"Philosophy
Of Dvaita Vedanta•:
"INTRODUCTION:
Sripad Madhvacarya, the propounder of
`Dvaita' system of vedanta philosophy defines two principal ideas of `being' in
his Ontology REALITY and INDEPENDENCE [ Being is simply the fundamental
category of thought which denotes everything and cannot, therefore, specially
denote anything,in other words, connotes nothing]. The former presents the idea
of reality expressed in spacetime relations, pertaining to the world of matter
and souls. The latter is the higher aspect of reality which is characteristics
of Deity alone. 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 therefore 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 highest real or the philisophicah 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 transcendental 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 realities 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, selfawareness or
for becoming an object of knowledge to the thinking selves for the free and
unfettered exercise of its own powers. This `svatantratattva' (independent
principle) is called God or `Brahman'or `Isvara'. Though Brahman can do very
well without Prakrti 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 mat•ter
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, Indepentent Reality. Here
Madhva points out that we have no right to deny reality totheworld of matter
and sousls, 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 changing and depending on Brahman.
"
•Sri Madhva puts forward the idea of
`Bimbapratibimbabhava' (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 existence, 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, according 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 calling 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 time 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 those 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 "fivefold
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
"Praªpanca". 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.
PRATHYAKSA 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 Pauruseya
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 senseorgans and the object 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 becomes faulty throu' excessive remoteness, nearness or smallness of
objects or of intervening obstructions or being mixed up with things similar or
thro' being over shadowed by them. Knowledge, arising when all these conditions
of flawlessness are fulfilled, 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 similarity between two things,
ANUPALABDHI (nonapprehension) is a means by which nonexistence 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 (`ManasaPrathyaksa'). 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 corrspondence 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, Error 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 the sensory and mental
channels (`VrttiªJnana') 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 selfrevelation, the necessity of some
other principle 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 `Paraprakasaka'. 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
(truthdetermining 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 selfluminous 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 the 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 inits 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
Vrttijnana (mental and sensory) is material i.e., insentient in sessence and
has no power to reveal its own existece.; (2) that such Vrttijnana can by no
means, manifest its own "validity to itself". Therefore it
necessitates a nonmaterial 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 something 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
truthdetermination 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 selfcomplete 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 VISESAS:
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 respect of coessential attributes
and differencecumidentity (`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 capacity 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 coeval would be identical with the substances (and
distinguishable by Visesas); while changing or impermanent ones would be
differentcumidentical with their substances. The whole question has been very
clearly expounded 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 reason 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 thing.
Though the Visesas coexist 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
Svarupa 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 `visesa' 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 or
between a wahole 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 there 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 Madhava,
characterises the eternal as well as noneternal 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.
"THE
ONTOLOGICAL SCHEME OF MADHVA'S PHILOSOPHY
REALITY
SVATANTRA PARATANTRA
(Independent) (Dependent)
NARAYANA
BHAVA ABHAVA
(Existent) (Nonexistent)
PRAGABHAVA PRADHVAMSABHAVA SADABHAVA
(Antecedent) (Subsequent) (Absolute)
(the absence of a thing (the absence of a
thing (the absenceof
before its making) after it is destroyed)
horse's horn etc.)
CETANA ACETANA
(Sentient) (nonsentient)
NITYA ANITYA NITYAANITYA
(eternal (destructible) (eternal in one
aspectª unchanging) and changing in another
VEDAS aspect)
PURANAS KALA PRAKRTI
ASAMRITA SAMSRITA
(having minimum (throughly modified)
modification)
24 TATTVAS BRAHMANDA
(Universe of the worlds
[10 senses, and everything within it)
5
bhutas,
5
sense objects,
1
manas,
1
buddhi,
1
ahankara tattva,
1
mahat tattva,
TOUCHED BY MISERY UNTOUCHED BY MISERY
OR SAMSARA OR SAMSARA
(Jeevas) (Goddess Lakshmi)
MUKTA NOW IN MESERY
(liberated from misery
or samsara)
DEVAS RISHIS PITRUS PAS NARAS
ELIGIBLE FOR MOKSA INELIGIBLE FOR MOKSA
(Sattvikas, five kinds as
muktas above)
ELIGIBLE FOR ETERNAL ETERNALLY IN SAMSARA
DAMNATION (Rajasas)
(Tamasas) (men neither good
or bad)
DAITYAS RAKSASAS PISACHAS WORST MEN
(Already damned) (Now in samsara)
"DEFINITIONS:
BRAHMAN:
A•s 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 controls 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
selfconsciousness so conceived, but also that the entire universe 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 GopalaKrsna and Radha.
(ii) Attributes of Brahman: Madhva's
conception of God emphasises two aspect of Divinitythe 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 (`poorna'), 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 activity (`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 (atata) 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 properly, 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 noneternal things are ordained by the eternal will of Isvara to be
noneternal, similarly, eternal substances too are ordained by His will, be
eternal. The jivas, their karma, categories, 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 vaááous 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 idtical with one
anothe, save for their numerical distinction. The first in the order of Divine
manifestations is the quaternion of Vasudeva, Pradyumna, Aniruddha and
Sankarsana, popularly known as the (Catur) Vyuha, credited with redmptive,
creeative, sustaining and destructive functions. The Supreme further
differentiates itself inti ten (familiar Avatars) or twelve, hundred, thousand
and so on. THese personal manifestation of the Lord are spoken of as
SuddhaSrsti, in `Pancaratra' terinology. They are also designataed as Vyuhas in
a general sense.
Madhva accepts four kinds of manifestaions of
God (though he does not use this nomenclature):
1. Vyhas 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 gradaion among them in
respect of powers or potentialities. Madhva is vehemently opposed to the idea
of making any invidious distinctions among these manifestations 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 Avataras are on a different footing and
are concernd with specific functions like `Bala karya', `Jnana karya' etc.
THeir number exceed ten as commonly recognized. There are Avataras like Hamsa,
Datta and Hari, not included in the popular list of ten. To Madhva all Avataras
are of equal merit and status. There is no question of degree of fulness among
tem, 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:
"krsnastu bhagavan svayam" as inappropriate on philosophical and
syntactic grounds. He has thus no partiality or preference for any particular
Avatara 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 experience of
another. It is this nonªtransferable 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 focalization 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 conduct"
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 unconditionedreflectedcounterparts
(`nirupadhikapratibimbamsa') of Visnu. The bodies of the Jivas of the material
world are matierial; therefore, they are called
conditionedreflectedcounterparts (`sopadhikapratibimbamsa') 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 of 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 intrinsic peculiarity (`anadi visesa')
that is uncaused. It is this `anadivisesa' or `Svabhavabheda'says Madhva, that
distinguishes one soul from another. This is the dcisive 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 personality, is sufficient reason, according to Madhva,
for the acceptanc of `Jivabahutvavada' (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 `Taratamya' or
`Svarupataratamya', which comes out all the more clearly in the released state,
where the souls realize their true status. `Jivatraividhya' or tripartite
classification of "Unreleased Souls" into (1) `Muktiyogya'
(salvable), (2) Nityasamsarin (evertransmigrating 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 Deva, Rsi (Pitr, Pa)
and Naras. The Devas are `Sarvaprakasa'(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 freewill displayed in 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 higher 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
Visistadvatins) 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 and
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
oppotunities 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 beings.
Madhva and his commentators have cited many
texts from the Vedic and postªVedic literature ( from Gita XVI 3, 5, 6, 18, 20;
VIII. 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
developed from the doctrine of TrividhaSraddha in the Gita. The term Sattvika,
Rajasa, and Tamasa are applied to the Jivas in their tripartite classification,
according to Madhava, ha reference to their basic nature of Caitanya going
beyond the play of Prakrti nad its gunas: "yo yac chraddhah sa eva
sah" (Gita XVII. 3). This is clear from Madhva's comment on the above
verse, where he interprets the term "sattvanurupa" as
"cittanurupa".
(iii) Selfluminosity of souls: The individual
soul, as a sentient being, is admitted by Madhva to be selfluminious
(`svaprakasa'). It is not merely of the form of knowledge (`jnanasvarupa') but
is a knower (`jnatr'). The conception of self as a conscious personality is the
same as it is in respect of God, expect for the fact that even the
selfluminosity 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 `Samkhya' metaphysics of
Upanisads, the Epics and Puranas. He quotes profusely from Mahabharata, the
Bhagavata and other Puranas and other Puranas and from the vast literature of
the Pancaratras. He accepts the doctrine of evolution of matter (Prakrti) as a
follower of the Epic Samkhya. He accepts Prakrti as eternal insentient
primordial stuff dependent on Brahman on the authority of Upanisadic, Epic and
Puranic Samkhya 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,
Ahamkara 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 4:1/22:1. 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 senseobjects 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 thought. 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 TamasaªAhamkara. The
`tanmatras' stand for qualitatively distinct and irreducible sensequalities
with a definite leaning towards their appropriate objects. These 24 evlutions
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 from top to bottom. It is under the constant supervision and guidance
of these ""Abhimanidevatas" (or "Tattvabhimanins")
that all material transformations and psychophysical functions are carried on.
The Supreme Brahman itself ultimately behing all these activities 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
TattvabhimaniªDevas 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. Eventhough the
bonds and impurities of the souls are not their essential nature (`svarupa'),
the bonds of the souls are real. He gives a very purposeful 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 origing of bondage as
"Svabhavaajnana 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 selfluminious 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 his true relation to Him, as he is a dependent and
finite being. Since Jivas, by definition, "dependent" and also
endowed with aspects (`savisesa') it is very reasonably contendented that while
"some aspects" of the self (such as his existence) are "not
obscured" 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 selfluminosity
(`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 nature. 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. Though it is in the
nature of Maya to obscure, yetthe 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 initiative). 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 selfluminosity. 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 eternity 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 (VII. 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
selfluminosity 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
(Brahmasutra II.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 ability 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, least 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 through Divine grace.
There fore 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),
`Manana' (reflection), `Nididhyasana' (meditation) and ~Saksatkara' (direct
realization).
Vairagya is defined as the nonattachment 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 subjectmatter (`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 his grace (`prasada') are
absolutely necessary for Sravana and Manana to bear fruit. He further says that
of the twao 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
selfrealization of te disciple. 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 IV.37). Suchb 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 trhe 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
selfrealization. To attain the grace of the Divine the sadhaka has to appease
the Lord. This can only be done by Bhakti as the deepest attachment to the
Lord, deeprooted 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 allabsorbing love he gets completely 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, wahich 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. Bhaktiis, 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
perfection 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 without 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 purity 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 accomplishment
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 intellectual 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 feeling. 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
concluding stanzas of his works. The possiblities of erotic devotion, as a
means of contacting the Divine, are not unknown to him. In his view, KamaBhakti
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) UttamaBhaktas, (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 courtesy. 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 brought 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. They 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
absolute grace (`atyarthaprasada') of the Lord. It this final stage of Bhakti
that fully manifests, by the grace of God, the true relationshi that exists
between the Jiva and Brahman and completes the fulfilment of realization viz.
the full manifestation and enjoyment 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 "preparatory 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 without the grace of the Lord
withdrawing His obscuration of Jiva.
AparoksaJnana or GodRealization: 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, which is 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 in
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 the worship of an image. It leads (gradually) to the actual
vision of the Lord, by His own grace.
Aparoksajnana is something which by its
nature, defies any more explict description. It is a flashlike revelation of
the Supreme at the furtiom of a long and arduous process of `sravana',
`manana', and nididhyasana', in the fulness of absolute selfsurrendering
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
"Jivanmukta" of other schools. But there is no destruction 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
"LingaSarira", is disintegrated, the Jiva is not freed from Prakrtic
bondage. This comes at the end of the working out of a portion of his
"PrarabdhaKarma" (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 subtler distinction in the
former, from the point of view of Aparoksajnanin, 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
prolong 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 Aparoksajnana was attained. It depends on
Prarabdhakarma. If its effects have been workd out (in that body) 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 clause 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 PunyaPrarabdha) 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 AparoksaªJnanin. This emphasizes that nothing can possibly stand against
God's will. Though normally not interfering with the law of Karma, there are
occasions in the careers 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
perception melts into devotion we have Bhakti. When such final stage of Bhakt
is reached, after Aparoksavision, 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 individual 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
would 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 understanding 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 selfluminious entity there.
Therefore Madhva lays great stress on the survival of every individual
personality, 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 unalloyed
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 Advaitic 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
difference 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 Svarupaªbheda of souls accepted by Madhva. Since 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 soul rests fully satisfied (`purnatrpta') in the enjoyment of
"his own Svarupaananda" 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 reaosn 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 through 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 going 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'.