleasures. One cannot
serve two masters. True devotion to God would impossible wi thout the
cultivation of a natural distaste for the pleasures of the world. It is one of
the constituent elements of true devotion. Acara or purity of life, in all
respects is thus the only means of true devotion and knowledge. Devotion
without such purit y will be a travesty. Complete control of the passions of the
flesh, calmness of mind, impartiality of conduct and love of God are emphasized
by Madhva as the prerequisites of devotion and knowledge. This positive approch
to God in its final accomplishmen t i.e., love of God free from all traces of
erotic manifestations, which dominate in certain forms of North Indian
Vaisnavism like Jayadeva, Caitanya and Vallabha. Madhva’s conception of bhakti
avoids these emotional excesses and remains at its exalted in tellectual and
spiritual level of firm philosophic devotion to the Supreme Lord of the
universe who is to be worshipped with loving attachments as the bimba of all
pratibimbas (jivas). But it is no on that account lacking in intensity of
fervour and feeli ng. For Madhva has recognized in the clearest terms that bhakti
is in essence an ineffable blending of the emotion and the intellect. He gives
expression to the intensity of his love of God in its sublime and rapturous
aspects in the opening and concludin g stanzas of his works. The possiblities
of erotic devotion, as a means of contacting the Divine, are not unknown to
him. In his view, kama-bhakti or erotic devotion is the special privilege of
“apsarases and ought not to be practiced by others”.
Madhva
speaks of 3 different types of devotees: (1) uttama bhaktas, (2) madhyama and
(3) adhama, according to the nature and intensity of devotion characteristic of
them.
‘Taratamya’
in bhakti: Taratamya or gradational approcach in the practice of bhakti is a
necessary element of the doctrine of bhakti as propounded by Madhva. The
devotional homage to the gods and the sages in the spiritual hierarchy is not a
matter of co urtesy. It is a “must”. The devas occupy special position in the
government of God’s universe as tattvabhimanis’ with special cosmic
jurisdiction delegated to them. The role of these devas on the implementation
of the sadhanas by human beings have been br ought in Madhva’s commentary on
the Upanisads and from the fading sources of Pancaratra and other literature.
On the basis of these materials, he holds that devotion to God depends
crucially on the grace of the devas who are His first greatest devotees. T hey
are the highest order of jnanayogis and our direct superior, protectors, guides
and gurus. We cannot think of God without their grace. It they who inspire our
minds along right lines and turn them Godward and enable us to know and worship
Him by their presiding activity over the sense organs, mind, buddhi etc. and
bring our sadhanas to fruition.
Stages
of bhakti: Madhva distinguishes 3 stages of bhakti: (1) that a which “precedes”
paroksajnana (meditate knowledge of the Deity), (2) one that “follows” it, and
(3) a third that comes “after direct realization” (‘aparoksajnana’) and wins
the absolut e grace (‘atyarthaprasada’) of the Lord. It this final stage of
bhakti that fully manifests, by the grace of God, the true relationship that
exists between the jiva and Brahman and completes the fulfilment of realization
viz. the full manifestation and en joyment of the intrinsic bliss of one’s own
self and the majesty of the Lord. The last one is an end in itself, this is the
sublime nature of bhakti. Thus in Madhva’s system there are two distinct phases
of bhakti, one operating at the sadhana or “prepara tory level” and the other
sadhya or the fundamental level of moksa itself. Pleased with the initial
bhakti of the jivas, the Lord bestows on them firm knowledge of His nature and
attributes. He then reveals Himself. Thereafter He inspires them with still
more intensive devotion and after showing Himself to the bhaktas He cuts the
knot of their prakrtic bondage. In the released state also, the jivas remain
under the Lord’s control imbued with unalloyed devotion to Him.
Place
of grace in redemption: According to Madhva, this knowledge of God is not a
mere intellectual realizataion of the Deity. It is more a feeling of deep
attraction and attachment arising from the knowledge of bimbapratibimbabhava
between God and soul and sustained by sense of spontaneous attraction and
affection flowingfrom it. Hence, in bhakti, there is the element of knowledge
and attachment combined. In the last analysis, then, it is not pure knowledge
that puts an end to the bondage of souls, but the grace of God in gracious
acceptance of the soul’s “surrender”. “It is Divine grace that plays the most
decisive role in the final deliverance of the souls, according to Madhva”. Not
by karma, or jnana or even bhakti can remove the veil of ignorance w ithout the
grace of the Lord withdrawing His obscuration of jiva.
Aparoksa-jnana
or God-Realization: In this final stage of sadhana the sadhaka receives a
direct vision of the Supreme Being. The sadhaka is face to face with the object
of his meditation and intuits the Divine Form, whichis his archetype (bimba).
This is technically termed ‘bimbaparoksa’, which is the highest form of
spiritual perception without which no one can hope to be released. However this
final stage of vision of the Lord is different from vision of dhyana wherein
the form of Brahman is built up i n the mind of the sadhaka. In dhyana one sees
only the reflection of Brahman in the ‘citta’. By its presence in the
reflection the Supreme Brahman confers the fruit of meditation on the aspirant.
The meditation of this reflected form of Brahman, is like t he worship of an
image. It leads (gradually) to the actual vision of the Lord, by His own grace.
Aparoksa-jnana
is something which by its nature, defies any more explict description. It is a
flash-like revelation of the Supreme at the furtiom of a long and arduous
process of ‘sravana’, ‘manana’, and ‘nididhyasana’, in the fulness of absolute
self-su rrendering devotion to the Lord, as our bimba. Ultimately, it is He
that must choose to reveal Himself, pleased by the hungering love of the soul.
The pratibimba (soul) must turn in and see his bimba in himself. This is
aparoksa.
After
aparoksa state: Aparoksa marks the preliminary stage of release. The journey’s
end is now fairly in sight; but not yet fully attained. The aparoksajnani, in
Madhva’s system corresponds to the “jivan-mukta” of other schools. But there is
no destruct ion of avidya or prakrtic bondage yet. To the aparoksajnanin, the
prospect of moksa is now “assured”. But until the subtle body of sixteen kalas,
known as “linga-sarira”, is disintegrated, the jiva is not freed from prakrtic bondage.
This comes at the end of the working out of a portion of his “prarabdha-karma”
(that portion of the accumulated load of all past karma, which has begun
already to go through) by “bhoga” (not necessarily pleasant). Madhva holds out
also a very assuring prospect of the possible “upakarda” mitigation of the
effects of some portion of “even” the prarabdha karma by the grace of God and
release in its full sense speeded up. The term prarabdha karma includes
obviously the good and the bad (‘punya’ and ‘papa’). Madhva introduces a su
btler distinction in the former, from the point of view of aparoksa-jnanin, as
‘ista’ (desirable) and ‘anista’ (undesirable). The former is what conduces to
deeper and deeper manifestations of innate bliss in moksa. The latter is
whatever is likely to pro long the onset of complete release.
Thus,
there is no hard and fast rule that final release should take place at the
destruction (by death) of that particular body in and through which
aparoksa-jnana was attained. It depends on prarabdha-karma. If its effects have
been workd out (in that b ody) there is no more delay; but if they have not
been, then he must pass through some more ‘lives’ to work them out. This is the
position of sastras on the point. But since law of karma is not independent of
the Lord’s will, Madhva interposes a saving cl ause in respect of God’s will,
which nothing can limit. This may be called the “Vetoing power” (‘upamarda’) of
the Lord excercised in His own grace.
Here,
the “upamarda” or devitalizing of the effects of prarabdha karma refers to all
evil karma and such of the punyakarma (or punya-prarabdha) that will delay or
retard moksa, by producing agreeable dffects for enjoyment in future lives. But
such punya, as will enhance the ‘anandanubhava’ in moksa, is “credited to the
account” of the aparoksa-jnanin. This emphasizes that nothing can possibly
stand against God’s will. Though normally not interfering with the law of
karma, there are occasionsin the career s of souls when He benevolently
intervenes to scoth individual karma as such, when He feels that it has had its
day. this again brings out vividly the place and importance of the concept of
Grace in the Theism of Madhva. This is how Madhva understands the statement
that God grants His grace to man and it is through grace alone that we can
deserve to be saved from samsara. To get God’s grace upon oneself is greater
than to know God intellectually. bhakti is emotional sublimation in God. When
intellectual p erception melts into devotion we have bhakti. When such final
stage of bhakti is reached, after aparoksa-vision, God intervenes to neutralize
a portion of prarabdha even, and ushers in final moksa.
Mukti
The
doctorine of salvation is determined by the conception of of the nature of
souls and God in any philosophical thought. Since Madhva establishes bhakti,
not as a means to an end, but as an end itself, it follows that the relation
between the individua l soul and the Supreme Being is not something that is
snapped in release. For, this relation is not something that is extrinsic to
the nature of the soul but something that is rooted in the very nature and
being (‘svarupa’) of the soul. Its destruction wo uld mean destruction of the
jiva. It is a unique relation, a spiritual bond which is indestructible. There
fore mukti is merely the shaking off what is extrinsic to one’s nature and
reposing in one’s own intrinsic nature. The intrinsic spiritual relation
between the human spirit and God is so dynamic in its magnetism that the
attraction of the latter becomes more fully manifested in release than in
samsara. Indeed, it breaks through and finds expression there in a thousand
ways which are beyond our unders tanding and analysis from ‘here’.
Madhva
maintains that the realization of truth does not mean the abolition of the
plurality of life or the peresonality of selves, but only the removal of the
false sense of separateness and independence which is at the root of samsara.
The attributes of the jiva is inviolable in the same sense as the atman itself
is indestructible. Moksa would not be worth having, if atman does not survive
as a self-luminious entity there. Therefore Madhva lays great stress on the
survival of every individual personalit y, as such , in moksa (‘muktirhitva
anyatha rupam svarupena vyavasthitih’).
In
the positive aspect of the view of moksa, Madhva holds it as a state of supreme
bliss. The first and foremost fact about moksa is that it is accepted, by
common consent, as the highest “purusartha” of man. For this reason, it must be
a state of unallo yed bliss; and this bliss must be “manifested” i.e., capable
of being actually felt and enjoyed with a full consciousness of being “so
enjoyed”. This would natuarlly presuppose the survival of the one who is to
enjoy the experiences of this blessed state.
The
supreme bliss in moksa is not a stagnant state. Madhva, says that there is
scope for activity and full play of capabilities for everyone according to
one’s ablities. Some of the released may rest in the contemplation of their own
blessedness, like Ad vaitic brahman. Some may contrast their present with their
past and feel thankful for their deleverance. They may adore the majesty of God
and sing His Praises or worship Him in a thousand ways. Some may offer
sacrifices, if they wish to – the only differ ence being that “nothing is
obligatory there”. There is no “prescribed round of activites” or code of
conduct in moksa, which means there is unlimited scope for spontaneous,
creative work of every kind.
Ananda
taratamya in moksa: or a hierarchic gradation in the nature, range, quality,
intensity etc., of ‘svarupa-ananda’ or innate bliss enjoyed by the released
souls, is a logical deduction from the theory of svarupa-bheda of souls
accepted by Madhva. Si nce moksa is only the discovery of one’s selfhood and
experiencing what is there in it (muktirhitva…….), there is no possibility of
exchanging one’s experience with another’s or its transference to another,
whether wholly or in part. Each released sou l rests fully satisfied
(‘purna-trpta’) in the enjoyment of “his own svarupa-ananda”. Madhva uses the
argument based on the obvious disparity in the sadhanas of different orders of
beings to reinforce the docrine of anandataratamya in moksa.
There
is natural gradation among the released souls as also disparity in their
sadhanas. The difference in the nature and quality of sadhanas must necessarily
have a relationto the result. The existence of such a gradation in moksa is
established by reas on and revelation. Just as vessels of different sizes, the
rivers and the Ocean are “full” of water according to their respective
capacities, even so, in respect of the jivas, from ordinary human beings to
Brahmadeva, their fulness of bliss attained throu gh sadhanas is to be
understood with reference to their varying (intrinsic) capacities The sadhanas
practiced by them such as bhakti, jnana etc., are nothing more than an
expression of their intrinsic potentialities, which are the core of their being
– go ing back to their beginningless eternity. Those with limited capacities
are satisfied with limited bliss and those with comparatively greater
capacities reach fulfilment with still more. But each one’s satisfaction would
be “full” and “complete” in itself – having reached its ‘saturation point’.
The
most famous son of Tulu Brahmins is Sri Madhvacharya. The story of Tuluva
Brahmins cannot be complete without the mention of this great scholar and
saint. Born to a poor family of Brahmins near Udupi, he was named Purnaprajna.
True to his name, he became a scholar and well versed in Upanishads and
Vedanta. The enlightened Madhva (the name given to him by his guru) argued a
dualistic (Dvaita) theory with his guru who had preached Advaita’s monistic
themes. He professed theism and made Vishnu (Vishnusarvothamattva) as the
central figure of the universe. Eventually, he persuaded and converted his guru
Achyutprajna to accept Dvaita philosophy. After gaining fame and popularity,
Madhva established the eight monasteries (Mathas) in Udupi and established the
fabled Sri Krishna temple there. At age 79 he attained moksha during a
pilgrimage to Badrinath.
Madhva
was blessed with a handsome physique and was also interested in physical
training. In addition he was an avid fan of music. He claimed to be an avatar
of Hanuman, thus the son of Vayu (Wind). Madhva remains the greatest and the
most important gift to Hinduism from Tulu nadu.
Vadiraja
Swami of Sode Matha in Udupi attained legendary fame during his time. He
visited many sacred pilgrim centers and wrote a sort of travelogue of his
visits. He also elaborated on Madhva’s philosophy and laid a foundation for
future Dvaitis to argue their cases with others. Vadiraja wrote many bhajans in
praise of Vishnu and gave the women the popular Lakshmi Shobhane that even
today the women sing every day in the South.
Conclusion
In
summary it is noted that there are three main divisions of Brahmins in Tulu Nadu,
namely Havika, Shivalli and Kota with three subdivisions: Koteshvara,
Kandavaras and Panchagramis. The Sthanikas and Saklapuris form other sub-sects.
Newer immigrations of Brahmins to the region complete the picture with
Chitpavana, Karadi, Padia, Deshastha, Konkanastha and Sarasvatha taking root in
Tulu Nadu.
The
ancient land called Tulu Nadu, now with its unique language spoken only in this
region by some of inhabitants, can also boast about the sanctity of its land
with a legendary tale of creation by Parasurama and some of the oldest temples
in the South. All the major Deities are represented equally with their own
temples. Madhvacharya, a Shivalli Brahmin from Udupi, is the most significant
contributor to Hinduism. His Dvaita tenets are followed by most practicing
Hindus today in India. There are many more famous Tulu Brahmins, who have made
precious contributions to the society.
Poornaprajna,
he soon mastered what his guru Achutaprekshacharya had to teach him.
The guru named him Anandatirtha and encouraged him to independently
reassess the prevailing understanding and practices of the other schools
of Vedantic thought. He extensively toured India and authored 39 works
covering commentaries on Brahma Sutra, the Bhagavata, the Gita, the
Upanishads and importantly the Rig Veda. Notable are the Anuvakhyana – a
terse commentary on Brahma Sutra and the Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya –
a grand overview of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata.
To
his followers Madhwacharya was the third of Vayu’s avatara-traya –
after Hanuman and Bheema. His works reflect his wide reading and
engagement with several texts and form a complete school of
philosophical thought – which came to be called ‘Tattvavada’ or
‘Dvaita’. Asserting the duality of the divine and the soul, he created a
framework of philosophical thought as an alternative to Advaita and
Vishistadvaita. Monotheism for him was the quintessence of Vedanta -
Hari being Sarvottama and Vayu Jeevottama.
When
Madhwacharya embarked on his mission, the country was already in the
grip of the threat faced by external conquests. Explains B.N.K. Sharma, a
renowned scholar, “Fatalism had robbed society of its inner strength
and weakness pervaded the prevailing socio-economic fabric. Acharya
Madhwa strived with his philosophy to awaken in his countrymen a renewed
faith in Theism” and “to rouse the people to a sense of dignity of man
as a real agent in the world,” words later echoed by Purandaradasa’s
‘Easabeku, iddhu jayasabeku.’
In
his system of philosophy, Madhwacharya propounded two orders of reality
– the Independent ‘Svatantra’ and the Dependent ‘Paratantra’ – the
former being the Supreme Brahman. The duality of the God and atman is
the basis of reality and all Vedantic literature is in praise of this
Supreme one. He explained that God is the ‘bimba’ or the original source
and the rest are ‘pratibimbas’ or reflections. He introduced the
concept of ‘Sakshi’, explained by Dr. Sharma as “an instrument of
validation with the Atman in his capacity as the self-luminous knowing
self.” He also formulated the concept of ‘Visesha’ – of identity in
difference. The Pancha-bheda or Fivefold Differences – explained the
differences between ‘Paramatma’, ‘jivatma’ and ‘jada.’
His
pre-eminent contribution, which remains relevant even now is to put the
responsibility of development and emancipation in the hands of the
individual. While differences are inherent between individuals, it is
for the individuals to study, understand and finally accept the reality
of the universe and the omnipresence of God but only after validating
the truth for themselves. This attainment is in direct correlation with
one’s own effort.
Mukti
then is not the disappearance of or from the universe but a state of
bliss commensurate with the nature of each individual. This gives scope
for souls to evolve and turn on its head the ‘Varna’ concept. For
Madhwacharya knowledge without action was an impractical intellectual
exercise.
He
consecrated the Krishna idol which he retrieved from a mound of
gopichandana in the temple at Udipi. He left behind a legacy of several
maths to continue the propagation of his school of thought and devotion.
The Ashta Mathas or the eight maths of Udipi manage and perform the
daily pujas to the Krishna temple to the idol which he had installed.
The
‘Paryaya’ system of Krishna worship and temple management, and the
‘Dwandwa’ system of pairing the eight mutts into groups of four make for
a wonderful study in continuity and management.
Acharya
Madhwa’s teachings resonate in their wisdom, compassion and call to
action – for ultimately the benevolence of God is most in abundance when
one strives to attain it in words, thought and action.
E-Mail sent on his 700th Birthday celebration
TodayFebruary 5, 2017 marks the 700th birthday of Madhwacharya and I was sad to notice that this great reverential day was left unnoticed in our Hindu Temple, may be so in other Hindu American Temples too. At least our temple could have brought this message to the notice of the devotees when they conveyed other information. Soon we will be getting the Birthday of Ramanuja and Sankara, Basveswara and a landmark day of Rishabha all close to Akshyatriteeya day. It will be fitting and proper to celebrate the week as Spiritual Conscious Week or Vedanta Week and honor our great philosophers as America earmarks a day to celebrate all Presidents marking it as National Presidents Day, instead of celebrating it as Akshayatriteeya day on April 28 201>This year marks 10000 years of Ramanuja's Birth celbrated in all Vishnu Templesa in India asa wel, as Sankara's Birthday.
Madhwacharya’s philosophy gives one the scope to evolve.
Pushya Shukla Navami marks the day when Acharya Madhwa delivered his last exposition on Aitreya Upanishad to his followers at the Anantheswara temple in Udipi. ‘Sumadhwavijaya,’ a biography written by his student Narayanapanditacharya describes a shower of flowers under which the Acharya disappeared and ascended to Badri to serve his moolaguru Veda Vyasa. This year the day falls on February 5, the 700th anniversary of this event.
The Life of Sri Madhvacharya
“Sripada
Madhvacharya took his birth at Udupi, which is situated in the South Karnataka
district of South India, just west of Sahyadri. This is the chief city of the
South Kanarada province and is near the city of Mangalore, which is situated to
the south of Udupi. In the city of Udupi is a place called Pajaka-ksetra, where
Madhvacarya took his birth in a Sivalli-brahmana dynasty as the son of
Madhyageha Bhatta, in the year 1040 Sakabda (A.D. 1119). According to some, he
was born in the year 1160 Sakabda (A.D. 1239).
In
his childhood Madhvacharya found that his father had piled up with many debts:Madhvacharya converted
tamarind seeds into actual coins to pay them off. When he was five years old, he was offered
the sacred thread. A demon named Maniman lived near his abode in the form of a
snake, and at the age of five Madhvacharya killed that snake with the toe of
his left foot. When his mother was very much disturbed, he would appear before
her in one jump. He was a great scholar even in childhood, and although his
father did not agree, he accepted sainthood (Sannyasa) at the age of twelve.
Upon receiving Sannyasa from Achyuta Prakasa, he received the name Purna-prajna
Tirtha. After traveling all over India, he finally discussed scriptures with
Vidyasankara, the exalted leader of Sringeri-matha. Vidyasankara was actually diminished
in the presence of Madhvacharya. Accompanied by Satya Tirtha, Madhvacharya went
to Badarikasrama. It was there that he met Vyasadeva and explained his
commentary on the Bhagavad-gita before him. Thus he became a great scholar by
studying before Vyasadeva.
By
the time he came to the Ananda-matha from Badarikasrama, Madhvacharya had
finished his commentary on the Bhagavad-gita. His companion Satya Tirtha wrote
down the entire commentary. When Madhvacharya returned from Badarikasrama, he
went to Ganjama, which is on the bank of the river Godavari. There he met with
two learned scholars named Sobhana Bhatta and Svami Sastri. Later these
scholars became known in the disciple-succession of Madhvacharya as Padmanabha
Tirtha and Narahari Tirtha.
When
he returned to Udupi, he would sometimes bathe in the ocean. On such an
occasion he composed a prayer in five chapters. Once, while sitting beside the
sea engrossed in meditation upon Lord Sri Krishna, he saw that a large boat
containing goods for Dvaraka was in danger. He gave some signs by which the
boat could approach the shore, and it was saved. The owners of the boat wanted
to give him a present, and at the time Madhvacharya agreed to take some
gopi-chandana. He received a big lump of gopi-chandana, and as it was being
brought to him, it broke apart and revealed a large Deity of Lord Krishna. The
Deity had a stick in one hand and a lump of food in the other. As soon as
Madhvacharya received the Deity of Krishna in this way, he composed a prayer.
The Deity was so heavy that not even thirty people could lift it. Madhvacharya
personally brought this Deity to Udupi. Madhvacharya had eight disciples, all
of whom took sannyasa from him and became directors of his eight monasteries.
Worship of the Lord Krishna Deity is still going on at Udupi according to the
plans Madhvacharya established.
Madhvacharya
then for the second time visited Badarikasrama. While he was passing through
Maharashtra, the local king was digging a big lake for the public benefit. As
Madhvacharya passed through that area with his disciples, he was also obliged
to help in the excavation. After some time, when Madhvacharya visited the king,
he engaged the king in that work and departed with his disciples.
Often
in the province of Ganga-pradesa there were fights between Hindus and Muslims.
The Hindus were on one bank of the river, and the Muslims on the other. Due to
the community tension, no boat was available for crossing the river. The Muslim
soldiers were always stopping passengers on the other side, but Madhvacharya
did not care for these soldiers. He crossed the river anyway, and when he met
the soldiers on the other side, he was brought before the king. The Muslim king
was so pleased with him that he wanted to give him a kingdom and some money, but
Madhvacharya refused. While walking on the road, he was attacked by some
dacoits, but by his bodily strength he killed them all. When his companion
Satya Tirtha was attacked by a tiger, Madhvacharya separated them by virtue of
his great strength. When he met Vyasadeva, he received from him the
salagrama-sila known as Ashtamurti. After this, he summarized the Mahabharata.
Madhvacharya’s
devotion to the Lord and his erudite scholarship became known throughout India.
Consequently the owners of the Sringeri-matha, established by Sankaracharya,
became a little perturbed. At that time the followers of Sankaracharya were
afraid of Madhvacharya’s rising power, and they began to tease Madhvacharya’s
disciples in many ways. There was even an attempt to prove that the
disciple-succession of Madhvacharya was not in line with Vedic principles. A
person named Pundarika Puri, a follower of the Mayavada philosophy of
Sankaracharya, came before Madhvacharya to discuss the sastras. It is said that
all of Madhvacharya’s books were taken away, but later they were found with the
help of King Jayasimha, ruler of Kumla. In discussion, Pundarika Puri was
defeated by Madhvacharya. A great personality named Trivikramacharya, who was a
resident of Vishnumangala, became Madhvacharya’s disciple, and his son later
became Narayanacharya, the composer of Sri Madhva-vijaya. After the death of
Trivikramacharya, the younger brother of Narayanacharya took sannyasa and later
became known as Vishnu Tirtha.
It
was reputed that there was no limit to the bodily strength of Purnaprajna,
Madhvacharya. There was a person named Kadanjari who was famed for possessing
the strength of thirty men. Madhvachyarya placed the big toe of his foot upon
the ground and asked the man to separate it from the ground, but the great
strong man could not do so even after great effort. Srila Madhvacharya passed
from this material world at the age of eighty while writing a commentary on the
Aitareya Upanishad. For further information about Madhvacharya, one should read
Madhva-vijaya, by Narayanacharya.
The
acharyas of the Madhva-sampradaya established Udupi as the chief center, and
the monastery there was known as Uttararadhi-matha. A list of the different
centers of the Madhvacharya-sampradaya can be found at Udupi, and their matha
commanders are (1) Vishnu Tirtha (Soda-matha), (2) Janardana Tirtha
(Krsnapura-matha), (3) Vamana Tirtha (Kanura-matha), (4) Narasimha Tirtha
(Adamara-matha), (5) Upendra Tirtha (Puttugi-matha), (6) Rama Tirtha
(Sirura-matha), (7) Hrishikesa Tirtha (Palimara-matha), and (8) Aksobhya Tirtha
(Pejavara-matha). The disciple-succession of the Madhvacharya-sampradaya is as
follows (the dates are those of birth): (1) Hamsa Paramatma; (2) Chaturmukha
Brahma; (3) Sanakadi; (4) Durvasa; (5) Jnananidhi; (6) Garuda-vahana; (7)
Kaivalya Tirtha; (8) Jnanesa Tirtha; (9) para Tirtha; (10) Satyaprajna Tirtha;
(11) Prajna Tirtha; (12) Achyuta Preksacharya Tirtha; (13) Sri Madhvacharya,
1040 Saka; (14) Padmanabha, 1120; Narahari, 1127; Madhava, 1136; and Aksobhya
1159; (15) Jaya Tirtha, 1167; (16) Vidyadhiraja, 1190; (17) Kavindra, 1255;
(18) Vagisa, 1261; (19) Ramachandra, 1269; (20) Vidyanidhi, 1298; (21) Sri
Raghunatha, 1366; (22) Rayuvarya (who spoke with Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu),
1424; (23) Raghuttama, 1471; (24) Vedavyasa, 1517; (25) Vidyadhisa, 1541; (26)
Vedanidhi, 1553; (27) Satyavrata, 1557; (28) Satyanidhi, 1560; (29) Satyanatha,
1582; (30) Satyabhinava, 1595; (31) Satyapurna, 1628; (32) Satyavijaya, 1648;
(33) Satyapriya, 1659; (34) Satyabodha, 1666; (35) Satyasandha, 1705; (36)
Satyavara, 1716; (37) Satyadharma, 1719; (38) Satyasankalpa, 1752; (39)
Satyasantushyta, 1763; (40) Satyaparayana, 1763; (41) Satyakama, 1785; (42)
Satyesta, 1793; (43) Satyaparakrama, 1794; (44) Satyadhira, 1801; (45)
Satyadhira Tirtha, 1808. (For approximate Christian era dates, add seventy-nine
years.)
After
the sixteenth acharya (Vidyadhiraja Tirtha), there was another
disciple-succession, including Rajendra Tirtha, 1254; Vijayadhvaja;
Purusottama; Subrahmanya; and Vyasa Raya, 1470-1520. The nineteenth acharya,
Ramachandra Tirtha, had another disciple-succession, including Vibudhendra,
1218; Jitamitra, 1348; Raghunandana; Surendra; Vijendra; Sudhindra; and
Raghavendra Tirtha, 1545.
To
date, in the Udupi monastery there are another fourteen Madhva-tirtha
sannyasis. As stated, Udupi is situated beside the sea in South Kanara, about
thirty-six miles north of Mangalore.
Most
of the information in this purport is available from the South Kanara Manual
and the Bombay Gazette.
E-Mail sent on
Madhvacharya in March 27, 2018
Vishishtadvaita
school, a realist system of thought like Madhvacharya's Dvaita school, also
asserts that Jiva (human souls) and Brahman (as Vishnu) are different, a
difference that is never transcended. God Vishnu alone is independent, all
other gods and beings are dependent on Him, according to both Madhvacharya and
Ramanuja.
Madhva sees the world
as five-faceted: five elements, five elemental essences, five sheaths, five
sense-organs etc. That is why it is designated as pra-pañca or a 'perfect
pentad' in Sanskrit. In this pentad, the principle of Prana there is the
fivefold division of prāņa, apāna, vyāna, udāna and samāna. Moreover, it is
being controlled all the time by God who also assumes five forms, viz.
Aniruddha, Pradyumna, Sankarshana,
Vāsudeva and Nārāyana. The world is permanent and is a fallen state for the
jīva, which is away from its place of true happiness, namely in the presence of
Īśvara. The world is the līla or sport of Īśvara, and so creation isn't to be
shunned. Rather it should be enjoyed in a detached way. (Sharma, Chandradhar (1994),
A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, pp. 372–5)
Madhava philosophy
and worship is based on Pancharatra Tantra like Ramanuja's. (Ananda
asrama book on madhva tantra bhodini)
Pancharathra claims its origin from Sriman Narayana himself.
Here Vishnu is worshiped as the Supreme Godhead. Pancharatra
described as ‘Bhagavata shastra’or ‘Vasudeva –matha’ is
centered on worship of Vishnuthe Godhead (Bhagavan) as Narayana
identified with Vasudeva of the Vrishni clan. He is regarded as Bhagavan as
He is the manifestation of six divine arttributes: Jnaana (Omniscience), Shakti
(omnipotence), bala (unhindered energy), aishvarya
(sovereignty), virya (matchless valor and
tejas (great splendor).
Pancharatra as a system of thought prescribes that worldly
involvement must be minimized (nivrtti) in order to engage oneself
exclusively in devotion to Bhagavan (ekanta bhakthi). The Pancharatra
doctrine is associated with the Samkhya ideologies.
The Pancharatra philosophy is characterized by its conception of
the Supreme assuming five modes of being (prakara). They are in brief:
Para, or transcendent form;
Vyuha or the categorized form as Vasudeva, Sankarshana,
Pradyumna, and Aniruddha, who are brought together in worship
and adoration as a complete body of divine power;
Vaibhava, or the several incarnation of God;
Archa, or the form of God worshiped in an image or an idol symbolizing
the Universal entity; and
Antaryamin, or the indwelling immanent form of God as
present throughout in creation.
The recognition of three modes of the Deity (para, vyuha and vibhava)
assumes great importance in the context of Pancharatra ideology and practice of
icon-worship (archa)
The Vyoohas or the Emanations are four in
number called Chaturvyuhas—Vaasudeva, Sankarshana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha. You
could see these icons in Vykhanasa tradition temples like Parthasarathy Temple
in Chennai. According to Bhaagavata Sri Krishna is Vaasudeva. Sankarshana
is his brother Balarama. Pradyumna is Krishna’s son and Aniruddha is his
grand-son. They are all war heroes of Yadu dynasty. From Puraanic point
of view, it can be presumed that these war heroes were in course of time
apotheosized into these Emanations. From spiritual angle symbolically Vaasudeva
represents Chitta (consciousness), Sankarshana Ahankara (egoist), Pradyumna
Buddhi (intellct) and Aniruddha Manas (mind). They are known Antahkarana in
Vedanta and represent Psychological evolutions. They are internal organs
or faculties. Vishnu is Antahkaranaateeta or over lord of all these four
inner-senses.
Krish
means Existence (sattaa) and na means Bliss. Therefore Krishna means
Existance-Bliss (Sattaa-Aananda). Thus the name Krishna represents the Supreme
Parmaatman.
12 Achamana mantras
1.
From Vasudeva emanates Kesava, Naraayana, Madhava.
2.
From Sankarshana emanates Vishnu and Madhusoodana.
3.
From Pradyumna emanates Trivikrama, Vaamana and Sreedhara.
4.
From Aniruddha emanates Hrisheekesa, Padmanaabha and Daamodara.
A--stands
for Aniruddha that means passing over the boundaries of the gross body and
slowly gliding into the subtle. U--stands for going into the subtle which is
called Pradyumna. As the aspirant loses the consciousness of the gross body and
moves into subtle body, the increased awareness guides him to the third stage
that stands for M the Sankarshana. At this point the aspirant is
automatically pulled towards the eternal naada (sound) and goes into unity with
primordial sound. AUM represents the Supreme Divine Power, the Absolute
Brahman. A stands for Adimata (beginning or Srishthi), U stands for Utkrisha
(progress or Sthiti) and M for Miti (dissolution or Laya)
TATTVA
VIVEKA OF MADHVACHARYA
Tattva Viveka of Madhavacharya is a
treatise dealing with categorization of realities. It is one of the 37 works of
Sri Madhvacharya and sub-categorized under prakaranas. A prakarana serves as an
annexure to the principal treatise of Brahmasutra.
Sri Madhavacharya has written a
prakarana, known as Tattvasankhyana, in which he surveyed the realities
accepted in the Dwaita system. Tattva Sankhyana derives its authority from
Tattva Viveka. There are some apparent differences between Tattva sankhyana and
Tattva Viveka. However, there are no contradictions.
Tattva Viveka begins with the
classification of prameya (valid knowledge of realities) into two principal
categories: svatantra (independent) and paratantra (dependent). Vishnu, with
auspicious qualities and free from blemishes, is completely independent (in
respect of existence, motivation and knowledge)
Paratantra is further classified into
two, bhava (existing) and abhava (non-existing).
Bhava is of three types
- Pragabhava (non-existence before an object comes into
existence)
- Pradhvamsabhava (non-existence posterior to the
destruction of an object)
- Atyantabhava (absolute non-existence).
The Nyaya school accepts a fourth type
of non-existence called anyonyabhava, the mutual non-existence of objects.
Since distinctness being the very nature of things, anyonya-bhava is not
accepted in Dvaita as a separate non-existing category.
Again the existing entities are
classified into two groups, chetana (sentient) and achetna (non-sentient). The
former is again classified into two, liberated and subject to bondage. Only
Sri, consort of Vishnu, belongs to the former class. She has a class by
herself. In the latter group there are again two types, liberated and still in
bondage. In bondage to worldly desires, not everyone is endowed with the same
capacity. Right from manushyottama (worthy human class) up to four-headed
Brahma, their capacity increases in multiples of a hundred. Even in the
liberated state, the difference and hierarchy is maintained in a similar way.
Tatittirya Upanishad declares nanda taratamya (gradations in bliss). Sri is
several times superior to the liberated Brahma. Vishnu’s superiority is
infinite times more than Sri.
The beings in Samsara are of three
types: low, middle, and high. The high-class souls are muktiyoga (eligible for
liberation). Middle class beings are ever bonded; the low class souls are
eternally damned.
Non-sentient is of two types, nitya
(eternal) and anitya (non-eternal).
Avyakrta (subtle forms of space), time
flow, Vedas, Prithvi, five elements, eleven senses, prana (one of the sixteen
kalas), gunas, five tanmatras (sight, taste, smell, touch, sound), Mahat,
ahamkara and buddhi are classified as eternal. The modifications of these are
non-eternal.
Some of the attributes like quality,
effect and category are inherent in substances, and some of the attributes
remain with substances until they last. Those are called yavadravya bhavi
(intrinsic attributes). Some of the attributes vanish before a substance
perishes. For example a mango changes from green to yellow as it ripens. Such
attributes are known as ayavadravya bhavi (non-intrinsic).
Tattvaviveka concludes with the
statement that if a person understands the universe and is dependent and
attributes all worldly actions to Vishnu, liberation from Samsara (worldly
bondage) is attainable.
Source –
Methods of Knowledge Perceptual, Non-perceptual and Transcendental According
to Advaita Vedanta (1965) Satprakashananda – Allen and Unwin London