Dvaita - Frequently Asked Questions

What is Dvaita?

Dvaita, or Maadhva siddhaanta, is the name for the doctrine of Vedanta that asserts the eternal and immutable difference between the individual soul, or jiiva, and the Supreme Lord, or Iishvara (also known as Vishnu).

Why is Dvaita known as Tattvavaada?

Because that is the correct, and preferred name; the doctrine asserts five differences, not just the one referred to above, and its scholars and proponents call it the "doctrine of reality," where the three kinds of entities in the universe (insentient or jaDa, sentient or chetana, and Vishnu or Iishvara) are all real, and the differences between any two are also real. Hence, 'tattva' means real entity, and 'Tattvavaada' means "doctrine of real entities." Some have also referred to Tattvavaada as Bheda-vaada (doctrine of difference), and also as Bimba-pratibimba-vaada (doctrine of object and image -- to be explained later), etc. These names are not in normal use.

What are the five differences in Tattvavaada?

Simple -- by considering the three types of entities in pairwise fashion, one can derive the list of differences between them, which are: (i) jiiva-Iishvara-bheda, or difference between the soul and Vishnu; (ii) jaDa-Iishvara-bheda, or difference between the insentient and Vishnu; (iii) mitha-jiiva-bheda, or difference between any two souls; (iv) jaDa-jiiva-bheda, or difference between insentient and the soul; and (v) mitha-jaDa-bheda, or difference between any two insentients. Here, "insentient" is used to refer to _all_ entities which are not 'chit' or having consciousness, such as matter, energy, etc. -- including so-called "living bodies" of creatures, and also such other insentients as space, linguistic or mathematical entities and their symbols, etc. To clarify: Iishvara is a sentient Being, and the jiiva is sentient also. However, this does not imply that both are fully alike; Iishvara is totally independent, while the jiiva is completely dependent. It is the energization by the Iishvara that is the responsible for the activity of the jiiva.

Why are the five differences important? The understanding of these five differences is seemingly trivial, but upon careful consideration, one sees that to properly understand all of them, one needs to know the significant properties of every kind of entity in the whole universe! Thus, such understanding is not easily gained, and it is said that all misery and unhappiness is due to one's lack of understanding of one or more of these differences.

For instance, if one acts in ignorance of the Supremacy of Lord Vishnu, and suffers as a consequence, then one can be said to have falsely arrogated to oneself His unique and irreproducible properties like independence, potency, etc. Similarly, the grief one experiences due to loss of physical beauty, strength, vitality, etc., or due to the passing of a loved one, is due to the false identification of the insentient and ever-changing body with the sentient, immutable soul. In the mundane world, mistaking copper for gold, glass for diamond, etc., which are also failures to perceive difference, are known to bring grief. One who correctly and fully perceives and understands all the five differences can be said to have attained knowledge, and to be fit for mukti (liberation).

Who is the founder of Tattvavaada?

As has been noted in the general FAQ, no school of Vaishnavism can be said to have been "founded" in a true sense; in historical times, the doctrine of Tattvavaada was revived by Ananda Tiirtha (1239-1319), also known as Sukha Tiirtha, PuurNa-bodha, and PuurNa-pragnya. Srimad Ananda Tiirtha is identified with Madhva, the third avataara (incarnation) of Mukhya PraaNa, the god of life. This identification comes from the BaLitthaa Suukta of the Rg Veda. Srimad Ananda Tiirtha is also referred to by his devotees as Srimad Achaarya, and by everyone as Sri Madhvaachaarya, based on the identification with the Vedic deity Mukhya PraaNa, the god of life, who is also known as Vaayu.

What are the tenets of Tattvavaada?

There are nine important points-of-note, given by a verse by Sri Vyaasa Tiirtha:

which translates approximately as: "In Shriiman Madhva's school, (i) Hari (Vishnu) is supreme; (ii) the universe is real; (iii) the [five] differences are real [and are the properties of the differents]; (iv) the leagues of jiivas are cohorts of Hari; (v) and are with superiority and inferiority [among themselves]; (vi) mukti (salvation) is the experience of [the jiiva's] own innate joy; (vii) that is achieved by flawless devotion to the Supreme and correct knowledge; (viii) the three pramaaNas are aksha, etc., (pratyaksha, anumaana, aagama - sense-perception, logic, and scripture); (ix) Hari is the only entity [primarily] described in all Aamnaayas (Shrutis or Vedas)." A slightly more detailed treatment of the verse can be seen here.

Why does Tattvavaada emphasize debate with and denunciation of other doctrines?

Can it not just just state its own tenets? In order to correctly understand the tenets of any worthwhile doctrine, is it essential that one be exposed to conflicting views, and be convinced of the truth of said doctrine. Therefore, Srimad Achaarya's school has always held that one needs must understand all relevant countervailing hypotheses, and must reject them only after careful analyses and consideration. Mere dogmatic repetition of facts that are accepted too readily either by accident of birth or inability to think, is not acceptable as such cannot lead to conviction; a critical examination of all Tattvavaada precepts with a detailed analysis of alternative theories in each case -- to arrive at the truth based on valid proof -- is itself part of the tradition of Srimad Ananda Tiirtha's school. Though this practice has been followed earlier by Sri Shankaraachaarya and Sri Ramanujaachaarya also in essence, their criticisms of rival theories were not complete and comprehensive.

Isn't Dvaita the mere opposite of Advaita?

Such misperception is one of the reasons why some reject the use of 'Dvaita' to refer to the doctrine of Tattvavaada. While it is true that Advaita and Tattvavaada have had many debates over hundreds of years, and that the latter denies the jagan-mithyatva (illusory nature of the universe) that is one of the fundamental tenets of Advaita, it is certainly not the case that there is disagreement everywhere, nor is it the case that one can derive Tattvavaada merely by taking the opposite of everything claimed by Advaita. But it can be said with full certainty that on most fundamental issues such as the nature of Iishvara, jiiva, attainment of mukti, etc., the two have total and irreconcilable differences.

Isn't Dvaita the first step towards learning Advaita?

If it is, then it is a quite large, reverse, first step! While adherents of Advaita say that by nature and everyday experience one believes in the reality of the universe, etc., and that such belief must be got rid if one is to attain complete union with the nirguNa-Brahman, no serious scholar of Advaita claims that studying Tattvavaada is a first step towards learning Advaita. For one thing, it is a rule of all learning that things learned first must not contradict things learned later; for another, Tattvavaada specifically examines and denounces many Advaita concepts, and hence, one who has learned Tattvavaada first cannot possibly accept Advaita later. In fact Advaita has not built up a credible system of analysis where the puurva paksha or the initial proposition of Tattvavaada is examined and rejected thereby establishing Advaita. The exact reverse obtains today.

Why are scholars and devotees of Sri Madhvaachaarya's school referred to as "prachchhanna taarkika"?

This tongue-in-cheek appellate was allegedly affixed by some followers of Advaita, who were piqued at being called "prachchhanna bauddha" (disguised Buddhists). This latter designation was used because of the great similarity between Buddhism and Advaita (both schools do not accept the reality of the universe, both deny that the Creator is an eternal real, etc.). In turn, Advaitis labeled devotees of Srimad Aachaarya as "prachchhanna taarkika" (disguised logicians) because of the latters' use of logic to show that Advaita is inconsistent.

How does worship by Maadhvas differ from other Vaishnava worship?

According to Sri Madhvaachaarya, Vishnu is "worshippable by all (other) deities, and by everyone, to their best ability." Thus, in common with other Vaishnava traditions, Maadhvas worship other deities only as iconic representatives of the Lord, and not as independently authoritative figures. However, Maadhvas believe that all deities except for Vishnu's eternal consort Lakshmi, are amukta-jiivas (un-liberated souls) performing service to Him. Tattvavaada also does not acknowledge that worship of other claimed deities or prophets, besides those authorized by shaastra, is useful. Maadhvas have a "taaratamya" or divine hierarchy of deities after Vishnu, which is derived from shaastra sources, and said hierarchy is very important in considerations of worship, since each lesser deity is worshipped as the iconic representative of the next higher one, with the idea being that all worship is ultimately meant for Vishnu only. Thus, Maadhvas acknowledge a hierarchy of worth among deities other than Vishnu, and say that each lesser deity is akin to an image in a mirror, of the one higher. This concept of images captures both the notion of difference (since the object and its image are not identical) and an hierarchy of worth (since the image is never of the same worth as the object), and is what causes Tattvavaada to also be referred to as Bimba-pratibimba-vaada (doctrine of object and image, as mentioned previously). Worship according to Srimad Achaarya's tradition also differs from certain other kinds of worship, since the icons or images used for worship are considered to be completely distinct from the Deity who is the actual object of worship. The icon is an adhishThaana, or location symbol, while the Deity is invoked for purposes of worship. Tattvavaada emphasizes that it is important to understand the difference between the adhishThaana (Image) and the aavaahita (invoked Diety), and to keep it in mind at all times -- one should never worship the icon itself as the Lord, as that would be violative of jaDa-Iishvara-bheda, one of the five kinds of difference. According to Srimad Ananda Tiirtha, icons are of two kinds: "chala-pratimaa" or "moving icon," and "achala pratimaa" or "non-moving icon." The "chala" icons are one's elders, Gurus, other deities besides Vishnu, etc., while the "achala" icons are statues, statuettes, pictures, saaligramas etc., that may also be used as icons for worship. Of the two kinds of icons, the "chala" have a naturally higher rank than the "achala" -- therefore, service to elders, one's Gurus, etc., when performed as worship of the Lord, is of greater importance than the worship of stationary symbols. However, at all times, it is important to be aware that the object or person to whom one offers service or respect, is not the Lord Himself, nor is authoritative independently of Him, but is merely His icon. A detailed account of worship at the Krishna temple in Udupi can be seen here.

What is the Tattvavaada concept of moksha?

Under Tattvavaada, the soul upon liberation does not lose his distinct identity, which is different from Vishnu, nor does he become equal to Him in any respect. While the mukta does become free of all suffering, his enjoyment is not of the same caliber as His, nor does said mukta become independent of Him. The mukta experiences the joy which is his own nature, in mukti; whereas in daily life, joy derives from the contact of senses with sense-objects, joy in mukti is due to the jiiva's own immutable nature. And because such joy is the jiiva's own nature, it does not fluctuate or end, and it is not mixed with pain. Since the nature of the jiiva is different from that of Iishvara, his joy is also of a different nature than His, even upon mukti. Even the joy which is intrinsic to the nature of the jiiva can only be realised due to the grace of the Supreme being.

Why does Tattvavaada deny jiivan-mukti?

Because a mukta, or liberated person, should not even be physically present in the material universe, unlike the un-liberated. A person who is living in the world cannot be said to be free of sorrow born of material contact, and also cannot be said to experience the joy of his own nature at all times. The very act of living in a gross material body entails things such as eating, sleeping, pleasure and pain, etc., which cannot be accepted in a mukta.

What is the concept of scripture, according to Tattvavaada?

The apowrusheya-aagamas, or unauthored scriptures, are the primary sources of all knowledge of the atiindriya (extra-sensory) entities. Only those powrusheya-aagamas or authored scriptures that closely adhere to the former have value as explanatory sources of knowledge about the atiindriya. Independent powrusheya texts are considered to bring ignorance and delusion, if used to learn about the atiindriya. In common with other schools of Vaishnavism, Tattvavaada considers the prasthaana-traya (the triad of the Brahma-Suutra, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Vedas and Upanishads) to be canonical texts. Srimad Ananda Tiirtha however denies claims that part of the Vedas, the so-called "karma-kaaNDa" or "mantra" portions, are of no use as scripture, and claims that even those parts are only meant to educate us about Hari. His school, following his lead, also does not accept that any part of the Vedas teach anything but the truth, and says that arbitration of apowrusheya texts, as "true-saying" and "false-saying" is impermissible logically and spiritually. All canonical texts must be considered, and a coherent meaning found without imposing one's own biases upon the evidence obtained. A comparison of Tattvavaada's treatment of scripture with the monists' can be seen here. Here is a detailed disquisition upon the BaLitthA Suukta of the Rg Veda.

Who are some of the leading scholars of Tattvavaada?

Historically, there have been many great scholars and saints in the tradition of Srimad Aachaarya. Some of them are: Sri Vaadiraaja Tiirtha -- is considered the senior-most scholar of Tattvavaada after Srimad Ananda Tiirtha himself; his works include the Yukti-Mallikaa, the RukmiNiisha-Vijaya, etc., and a number of well-known stotras; he has also translated Srimad Aachaarya's Mahaabhaarata-taatparya-nirNaya into Kannada, and has composed a number of devotional songs in that language. Sri Jayatiirtha -- has written commentaries on a number of Srimad Aachaarya's works, and is known for his extremely pleasing style of writing and argument; his work, the Nyaaya-Sudhaa, which is an exposition of Shriiman Madhvaachaarya's Anu-Vyaakhyaana commentary on the Brahma-Suutra, is an outstanding example of his scholarship, and is certainly one of the greatest works in Vedanta. Sri Purandara Daasa -- is widely renowned as the father of Carnatic music; is less widely known as the founder of the Hari-Daasa tradition, that seeks to propagate the doctrine of Tattvavaada through music, in a language that ordinary people can understand. A contemporary of Sri Vaadiraaja Tiirtha and Sri Vyaasa Tiirtha, he is regarded by Maadhvas as an outstanding scholar and devotee. Sri Vyaasa Tiirtha -- wrote further commentaries on the works of Sri Jayatiirtha and Srimad Ananda Tiirtha; is known for his extra-ordinary ability to run any opponent down by force of argument; he ranks as one of the most renowned polemical scholars of Vedanta. Sri Raghavendra Tiirtha -- is widely known today, thanks to his excellent reputation for providing succor in times of major crises. Although he ranks as one of the greatest scholars of Tattvavaada, he is better known and worshipped by millions, as an infallible source of support when one is faced with dire circumstances.

What are the Maadhva institutions of the present day?

The most important one is probably the temple of Krishna at Udupi, in south-western Karnataka, India. There are eight maTha-s, called the Udupi-ashhTa-maTha-s, that are dedicated to serving Krishna, at Udupi and elsewhere. Besides these, there are several other important maThas, like the Uttaraadi MaTha (which is claimed to be the institution of Sri Jayatiirtha), and the MaThas of Sri Vyaasa Tiirtha and Sri Raghavendra Tiirtha, known by their names.

Where can I get more information?

One place to look would be the Dvaita Home Page (address given at the top of this document), which, although not nearly as complete or exhaustive as its supporters would like, still offers some information. In particular, it has some biographical information about Srimad Ananda Tiirtha and some other scholars of his school, and some bibliographical information as well. Besides these, a number of books have been written in English, especially by B. N. Krishnamurti Sharma, of which one, The History of the Dvaita School of Vedanta and its Literature, Motilal Banarsidass, 1981, is considered quite broad-based, if not completely authoritative. Another work by Dr. Sharma that may be of some interest is 'Madhva's teachings in his own words'.

How can I add <> to the Dvaita Home Page?

If some new material is to be added to the page, and the suggestion is not merely a correction of an error in existing material, then it is requested that you please post your proposed addition to the Dvaita list/digest so that the same can be reviewed by other prospective readers of the website, and their comments obtained. This is a peer-review process that has been adhered to for quite some time now, and has the added benefit of enriching the list/digest as well. If the material proposed to be added is not your own, then copyright concerns may have to be addressed. I unsubscribed from the List/Digest a while ago, but I'm still getting postings! Why?

There are several possibilities. One is that your unsubscribe request was never delivered to the list server correctly. Another, that you addressed your request to the posting address dvaita-list

eskimo.com, rather than to the request address dvaita-list-request

eskimo.com or dvaita-digest-request

eskimo.com as the case may be. If the server detects a command sent to the posting address, it diverts and destroys the same, and any requests that do make it as postings are routinely ignored by the list admins, in order to discourage clutter on the list. Yet another possibility is that you tried to unsubscribe from the list although you're subscribed to the digest, or vice versa. Finally, if you did send a request to the correct address and did receive an acknowledgement of your unsubscription, then too you will still receive any postings that were received by the server before your request was processed. In case of episodic mail delays, etc., this may mean a small number of postings received even after unsubscription. This is unintentional, and your understanding is requested. I would like to be able to post to the list/digest from more than one account, while receiving at only one account of my choice. How do I do this? In general, the list server accepts submissions only from accounts that are directly subscribed; in some cases, even a subscriber logged in from another machine, etc., is not allowed to post. However, if you have such problems, or if you would like to be able to post from multiple accounts, please send mail to dvaita

eskimo.com stating what account(s) you would like to receive postings at, and what other(s) you wish to be able to post from. Since the list/digest are closed, however, you cannot post from any account if you are not subscribed from at least one.

I'm subscribed to the Digest, and often receive truncated versions where there are fewer articles than indicated in the index at the top -- why? This seems to be a problem with some mail readers and proprietory local-delivery systems used by some institutions. The Digests are encoded in a standard but not-often-used MIME format, and some mail readers do not handle this correctly. If you can, please try using another reader and see if it solves the problem, or if that is not possible, try subscribing to the list instead. If the volume of mail on the list is difficult to handle, you may like to install procmail or other such mail-filtering arrangement on your account, so that incoming list mail is automatically filtered into a special folder that you can read at your convenience, thus keeping your inbox free of clutter. Many Unix systems already have procmail installed; ask your sysadmin if you're not sure. There are other kinds of filters too. A good source for information about procmail is the web page at

http://www.jazzie.com/ii/internet/procmail/ Another general source for mail-filtering information is the FAQ document available on the web at

http://www.jazzie.com/ii/faqs/archive/mail/filtering-faq/ Appendix A: terms commonly used in Tattvavaada.

Canonical definitions, where known, are given within square brackets.

General terms:

pramaaNa ["yathaarthaM pramaaNam.h"] -- something that describes as-is, is

called a pramaaNa. This can be of two types:

kevala-pramaaNa ["yathaartha-GYaanaM kevalam.h"] -- knowledge of

something as-is, is called kevala-pramaaNa.

anu-pramaaNa ["tat-saadhanaM anu-pramaaNam.h"] -- the source of the

previous, is called an anu-pramaaNa, which can be of three types:

pratyaksha ["vishayaan.h prati-sthitaM hi aksham.h"] - flawless

interaction between a sense of perception (like sight), and an

object or entity in its domain, is called pratyaksha.

anumaana ["tarkaH adushhTaH"] -- inference without flaw constitutes

logic. Flaws of inference are described below.

aagama ["adushhTa vaakya"] -- sentences, or bodies of sentences

(texts) without flaw, are called aagama.

Also of interest are:

pramaataa ["pramaavaan.h pramaataa"] -- a person in whom pramaa exists, is

the pramaataa.

prameya ["pramaavishayaH prameyaH"] -- the subject of pramaa is the

prameya.

pramaa ["yathaarthaGYaanaM pramaa"] -- knowledge of something as-is is

called pramaa.

Note: pramaa thus means the same thing as kevala-pramaaNa, except that it is

used in a singular sense, to denote one piece of correct knowledge, etc.; the

latter is more often used to indicate a body of correct knowledge, and such.

hetu -- antecedent, in an inference.

saadhya -- consequence, likewise.

upa-jiivya -- anu-pramaaNa by which hetu is known.

upa-jiivaka -- anu-pramaaNa fed by, or created by, saadhya.

Error terms.

Semantic errors (shabda-dosha):

virodha ["yogyataaviraho virodhaH"] -- This can loosely be translated

as 'opposition,' and the definition reads loosely as: "Lack of ability

is opposition." What the definition means to say is that if a statement

runs counter to one already accepted, and is unable to force its own

way, then it must be rejected, for being opposed to a known fact.

asangati ["aakaaN^kshaaviraho asangatiH"] -- This can be translated as

'irrelevance,' and the definition reads: "Lack of fulfillment of

expectation is irrelevance." In a discussion, if a reply given, a point

raised, or a statement made, is not in accordance with the expectation

that it be pertinent to the matter under discussion, then it is

irrelevant.

nyuunataa ["vivakshitaa.asaMpuurtirnyuunataa"] -- This can read as

'nullity,' with the definition reading loosely as: "Non-satisfaction of

the claim constitutes nullity." In a discussion, if someone makes a

claim, and later gives evidence that does not support the claim in full,

then such evidence suffers from nullity, with respect to the claim.

Another type is where a definition given does not cover all cases of the

objects or entities to be defined.

aadhikyam : ["saN^gataavadhikatvamaadhikyam.h"] -- This can be

translated as 'superfluity,' and the definition as: "An excess over what

is relevant, constitutes superfluity." In a discussion, if someone takes

the meaning or definition of something to cover more than what it

should, then such is superfluous. Another type is where a definition

given covers more than the object, entity, or set to be defined.

Note: nyuunataa and aadhikya have also been referred to, in special cases, as

a-vyaapti (non-domination), and ati-vyaapti (over-domination). The latter,

ati-vyaapti, is the error responsible for Russell's paradox.

Logical errors (tarka-dosha):

aatmaashraya : This can loosely be translated as "assuming the

consequence," in some cases. More generally, however, if something

"rests on itself," in the sense that an object or entity is stated to

have a property such as presence within itself, support of itself, etc.,

then this flaw exists. A standard example is "sva-skandha-aarohaNa" or

"mounting one's own shoulder."

anyonyaashraya : Loosely, "mutual reliance." If a statement is proved

by another, and the latter by the former, then this error exists.

chakrakaashraya : "circular reliance," a.k.a. circular reasoning. A

more general case of the above; if instead of two, we have 'n' number of

disputed statements, that are tied in a circle so that each one proves

the next, then circular reasoning is shown.

anavasthaa : Infinite regress. If the proof of a statement requires an

assumption, and proof of that assumption requires another, and proof of

that still another, and so on, then infinite regress is said to occur.

pramaa-haana : "neglect of evidence," as in, when a statement neglects

to take into account the fact that it is in opposition to accepted

evidence. This itself has various forms: shruta-haana (neglect of

Shruti), dR^ishhTa-haana (neglect of pratyaksha), etc.

kalpanaa-gaurava : "Respect for imagination." If a statement must be

assumed without proof, so that an inference based upon it may be

accepted, then the inference is subject to the respect that has been

accorded to one's imagination, and is unacceptable. Economy in

assumptions is a virtue.

upajiivya-virodha : "Opposition to upajiivya." If an inference is made

where the consequence runs counter to the source of knowledge by which

the antecedent is known, then the inference is considered incorrect, for

opposing the source of its own antecedent, and the error made is known

as upajiivya virodha; as has already been noted, 'upajiivya' is the name

given to the anu-pramaaNa from which the antecedent is known.

apa-siddhaanta : "Invalid thesis." If a doctrine or a claim made is of

such nature that its acceptance would render the doctrine itself false

or without basis, then apa-siddhaanta-doshha -- the error of an invalid

thesis -- is said to occur.

Note: upajiivya virodha is actually a form of pramaa-haana, but is often

referred to separately. Similarly, apa-siddhaanta-doshha is a form of

upajiivya-virodha, but is referred to separately.

Appendix B: Disclaimer and restrictions

This FAQ is the result of a combined effort by the following individuals:

Bala R. Krishna <bkrishna@us.oracle.com>

N. A. P. S. Rao

Narahari S. Pujar <pujar@che.udel.edu>

Shrisha Rao <dvaita@eskimo.com>

The above people would like to thank Dr. D. Prahladachar, Director, Poornapragna

Samshodhana Mandiram, for kindly taking the time to review and correct an

earlier version of this FAQ. However, any residual errors that remain are their

responsibility.

The above people have tried their best to ensure that their descriptions conform

to the doctrine of Srimad Ananda Tiirtha most exactly. However, it is possible

that owing to inadvertence or even inadequacy of understanding on their part,

there are errors in this document. If so, your forgiveness is requested.

This FAQ is the property of the Poornapragna Samshodhana Mandiram, and may be

freely used for non-commercial purposes. However, to use it in for-profit

endeavors requires specific permission to be obtained by sending mail to

dvaita@eskimo.com; this document may NOT be reposted to any UseNet newsgroup

other than the one(s) to which it is sent by its maintainers. If you think it is

appropriate to another newsgroup and would like to post it there, please request

permission first. Any such re-posting of this FAQ must be only for the whole

document, including this section, only.